Template talk:Long plot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Addition of copyvio warning

I think this is a useful template with the copyvio warning, but it isn't the same template I added to the article where I used it. In the case I used it (A Clockwork Orange) there is clearly no copyright violation, just endless rambling driveby detail, and mentioning copyvio is likely to just lead to red herring discussions that focus on trying to refute that rather than dealing with the real issue. Accordingly, I would support restoring the original meaning, and creating a new template for this particular case. Comments? Notinasnaid 09:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the copyright warning after a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) where everyone agreed that a plot summary that is excessively long or detailed may constitute a copyright violation, even without a large amount of direct quotations. Any amount of discussion about what happens in a work of fiction involves the copyright of that work of fiction; a small amount is within fair use, but a large amount may start to become a copyvio. I haven't seen the version of A Clockwork Orange you tagged, but "endless rambling driveby detail" may indeed also be a copyvio, in addition to all the other problems. —Angr 09:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As this template is almost always placed at trhe beginning of a plot that starts next to a right-aligned infobox, it needs to float left, otherwise it pushes the beginning of the section down the page ina very ugly way. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, the one sentence about copyright violation has lead to discussion being overwhelmed by that point, and an editor proposing the removal of the tag from an article because there is clearly no copyvio in this case, despite accepting that the plot synopsis is too long (Talk:The Last Mimzy). I propose a parameter to this template which can be used to suppress this distracting message when it is inappropriate. (I agree that an overly detailed plot summary can constitute copyright violation, but I content there are many articles nothing like that detailed where the plot is still too long). Comments? Notinasnaid 09:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any responses, I have added an option "copyvio=no". If this option is used, the copyvio text is suppressed. This allows the template to be used without introducing discussion that focusses unnecessarily on the copyright issues, rather than article quality issues. Notinasnaid 09:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Already I've found another example of this text acting as a distraction. [1] shows the tag being removed, correctly, but with a comment that it certainly doesn't violate copyright. I realise that reasons were good, but the weight of this sentence is such that it dominates discussion. I feel this can doharm to the original intention of encouraging balanced writing about works rather than plotcruft. I therefore propose changing the default for this template to copyvio=no. I realise that this means that it won't be the same text that was added by the person adding the tag, which is regrettable and undesirable, but apparently there were no such qualms when adding the text. Any comments? Notinasnaid 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the notion that a long plot summary could be a copyvio is WP:CB. An overly long summary is likely to contain original research, but copyvio? Redxiv 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Long plot summary as copyvio

• [2]
• [3]

Long plot summary as active copyright violation discussion. Discussion here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 February 19/Articles --GunnarRene 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable length

What is the specific ratio of words to movie length that is considered acceptable? Is there a numerical limit to a plot summary? Thanks in advance if you can answer these questions. Quadzilla99 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I did some research on this based on featured film articles a while ago. There was no consensus. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/archive7#Guideline for plot summary length. – flamurai (t) 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"overly long"

I just have a query about the "overly long". There are quite a number of articles which are not overly long (but beyond stub class so not listed for attention) but are almost solely made up of a plot summary. Apart from that first line, the template addresses the problem perfectly, as it is a question of the context and "weight" of the summary in any given article which is an issue in terms of What wikipedia is not rather than any specific length. Is there an alternative template which can be used in this case? I don't like to stick an unencyclopedic on them as they may be notable enough to have an article, but I can't seem to find an appropriate notice. baby_ifritah 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Having just scouted around for something appropriate can I propose this template have a parameter added to optionally leave off the "too long" phrase and replace it with text that suggests something more on the lines of "this article has a disproportionate amount of plot" with some advice about either adding more background (out-of-universe) information and/or triming the amount of Plot to be more balanced. The parameter could be "|disproportionate=(yes|no)" with a default of "no" which would give the existing text. If agreable I could make the changes. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the copyvio warning has to stay

Please read the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/Archive5#Plot summaries as copyvio for why it is necessary and appropriate for this template to warn against copyright violation. Direct word-for-word quotes are not necessary for a copyright violation to exist. Any discussion of what happens in a fictional universe that goes beyond the bare minimum acceptable under fair use may constitute a copyright violation. —Angr 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, I give you CliffsNotes (and Sparknotes and various others, none of which have ever been sued or even, AFAIK, accused of copyvio). Sorry, but your word just isn't enough for this. *** Crotalus *** 03:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And I give you the Seinfeld Aptitude Test, whose authors were sued, and lost, for going into great detail about a fictional universe. The reason CliffsNotes and the like don't get sued is that they get the copyright holder's permission before publishing their summaries. If they didn't, they most certainly would get sued. —Angr 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Licensed works generally have a notice to that effect in the book's copyright page or somewhere else in the introductory section. Last time I was at the bookstore, I checked a CliffsNotes for a copyrighted work (Orwell's 1984). There was no indication of licensing — but there was some boilerplate text, repeated in several places, saying that the CliffsNotes were not intended to serve as a replacement for the original work. That just happens to be one of the U.S. fair use criteria. I also checked the CliffsNotes and SparkNotes websites and found no relevant references to licensing or to the phrase "with permission" (there were a handful of hits for the latter, but neither were relevant to the issue here; they referred either to in-story references or to lengthy verbatim reprints). Can you provide any citation for your claim that CliffsNotes and SparkNotes have obtained licensing or permission from the copyright holders to publish their analyses with plot summaries?

