Talk:Ferris Bueller's Day Off

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reversion of pauses from "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?"[edit]

An edit I made was reverted with the edit summary "Pauses are not quotes." However, this is dialogue from a movie and pauses are in the original source. So I'm thinking that, in this instance, pauses are quotes. Am I wrong? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree that context is sometimes necessary for quotes. In this case, I see no problem with including the pauses, since they are such an iconic part of this particular quote. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The only thing iconic about the quote is his monotonous, repetitive tone. The pauses mean nothing. So Butwhatdoiknow is wrong. WikiLubber (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Can we we agree that the quote, as delivered in the movie, does have pauses? (Whether or not they have meaning is a separate question.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but it makes no difference. The character's tone is what matters most. WikiLubber (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It occurs to me that maybe I haven't asked the right question. Let's try this one: Do you think that adding ellipses to the text might cause some harm? If not, is there some other concern that motivates your opposition? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

All I can say for sure is that it is absolutely unnecessary, and nobody cares for the pauses. Just the tone. WikiLubber (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, I care for the pauses. And at least one other editor sees "no problem" with including them. I appreciate that they conflict with your aesthetic view of quotes, but Wikiquote is a collaboration. Since they do no harm, I'm asking you to do me the favor of leaving them. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Denied. Completely unnecessary. WikiLubber (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the [no response] solution. As you'll see, I've tweaked it a bit. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
P.S. - Good catch on the 4th "Bueller?" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The tweaking was unnecessary. WikiLubber (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears we now have a few areas of disagreement. Let's deal with the easiest one first: IMDB spells Simone's last name as "Adamley." What is your basis for thinking the spelling is "Adamle"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess we have a preliminary question: Where can I find the "NO full names allowed" rule upon which you relied for removing Simone's last name? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the topic in question, and since it is resolved, I say we put this discussion to rest. P.S.: Never trust IMDB, as it is no different from Wikiquote or Wikipedia, since it can be edited and all. WikiLubber (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
You making an edit and me not reverting it (thereby avoiding an edit war) does not "resolve" anything. The original text had a last name. You removed the last name (twice) saying that last names are not allowed. Can you point me to the Wikiquote rule that says last names are not allowed? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no Wikiquote rule which states "NO full names allowed" Miszatomic User talk 17:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiLubber, you have offered nothing to support your assertion of a "no last names" rule or to rebut Miszatomic's determination that there is no such rule. That brings us back to my original question on this area of disagreement: IMDB spells Simone's last name as "Adamley." What is your basis for thinking the spelling is "Adamle"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the statement: "No full names necessary". Nevertheless, that is immaterial to what the whole topic was about in the first place. And furthermore, IMDB is not a reliable source anymore. WikiLubber (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, where can I find the "only necessary text is allowed on Wikiquote" rule upon which you relied for removing Simone's last name? (I'm hoping it contains a definition of "necessary" that the community has agreed upon and I can use for guidance in the future.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

All I can say is that full names are redundant and are completely unnecessary. There is no rule against full names, but still, full names are redundant. But that is STILL irrelevant to the whole (resolved) topic in the first place. End of discussion. WikiLubber (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I've lost track. What do you understand to be the "whole topic" and how do you believe it has been resolved? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It turns out "redundant" means "unnecessary". So I'm still in the dark regarding (a) whether Wikiquote has a rule against unnecessary (but perhaps, for example, helpful) text and, if so, (b) how the community defines "unnecessary." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
WikiLubber, since you do not cite a rule or provide a standard for "unnecessary," which you give as your rationale for removing Simone's last name from the pre-December 1 version of this article, I intend to restore it. Please let me know if you object to this change and, if so, provide support for your objection. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I strongly object, since the rest of the article does not use full names, either. P.S.: This has nothing to do with the topic in question. WikiLubber (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, that makes sense. Next time, to save us all a lot of bother, please provide a meaningful explanation (for example, "remove last name to conform with other names on this page" rather than "unnecessary" or a made up "no last names allowed" rule). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

That brings us back to "the topic in question" - the pauses. Two editors believe they add relevant information to the quote. Can you explain what there is about the "tone" that should prevent them from being in the quote? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The only answer is to leave the quote as it is now. WikiLubber (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
There is another answer: change the quote. Do have any reason other than "tone" why your answer is better? If not, what do you mean by "tone"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Maintain it as it was when it was first submitted. Nobody changed it for years. WikiLubber (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no status quo rule and, if there were, your "remove the last name" change would violate it. Do you have any other basis to oppose the ellipses? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The point is, the pauses have no relevance and must NOT be included, especially if they are repetitive, which is extremely redundant.
But since we are still not in agreement, replacing the quote with something better is the only way to end this pointless discussion. WikiLubber (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually, there is another option: invite others into the discussion. This I intend to do after Miszatomic responds (one way or the other) to my request to restore and edit protect the article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Since the quote has been restored, the only option is to leave the quote as it is and not add pauses, because they are extremely redundant and unnecessary. End of discussion. WikiLubber (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
In conclusion, IMDB never included the pauses, either. So why should anything else? WikiLubber (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
As I said, I'll ask others to comment once Miszatomic has had a chance to respond to my request for edit protection. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Quote limitations[edit]

