| Revision as of 20:54, 12 April 2018 editBrightR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,257 edits →RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections?: non-admin closure: the main question of the RfC was hardly discussed← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:38, 23 January 2025 edit undoJauerback (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators72,757 edits →Mass edits by blocked IP editor: Reply blockedTag: Reply | ||
| (262 intermediate revisions by 59 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WPMOS}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old(90d) | | algo = old(90d) | ||
| | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive %(counter)d | | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| | counter = |
| counter = 14 | ||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | | maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| | archiveheader = {{Aan}} | | archiveheader = {{Aan}} | ||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| | minthreadsleft = 3 | | minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
| }} | |||
| }}{{archives|age=90}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Manual of Style}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives|age=90}} | |||
| {{shortcut|WT:WAF}} | {{shortcut|WT:WAF}} | ||
| ==Spinout articles about a singular topic== | |||
| == List of exemplary articles pruning == | |||
| I noticed a sentence that was italicized for no apparent reason. It turns out this was . Is the statement in question even still true, let alone worthy of emphasis? ] (]) 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've rewritten that whole paragraph, as it seemed poorly worded. ] (]) 04:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I still feel this section is too long, even after I pruned it last year. We should probably narrow down each category to 4 or 5 entries for the sake of succinctness. What do you guys think? —''']''' (]-]-]) 10:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :], with , you added, "''Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective tend to cover fictional aspects in greater detail, inviting ] ] such as fan theories and unsourced analysis.''" But articles on fictional topics tend to cover fictional aspects in great detail regardless, meaning whether the article is written from an in-universe or real-world perspective. And including fan theories is fine when the theories have received substantial media coverage and are presented in a real-world fashion. ] (]) 18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough - I tweaked that sentence. That whole statement just seems a little vague to me still, even for an introduction. I'm not sure if there is an objective correlation between original research and the perspective of the article. (Not saying that an in-universe perspective is good). Now, one could argue that an article with in-universe perspective and undue weight looks more enticing to a passer-by who wants to hit the "edit button" and add some conjecture or theories. Hmm. —''']''' (]-]-]) 23:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, . Thank you. I don't think that is needed, but I can live with it. I'm not seeing any issues with the section, but I'm open to changes being made to it. ] (]) 01:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Plot summary points == | |||
| == Question about asking questions in plot summaries == | |||
| In regards to the edits reverted : | |||
| So in the current version of ], the plot synopsis reads, "A young woman is involuntarily committed to a mental institution where she is confronted by her greatest fear — but is it real or is it a product of her delusion?" I thought to myself, surely this cheesy language is unencyclopedic, but I've been noticing many more articles with plot summaries that ask similar questions. Any thoughts on this? Would this be considered an in-universe perspective? ] (]) 07:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Sro23}} When I see questions I usually jump to "is this a copyright violation of the book jacket?" or some other such conclusion. So check to see if that's the case first. Otherwise, it's not an expository tone to ask a question, i.e., it's not a question of in/out of universe but simply bad writing. --] (]) 13:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. ] (]) 14:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also agreed. Questions like that are normally an editor's attempt to write something 'exciting', rather than something encyclopedic. A question in that form isn't a summary of the plot at all, and should not be presented as if it were. ] (]) 17:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| It seemed best to make this into one sentence, as multiple storylines in one work seems like the only conceivable case where a plot summary should not follow the order of events in the story. At first, I didn't even quite grasp the train of thought here, so condensing this into one sentence seems worthwhile. | |||
| == RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections? == | |||
| {{closed rfc top|result= No consensus. The main question of the RfC was hardly discussed (question was yes/no, most replies were support/oppose !votes that were not directly related to the question). Simpler RfC will follow. ] 20:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)}} | |||
| Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections? ] 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| There is no benefit in trying to balance the length of a plot summary with the rest of the article. Rather, you should try to write the best plot summary you can, and the best exploration of real-world aspects that you can. As I explained in the edit summary, I also felt that some of that text contradicted itself. That text could be replaced, as a correlation between plot complexity and summary length is a worthwhile point. ] (]) 06:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| :When your edits are reverted and you make a talk page post requesting feedback, it is best practice to wait more than a day before making the same or similar edits again. Please wait for input here before making anymore changes. | |||
| ]; ]: | |||
| :*I disagree with you that there is no relationship between the length of a plot section and the rest of the article. A notable stub with a 700 word summary of the plot and nothing apart from one other sentence places undue weight on the plot itself see WP:NOTPLOT. There are, should be no, magic numbers here. This is a subjective decision made by editors based on this guidance. Adding the reference to NOVELS is helpful and I will add it back. | |||
| {{User:BrightR/MOS:PLOT}} | |||
| :*I disagree with you that the only time that there are no other benefits with tweaking the timeline in the summary vs the fiction (remember that this article applies to writing about all types of fiction in articles). For example, if a character has an ulterior motive for doing something, it might make more sense in mentioning earlier in the summary, rather than then having to dedicate additional text to a relatively unimportant sub-plot regarding the reveal later. The current text provides adequate guidance to editors about when and why they should do this, which is sufficient. | |||
| ] 15:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC){{br}} | |||
| :*The other minor tweaks did not seem to change or improve the guidance. | |||
| This RfC follows (]) ] to tell other editors that the current state of affairs where most articles about fiction don't have inline sources in the plot sections is not the desirable state of affairs: | |||
| :As a general point, based on what I observed during your 100+ edits to NOVELs, which I wasn't able to fully monitor, please ask yourself before you edit, "what problem am I trying to solve"? Some of your edits were helpful, some of them made no real difference and were basically cosmetic and some stemmed from your misunderstanding of existing consensus. I have no doubt you're trying to make improvements, but making so many edits that mix wording and content changes are going to get reverted. I would suggest that if you see something that could maybe be worded better without changing the meaning, make one change and leave it for several days. If no one reverts it, make another one. If you see some content in a guideline that you disagree with, either make one change and open a talkpage discussion, or better yet just open a talk page discussion. I'm not trying to put you off making improvements, but you're going much too fast.] (]) 12:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Sources in the plot section are not discouraged. | |||
| ::I was going to wait longer, but another user edited the section in question, introducing awkward wording, and I thought a better alternative would be to borrow wording from ]. Then while I was at it, I made other changes. Seeing the state of disrepair some of these pages were in has made me more bold in editing them. | |||
| * The {{oldid2|823790036|Sourcing and quotations|current}} MoS guidelines encourage sources for key or complex plot points, and to ward off original research. | |||
| ::In regards to balancing length of the plot summary with the rest of the article, the important thing is that we do our best to write a compact plot summary and also do our best with other topics. If the rest of the article consists of only one sentence, obviously it needs to be expanded, or if it can't be, the article shouldn't exist. Also, the current wording {{tq|The length of the prose should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself; simple plots may require only short summaries}} seems self-contradictory. A story could be long, but have a simple plot. | |||
| * Removing sources (or reverting changes in general) because they are "unnecessary" or "not needed" is ], references should be removed only if they are detrimental. (For example, references should be removed if they cause ]. This argument was never raised in the given content dispute; it would be difficult to argue that two citations in a six-paragraph section are "clutter"). | |||
| ::In regards to chronological order, mentioning an ulterior motive before it is revealed in the story was the kind of thing I originally thought that was primarily referring to. Hence . | |||
| Attempting ward off the inevitable RfC arguments against the RfC itself: | |||
| ::As for "minor tweaks", I would say added a significant missing word. {{tq|are notable for their own standalone article}} technically means something very different. Likewise, a significant word was missing , as I noted in the edit summary, though it seemed better just to remove that whole phrase, as it was redundant. ] (]) 14:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * This is not an RfC about a content dispute, it's an RfC about plot section references across all Misplaced Pages articles. The content dispute was linked to illustrate the problem, which is Misplaced Pages editors who claim ] over this particular Misplaced Pages guideline. This RfC is meant to assess whether broad consensus exists for the guideline as it is currently written. | |||
| :::For your first point, your version doesn't recommend against writing a 700 plot summary with a five word sourced sentence, the previous version does so in my view it's better. For your second, I guess it would be slightly better if it was slightly more consistent regarding story length re plot complexity, but again what problem are we trying to solve? This is cosmetic at best, how many people are getting confused because they have a long story with a simple plot vs a short one with a complex one? This is a tweak at best, probably positive, but by lumping it with other edits that genuinely change the meaning you're making it hard for people to follow you. We can maybe discuss this further, maybe others will chime in. | |||
| * This RfC is not malformed. ]. Everything after the first signature is meant to provide the relevant background to the neutral and brief request for comment, but does not have to be neutral and brief in itself. | |||
| :::Your change re chronology is not an improvement. You removed the text that said why and when someone might do it. If doing it improves and condenses the summary, that's all an editor needs to know to do it. If it doesn't, they shouldn't. | |||
| * This is not ]. The instructions already exist in the guideline, no change is proposed, this is only an attempt to gauge consensus for these instructions. Even if it ''was'' a proposal for new instructions, they would still be necessary as emphasis that inline citations are better than unspecified implicit citations, even in plot sections and even if most articles with plot sections do not have inline citations. | |||
