Difference between revisions of "Talk:Dexter Colt"

Latest revision as of 07:06, March 8, 2023

This is a talk page, where you can leave messages and comments about the Dexter Colt article.

Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page.
New to Wikisimpsons? Welcome!
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Only talk about edits to the article. If you want to ask questions about the content, ask on Wikisimpsons Answers.

Some talk page guidelines:

Be polite
Assume good faith
No personal attacks
Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article is part of Style Guide Characters.

What should be in this article and what shouldn't?[edit]

I, personally, feel that there is enough about Colt that this article should only mention the most important details about him, and not *every single detail*.

For instance, "he told Homer that he charged $50 a day, plus expenses". That *is* true - but I consider that rather trivial, and less important than him ultimately charging Homer $1,000, including all those frivolous expenses.

Also, "he threatened to fire The Flying Giuseppe at Homer and Lisa; Homer pushed Lisa out of the way and got hit by the human cannonball; Homer then escaped into the Hall of Mirrors, with Colt chasing after him". Again, all true, but IMO a bit too trivial for this particular article - and rather better suited to the article about the episode, too.

I also feel that it should be mentioned straight away that Colt trashed the animal testing facility, as opposed to "someone". I somehow doubt that there are many people who are not familiar with this episode, nearly twenty years after it first aired (brrrrrrrrr...), and if one *was* watching it for the first time, chances are they'd work out straight away that Colt did it - especially when in the scene immediately before, he holds Homer at gunpoint for refusing to pay him, then swears revenge when Homer escapes. If it really must be said that "someone" trashed the facility, then - again - perhaps it's better suited to the article about the episode than it is to the article about Colt.

Finally, we see Colt being arrested, then the next time we see him in an episode he's helping out Burns. One has to assume that the events of "Four Regrettings" take place *after* the events of "Too Little" (especially as there were ten years between the two episodes), so is it not reasonable to explicitly suggest that the police released him and he went back to his job?

2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:20F5:AB7B:5232:D3CB 13:31, December 13, 2022 (EST)

The article isn't too wordy and lengthy. The article is about the character, so more details are fine. There is nothing wrong with the way the article is written. And you've broken policy by repeatedly removing content from the page. The Solar Dragon 14:13, December 13, 2022 (EST)

"This article isn't too wordy and lengthy." Solar Dragon, *surely* you know that just because *you* believe that does *not* mean that everyone else believes it too, or has to believe it? The world doesn't revolve around you, or indeed anyone else.

"The article is about the character, so more details are fine." Whatever happened to "less is more", eh?

"There is nothing wrong with the way the article is written." Again, just because *you* believe that does not mean that everyone else does, or has to (and the fact that no-one else has explicitly disagreed means nothing).

Even if none of the actual words are changed, there is still one issue: one fairly short paragraph about Colt being hired by Homer and getting to work on Lisa, then one fairly long paragraph about everything else that happens afterwards, up to Colt's final defeat. Why is that better than, say, a separate paragraph for Homer refusing to pay Colt, and Colt trashing the animal testing facility and framing Lisa as retaliation?

"You've broken policy by repeatedly removing content from the page." All right, I accept if there's a three-revert rule just like on the 'Pedia, and I accept if I've broken that rule. However... I do *not* accept if removing content *just once* is considered going against policy (unless, of course, it's content that every sensible person can consider pointless and irrelevant). Truth is, *not* everyone can or ever will agree on what should go in an article and what shouldn't - whether this be on the 'Pedia, a Fandom wiki, or indeed *this* wiki. To make it policy that *every* correct thing that goes into an article, no matter how trivial or relevant it is, stays - that might be satisfactory for *some* people, but unfortunately it *isn't* satisfactory for *everyone*.

80.233.57.195 16:53, December 13, 2022 (EST)

May I hasten to add: I accept too if, again like the 'Pedia, there are rules regarding block evasion. But the truth is, sometimes rules might *have* to be broken in order to get points across. 80.233.59.74 17:12, December 13, 2022 (EST)