After resolving that earlier dispute, I rechecked the article and found that the number of quotes far exceeded the maximum of eight for this 102-minute film (one every full 12 minutes means no more than eight total quotes). WikiLubber (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

What you are citing to justify limiting this page to 8 quotes is not official policy (WQ:LOQ) - it is a proposed guideline that has never received enough support to become official policy. As such, it should not be used to exercise extreme limits on the number of quotes, especially in the middle of a contentious discussion like this. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Put ellipses in "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?"?[edit]

I put ellipses at the end of each of the four "Bueller?" sentences in this iconic quote. In response, WikiLubber reacted as follows: -

  1. reverting, saying "Pauses are not quotes."
  2. saying "The pauses mean nothing."
  3. saying "it makes no difference. The character's tone is what matters most."
  4. saying "it is absolutely unnecessary, and nobody cares for the pauses. Just the tone."
  5. editing the page to add one "[no response]" at the end of the four sentences
  6. reverting my edit inserting "[no response]" in between the four sentences; changing the single entry to "[no response each time];" and saying "The tweaking was unnecessary."
  7. saying "The only answer is to leave the quote as it is now."
  8. saying "Maintain it as it was when it was first submitted. Nobody changed it for years."
  9. saying "the pauses have no relevance and must NOT be included, especially if they are repetitive, which is extremely redundant."
  10. removing the entire quote and saying "replacing the quote with something better is the only way to end this pointless discussion."
  11. removing the entire quote again (after it was restored), saying "Removed for copyvio."
  12. removing the entire quote again (after it was restored again), saying "When I say removed for copyvio, I mean that quote has exceeded the limit of quotes for the length of this film. Film articles here have limits (depending on the length), and this one (one hour, 42 minutes long) = 14 is the limit." (Another editor then explained that no Wikiquote policy contains this limitation.)
  13. saying, after the quote was restored a third time, "Since the quote has been restored, the only option is to leave the quote as it is and not add pauses, because they are extremely redundant and unnecessary."
  14. saying "In conclusion, IMDB never included the pauses, either. So why should anything else?"

I distill from this that WikiLubber objects to the ellipses because (a) pauses are not quotes, (b) pauses mean nothing (it is the tone that matters), (c) indicating pauses is unnecessary, (d) nobody cares for the pauses, (e) no editor previously sought to add pauses, (f) the pauses are irrelevant, (g) these pauses are repetitive/redundant, and (h) the pauses do not appear in the IMDB version of the quote. @WikiLubber: please let me know if I've missed any other basis for your objection to the ellipses. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(a) are pauses quotes?[edit]

@WikiLubber: In our discussion (above) you agreed that the quote, as delivered in the movie, does have pauses. Later, you edited the page to add "[no response]" at the end of the four questions, which is an alternative way of expressing at least one pause. Thus, it seems you no longer dispute that pauses are quotes. Please let me know if I am wrong. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That does not mean one should add redundant pauses after each "Bueller?". Just a simple "[no response]" after the last "Bueller?" is enough. WikiLubber (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that. We can talk about redundancy at "(g) these pauses are repetitive/redundant." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(b) Do pauses mean nothing? Is it the tone that matters?[edit]

Meaning. To me, the pauses have a meaning: they indicate that the speaker waits for a reply and doesn't receive one. You appear to agree to the extent that you are comfortable with adding a single "[no response]" after the last "Bueller?" Am I understanding correctly? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Look, the point is, just leave the quote as it is now. There is no point in improving/deteriorating it. WikiLubber (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand you are comfortable with the status quo. I am not. To resolve our differences I'm trying to analyze your objections to my change. Do I conclude correctly from your edit adding a "[no response]" after the four questions that you are not opposed to a single pause reference in the quote? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. WikiLubber (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Tone. I would like to accommodate your concerns as well, but I'm not sure what you mean by "tone." Can you give me an example of tone being expressed in a Wikiquote? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Reading above I see you referred to a "monotonous" tone. Should we add "[in a monotone]" just before the Bueller questions? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(c) Is indicating pauses unnecessary? If so, does Wikiquote ban them for that reason?[edit]