| :::Sufficiently maybe reads slightly better, but it doesn't seem important in terms of how editors should proceed, the subjects are either notable or not. Maybe I'm missing something? You're right about the obvious missing word, but I disagree about the redundancy, category spam needs explicity discouraging as well as simply defining what's correct.] (]) 17:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How about changing {{tq|Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary}} to {{tq|Strictly avoid creating pages which consist of a plot summary and little else.}} That pretty much tells you not to have a plot summary and then just one sentence of sourced commentary. The unhelpful and perhaps contradictory points about balancing length could then be removed. ] (]) 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is not clear to me how what you propose is better than what is there already, and I'm not convinced yet that the current version is particularly unhelpful or contradictory. For the record, I think we should never have a plot only article. I think this guidance should also recommend that we don't have articles which have articles with minimal information apart from a full plot summary, so therefore I think the rest of the article should be considered when expanding a plot section. This isn't prescriptive and it doesn't need to be, but it's good practice for editors to consider which is what the guideline currently says. I think that the number of cases where you have a lengthy book with such a simple plot (or vice versa) that the current text provides serious issues to the editor are so vanishing rare that I don't see an issue to be solved, but if you have an elegant solution within the current text structure I'd be open to suggestions. ] (]) 08:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::See . I think we have solved this. It may be true that the points about balancing length would rarely cause a problem, but on the other hand they are not helpful either, as long as we make clear that a plot summary plus one or two sentences is not adequate for an article. ] (]) 14:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: How about {{tq|Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if presenting details in a different sequence improves and condenses the summary.}} That preserves "improves and condenses" while removing "do not need to stay true to" and "going out of order". ] (]) 16:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure what benefit there is in changing out of order to strictly follows beyond the fact that you said you didn't like it, but ok I guess. No to the other suggestion, we do not "present details" when writing a summary. ] (]) 16:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What about {{green|Summaries may deviate from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity}}? ] (]) 21:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't like "may deviate from". While you might technically deviate from the chronological order, that characterization doesn't seem right. ] (]) 01:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How about {{tq|Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if that would not make for a good summary.}} ] (]) 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ultimately, we want it to say that if a more concise or easier-to-understand plot summary can be made by presenting plot points out of order, do that. We want to encourage editors to make a better summary if they have to deviate, that negative form is not really capturing that. ] (]) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agree with Masem. IP, could you articulate what your problem actually is with the as-is text? ] (]) 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The way it's stated just sounds wrong to me. But if no one else sees a problem, I guess that's that. Sorry to have wasted your time with this. ] (]) 14:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Not a waste of time, language improvements help, just that here let's try to spin it positive, that going out of plot order can some times be a benefit.<span id="Masem:1733755142127:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNManual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :::::::::'246, you have now changed it to read "Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if going out of order improves and condenses the summary". Unless I have misunderstood this discussion, that not what other editors are expecting. Can we please finalise the wording here and not keep making partial changes to that sentence? For me, "going out of order" sounds highly colloquial, bordering on weird. Perhaps it would be suitably formal in US English, I don't know. I'm perfectly happy with "deviate from", but we could instead have {{Green|Summaries may depart from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity.}} ] (]) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm glad I'm not the only one to see a problem with "going out of order". I like your proposed wording, and would prefer "depart" rather than "deviate". ] (]) 18:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'd be fine with Michael's suggestion. ] (]) 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == "Primary information" and "secondary information" == | |||
| Additionally the wording of ] support this guideline:: | |||
| {{User:BrightR/WP:PRIMARYPLOT}} | |||
| If this guideline does not have consensus, then the policy will need to be changed too. ], ], {{diff|diff=prev|oldid=255912358|label=the sentence being put into the policy in 2008, remains unchanged to this day}}. So people who like to say "it's only a guideline, not a policy", there you go: citing passages as primary sources in a plot sectioni is policy too. If there's no consensus for it then there's some serious failure in Misplaced Pages for allowing it to be part of policy for nine going ten years. ] 14:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} If you are seeking support for use of primary sourcing then you need to make that clear in the RfC question otherwise I would consider the RfC to be posed deceptively. Of course editors are going to support citation, it is the basis of ] but, from the discussion below, it is apparent you wish to use this RfC to change how ''primary'' sourcing and citation is used. ''That is not the question posed by this RfC'' and a ''Support'' close simply can not be used as a legitimate basis for such changes. ]] 15:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|i=y|If you are seeking support for use of primary sourcing then you need to make that clear in the RfC question otherwise I would consider the RfC to be posed deceptively.}} I ''knew'' someone would claim the RfC is deceptive or malformed even though it asks a simple question and the guideline in question is quoted verbatim. Sigh... If you didn't know plot sections can be referenced to the primary source, then you didn't read the guideline and you're '''support'''ing or '''oppose'''ing something you didn't even read, which I feel is common around here. {{tq|i=y|it is apparent you wish to use this RfC to change how primary sourcing and citation is used.}} Would you look at that, two for two! No, this RfC wishes to change nothing. The guideline is quoted verbatim and people can read it a mere paragraph or two above. Either there's consensus for this guideline or there isn't. If there is, that includes primary sources. If there isn't, then it needs to change. Thank you for getting the obvious out of the way. ] 15:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|i=y|{{diff|diff=829915782&oldid=829914678|label=You added the top part, and everything other than the six bullet points, of the ''Discussion'' ''after'' I, and others, had commented.}}}} That is correct. {{oldid2|829730420|RfC:_Is_it_encouraged_to_have_references_for_key_or_complex_plot_points_in_plot_sections?|For reference, the original pre-discussion "discussion" section, with the guideline linked under "relevant guideline" in the very first line.}} I later added the guideline '''inline''' because '''people weren't reading the link'''. If anything, I am making concrete efforts for people to read the guideline in question. ] 16:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}} No, the guideline was linked in your opening 'discussion' statement but it was not {{tq|"quoted verbatum"}} in ] nor is it referenced in the question as posed. Nor does the RfC question or your initial 'discussion' address what it is you want to ''encourage'' or how the current guideline is not being followed. Your question is a restatement of the existing guideline. How do you expect things to change if this closes ''Support'' — the guideline is unchanged and current practice would therefore be unchanged. What do you think ''Oppose'' would mean — most of the opposes are saying current practice is proper. {{pb}} My guess, is that you want this to be a referendum on the conflicts you linked but that is not the question you asked and you can not claim that supports for this RfC are supports for the position you take in those disputes. ]] 16:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|i=y|My guess, is that you want this to be a referendum on the conflicts you linked }} there we go, three for three... funny how that happens in ''every RfC''. {{tq|i=y|but it was not "quoted verbatum" in the RfC}} I didn't say it's quoted verbatim in the RfC, I said it's quoted verbatim. I quoted it verbatim because people '''didn't bother to read it''' when it was merely linked in the very first line of the original discussion section of the RfC. Do you regularly support/oppose RfCs without reading the discussion? That's very bad. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. {{tq|i=y|Nor does the RfC question or your initial 'discussion' address what it is you want to encourage}} Sheesh again... the question is ''literally'' '''Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections?''' I guess it doesn't address what's encouraged? Oh wait... "to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections". Whoa, it's like it's right there!!! {{tq|i=y|How do you expect things to change if this closes Support — the guideline is unchanged and current practice would therefore be unchanged. What do you think Oppose would mean — most of the opposes are saying current practice is proper. }} It was a '''yes/no question''' but people were in such a hurry to ] that they, evidently, didn't bother reading neither the question nor the guideline it addresses. Again, thank you for bringing this extremely basic point to light. ] 16:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Now you are just ranting. Instead of doing that why not ''explain'' what it is that you think is not being done and how the guideline is not being followed. As it stands, applying basic knowledge of Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies and by not reading the ''Plot'' section in isolation, it is necessary to, per ] not "''analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source''". This is mirrored, in the ''Plot'' section which says "… encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps to {{red|discourage original research}}".<sup>(emp mine)</sup> The final section of plot, the one you are focused on, must be read with the same caveat of avoiding original research. As I mentioned in my !vote below, dealing with most 'complex' plot points involves some form of analysis or judgment therefore the situations where quoting the work is limited. There are cases where it may be appropriate and in those cases editors are, per the guideline, encouraged to cite the work. {{underline|<small>(An example might be an 'info dump' or exposition where the narrator or character addresses the point or a point where a director 'hangs a lantern' on it.)</small>}} That, however, is a matter of ''editorial judgment''. You may disagree with the current collective editorial judgment <small>(aka ])</small> but that is, again, not something you address in the RfC question which would be worthwhile to address here. ]] 17:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC) last edited | |||
| ::::::{{tq|i=y|Now you are just ranting}} What a lovely way not to address anything I said and pretend you weren't wrong about what I pointed out in specific detail. {{tq|i=y|You may disagree with the current collective editorial judgment (aka WP:CONSENSUS) but that is, again, not something you address in the RfC question which would be worthwhile to address here.}} RfCs are specifically meant to address consensus. Again thank you for saying exactly the wrong thing so I can point out the obvious right thing. {{tq|i=y|dealing with most 'complex' plot points involves some form of analysis or judgment}} And as I ], key or complex plot points do not necessarily require analysis; in fact '''both the policy and the guideline say they can be cited to a passage from the primary source''', without any analysis or synthesis or anything that requires a secondary or tertiary source. ] 17:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: You simply are not listening — hell my !vote even partially supports your position. I gave an example, just above, of the type of complex point that may, in my opinion, be cited to the work. In what other cases would it be proper to cite the work? Either the work clearly states the point, as above, or it does not. I do not see anyone arguing against the former and the later is clearly an OR violation. {{pb}} You seem to be reading the ''Plot'' guideline pedantically and in isolation while completely missing what most everyone is saying — '''Yes''' you can and should cite the work on a complex plot point ''which is clearly and unambiguously addressed within the work'' otherwise you can not because it is OR. Is it not happening that way? Do you think that statement incorrect? ]] 19:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq|i=y|completely missing what most everyone is saying — '''Yes''' you can and should cite the work on a complex plot point which is clearly and unambiguously addressed within the work}} Would be nice if most everyone were saying that, you'd see a nice long string of '''yes'''es below... but that isn't the case. Some people simply don't accept citing plot points to the primary source, which is the source of the content dispute and the reason this RfC is gauging consensus on the guideline. ] 06:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| In the ] section, is it even helpful to talk about "primary information" and "secondary information"? I realize information comes from sources, but it would be more straightforward just to talk about primary and secondary sources, and what information can be found in each. Also, the example of {{tq|another episode of the same TV series}} may be problematic, as using one episode as a source regarding a different episode is likely to be original research. ] (]) 09:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Malformed RfC=== | |||
