Talk:Spirited Away
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spirited Away article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 92 days |
Spirited Away has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reference ideas for Spirited Away The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
About the plot summary again
editHey 101.119.152.63, thanks for your additions to the article! Unfortunately, your changes to the plot summary take it over the 700-word limit recommended by WP:FILMPLOT. Would you be able to condense the content so it is once again below this threshold? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
genre of the material viewed 49.146.42.170 (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- ? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- If the plot is too long then I suggest reverting back further to a version that is shorter. -- 109.76.138.72 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Five paragraph long lead section also seems excessive. The WP:LEAD section is supposed to summarize. -- 109.76.138.72 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
About the reverts
editHey Nyxaros, your rollback of the IP editor's changes was not appropriate. They had made good-faith contributions with descriptive edit summaries, which cannot be indiscriminately reverted as "vandalism
". I've restored their edits for now, and I'd recommend that you have a discussion with them here if you disagree with them on any of the changes. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Next time read the article before writing responses like this. ภץאคгöร 06:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I read through every diff; it seems they went back on their decision for the lead once, but their changes were constructive overall, and certainly not vandalism worthy of a rollback. I would still appreciate an explanation from you. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)