We could spend a lot of time debating what is "necessary." For the sake of argument, I'll agree the ellipses are not absolutely necessary - just as the "[no response]" text you added is not absolutely necessary. But both, I'd say, are helpful to the reader. Can you point to a Wikiquote policy or guideline that bans all "unnecessary" text? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What does it matter? Just leave the quote as is. Any further changes are no longer needed. WikiLubber (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "it." If you mean the ellipses, they matter because they convey useful information (that there are pauses between the questions) and are needed to convey that information. If you mean whether Wikiquote bans all "unnecessary" text, it matters because you gave as a rationale for reverting my change that it was "unnecessary." Can you point to a Wikiquote policy or guideline that bans all "unnecessary" text? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing in the rules not to include them. Besides, if IMDB does not include ellipses, why should Wikiquote? Just leave the quote as it is, and let us end this dispute. WikiLubber (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
We'll get to IMDB at (h). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(d) Does nobody care for the pauses?[edit]

Will you accept that (a) I care for the pauses and (b) the only other editor to weigh in so far (besides you and me) sees "no problem with including the pauses, since they are such an iconic part of this particular quote"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

They are not. Just the quote itself is. Leave it as is, and end this dispute. WikiLubber (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Your response does not deny that at least one editor cares for the pauses and at least one other editor thinks the pauses are an iconic part of the quote. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(e) Does Wikiquote ban changes that no editor previously sought to add?[edit]

Can you point to a Wikiquote policy or guideline that bans all changes to quotes that no one previously thought to add? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No, because it is not necessary. Just leave it as is, because there is no point in making any further changes. WikiLubber (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(f) Are the pauses irrelevant?[edit]

Looking back, I think you may have used "irrelevant" with regard to the discussion we had about full names - not ellipses. I understand that you believe the ellipses are unnecessary. I'm wondering whether you agree that the pauses themselves are relevant to the "Bueller?" quote. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The answer is still no. Can we end this and leave the quote as it is? There is no point in changing it. You cannot fix what is not broken. WikiLubber (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
You see no difference between "Bueller?" said four times in rapid succession and "Bueller?" said with pauses in between (waiting for a response each time), is that what you are saying? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1. This is the last time I am going to tell you: The pauses are unnecessary and absolutely redundant.
2. There is no difference, and absolutely no point in changing the quote, nevertheless. This discussion is over. WikiLubber (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank for establishing that you see "no difference between "Bueller?" said four times in rapid succession and "Bueller?" said with pauses in between (waiting for a response each time)." That is probably at the heart of our disagreement. But, first, let's get through your other objections to make sure we cover them all.

(g) Are the pauses are repetitive/redundant?[edit]

Do you believe that the text as it appears in Wikiquote ("Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?") is repetitive and redundant? If so, should we eliminate three of the "Buellers?" for that reason? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The pauses are beyond redundant. Nothing more. I believe I said "this discussion is over". We have already covered all objections since point A. WikiLubber (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I trying to understand what you mean by redundant in this context. Would you also characterize the dialogue ("Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?") as "redundant"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Allow me to repeat myself yet again: "The pauses are beyond redundant. Nothing more. I believe I said "this discussion is over". We have already covered all objections since point A." WikiLubber (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Wiktionary gives one definition of "redundant" as "exceeding what is necessary." If that is your definition then I agree with you that we have discussed redundancy at (c) above. Is that your definition? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
You really are persistent, are you not? I made my point perfectly clear in point A: Leave it as it is now. WikiLubber (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to understand why you are so persistent in refusing to show the pauses in the "Bueller?" text. Why is it such a big deal for you? Once I know that then I'll be able to either (a) understand and accept your position or (b) have the information which will allow me to try to deal with the underlying issue. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for not making myself clearer. I am not asking whether you think the pauses are repetitive and redundant, I'm asking whether you think the text ("Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?") is repetitive and redundant. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
No. The pauses are, but the text is another story, because it is the actual quote. WikiLubber (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

(h) the pauses do not appear in the IMDB version of the quote[edit]

On December 24 (above) you said "IMDB never included the pauses, either. So why should anything else?" However, on December 6 (above) you said "Never trust IMDB" and on December 9 (above) you said "IMDB is not a reliable source." I'm confused. Do you think Wikiquote should consider IMDB a definitive source or not? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The answer was very clearly spelled out from point A: No pauses. WikiLubber (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, that is an answer; however, it is not an answer to the question I asked.

Let me try again: Do you agree that Wikiquote should not be bound by whatever IMDB does? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This question has no bearing on the decision that was made final from question A. WikiLubber (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, I meant "never trust IMDB" for name spellings. Nothing more. WikiLubber (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)