Merry medievalist

Welcome!

Hello, Merry medievalist! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 18:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Merry medievalist, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Merry medievalist! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Below Deck

	Nice to meet you ~
	Thanks for your edit ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Plot Summaries for Films

Hi, Merry Medievalist. I notice you have recently put lots of hard work into good faith edits expanding a number of short or incomplete "Plot summary" sections in film articles.

Just want to direct you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Plot, which adds some guidance on writing these summaries, including "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words" and "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail". Your recent summaries – such as your 2,400-word "summary" for the previously 200-word (definitely was a bit short) The Enchanted Cottage (1945 film), your 2,200-word "summary" for the previously 170-word (definitely had some room to expand) Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939 film), or your 3,000-word summary for the previously 600-word (a proper size) Black Narcissus – must have taken immense time and effort on your part. While this is a true dedication to the articles, it far surpasses the limits set out in Manual of Style (MOS), using 20 films' worth of words on just three films.

I reverted some of these WP:PLOTBLOAT items, and marked some others with "Template:Long plot". I hope you might take some time to readjust your information within the guidance of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Plot, and point out that your research is not lost, as you can use the "View History" option to see your previous expansions, providing you material to pull from if you do go back to do a a bit of expansion within the MOS guidelines. One tip to give you more words to use in the "Plot" section, is that the names of the actors playing the roles go into the "Cast" section; this will give you an additional 20 to 30 words of substance to add to the plot summary.

Your recent work on The Conquerors (1932 film) is a terrific example of the overall goal for any editor, taking a 400-word summary and adding clarity, detail and corrections that improved the article's summary considerably, while staying inside the 700-word normal limit.

I only wish I, or some other editor, had noticed earlier and given you this information, before you put what must have been a tremendous amount of time into all these over-expanded "summaries". Thanks again for your enthusiasm and dedication to the Wikipedia project. Jmg38 (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note that your edit to the note on Looper was technically incorrect. As noted above, WP:FILMPLOT stipulates a maximum word count of 700 words, not 600. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Merry medievalist: I wanted to chime in on this too.

I am watching Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939 film), and I started reading its plot. I saw the tag that the plot is too detailed. I read with an eye to see if I agreed. I was so impressed with your writing, I didn't have the heart to delete any of it.

For better or for worse, we have agreed upon rules, and some--like the word count limit on plot--may seem arbitrary. When new editors make good faith edits (like yours) and bump up against the rules, the experience with volunteers who enforce those rules can at times be an unpleasant experience. Not everyone is as thoughtful in their responses as Jmg38. I have seen talented people who have exceptional knowledge of a content area leave Wikipedia in disgust, because they were not given the respect and deference they felt they deserved--a respect they may routinely get in their field of expertise in real life.

Your writing is so good, I very much hope you will stick around. We need more editors with your writing prowess. (I am assuming it's your writing and not plagiarism.)

If you run up against editors who are telling you that you are breaking rules and you feel you have been unfairly or rudely treated, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page, and I will try to help you work through it. Other editors can help too at the Teahouse and other places, if I am unavailable.

I have an advice section for new editors at the top of my user page that may be of help if you encounter conflict here. Happy editing. I hope you stay. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I do see that you have almost 2,000 edits and started in 2015, but have not been active until about January 2019. So you are not exactly a "new editor", but would be classified as an Apprentice Editor. I probably wouldn't have spent so much time writing the above response if I had noticed your edit history is as long as it is. Anyway, the offer above to help still stands. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing my messages and I am sorry to see I never thanked you for this. Hope late is better than never.

This is serendipitous, because I may need your help. TCM recently aired the restored version of the 1934 silent film “Enchanted Cottage”. I looked it up on Wikipedia and found a plot that was inexplicably riddled with important errors of fact. I wrote a replacement, following the film, sticking to less than 700 words. Someone undid it, citing “plot bloat.” I have just reverted to my version, but I doubt it will stop there. By this person's reasoning, the plot in the WP article on Casablanca should be drastically cut.

As you know, I have been using Wikipedia for many years, and not only for film history. But when it comes to film history, I am not alone in turning to WP because it can be trusted in ways that fan sites—IMDB included—cannot be, and because WP does not balk at spoilers.

We are able to search for important points in works of art—particularly when the many versions are so dramatically different—and find answers that other online resources do not provide, particularly when it comes to denouements. The different versions of the [[Three Godfathers]] story—on paper and on screen—come to mind. Some may use WP to decide whether to watch a film, or which version to watch—I would cite Three Godfathers again.