| I'm of the opinion here that given how often BrightR has had to clarify what the RfC is actually about after everyone's !votes that the RfC probably is malformed in some way, specifically in that it isn't clear enough in what it's actually asking. I additionally suspect this because it just seems everyone is giving an opinion on a slightly different matter. It just feels to me like there's a lot of different conversations going on here and few people are on the same page with each other, let alone with BrightR. ~Cheers, ]]] 00:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I 100% support resubmitting this RfC in a way that people will actually read it and respond to it instead of arguing about things that aren't there. For example one editor opposees the "requirement for citations for plot summaries". Such a requirement was never part of the RfC, yet this editor (and others) for some reason argue against it. This isn't one or two editors; the overwhelming majority of editors '''support''' and '''oppose''' their own suggestions that simply aren't part of the RfC. What would be a short, neutral statement that people will actually read and respond to? ] 10:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd suggest an RFC that seeks approval for the specific clarifying amendments to the guideline that I suggested in green text in the Survey section, below. There needs to be a proposal for a definite change to the guideline, if you think that one is needed, otherwise there will always be the suspicion that you're really seeking support in a content dispute. ] (]) 10:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, agreed. ] (]) 09:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I think that the overall consensus of the votes and comments is clear enough. An RFC is not something that is literally voted up or down - this is why we have comments and why we use the term "!vote". It is fine for each commenter to focus on a slightly different aspect of the topic - that is how a consensus develops. In this case, the very clear consensus is against tightening the language about sourcing in plot summaries. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I know this. The reason I'm concerned about the divergences is that BrightR, in my understanding, is constantly concerned that rare anyone has actually addressed the specific issue at hand. I also am not exactly sure what the RfC is trying to accomplish. You suggested that it's seeking a change in language on the MOS, but that's very unclear to me. There hasn't been an actual proposal to change the language here. ~Cheers, ]]] 12:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bluntly, I believe BrightR's almost sole reason for having initiated this RfC is so that they can claim they have a consensus to support the edits they made at ]. The couldn't get a clear consensus at the Talk page when ], edit-warred on the article to the extent that I felt compelled to report them at 3RN when they ignored a direct request from me imploring them not to reinsert their edits without a clear consensus, and maintain that their edits are right and implicitly supported by policy even when it's become abundantly clear that while their edits may be supported by a reading of policy, there is far from a consensus that their edits ''should'' be supported by policy. Indeed, they are so convinced of their own self-righteousness that they couldn't even acknowledge they were violating edit-warring policy without claiming ]. ] (]) 08:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::It does seem that multiple editors' opposition to prompted this RfC. That's fine, and the RfC can be made more specific, but I will say that exhaustively quoting a primary source on plot points that don't seem to require interpretation is the very definition of unnecessary, and I think most editors here agree. What BrightR shoud really do is open a discussion at ] explaining why he believes quoting dialogue is important to understanding the plot summary. If consensus cannot be reached to restore the material, which is likely, everyone can move on with their lives.— ]<sup>]</sup> 14:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Real-world perspective == | |||
| ===Survey=== | |||
| *'''It depends''' Anything which requires analysis, interpretation or insight should be cited {{underline|to third party reliable sources or commentary of writer/director}} per ]. ]] 19:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC) <small>'''Last edited:''' 14:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *: In the case of citing the work in the plot section I would say it is only necessary to highlight/demonstrate some point which will later be addressed, and supported by RS, in later or concurrent analysis. Arguably even saying a given plot point is ''key'' is an act of original research requiring judgment of significance. ]] 15:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose primary references, Support secondary references'''. If it requires analysis, interpretation or insight then we should start looking to sources other than the work itself. ] (]) 05:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * The more complex the plot, the more important it is described out-of-universe. This will preclude referencing to the primary source. —] (]) 07:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as a long needed correction to an OR not expert problem all over these articles. Not sure how this has been like this for so long. It's a basic that information be sourced...let alone the bases for conflict resolution... how can people debate things without any sources. --] (]) 07:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Not sure what is supposed to be meant by "key," and we don't add references to plot sections simply because the plot section is complex. We add them when needed. I see that and discussion has resulted in this RfC. Editors should especially look at the first discussion and see if you agree that the one reference was needed there. I know I didn't. The same goes for most others in that discussion. I'll go ahead and alert ], ] and ] and ] to this RfC. ] (]) 08:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes, it is encouraged''' No paragraph should be without ], including plots. (I make no judgement about the dispute at ].) <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 08:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' using ''primary sources'' for "complex plot points", which is what this RfC is really about. {{ul|Moxy}}, {{ul|Chris troutman}}, this RfC is really about '']'' at which BrightR wants to use ''primary source'' inline citations to "prove" certain "complex plot points". No one actually opposes using secondary sources for inline citations; WikiProject Film supports this with ], ''"Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section."'' It should be further noted that BrightR only launched this RfC because they were opposed by five or six editors in using the primary-source inline citations, and they have the audacity to declare that they are right and everyone else is wrong in regard to applying Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. The fact that this RfC makes no distinction between primary and secondary sources is problematic in itself. ] (] | ]) <sup>(])</sup> 11:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{replyto|Erik}} I agree with SmokeyJoe and Doniago: secondary sources are needed to verify the plot. I don't like the idea of citing the movie at ''x'' minutes because that screams ]. BrightR's question was about encouraging use of citations in plot summaries, which I affirm. If you think BrightR is being tendentious, then please take the issue to ]. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 12:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *::], ] isn't saying that plot sections need to have inline citations. Doniago said, "''If it requires analysis, interpretation or insight then we should start looking to sources other than the work itself.''" And this RfC is about sourcing for "key" and "complex" plot aspects, not the whole plot section. Why do you think we should source the whole plot section? WP:OR "means material for which no published, reliable source exists"; it doesn't mean "unsourced." And for films, for example, the film itself is the source. Where we get into problems is when people start interpreting character motivations and putting in things that are not in the television show, film, book or other form of media. ] (]) 01:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{tq|i=y|BrightR only launched this RfC because they were opposed by five or six editors in using the primary-source inline citations, and they have the audacity to declare that they are right and everyone else is wrong in regard to applying Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines}} This RfC is about consensus for this guideline. If there isn't any, it shouldn't be a guideline. If there is, then people explicitly can't use ] to ignore it. {{tq|i=y|I don't like the idea of citing the movie at x minutes because that screams OR}} Unfortunately that is also encouraged by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, which means if they don't represent consensus, they shouldn't be policies and guidelines. Specifically ]: {{tq|i=y|For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot}}. So now we got the guideline ] and the policy ] and the question is: do they represent consensus? If they don't, then they need to be changed. If they do, local consensus can't override them. ] 13:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *:::You're right that WP:PRIMARY says that, but you are omitting the entire sentence, ''"For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, '''but any interpretation needs a secondary source'''."'' As seen on the talk page, you used secondary sources to validate the "complex plot points". Why not simply use these secondary sources? WP:PRIMARY says earlier, ''"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."'' What does "with care" mean? It means to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" that everyone can agree with. If you have to resort to inline citations to support a passage that is not straightforward, then use secondary sources. ] (] | ]) <sup>(])</sup> 15:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{tq|i=y|Why not simply use these secondary sources?}} Because there is no analysis and the quotes make it far easier for the reader to understand the plot as it is presented in the movie, with no analysis. The secondary sources were provided because some of the talk-page editors argued that these are not key plot points. I told them that secondary sources identify these plot points as key plot points, not that I need to analyze these plot points with secondary sources in the plot section. Regardless, that does not invalidate the use of a primary source, which is explicitly '''encouraged''' by the guideline: {{tq|i=y|using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.}} The RfC merely asks if there is consensus for this guideline, but people seem to not bother with reading it and immediately assume this is about analysis and usage of primary sources for analysis. Stop jumping to conclusions and just read the guideline! ] 15:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{anchor|space in between}}"Analysis" is the extreme end of the spectrum, but obviously, we are not talking about "straightforward, basic descriptive statements of facts" here. We're exploring the space in between, right? Because if you think inline citations are necessary here, we've moved beyond being straightforward and basic, and that crosses a line. If you don't agree, try to think of it this way. We could easily have an inline citation at the end of the six paragraphs using the {{tl|Cite AV media}} template that cites the film. We would technically have the whole plot summary verified as long as there is consensus for the basic description of the story. This is implicit in all plot summaries. Here, the two inline citations stand out and basically indicates that something needs ''more'' clarifying than what is ''basically'' written. But if these inline citations are self-referential, it begs the question, why are they more necessary than any other passage in the summary? Why not reference quotes inline throughout? If there is emphasis on clarifying a particular plot point for which a basic description is not enough, then we should be switching over to secondary sources. That imports outside weight and credibility to complete the clarification. ] (] | ]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{tq|i=y|We're exploring the space in between, right? Because if you think inline citations are necessary here, we've moved beyond being straightforward and basic, and that crosses a line.}} Just because something is key or complex doesn't mean explaining it is analysis or "the space in between". To use the ''12 Monkeys'' example, the key plot point that time can't be changed requires no analysis, but it's still complex enough to merit being mentioned as complex (or "distinctive" as the secondary source puts it). But even if we throw away the "or complex" bit, both the policy and the guideline still encourage using references for plot points in general: | |||
| {{User:BrightR/WP:PRIMARYPLOT}} | |||
| :::::::The policy talks about citing a passage to describe a plot. No requirement for analysis or "space in between". {{tq|i=y|the two inline citations stand out and basically indicates that something needs more clarifying than what is basically written}} Not at all. They are there to tell the reader "this is a key or complex plot point and its description adheres almost word-for-word to the primary source". {{tq|i=y|If there is emphasis on clarifying a particular plot point for which a basic description is not enough, then we should be switching over to secondary sources.}} That is not what the policy and the guideline say. A citation to a primary source is sufficient for "describing the plot", and "using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points." This is what the RfC is about: is the policy and guideline not the consensus (one of them for nine going ten years, mind), or are they the consensus? Because if you can't use passages from a primary source to cite key or complex plot, then the policy and guideline need to be changed. ] 17:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Encourage ''only'' in limited circumstances and make it clear what those are.''' It is long-established consensus, and already stated in the guideline, that plot summaries do not generally need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the summary. So the issue is under what circumstances - if at all - should editors be "encouraged" to cite the primary source explicitly? (Obviously, any secondary sources where used would need to be cited in any event). | |||
| This section is far too long, and concentrates too much on persuading editors what is bad about in-universe view, rather than just telling them not to use it. Probably it was written decades ago when there were still active arguments about how fiction articles should be presented. Now, all that's needed is to tell editors to use a real-world perspective, and to give some examples of what to avoid. ] (]) 09:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The guideline is not well-written and does not properly distinguish cites to the work itself and to secondary sources. The sentence "However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps to discourage original research" might suggest that explicitly citing the primary source is ''always'' a good thing, even in straightforward cases where the stated assumption applies. But, the last sentence is much narrower and says that "using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points". The guideline would be improved by making it clearer that: | |||
| :I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't sure what to remove. Do we even need the bullet-point lists? ] (]) 13:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe just a few consolidated examples. It would also be less confusing not to mix up what's expected in the Plot section and what's expected elsewhere. ] (]) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm now thinking that it would be best to remove the entire bullet-point list from ], as those examples are almost all either redundant or not very helpful. If anyone thinks that a particular item from that list is helpful, and it is not redundant to something else on this page, please point it out. ] (]) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think we can remove the list entirely as I have seen all of those cases in misuse of plot summaries and the list. Trimming is fair but should stick to a few key cases.<span id="Masem:1734540234795:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNManual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :This could almost replace that entire section. It would remove a lot, but much of that is redundant to things that appear elsewhere on the page. | |||