Wikipedia is also the only place where one can note the errors of fact made by contemporary reviewers or by TCM. (I have caught a few of those.)

To get back to The Enchanted Cottage. I would argue—as if any argument were necessary— that it deserves the best possible treatment because it has only just been released in its restored form. The You-Tube version was unwatchable.

Managing Wikipedia is a massive task. 10 years ago I assumed significant contributions were reviewed by an Editor and either critiqued or given a thumbs up. Unfortunately, there has been a steady increase in what we used to call “blue-pencil syndrome”—the irresistible impulse to make unnecessary changes. (Yes, I was a professional writer and editor.) I am not just talking about my own work. There is also a proliferation of articles that are rife with errors of grammar and usage but have not been flagged by an editor. Sometimes one can copy-edit such things, but often one needs knowledge of the subject to figure out what the author is trying to say.

Recently, I have come across a number of ancient hatnotes. Some “citations needed” had been remedied years before. I removed them. Some “long plots” had not been addressed.

I copied the plots and edited them in a program that shows word count and retains links, then pasted the edited versions into the articles. This may appear as if I rewrote the pieces from scratch (and sometimes I did), but I learned the hard way that editing on the page itself is an invitation to disaster—the loss of hours of work.

This has turned into an Apologia. I conclude by paraphrasing the immortal [[Judith Martin]] of The Washington Post, who famously observed that giving advice about grammar, spelling, or punctuation guaranteed making one or more errors in the same.

Thanks for “listening”. This has been on my chest for a while… Merry medievalist (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Merry. I will look at the plot. If someone reverts your work, better to not revert back. See WP:BRD. And, yeah, we have no "master" editors above the ordinary editors. If there is a mistake, ANY editor, even someone brand new is tasked to fix it. One might think this would suffer from the claims I have often heard by people who hate committees that "decision by committee" is worse than a decision by any of the participants. In fact, Wikipedia shows that it works pretty well, albeit, there are unsolved problems like those that you mention.

On that particular article, I don't believe I have seen the film, so working on the plot may not make much sense, but I can do my best to put in my two cents regarding the writing and whether the various edits appear to improve the article or not. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked the edit history on The Enchanted Cottage (1924 film). It looks like your revert back to your preferred version stuck. In the future, I probably wouldn't do that (basically it's like a mini-edit war), and I would instead follow WP:BRD and discuss on talk page, but since no one has questioned it, I suggest you just leave it for now. I put the article on my watchlist. If the other editor or anyone else challenges your edit and you think they are not being reasonable, you can let me know. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh shoot. I mis-spoke. It looks like your last edit was only a day ago, so the other editor will likely revert back again. Instead of getting into an edit war, which is a definite no-no, bring your concerns to the talk page, which the other editor should have done too rather than continue the edit-war. I'll try to have a closer look at the changes--but I can't promise to do that right away. Maybe there is some middle ground. You can always ask for another third party (WP:3O) to look at it. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You can see my reply to Prince, under Enchanted Cottage below. I will reply to you with my version, so you can compare them.

Also, is there a way for me to send you a message that is private? Merry medievalist (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

A quotation from Robert Browning fills the screen: “God be thanked, the meanest of his creatures boasts two soul sides—one to face the world with, one to show a woman when he loves her!”

Flyer Oliver Bashforth returns home from the Great War “to fit a helpless body into a cruelly normal world”. He uses a cane to support the right side of his body, which is distorted.  His face is gaunt with pain. In his  darkened rooms, he hides from the relentless attentions of his “nerve-shattering” family. His mother and stepfather are kind but insensitive. His sister Ethel is a big, blustering stereotype of an English country woman who is “endured by horses and dogs” but unendurable to people. His fiancée Beatrice loves another but feels duty-bound to marry Oliver—until he wishes them well.

Oliver confronts his reflection and decides to go far away. He travels aimlessly until he finds a refuge in a 300 year-old cottage. His housekeeper is Mrs. Minnett. Neighbors include Laura Pennington, plain, dependable, beloved by the children who flock around her, and blind Major Hillgrove, who was in the same hospital as Oliver.

In the grips of a terrible headache, Oliver staggers out to glare at them. Mrs. Minnett explains that he is always in pain, and has no friends. Laura apologizes to him, they did not know Honeymoon Cottage was occupied. Once part of the Dower House, it has been lent to newlyweds for centuries. She offers to introduce him to people. Oliver refuses and then apologizes. Laura goes for a remedy for his headache. Mrs. Minnett tells him about her, “frightfully poor and alone…always so kind...”

Ethel arrives, storms into the cottage, takes away his cigarettes (while lighting up herself) and announces she is coming down to look after him. When he reminds her they always fight, she explodes, then drives away, promising to return

Laura returns from the chemist's to find Oliver in agony. He must run away again, She gives him the medicine and, seeing him groping for cigarettes, retrieves his pipe. Laura talks about loneliness, and Oliver sees they are in the same boat. He asks her to marry him, for the companionship. She is hurt at first, but he follows her into the village…

The Bashworth household is in an uproar because of Oliver's letter announcing their marriage.

On their wedding night, we begin to see the spirits of lovers of the past, reliving their days in the cottage—and pausing to look at Oliver and Laura.

At last Laura goes upstairs and sits, weeping. She sees the spirits of the brides who come to sit beside her and of a couple sitting by the fire, and is overcome. Oliver hears her and goes in. He speaks of her unselfishness and tenderness. Her face is transformed. Laura looks at him and experiences the same change of vision. “You are wonderful to me,” she says.

They conceal themselves from everyone except the Major, who tells them to accept the miracle. He too, is “waiting.” He tells his batman not to give up hope, but the man, who has lost an arm, is skeptical.

Oliver sends for his family and asks the Major to greet them, explain their transformation, then sound the gong. Mrs Minnett seems worried, “If only they had been content with each other.”  Reluctantly, she lets the family in and introduces the Major, They are confused and upset. Ethel rings the gong. The newlyweds descend the stairs—unchanged. Ethel declares they are mad. The family leaves. The Major delicately feels Laura's face, confirming the truth. Laura flees to the bedroom, praying for enough beauty to keep Oliver's love. Weeping, she falls asleep on the fourposter. Oliver sits on the chaise longue at its foot. The bed becomes a bower of flowers and silk, like an illustration from a fairy tale. They reach for each other in their sleep. In the morning, they wake as their beautiful selves. “If there's a child,” she asks, “there is a chance it will be beautiful…?” They agree. Their children will be beautiful and blessed. “Happy?” She nods and leans back into his arms. Merry medievalist (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You can see the film on Watch TCM. Another reason for presenting a thorough vision of the film: It expires on October 29. Merry medievalist (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

von Sternberg ariticle

I noticed your corrections on the article. I am going to be re-editing the films of King Vidor soon, with some suitable sources, Brownlow, Baxter et al. Would you mind putting the Vidor article on your watchlist? would appreciate your observations/edits as needed. Lord Such&Such (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for never getting back to you with thanks for this. Merry medievalist (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The Sons of Katie Elder

I was just reading through the work you did on that article. I loved it. Thank you. — Ched (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Please note that Audience scores such as those from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are not allowed, per WP:USERGENERATED. Do not add them to Wikipedia articles as you did in the article The Sons of Katie Elder.[1] -- 20:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Also Memoirs_of_a_Geisha_(film). [2] -- 109.77.210.114 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Zelda Fitzgerald under FA review

I have nominated Zelda Fitzgerald for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. As you edited this article in the past, your input there and further contributions to the article would be appreciated. — Flask (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your superb work on Ice Station Zebra. Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul have brought renewed interest to this old, forgotten film. If it wasn’t for your improvements, we wouldn’t have much to go on. Thank you again for your commitment to quality film articles. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Merry medievalist (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Alun Armstrong, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed it! Merry medievalist (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2022

When you add a new fact to Wikipedia, please also add a WP:Reliable source that verifies the fact. See WP:V for more information about this key policy. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. What fact, please. I have been citing madly for years (just received access to the library) , so I would really like to know where I slipped up. Merry medievalist (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Never received an answer. Merry medievalist (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Confessions of a Nazi Spy

Hi Merry medievalist. Thanks for reducing the plot summary of Confessions of a Nazi Spy. I've put the tag back on it because I think it is still too long. Please don't take that personally. It is definitely better than it was before you edited it. DanielRigal (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You are so right, I wax going to work on it more off line, and life got in the way. I'll fix it. Thanks for letting me know Merry medievalist (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it is under the limit. 696 words, so I won't work on it anymore. But I still thank you in principle. Merry medievalist (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hello, I'm MichaelMaggs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Busman's Honeymoon, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Copy of my response to Michael Maggs

Hi Michael,

You recently reverted an addition I made to Busman's Honeymoon because it “lacked a reliable source” . The reliable source was the Wikipedia article about the series. I have copied the entry below so you can follow the link.