| :{{tq|All Misplaced Pages articles should use the ] as their primary ]. As such, the subject should be described from the ''perspective'' of the real world. With fiction, this means ''not'' writing from the perspective of the fictional world. Many fan wikis and websites treat fictional worlds as if they were real, but this should not be done in Misplaced Pages. An in-universe perspective can mislead the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article.}} | |||
| :{{tq|Keeping a real-world perspective also means limiting the amount of detail regarding the fiction itself. An article about a fictional character should not necessarily include the kinds of details that would appear in a biographical article of a real person. ] should be kept to a minimum, not treated as actual history might be.}} ] (]) 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Will need to get back to this after Christmas. ] (]) 12:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Mass edits by blocked IP editor == | |||
| ::1. Plot summaries don't need inline citations if they are wholly based on the primary work | |||
| ::2. Citations to the work itself are encouraged only where it might be unclear that that is in fact the case. | |||
| I've been trying my best to follow all the recent IP edits, to make sure they have been constructive. They seem to be in good faith, as far as I can tell, even if editors (including myself) have disagreed / modified some of them. I'm slightly suspicious that many of the recent edits have come from an IP coming from a blocked proxy server. I don't think it's inherently disqualifying, but it is suspicious enough to deserve review from longtime editors with a more transparent history. Creating an account helps other editors to evaluate our history of engaging in good faith. ] (]) 21:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Some wording along the following lines would be an improvement to the ]: | |||
| :The editor has been doing excellent and well-supported work overhauling a collection of guidelines that have, to my knowledge, never been systematically reviewed. I hope they will return. ] (]) 03:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{green|The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not normally require in-line citations where the work itself provides the entire source for the summary. However, the use of in-line citations to specific brief quotations within the work is encouraged where it may be unclear to a reader that the summary is indeed wholly based on the work. For example, where a complex or key plot point could easily be misunderstood or overlooked, an in-line citation to a direct quotation may be helpful. If the summary itself includes a direct quotation from the work, this must in any event be cited using an inline citation per ]. If the summary relies on sources other than the work itself, they must be cited in the normal way.}} | |||
| ::Thank you so much. I was considering stepping aside, but your comment has persuaded me that I should help to finish the cleanup, though I may restrict my activity to talk page comments for a while. I am the person who was using the IP. ] (]) 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Welcome back! ] (]) 22:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Welcome back. Like I said, I've found your work constructive on first review, so thanks for contributing. ] (]) 00:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For the record, {{IP|2A02:20C8:4120:0:0:0:0:A03D}} (which also appears to be a proxy?) just reverted all changes going back months at ], ], ], and ] while making reference to this discussion. the edit at ], and {{u|MichaelMaggs}} reverted the ones at ] and ] while I was writing this. I would also note that the IP was ] as an ], not ] for cause (or blocked for cause, for that matter). ] (]) 09:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This would help to ensure clarity if a reader might otherwise be confused or think that the summary is incorrect. Where there is a content dispute, of course, the issue for discussion on the talk page should firstly be whether the proposed content is or is not correct and appropriate for the summary. Secondary sources (with citations) might help. Only if there's consensus that the content should be included should editors then consider whether it would benefit from a specific in-line citation to the primary work to ensure that readers won't be misled or misunderstand. ] (]) 12:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::This wording isn't very different from the existing wording and in either case I '''support''' both. ] 13:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Our policy is clear... Plot '''description''' can (if necessary) be cited to the work itself. Plot '''analysis''' requires a secondary source. That sounds simple, but it actually isn't... especially when the plot is complex. When writing a description of a complex point in a plot, it is very ''very'' easy to (inadvertently) slide over the line into plot ''analysis''. So... When writing a plot ''description'', it is important to ''summarize''... and to keep the that summary very ''basic''. We should especially avoid trying to describe ''nuances'' in the plot (that is where editors most frequently slide over the line into analysis). As a general "rule of thumb"... the more you say about a plot, the more you will end up needing to use a secondary source. ] (]) 14:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are wrong. It doesn't say {{tq|i=y|if necessary}}. Citing plot sections is ''not necessary'', but reverting an edit because it is "not necessary" is ]. The guideline says {{tq|i=y|editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible}} (''not'' "if necessary"), which the RfC clearly states. ] 14:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was not referring to the literal wording of the guideline... but to broader Policy. Specifically, I was thinking of WP:BURDEN... normally, we can “assume” that a basic plot summary is supported by an “unwritten” citation to the work itself... but if that plot summary is challenged, it becomes “necessary” to support it with a written citation. This written citation can be to the work itself, as long as we don’t slip into analysis. But as soon as we do slip into analysis we need a secondary source. ] (]) 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. This RfC was brought in bad faith after one previous discussion as well as the current discussion went against the editor who started this discussion. Simply quoting the film and pretending that these are references is rather silly, and that is what this entire debate comes down to. As I have said all along, if the film needs to be quoted, quote it directly in the plot section. Why package it as a reference? And, if secondary sources are needed to explain "complex plot points," that is why we have analysis sections in numerous film articles. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;">]</b><i style="font-family: Courier New;"><sub>]</sub></i> 14:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|i=y|Why package it as a reference?}} Because Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines say so... That is the point of the RfC. ] 14:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Odd the film project doesn't follow our basic policy on verification.... it's why there are so many problems like to one outlined above. ] should apply to all projects especially in an area of analysis.--] (]) 14:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's funny everybody is talking about '''analysis''' when the guideline in question and the RfC have nothing to do with analysis... ] 14:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :How do we proceed with this page? In contrast with the other pages mentioned, there is still little consensus here about the improvements needed, and it probably makes sense to re-start the discussions again, going from the text of 7 November 2024 which is where today's revert has left us. Suggest working from there section by section (not necessarily in order), and seeking consensus here on the talk page in each case before updating the guideline. ] (]) 10:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Citations are good. But we should assume that someone reading an article about a work of art, and reading the plot section in particular, will be able to check the plot against the actual work which is being described. So there is no reason to add numerous citations to the same original work of art throughout the plot section. If secondary references are needed, then they should certainly be added. This would be true, for example, if the plot section makes interpretive claims or if aspects of the plot are not clear from the original work of art. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 15:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Pinging users who have contributed since 7 November: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. ] (]) 10:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|i=y|there is no reason to add numerous citations to the same original work of art throughout the plot section.}} Then why is this both a policy and a guideline? Quoting the primary source is helpful in verifying the plot summary is faithful to the primary source. ] 15:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello, just a mindless patroller without a leg to stand on when it comes to MOS. I looked into the user contributions when I reverted it and saw little activity about discussion of this removal. In the future, I will be more diligent and I won’t revert without first evaluating the full talk page. Cheers, ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::When you find that your interpretation of a guideline doesn't agree with other interpretations, one thing to ask is whether your own interpretation might be wrong, or whether you are reading the guideline more strictly than it is meant to be read. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 16:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree that the consensus for many of the changes is unclear. Some are worth retaining. Section by section sounds good. ] (]) 16:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Let's read them together, shall we? | |||
| ::I don't think that blocked IP contributions are inherently a problem. But I do agree it's important to review them. If editors want to discuss some or all of them, I think that's a good idea. ] (]) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{User:BrightR/MOS:PLOT}} | |||
| {{User:BrightR/WP:PRIMARYPLOT}} | |||
| Nothing was getting done here, so I improved this page as much as I could except for the ] section, which could probably be trimmed down to a few paragraphs of prose, and the "]", which doesn't seem necessary or particularly helpful. Several articles previously on that list have been demoted within the last year, which casts doubt on whether this is really a good sampling. Furthermore, it's a waste of time to keep checking the listed articles to see whether any more have been demoted. But I refrained from such major changes. | |||
| ::::'''using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points''' and '''For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot'''. What, exactly, is the "strict" and "loose" interpretation here? There seems to be a single interpretation: it is '''helpful''' to source key or complex plot points to '''passages describe the plot'''. Yes? No? ] 17:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Use secondary sources whenever possible if the whole work can be properly summarized with them, limit the work itself for either navigational aids or limited points''' Personally, if I can find one or two secondary sources that provide a sufficient level of recap of an entire work, as often the case for TV episodes, I feel we should use those to some degree. However, this type of secondary sourcing is not always there : most film reviews only cover the basic plot and not the resolution, for example, and half-assing only some references is not a good use of those. At that point, we should only use the work itself if we need to provide points of navigation (a recap of War & Peace needs placeholders to know where things happen, for example), or in the case of many video games, where the non-linear experience may mean people may miss content, supplying where that content is. I'm not thrilled much with the idea of using the work for "complex" plot points as that implies some OR in what is complex. The page where this came from, 12 Monkeys, is a "complicated" time travel plot but readily clear since it follows the experience of one person in their chronological view, and so the points that are being implied as complex ''are'' complex, but they're also readily obvious. --] (]) 16:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Wasted effort is also a reason I removed the second paragraph of the lead section, and the list of details that might be found in primary sources. These points are at best not very helpful, and at worst misleading. imo both became further muddled when editors tried to improve them. Retaining something that isn't very helpful leads to wasted effort, and also makes the page harder to navigate. | |||
| ::{{tq|i=y|that implies some OR in what is complex}} Editors are encouraged to provide secondary sources that mention key or complex plot points as references. If an editor can't show that secondary or tertiary sources talk about the plot point as key or complex, then it's original research. {{tq|i=y|the points that are being implied as complex ''are'' complex, but they're also readily obvious.}} Apparently not, as several times the plot section was edited with original research that contradicts those plot points, so much so that one of the editors added hidden text asking editors not to add this original research. And since they are mentioned as key or complex plot points ("distinctive" is the exact word used) by secondary sources, then there is evidently justification to treat them as key or complex plot points. But the RfC is not about ] specifically, but about the use of references in plot sections in general, per the quoted policy and guideline in the discussion section above. ] 16:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *This all comes down to the fact that our WP:V policy requires information to be verifiable... but does not require us to actually verify it (with an in-line citation) unless “challenged or likely to be challenged”. Now, a very basic descriptive outline of a works plot is “assumed” to be verifiable by reading/viewing the work itself. Call it an “unwritten” citation, if you want. We don’t actually have to write that citation UNLESS the summary is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. However, IF challenged, we do need to cite it (per WP:BURDEN). Now... Part 2 of this is determining what to cite... IF the plot description is very basic, we can still cite the work itself (the primary source)... as that will verify what we wrote... but as our description gets more complex, the more we need to cite a secondary source (because there is a greater chance that we have gone beyond mere description, and inadvertently included analysis in what we wrote). ] (]) 17:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| For the sake of users seeking guidance, I really hope my edit is not blanket-reverted. For a topical example of the absurdity of such reverts, note that the article ] still says that Geragos ''requested'' a pardon from Clinton on Clinton's final day in office. Obviously you wouldn't request a pardon at that point; rather, that is when it was granted, as a source confirms. Yet if you look at the page history, this error has been restored 25 times, and that page has been (extended-confirmed!) protected for the sole purpose of keeping this error in place. ] (]) 16:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *If it's a complicated plot point that isn't easy to parse with just viewing the film itself or is ambiguous, use a secondary source. Citing a quote from the film? I don't understand how quoting the film is going to help clear up a complicated or truly ambiguous plot point. If everything for a section titled plot summary is just going to be citing the film itself, I don't see why we'd need quote citations. It's strongly implied that a plot summary of an accessible film is sourced to the film. This is what this manual says and is the practice for plot summary sections across multiple forms. And, really, if this isn't an RfC about analysis and if it isn't an RfC about 12 Monkeys, I do not really understand why there's an RfC at all here. The RfC is basically so broad it's asking "should the MoS remain exactly as it is". ~Cheers, ]]] 18:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I’m actually trying to figure out how this became an MOS discussion in the first place... where is the “style” issue? Instruction creep? ] (]) 18:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Please read above, there is no strong consensus for these mass changes. Please seek consensus first. ] (]) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: IMHO, the issue here is not about citing sources but it is a user behavior issue. Plot summaries are exactly that: a summary. Not an interpretation or a review. No need to explain more than the outline of the plot, which can be verified by anyone who reads the book or watches the movie/tv show. Of course, there are exceptions to this (I wouldn't try to provide a summary of "what happens" in '']'') & if there is ambiguity in the plot or a loss of text where experts disagree over "what happens", then a secondary source should be used to establish this. But to return to my point, anyone who passes or exceeds ] should be able to write an acceptable plot summary without need of citing secondary sources in 19 out of 20 cases. Since there is no grey area about including secondary sources, I have to suspect ulterior motives when someone who insists on including them. (And IIRC, there is no ambiguity or textual corruption in ] that demand using secondary sources to provide a plot summary. It's a time-travel story with a couple of unexpected plot twists.) -- ] (]) 05:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{User-blocked}} as a sock of Belteshazzar. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Use Common Sense''' Plot summaries are transformative works created collaboratively by Misplaced Pages editors. Thus, they are technically OR, and the reason we don't cite them to the work itself is simplicity: everyone can see what we're summarizing, and adding the primary source references is of limited help at best. If good faith editors can't come to a consensus on a plot point suggested to be included in a summary, then it is obviously non-intuitive, non-straightforward, and is not suitable to be sourced to a primary source: thus, the controversial point should be left out if a secondary source is not available to comment upon it. ] (]) 05:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::], although I wouldn't call plot summaries OR, I agree with typically not needing to cite a plot summary to the work itself. As you may remember, and as seen at ], I argued this before, but there were arguments that television character plot summaries, for example, should be sourced to primary sources because the summaries concern different episodes. ] stated, "''I think what needs to be made clear is that plot sections when they exist in episode lists (tables) do not require references. They do require references when you put them in character articles or as more prose summaries. The reason is, the table acts as the reference in the LoE situation. It has all the information you need for citing, so there isn't a reason to cite it again. In the others, you need that, which is why we have the "cite episode" template for references. It seems like a quick sentence or so to clarify. Pot information on another page cannot source itself. They only 'source themselves' on episode articles and episode tables because the information has everything you need to verify it. The whole idea of 'you can watch it to verify it' requires you to be able to determine when and where to watch it. It is reasonable to expect that if someone challenges an event described for a character from season 4 episode 5 to just go watch it to verify it. It is unreasonable to expect them to watch all 3 seasons prior to that because we couldn't even give them the information of where it was.''" ] (]) 20:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == 'Secondary information' == | |||
| *'''Support''' using sources, but the work itself is the best source so long as there's no interpretation. Any interpretation needs a secondary source. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * If memory serves one issue that was raised in the past about using references for plot summaries is that secondary sources often get the plot wrong and/or add their own interpretations that do not necessarily belong into a ''plot summary'' as opposed to a ''reception'' section (c.f ]: "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work"). ] (], ]) 10:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ]'s ] to remove confusing reliance on a definition of 'Secondary information' (as distinct from ]s - an entirely novel concept in Misplaced Pages guidelines, so far as I can tell) has been undone by ] who has asked for consensus. As requested, I'm posting here to confirm my agreement with ]'s edits. ] (]) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ** Even if the secondary source gets the plot wrong (and I just saw that today, between recaps of the latest Walked Dead ep from RSes), there are still broad enough strokes that are impossible to get wrong that make sourcing a plot to secondary sources, ''if possible for the entire work'', a reasonable step to do; in the case I just found, I'd include both.) --] (]) 20:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ***If you're writing about Smith's novel, then "Smith (2018), p. 3" is the best source for "Susan bought another bottle of gin", so long as it's purely descriptive. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I also started a ] about this 11 days ago. You agreed, and it appeared that no one disagreed, so that was why I thought it was OK to make the edit. Do you also agree with ]? Four of the examples were things that shouldn't usually be included or would merit at most a brief mention, and plot is covered below, so I thought that list was unhelpful. ] (]) 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Yes'''. This is ''exactly'' why citing the plot to a primary source is the ''most reliable'', and it's exactly what the policy says. ] 06:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes I do. ] (]) 17:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Hm. I'm of the opinion that if anything is complex or ambiguous enough to require secondary sourcing to explain it, it doesn't belong in the plot summary section but rather somewhere else (analysis, interpretations, themes etc). Plot summaries should be a recounting of the narrative as described, although I don't know whether this is captured in guidelines anywhere or this is just my personal preference. For this, the work as a primary source would be sufficient. However, if interpretation of events is being placed in a plot summary section (or elsewhere) then '''Support''' using secondary sources for it. ] (]) 07:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I noticed that the section didn't say much about ''what'' secondary sources to use. Should we mention ]? That is useful for literature but maybe not other media. ] (]) 18:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any requirement for citations for plot summaries beyond what is recommended by current guidelines. I have a tendency to "overcite" articles with multiple citations in cases where one will suffice, and even I think it is unnecessary, unhelpful overkill to cite basic plot. We already have the caveat that interpretive summary needs sourcing.— ]<sup>]</sup> 21:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::You oppose a {{tq|i=y|requirement}} for references for the plot, but the RfC is not about ''requiring'' references in the plot... Is it really that hard to read before you ]? ] 17:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Edits == | |||
| *'''Support'''. It is important for citations and references in key plot summaries, and the references help prove the plot is accurate and true. ] (] '''·''' ]) 07:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not sure what support or oppose actually means in this survey since it doesn't actually provide a direction at the top''' - So, to be clear where I stand: I '''support''' the use of primary sources (the work itself) when simply describing the events (no interpretation needed) of the plot in basic facts. If there is a grey area that requires explanation then I '''support'' and would '''require''' the use of secondary sources to support such a claim (which may or may not need to be in the plot in the first place). I '''oppose''' the requirement of in-line citation (which, by the way, is not a requirement anywhere, simply a suggestion) when it comes to using the primary source as the reference (obviously, since the in-line citation would be redundant at that point). I would '''encourage''' in-line citations for anything that requires a secondary source. Lastly, I keep reading this notion that using primary sources "screams OR". We have a definition of original research, and using a primary source doesn't automatically make something OR when you discuss it in the plot. For those of you that keep using it this way, I'm inclined to think of a . Now, I do agree that a single editor claiming something is "key" when others disagree is problematic, but let's be honest here... you're rarely going to find a secondary source identifying plot points as "key". You cannot even go by "we'll just use what they say" because they are either just quoting the marketing synopsis for a film or show, or they are going into great detail about the entire film in which case we cannot follow (word count and all). But that's a separate issue here than I think what people think they are voting for. ] ] 13:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| First of all, the point about "secondary information" has been discussed, in two different threads above. There was no objection to removing that wording. The removal was not entirely straightforward, but the recent reverts have not pointed to anything specific that someone might have disagreed with (if someone does want to discuss that, it would probably be best to use one of the above threads). The other edits were relatively small, but since they have also been mass-reverted: | |||
| ::{{small|off-topic}} I'd like to point out that '']'' is actually significant enough to be discussed at length in what passes for the technical literature of pop culture, like '']'' and various semi-technical books such as '']''. So in this particular case, yes, there are reliable sources that name these plot points as key plot points. In general, though, you're correct, because ] that simply does not have any reliable sources that say which of their plot points are "key", but it is not the case for '']''. This is, indeed, a separate issue that is ''not'' the issue raised in this RfC... this RfC is attempting to gauge consensus for the question posed in the RfC, and the guideline and policy it stems from. ] 18:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *] Those are not usually things that should be included in Misplaced Pages articles, other than the plot, which is discussed further down on the page. | |||
| {{closed rfc bottom}} | |||
| *] That section introduction seemed unnecessary; the section title and the See also link seemed more than sufficient. | |||
| *] ] was effectively linked twice in the same sentence. {{tq|Once an article about fiction or a fictional subject meets basic policies and guidelines}} gets ahead of itself. In context, the point is that sufficient sources exist, and thus there is the ''potential'' for such an article. | |||
| *] I removed "exceptional", because that is not the standard for GAs. Alternatively, we could remove mention of GAs, in which case we should probably also remove the GAs that are included in the list. Or we could remove the entire list, especially considering the rate at which articles on it are being demoted. But I have refrained from such bold edits. | |||
| *] The article being used as an example does not appear to entirely follow this. The first part of the sentence might have been OK, but it was basically redundant to what was just above. | |||