In 7 years editing Wikipedia , this is the first time I have seen anyone suggest that it was necessary to add a formal citation of a WP page in addition to the internal links to Wikipedia articles. If that is true, a vast number of paragraphs need to be revised, including the one to which I appended this information, which relies on the link to Edward Petherbridge's WP article.

“(Petherbridge starred as Lord Peter in A Dorothy L. Sayers Mystery, a 1987 televised adaptation of all the Harriet Vane novels except Busman's Honeymoon. The BBC could not obtain the rights. )” Merry medievalist (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I am also curious to know why you reverted the text instead of employing a “citation needed” note. I would never do that unless the text concerned was problematic in some other way. Merry medievalist (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merry medievalist You're right, and I've reverted myself. I think I saw the unsourced statement "The BBC could not obtain the rights" without noticing that A Dorothy L. Sayers Mystery was in blue and was a thus a link to a separate page where the information could be found. Apologies. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! Merry medievalist (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Enchanted Cottage

Hello, @Merry medievalist, you and I have been engaging in an edit war over the plot summary of the 1924 film. You claim my summary is full of errors, and while I have amended them with elements of your version, you still revert me. What are the errors you speak of so we can resolve this?

Also, my plot summary is not a matter of being short. It's a film that's over 70 minutes in length. It shouldn't need more than 500 words to describe the plot. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I am appalled at the idea that the 1-hour 11-minute length of this film should affect the length of its plot, any more than a three-hour film should be allowed another 3,500 words. This concept is not mentioned in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Where does it come from?

This film has just been restored and re-released. It had been all but lost, with only a 35 mm print in the vaults of the Library of Congress and a time-worn version flickering on YouTube. Richard Barthelmess is an important and highly respected actor of the silent era. He is a co-founder of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He also produced this film. Restoring a century-old picture to his body of work is important.

In 1924, The New York Times reviewer declared that this film was superior to the play. https://www.nytimes.com/1924/04/14/archives/the-screen.html#

It is certainly very different from the play. It is also very different from the 1945 film, which the New York Times'  Bosley Crowther panned.

According to TCM host Jacqueline Stewart, Edward Lorusso (who spearheaded the 2024 restoration) felt that it was very important to recognize the film as a showcase of “the long-lasting trauma” of WWI. This makes the Major's story even more important.

Your version. I have noted errors of fact in capitals.I have not pointed out all the gaps in the narrative that I see. My version represents those, within the limits of 700 words. The Manual of Style says “every important event in a film should be outlined”. Yours does not.

As the Judith Martin said—more than once—commenting on grammar is a guarantee that one will make a mistake oneself, even when it is one's profession. That said, I have marked errors, redundancies, and awkwardness in grammar, etc. in bold, without making changes. The correct forms should be plain to you

Having served during World War I, Oliver Bashforth returns home to his family, with his body contorted and needing a cane to support his right side. He is engaged to his fiancée Beatrice, but she loves another man. After Oliver watches Beatrice's companion horseback ride, IT ISN'T THE RIDING, THAT AFFECTS HIM, IT'S THE WAY BEATRICE REACTS TO THE MAN'S FALL. I REMOVED THAT TO MAKE ROOM FOR MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION. he wishes them well. After isolating himself from his family in dark rooms, Oliver leaves them and wanders aimlessly AIMLESSLY IS YOUR INTERPRETATION. THE INTERTITLE SAYS “SOLITARY” until he finds an isolated cottage in the woods, “ISOLATED IN THE WOODS”. IMPLIES A FORESTED  REMOTENESS THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THE COTTAGE WAS PART OF THE DOWER HOUSE. THERE ARE TREES, YES BUT CHILDREN COME AND GO.  operated by Mrs. Minnett, the innkeeper.  MRS. MINNETT IS NOT THE INNKEEPER, SHE IS THE HOUSEKEEPER., The residents include Laura Pennington, a homely young governess, and Major Hillgrove, a blind war veteran. LAURA DOES NOT LIVE THERE, NOR DOES THE MAJOR. THEY  PLAY WITH THE CHILDREN IN THE GARDEN. THE FIRST DAY ENDS WITH OLIVER ASKING IF IT IS OKAY IF HE FOLLOWS HER HOME (ON FOOT) TO HER LODGINGS THE VILLAGE. LATER ON, WE SEE THE MAJOR IN THE MAGNIFICENT LIBRARY IN HIS HOME.

THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IS COMPLETELY CONFUSED. MOST OF IT HAPPENS THE FIRST DAY.

One night, NO Laura visits Oliver at his inn (COTTAGE) THE GAME DISTURBS HIM, HE COMES OUT AND GLARES AT THEM. MRS. MINNETT EXPLAINS. LAURA GOES IN TO  APOLOGIZE and tells them the cottage has been lent to newlyweds for centuries. However, Oliver insists on being left alone. The next morning NO, Oliver apologizes to Laura, who is playing a nursery game with the children…. AGAIN, OUT OF ORDER. THIS ALL HAPPENS THE FIRST DAY

HIS DEVASTATING HEADACHE AND LAURA'S TRIP TO THE CHEMIST HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY. ETHEL BARGES IN WHILE LAURA IS AT THE CHEMIST.  Sometime later, NO his sister Ethel visits Oliver at his inn COTTAGE , telling him that the family plans to visit him NO, SHE COMES TO TELL HIM THAT SHE WILL MOVE IN.

Laura returns from the chemist to find Oliver in agony.  He decides to leave, TALKS ABOUT LEAVING but she gives him the medicine. HE TELLS HER OF ETHEL'S PLANS. Laura talks about loneliness, and Oliver relates with her. He asks her to marry him for the companionship but she declines due to her insecurities. A SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION. MY INTERPRETATION OF THE DIALOGUE IS THAT SHE REFUSES OUT OF PRIDE. NEITHER INTERPRETATION BELONGS IN A PLOT.

On the day Ethel plans to revisit MOVE IN WITH him, Oliver mails a letter to his parents stating he is marrying Laura. A TIMEWARP?

THE GHOSTLY COUPLES APPEAR NOW, ACTING THEIR OWN SCENES AND ACKNOWLEDGING  THE NEWLYWEDS.  On their wedding night, Oliver and Laura sit near BESIDE a window where newlywed couples have carved ETCHED their names IN THE GLASS. They have dinner with each other and sit near the fireplace until Laura weepingly leaves for the bedroom. There, the ghostly newlywed couples  who had stayed at the cottage become visible to Laura, and create an enchantment where she and Oliver are transformed. TWO WIVES COME AND SIT AND STAND BESIDE HER, BUT THEY VANISH AS SOON AS SHE NOTICES THEM. SHE SEES ANOTHER COUPLE CUDDLING IN A CHAIR. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE GHOSTS CAUSE THE TRANSFORMATIONS. Oliver stands upright while Laura becomes glamorous. BEAUTIFUL. CONNOTATIONS OF “GLAMOROUS” DO NOT FIT HERE.  

Shortly after, Oliver sends a letter asking for Ethel and his parents to come visit him. Back at the cottage, Oliver tells Hillgrove she and Laura will isolate themselves, and when his parents arrive, he must greet them, explain the transformation and then ring the gong. Mrs. Minnett feels APPEARS worried, but Hillgrove assures her that Oliver and Laura's mutual love has transformed them. After Ethel and Oliver's parents arrive at the cottage, Hillgrove informs them of the transformative miracle, and rings the gong.

Oliver and Laura descend downstairs and greet Ethel and the parents, but they appear unchanged. Ethel declares they are mad, and they leave. Hillgrove delicately feels Laura's face, confirming the truth. Distraught, Laura runs to the bedroom and prays she is made beautiful again. Oliver returns to the bedroom and sleeps on the chaise longue near AT the foot of the bed. THE DREAM AND THE WAY THEY REACH FOR EACH OTHER IN THEIR SLEEP IS IMPORTANT. The next morning, they wake up with their renewed appearances and consider having children. BRRRR. COLD WAY OF DESCRIBING A TENDER LITTLE SCENE. Merry medievalist (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have already incorporated some of the corrections already. I was aware most of the first half of the film happens in one day. I must have missed the part where it wasn't implied that Laura and Mr. Hillgrove don't live at the cottage. They just hang out in the garden where Laura played with the children. As for the ghosts, I wasn't sure if they had caused the transformation, or was it Oliver and Laura's love for each other. It appears you paid better attention than I did. I'll remove "glamorous" and insert beautiful. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)