| ] (]) 22:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The mass-reverts seem to have been made without realising that your main proposal has already been discussed, twice, on this talk page. Nobody so far has raised any substantive objection. Perhaps you could leave it here for a few days just in case anyone wants to suggest alternatives or improvements. For clarity, I agree that the edits you have suggested are a great improvement. ] (]) 23:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have some reservations re the first and third edit but don't have much time atm. Would appreciate it if you could hold off until next week when I'll comment further. No particular opinion on the others but suggest as per the above to wait a few days. ] (]) 11:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :First point: yes, those are things not to include, and that's why they are listed to show the editor/reader what are things not to include in a plot summary. Second point: that's an introductory paragraph to the following sections, its actually normal style of writing to have such a preamble short paragraph leading into larger sections. Third point, its important to recognize how WP:NOT works here, given that is a core content policy (which NOTPLOT is a part of). Fifth point, while the aspect about being written in present tense is apparently wrong, as the article does use past tense for the flashback, the relevant point that the plot summary explains that there's this extended flashback, which is what the paragraph in WAF is trying to explain how to establish that a flashback is used. --] (]) 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the ], the way it's written sure doesn't sound like "this is what '''not''' to include". If anything, the opposite. Furthermore, the last item on that list is the plot, which definitely should be included, though that is covered below. | |||
| ::On the ], I thought such a preamble was optional. In this case, the section title and See also link make clear what the overarching section is about. I also thought it was standard practice to try to avoid self-referential statements like "This section deals with". | |||
| ::On the ], however it's stated, it seems excessive to effectively link to that policy twice in one sentence. But the main part of that edit was to fix the next sentence, which got ahead of itself. | |||
| ::On the ], we could just remove the second part of that sentence. However, the previous sentence already states {{tq|Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements, such as ] ('']'') ... may require inclusion of out-of-universe language to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer.}} I'm not sure anything more is needed. ] (]) 16:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Since the only one of Masem's points which I didn't have a good answer for concerned the intro, and Scribolt also indicated that was a point he had reservations about, how about this rewrite: | |||
| {{tq|Misplaced Pages contains numerous articles on subjects related to fiction, including ] and elements therein. In order to adhere to Misplaced Pages's content policies, any such article should cite several ], ] ] sources that specifically cover the subject in some detail. This establishes the subject's real-world ], and also allows for a balanced article that is more than ].}} | |||
| {{tq|With such sources in hand, editors should consider: (a) ''what'' to write about the subject, and (b) ''how'' to best present that information. These questions are complementary and should be addressed simultaneously to create a well-written article or ].}} | |||
| ] (]) 16:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds good to me. ] (]) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Re the first point. The wording and presentation could surely be improved, but I read that section in the context of articles about fiction beyond Book X or film Y. We have articles about notable characters, and articles that contrast fictional works and content (e.g. ], which I chose somewhat at random and may or not be a good example). Content sourced/cited to the primary sources is not forbidden. What we should be getting across is that if narrative content of the type listed is "only" present in the primary source, then it's lacking in WEIGHT to mention it outside of the plot summary. Whether or not it's mentioned in the plot summary would be out of scope of this section as it comes down to whether or not it's particularly relevant to the story (for example, the protagonist's birthday in Midnights Children is indeed plot relevant). What we want to avoid, especially in character articles are long crufty sections describing fictional worlds / concepts without secondary source analysis. The current text at least lays this baseline, I might try a re-write based on what I wrote above. | |||
| Re the third point, I agree with Masem and don't believe it's excessive to link to both the NOT policy as well as a specific point within it. As well as reading better (at least touching in the prose as to why we don't want things to be just plot summaries) there are other points in the wider policy that are also applicable beyond the specific section that is hyperlinked in NOTPLOT. ] (]) 08:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If you're looking at it that way, maybe delete the list and simply say {{tq|Details found only in primary sources should not be included outside of the plot summary section or a section on characters.}} While fictional dates of birth or performance features are occasionally important, that is fairly rare, so mentioning those as details that might be included in a plot summary isn't helpful. ] (]) 20:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I disagree. This section is not solely about a plot summary, and listing common forms of primary soured information (mostly fancruft) that should not be typically included is helpful. Please stop re-instating your changes until consensus is reached on the talk page. If anyone feels my recent change makes things worse we can of course return to the status quo. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The first two examples, at least, are things that usually should not be included at all, anywhere in an article, so mentioning them is misleading, especially if we talk about which sections they might be included in. Talking about secondary sources is also misleading in this context, as even something that happens to be mentioned in a secondary source does not automatically warrant inclusion. A secondary source might have a passing mention of such details, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should include them. ] (]) 13:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I fail to see how it is misleading as it now explicitly say that this is a list of the kind of primary sourced information which is '''not''' to be included in articles outside of the plot section. If anything listed here is covered in secondary sources (which you are correct to say they typically aren't), then the usual considerations of WEIGHT and DUE would need to be applied. I suggest you focus on getting your account unblocked, or if you are indeed a sock of a WMF banned user, you shouldn't be editing this or any other page in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When you say "if it's not in a secondary source, don't include it outside the plot section", that will inevitably give some readers the impression that it ''should'' be included in the plot section, or that it definitely should be included elsewhere if it ''is'' in a secondary source. In the fairly rare event that such points should be included, they might better fit into a Characters section if there is one, but noting that would make this even more cumbersome. | |||
| :::::If not for me, this page would be even more of a jumbled, confusing mess than it currently is, as would a few other guideline pages. Things not being carefully checked is the reason that all of this happened. ] (]) 15:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Again, I disagree. This is not about how to write a plot summary, it's about how to write an article about fiction. Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources provides greater benefit to the encyclopedia than the risk of some extraneous detail appearing in a plot summary of a book or film (which is covered elsewhere). Character articles are magnets for this kind of stuff. ] (]) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agreed here, this page is more than just about plot summaries but any content related to fiction, making sure there is a strong distinction of what occurs within the fiction versus what is actual real world factors. We have had too many editors in the past treating fiction as real which hurts WP. We have a separate page on the specifics of writing a good plot summary. ] (]) 17:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::''Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources''. That's not what the wording in question does. ] (]) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Your quote of me is accurate, but I was incorrect in what I wrote. If only primary sourced, then these things (including the plot itself) should never appear outside of the plot summary. If there is secondary souring and other policy considerations are met, what the secondary sources have to say can be summarised in the article. Whether or not these content appears in the plot summary depends on the narrative and is covered elsewhere. The addtion I made reflects this. It's clear we disagree on this, so I will not respond further to you, and will see if anyone else has any opinions. ] (]) 18:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{A note}} Both {{u|Compulsive Brainstormer}} and {{u|213.169.39.234}} have been blocked as socks of {{u|Belteshazzar}} an LTA (see ]). Continue discussing you wish, but they will no longer be particpating (at least until they pull a new sock out the drawer). <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:38, 23 January 2025
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 Archives | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Spinout articles about a singular topic
I noticed a sentence that was italicized for no apparent reason. It turns out this was done 16 years ago. Is the statement in question even still true, let alone worthy of emphasis? 183.89.250.246 (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've rewritten that whole paragraph, as it seemed poorly worded. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Plot summary points
In regards to the edits reverted here:
It seemed best to make this into one sentence, as multiple storylines in one work seems like the only conceivable case where a plot summary should not follow the order of events in the story. At first, I didn't even quite grasp the train of thought here, so condensing this into one sentence seems worthwhile.
There is no benefit in trying to balance the length of a plot summary with the rest of the article. Rather, you should try to write the best plot summary you can, and the best exploration of real-world aspects that you can. As I explained in the edit summary, I also felt that some of that text contradicted itself. That text could be replaced, as a correlation between plot complexity and summary length is a worthwhile point. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- When your edits are reverted and you make a talk page post requesting feedback, it is best practice to wait more than a day before making the same or similar edits again. Please wait for input here before making anymore changes.
- I disagree with you that there is no relationship between the length of a plot section and the rest of the article. A notable stub with a 700 word summary of the plot and nothing apart from one other sentence places undue weight on the plot itself see WP:NOTPLOT. There are, should be no, magic numbers here. This is a subjective decision made by editors based on this guidance. Adding the reference to NOVELS is helpful and I will add it back.
- I disagree with you that the only time that there are no other benefits with tweaking the timeline in the summary vs the fiction (remember that this article applies to writing about all types of fiction in articles). For example, if a character has an ulterior motive for doing something, it might make more sense in mentioning earlier in the summary, rather than then having to dedicate additional text to a relatively unimportant sub-plot regarding the reveal later. The current text provides adequate guidance to editors about when and why they should do this, which is sufficient.
- The other minor tweaks did not seem to change or improve the guidance.
- As a general point, based on what I observed during your 100+ edits to NOVELs, which I wasn't able to fully monitor, please ask yourself before you edit, "what problem am I trying to solve"? Some of your edits were helpful, some of them made no real difference and were basically cosmetic and some stemmed from your misunderstanding of existing consensus. I have no doubt you're trying to make improvements, but making so many edits that mix wording and content changes are going to get reverted. I would suggest that if you see something that could maybe be worded better without changing the meaning, make one change and leave it for several days. If no one reverts it, make another one. If you see some content in a guideline that you disagree with, either make one change and open a talkpage discussion, or better yet just open a talk page discussion. I'm not trying to put you off making improvements, but you're going much too fast.Scribolt (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to wait longer, but another user edited the section in question, introducing awkward wording, and I thought a better alternative would be to borrow wording from MOS:NOVEL. Then while I was at it, I made other changes. Seeing the state of disrepair some of these pages were in has made me more bold in editing them.
- In regards to balancing length of the plot summary with the rest of the article, the important thing is that we do our best to write a compact plot summary and also do our best with other topics. If the rest of the article consists of only one sentence, obviously it needs to be expanded, or if it can't be, the article shouldn't exist. Also, the current wording
The length of the prose should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself; simple plots may require only short summaries
seems self-contradictory. A story could be long, but have a simple plot. - In regards to chronological order, mentioning an ulterior motive before it is revealed in the story was the kind of thing I originally thought that was primarily referring to. Hence this edit.
- As for "minor tweaks", I would say this added a significant missing word.
are notable for their own standalone article
technically means something very different. Likewise, a significant word was missing here, as I noted in the edit summary, though it seemed better just to remove that whole phrase, as it was redundant. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)- For your first point, your version doesn't recommend against writing a 700 plot summary with a five word sourced sentence, the previous version does so in my view it's better. For your second, I guess it would be slightly better if it was slightly more consistent regarding story length re plot complexity, but again what problem are we trying to solve? This is cosmetic at best, how many people are getting confused because they have a long story with a simple plot vs a short one with a complex one? This is a tweak at best, probably positive, but by lumping it with other edits that genuinely change the meaning you're making it hard for people to follow you. We can maybe discuss this further, maybe others will chime in.
- Your change re chronology is not an improvement. You removed the text that said why and when someone might do it. If doing it improves and condenses the summary, that's all an editor needs to know to do it. If it doesn't, they shouldn't.
- Sufficiently maybe reads slightly better, but it doesn't seem important in terms of how editors should proceed, the subjects are either notable or not. Maybe I'm missing something? You're right about the obvious missing word, but I disagree about the redundancy, category spam needs explicity discouraging as well as simply defining what's correct.Scribolt (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- How about changing
Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary
toStrictly avoid creating pages which consist of a plot summary and little else.
That pretty much tells you not to have a plot summary and then just one sentence of sourced commentary. The unhelpful and perhaps contradictory points about balancing length could then be removed. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)- It is not clear to me how what you propose is better than what is there already, and I'm not convinced yet that the current version is particularly unhelpful or contradictory. For the record, I think we should never have a plot only article. I think this guidance should also recommend that we don't have articles which have articles with minimal information apart from a full plot summary, so therefore I think the rest of the article should be considered when expanding a plot section. This isn't prescriptive and it doesn't need to be, but it's good practice for editors to consider which is what the guideline currently says. I think that the number of cases where you have a lengthy book with such a simple plot (or vice versa) that the current text provides serious issues to the editor are so vanishing rare that I don't see an issue to be solved, but if you have an elegant solution within the current text structure I'd be open to suggestions. Scribolt (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- See . I think we have solved this. It may be true that the points about balancing length would rarely cause a problem, but on the other hand they are not helpful either, as long as we make clear that a plot summary plus one or two sentences is not adequate for an article. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not clear to me how what you propose is better than what is there already, and I'm not convinced yet that the current version is particularly unhelpful or contradictory. For the record, I think we should never have a plot only article. I think this guidance should also recommend that we don't have articles which have articles with minimal information apart from a full plot summary, so therefore I think the rest of the article should be considered when expanding a plot section. This isn't prescriptive and it doesn't need to be, but it's good practice for editors to consider which is what the guideline currently says. I think that the number of cases where you have a lengthy book with such a simple plot (or vice versa) that the current text provides serious issues to the editor are so vanishing rare that I don't see an issue to be solved, but if you have an elegant solution within the current text structure I'd be open to suggestions. Scribolt (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- How about changing
- How about
Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if presenting details in a different sequence improves and condenses the summary.
That preserves "improves and condenses" while removing "do not need to stay true to" and "going out of order". 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)- I'm not sure what benefit there is in changing out of order to strictly follows beyond the fact that you said you didn't like it, but ok I guess. No to the other suggestion, we do not "present details" when writing a summary. Scribolt (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- What about Summaries may deviate from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity? MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like "may deviate from". While you might technically deviate from the chronological order, that characterization doesn't seem right. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- How about
Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if that would not make for a good summary.
183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)- Ultimately, we want it to say that if a more concise or easier-to-understand plot summary can be made by presenting plot points out of order, do that. We want to encourage editors to make a better summary if they have to deviate, that negative form is not really capturing that. Masem (t) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Masem. IP, could you articulate what your problem actually is with the as-is text? Scribolt (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The way it's stated just sounds wrong to me. But if no one else sees a problem, I guess that's that. Sorry to have wasted your time with this. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not a waste of time, language improvements help, just that here let's try to spin it positive, that going out of plot order can some times be a benefit. — Masem (t) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- '246, you have now changed it to read "Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if going out of order improves and condenses the summary". Unless I have misunderstood this discussion, that not what other editors are expecting. Can we please finalise the wording here and not keep making partial changes to that sentence? For me, "going out of order" sounds highly colloquial, bordering on weird. Perhaps it would be suitably formal in US English, I don't know. I'm perfectly happy with "deviate from", but we could instead have Summaries may depart from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad I'm not the only one to see a problem with "going out of order". I like your proposed wording, and would prefer "depart" rather than "deviate". 183.89.250.246 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with Michael's suggestion. Scribolt (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad I'm not the only one to see a problem with "going out of order". I like your proposed wording, and would prefer "depart" rather than "deviate". 183.89.250.246 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The way it's stated just sounds wrong to me. But if no one else sees a problem, I guess that's that. Sorry to have wasted your time with this. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Masem. IP, could you articulate what your problem actually is with the as-is text? Scribolt (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ultimately, we want it to say that if a more concise or easier-to-understand plot summary can be made by presenting plot points out of order, do that. We want to encourage editors to make a better summary if they have to deviate, that negative form is not really capturing that. Masem (t) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- What about Summaries may deviate from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity? MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what benefit there is in changing out of order to strictly follows beyond the fact that you said you didn't like it, but ok I guess. No to the other suggestion, we do not "present details" when writing a summary. Scribolt (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
"Primary information" and "secondary information"
In the Sources of information section, is it even helpful to talk about "primary information" and "secondary information"? I realize information comes from sources, but it would be more straightforward just to talk about primary and secondary sources, and what information can be found in each. Also, the example of another episode of the same TV series
may be problematic, as using one episode as a source regarding a different episode is likely to be original research. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Real-world perspective
This section is far too long, and concentrates too much on persuading editors what is bad about in-universe view, rather than just telling them not to use it. Probably it was written decades ago when there were still active arguments about how fiction articles should be presented. Now, all that's needed is to tell editors to use a real-world perspective, and to give some examples of what to avoid. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't sure what to remove. Do we even need the bullet-point lists? 183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe just a few consolidated examples. It would also be less confusing not to mix up what's expected in the Plot section and what's expected elsewhere. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm now thinking that it would be best to remove the entire bullet-point list from MOS:INUNIVERSE, as those examples are almost all either redundant or not very helpful. If anyone thinks that a particular item from that list is helpful, and it is not redundant to something else on this page, please point it out. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we can remove the list entirely as I have seen all of those cases in misuse of plot summaries and the list. Trimming is fair but should stick to a few key cases. — Masem (t) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm now thinking that it would be best to remove the entire bullet-point list from MOS:INUNIVERSE, as those examples are almost all either redundant or not very helpful. If anyone thinks that a particular item from that list is helpful, and it is not redundant to something else on this page, please point it out. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe just a few consolidated examples. It would also be less confusing not to mix up what's expected in the Plot section and what's expected elsewhere. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- This could almost replace that entire section. It would remove a lot, but much of that is redundant to things that appear elsewhere on the page.
All Misplaced Pages articles should use the real world as their primary frame of reference. As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world. With fiction, this means not writing from the perspective of the fictional world. Many fan wikis and websites treat fictional worlds as if they were real, but this should not be done in Misplaced Pages. An in-universe perspective can mislead the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article.
Keeping a real-world perspective also means limiting the amount of detail regarding the fiction itself. An article about a fictional character should not necessarily include the kinds of details that would appear in a biographical article of a real person. Backstory should be kept to a minimum, not treated as actual history might be.
Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Will need to get back to this after Christmas. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Mass edits by blocked IP editor
I've been trying my best to follow all the recent IP edits, to make sure they have been constructive. They seem to be in good faith, as far as I can tell, even if editors (including myself) have disagreed / modified some of them. I'm slightly suspicious that many of the recent edits have come from an IP coming from a blocked proxy server. I don't think it's inherently disqualifying, but it is suspicious enough to deserve review from longtime editors with a more transparent history. Creating an account helps other editors to evaluate our history of engaging in good faith. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor has been doing excellent and well-supported work overhauling a collection of guidelines that have, to my knowledge, never been systematically reviewed. I hope they will return. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. I was considering stepping aside, but your comment has persuaded me that I should help to finish the cleanup, though I may restrict my activity to talk page comments for a while. I am the person who was using the IP. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome back! MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome back. Like I said, I've found your work constructive on first review, so thanks for contributing. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. I was considering stepping aside, but your comment has persuaded me that I should help to finish the cleanup, though I may restrict my activity to talk page comments for a while. I am the person who was using the IP. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
For the record, 2A02:20C8:4120:0:0:0:0:A03D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which also appears to be a proxy?) just reverted all changes going back months at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Novels while making reference to this discussion. I have reverted the edit at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, and MichaelMaggs reverted the ones at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Novels and Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers while I was writing this. I would also note that the IP was WP:Blocked as an WP:Open proxy, not WP:Banned for cause (or blocked for cause, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- How do we proceed with this page? In contrast with the other pages mentioned, there is still little consensus here about the improvements needed, and it probably makes sense to re-start the discussions again, going from the text of 7 November 2024 which is where today's revert has left us. Suggest working from there section by section (not necessarily in order), and seeking consensus here on the talk page in each case before updating the guideline. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging users who have contributed since 7 November: User:Scribolt, User:Masem, User:Shooterwalker, User:HeartGlow30797, User:Frost, User:Tea2min, User:Boneless Pizza!, User:Sofia. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, just a mindless patroller without a leg to stand on when it comes to MOS. I looked into the user contributions when I reverted it and saw little activity about discussion of this removal. In the future, I will be more diligent and I won’t revert without first evaluating the full talk page. Cheers, Heart 13:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree that the consensus for many of the changes is unclear. Some are worth retaining. Section by section sounds good. Scribolt (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that blocked IP contributions are inherently a problem. But I do agree it's important to review them. If editors want to discuss some or all of them, I think that's a good idea. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Nothing was getting done here, so I improved this page as much as I could except for the Real-world perspective section, which could probably be trimmed down to a few paragraphs of prose, and the "list of exemplary articles", which doesn't seem necessary or particularly helpful. Several articles previously on that list have been demoted within the last year, which casts doubt on whether this is really a good sampling. Furthermore, it's a waste of time to keep checking the listed articles to see whether any more have been demoted. But I refrained from such major changes.
Wasted effort is also a reason I removed the second paragraph of the lead section, and the list of details that might be found in primary sources. These points are at best not very helpful, and at worst misleading. imo both became further muddled when editors tried to improve them. Retaining something that isn't very helpful leads to wasted effort, and also makes the page harder to navigate.
For the sake of users seeking guidance, I really hope my edit is not blanket-reverted. For a topical example of the absurdity of such reverts, note that the article Mark Geragos still says that Geragos requested a pardon from Clinton on Clinton's final day in office. Obviously you wouldn't request a pardon at that point; rather, that is when it was granted, as a source confirms. Yet if you look at the page history, this error has been restored 25 times, and that page has been (extended-confirmed!) protected for the sole purpose of keeping this error in place. Good Guidance (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please read above, there is no strong consensus for these mass changes. Please seek consensus first. Masem (t) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
User blocked as a sock of Belteshazzar. Jauerback/dude. 17:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
'Secondary information'
Compulsive Brainstormer's recent edits to remove confusing reliance on a definition of 'Secondary information' (as distinct from Secondary sources - an entirely novel concept in Misplaced Pages guidelines, so far as I can tell) has been undone by Frost who has asked for consensus. As requested, I'm posting here to confirm my agreement with Compulsive Brainstormer's edits. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also started a thread about this 11 days ago. You agreed, and it appeared that no one disagreed, so that was why I thought it was OK to make the edit. Do you also agree with this removal? Four of the examples were things that shouldn't usually be included or would merit at most a brief mention, and plot is covered below, so I thought that list was unhelpful. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I do. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed that the section didn't say much about what secondary sources to use. Should we mention Google Scholar? That is useful for literature but maybe not other media. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I do. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Edits
First of all, the point about "secondary information" has been discussed, in two different threads above. There was no objection to removing that wording. The removal was not entirely straightforward, but the recent reverts have not pointed to anything specific that someone might have disagreed with (if someone does want to discuss that, it would probably be best to use one of the above threads). The other edits were relatively small, but since they have also been mass-reverted:
- Special:Diff/1265917739 Those are not usually things that should be included in Misplaced Pages articles, other than the plot, which is discussed further down on the page.
- Special:Diff/1266101815 That section introduction seemed unnecessary; the section title and the See also link seemed more than sufficient.
- Special:Diff/1266167883 WP:NOT was effectively linked twice in the same sentence.
Once an article about fiction or a fictional subject meets basic policies and guidelines
gets ahead of itself. In context, the point is that sufficient sources exist, and thus there is the potential for such an article. - Special:Diff/1266198785 I removed "exceptional", because that is not the standard for GAs. Alternatively, we could remove mention of GAs, in which case we should probably also remove the GAs that are included in the list. Or we could remove the entire list, especially considering the rate at which articles on it are being demoted. But I have refrained from such bold edits.
- Special:Diff/1266213635 The article being used as an example does not appear to entirely follow this. The first part of the sentence might have been OK, but it was basically redundant to what was just above.
Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- The mass-reverts seem to have been made without realising that your main proposal has already been discussed, twice, on this talk page. Nobody so far has raised any substantive objection. Perhaps you could leave it here for a few days just in case anyone wants to suggest alternatives or improvements. For clarity, I agree that the edits you have suggested are a great improvement. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have some reservations re the first and third edit but don't have much time atm. Would appreciate it if you could hold off until next week when I'll comment further. No particular opinion on the others but suggest as per the above to wait a few days. Scribolt (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mass-reverts seem to have been made without realising that your main proposal has already been discussed, twice, on this talk page. Nobody so far has raised any substantive objection. Perhaps you could leave it here for a few days just in case anyone wants to suggest alternatives or improvements. For clarity, I agree that the edits you have suggested are a great improvement. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- First point: yes, those are things not to include, and that's why they are listed to show the editor/reader what are things not to include in a plot summary. Second point: that's an introductory paragraph to the following sections, its actually normal style of writing to have such a preamble short paragraph leading into larger sections. Third point, its important to recognize how WP:NOT works here, given that is a core content policy (which NOTPLOT is a part of). Fifth point, while the aspect about being written in present tense is apparently wrong, as the article does use past tense for the flashback, the relevant point that the plot summary explains that there's this extended flashback, which is what the paragraph in WAF is trying to explain how to establish that a flashback is used. --Masem (t) 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the first point, the way it's written sure doesn't sound like "this is what not to include". If anything, the opposite. Furthermore, the last item on that list is the plot, which definitely should be included, though that is covered below.
- On the second point, I thought such a preamble was optional. In this case, the section title and See also link make clear what the overarching section is about. I also thought it was standard practice to try to avoid self-referential statements like "This section deals with".
- On the third point, however it's stated, it seems excessive to effectively link to that policy twice in one sentence. But the main part of that edit was to fix the next sentence, which got ahead of itself.
- On the fifth point, we could just remove the second part of that sentence. However, the previous sentence already states
Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements, such as flashbacks (Citizen Kane) ... may require inclusion of out-of-universe language to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer.
I'm not sure anything more is needed. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Since the only one of Masem's points which I didn't have a good answer for concerned the intro, and Scribolt also indicated that was a point he had reservations about, how about this rewrite:
Misplaced Pages contains numerous articles on subjects related to fiction, including fictional worlds and elements therein. In order to adhere to Misplaced Pages's content policies, any such article should cite several reliable, independent secondary sources that specifically cover the subject in some detail. This establishes the subject's real-world notability, and also allows for a balanced article that is more than just a plot summary.
With such sources in hand, editors should consider: (a) what to write about the subject, and (b) how to best present that information. These questions are complementary and should be addressed simultaneously to create a well-written article or improve a preexisting one.
Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Re the first point. The wording and presentation could surely be improved, but I read that section in the context of articles about fiction beyond Book X or film Y. We have articles about notable characters, and articles that contrast fictional works and content (e.g. Beowulf and Middle-earth, which I chose somewhat at random and may or not be a good example). Content sourced/cited to the primary sources is not forbidden. What we should be getting across is that if narrative content of the type listed is "only" present in the primary source, then it's lacking in WEIGHT to mention it outside of the plot summary. Whether or not it's mentioned in the plot summary would be out of scope of this section as it comes down to whether or not it's particularly relevant to the story (for example, the protagonist's birthday in Midnights Children is indeed plot relevant). What we want to avoid, especially in character articles are long crufty sections describing fictional worlds / concepts without secondary source analysis. The current text at least lays this baseline, I might try a re-write based on what I wrote above.
Re the third point, I agree with Masem and don't believe it's excessive to link to both the NOT policy as well as a specific point within it. As well as reading better (at least touching in the prose as to why we don't want things to be just plot summaries) there are other points in the wider policy that are also applicable beyond the specific section that is hyperlinked in NOTPLOT. Scribolt (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you're looking at it that way, maybe delete the list and simply say
Details found only in primary sources should not be included outside of the plot summary section or a section on characters.
While fictional dates of birth or performance features are occasionally important, that is fairly rare, so mentioning those as details that might be included in a plot summary isn't helpful. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I disagree. This section is not solely about a plot summary, and listing common forms of primary soured information (mostly fancruft) that should not be typically included is helpful. Please stop re-instating your changes until consensus is reached on the talk page. If anyone feels my recent change makes things worse we can of course return to the status quo. Scribolt (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first two examples, at least, are things that usually should not be included at all, anywhere in an article, so mentioning them is misleading, especially if we talk about which sections they might be included in. Talking about secondary sources is also misleading in this context, as even something that happens to be mentioned in a secondary source does not automatically warrant inclusion. A secondary source might have a passing mention of such details, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should include them. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see how it is misleading as it now explicitly say that this is a list of the kind of primary sourced information which is not to be included in articles outside of the plot section. If anything listed here is covered in secondary sources (which you are correct to say they typically aren't), then the usual considerations of WEIGHT and DUE would need to be applied. I suggest you focus on getting your account unblocked, or if you are indeed a sock of a WMF banned user, you shouldn't be editing this or any other page in Misplaced Pages. Scribolt (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you say "if it's not in a secondary source, don't include it outside the plot section", that will inevitably give some readers the impression that it should be included in the plot section, or that it definitely should be included elsewhere if it is in a secondary source. In the fairly rare event that such points should be included, they might better fit into a Characters section if there is one, but noting that would make this even more cumbersome.
- If not for me, this page would be even more of a jumbled, confusing mess than it currently is, as would a few other guideline pages. Things not being carefully checked is the reason that all of this happened. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. This is not about how to write a plot summary, it's about how to write an article about fiction. Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources provides greater benefit to the encyclopedia than the risk of some extraneous detail appearing in a plot summary of a book or film (which is covered elsewhere). Character articles are magnets for this kind of stuff. Scribolt (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed here, this page is more than just about plot summaries but any content related to fiction, making sure there is a strong distinction of what occurs within the fiction versus what is actual real world factors. We have had too many editors in the past treating fiction as real which hurts WP. We have a separate page on the specifics of writing a good plot summary. Masem (t) 17:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources. That's not what the wording in question does. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your quote of me is accurate, but I was incorrect in what I wrote. If only primary sourced, then these things (including the plot itself) should never appear outside of the plot summary. If there is secondary souring and other policy considerations are met, what the secondary sources have to say can be summarised in the article. Whether or not these content appears in the plot summary depends on the narrative and is covered elsewhere. The addtion I made reflects this. It's clear we disagree on this, so I will not respond further to you, and will see if anyone else has any opinions. Scribolt (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. This is not about how to write a plot summary, it's about how to write an article about fiction. Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources provides greater benefit to the encyclopedia than the risk of some extraneous detail appearing in a plot summary of a book or film (which is covered elsewhere). Character articles are magnets for this kind of stuff. Scribolt (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see how it is misleading as it now explicitly say that this is a list of the kind of primary sourced information which is not to be included in articles outside of the plot section. If anything listed here is covered in secondary sources (which you are correct to say they typically aren't), then the usual considerations of WEIGHT and DUE would need to be applied. I suggest you focus on getting your account unblocked, or if you are indeed a sock of a WMF banned user, you shouldn't be editing this or any other page in Misplaced Pages. Scribolt (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first two examples, at least, are things that usually should not be included at all, anywhere in an article, so mentioning them is misleading, especially if we talk about which sections they might be included in. Talking about secondary sources is also misleading in this context, as even something that happens to be mentioned in a secondary source does not automatically warrant inclusion. A secondary source might have a passing mention of such details, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should include them. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. This section is not solely about a plot summary, and listing common forms of primary soured information (mostly fancruft) that should not be typically included is helpful. Please stop re-instating your changes until consensus is reached on the talk page. If anyone feels my recent change makes things worse we can of course return to the status quo. Scribolt (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: Both Compulsive Brainstormer and 213.169.39.234 have been blocked as socks of Belteshazzar an LTA (see Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Belteshazzar). Continue discussing you wish, but they will no longer be particpating (at least until they pull a new sock out the drawer). Jauerback/dude. 21:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)