As for the Seinfeld and Twin Peaks cases, which I've heard cited several times before, I don't believe that they are on point here. First of all, both of these cases were decided in the 2nd Circuit, and therefore have limited (if any) precedential value outside that circuit. The Foundation, being located in Florida, is in the 11th Circuit. It's not at all unusual for different circuits, when acting without explicit Supreme Court precedent, to interpret the law differently; in fact, this is often one of the prime reasons why a case winds up being heard by the SCOTUS. Has there ever been a case outside the 2nd Circuit in which plot summaries were held to constitute infringement?

Secondly, and more importantly, both cases mentioned above include third-party works that consisted of essentially nothing but plot summaries and other in-universe descriptions. Since Wikipedia does not (and never will) consist entirely or even primarily of plot summaries or other such elements, there's no reason to believe that either of these cases is relevant at all.

If in-universe plot descriptions and other related information about licensed works is so problematic, why did Wikia ever agree to host Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha, which consist of nothing but description and analysis of the copyrighted Star Wars and Star Trek universes, respectively?

I also suggest that you review m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. What you're doing here is a textbook example of it. I think it's also worth pointing out that, under OCILLA, the Foundation is immune from suit if they take down any allegedly infringing materials upon being notified. Therefore, the worst that could happen is that a publisher complains, and the office then takes down the material temporarily while the Foundation decides whether it's worth trying to fight the issue or not.

There are good encyclopedic reasons why plot summaries should be kept limited. Dubious copyright claims are not one of them, and do nothing but cloud the issue. *** Crotalus *** 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you've appealed to the fallacy of "copyright paranoia". There is no such thing. As a free content encyclopedia, Wikipedia keeps its use of copyrighted material to a bare minimum, even if it would be protected by fair use law. In this case, though, any plot summary that is long and detailed enough to warrant this tag in the first place is also long and detailed enough for us to think about whether we are using excessive amounts of nonfree content, possibly even violating copyright. (Remember the wording was always "may violate copyright", not "does violate copyright".) It is precisely because we are a free content encyclopedia that we shouldn't even come close to pushing the envelope of the OCILLA. No copyright holder should ever have to complain to Wikimedia (and Wikia isn't Wikimedia, so what they do is irrelevant) in the first place. If they do, we have forfeited the right to call ourselves "The Free Encyclopedia", even if it does turn out that our use of their material is legal. I've e-mailed SparkNotes and asked directly whether they have to get the copyright holder's permission to publish their summaries. —Angr 08:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The essay I referenced has been on Meta for years. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them (I've never even edited it). The fact is that it is not possible to coherently discuss modern (copyrighted) works of fiction without engaging in what would generally be termed fair use. If Wikipedia is going to have articles on such subjects, it will be necessary to do so. Again, as I said previously, there are good encyclopedic reasons for making plot summaries shorter and more concise; misguided copyright fears are not one of them. Technically, virtually any analysis of a copyrighted literary work, regardless of its nature, constitutes fair use. (Any substantive analysis will have to discuss the characters, the plot, and so forth, and will probably include at least a couple of short quotations.) This is the fundamental flaw behind all the schemes to purge fair use from Wikipedia. It's so fundamental to the way things work that we really can't do so without decimating any articles on anything related to modern popular culture. *** Crotalus *** 09:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it's been on Meta for years; that doesn't make it coherent. And actually, it is entirely possible to discuss copyrighted fictional works without touching fair use. You just have to talk about the significance the work has in the real world (what it's been influenced by, what it has influenced, how it has been received), rather than presenting the original creative ideas of the author, which (as you mentioned above) are unencylopedic anyway. —Angr 10:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias cover notable works of fiction, including their plots. End of discussion. --tjstrf talk 08:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not include lengthy plot summaries, and free content encyclopedias do not include copyrighted material at all. "End of discussion", my ass. —Angr 08:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The above sounds like a blanket argument against fair use. Maybe you believe that we shouldn't have any fair use material, but that is not and never has been policy on the English Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 09:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

All plot summaries contained on Wikipedia are licensed under the GFDL. If you believe that is too restrictive a copyright for our material to use, you would need to take that up with the foundation.

Much deserved smartassery aside, Anger, I believe you have confused "Wikipedia, the free content encyclopedia" (the encyclopedia whose content is free) with "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia of free content" (the encyclopedia which only contains information about things that are free). --tjstrf talk 09:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course a blanket prohibition of fair use would be ideal for Wikipedia, but too large a proportion of our editorship consists of fanboys for that ever to happen. And no, I haven't confused anything; Wikipedia's content is not free when it includes non-free material. I have never said or implied that we should not have articles on fictional topics; merely that our discussions of them must remain based in the real world, not in the fictional universe of the topic under discussion. —Angr 10:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving on...

To move past the rather nasty argument brewing above, I suggest the following:

1. Make the copyvio field default to no.
2. Change the phrasing to "plot summaries detailed enough to interfere with the commercial viability of the described work may constitute copyright violations."

In this way, those few cases where a plot "summary" really is starting to approach a replication of the entire film script could indeed be tagged with something a bit stronger than the normal, but we avoid spreading paranoid delusions about every ==Synopsis== section being a lawsuit waiting to happen. --tjstrf talk 09:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest a compromise where the template warns that overly long plot summaries may violate Wikipedia's own non-free content policy, in particular criteria 2 and 3, rather than bringing in copyright law. —Angr 10:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Original text entries (non-quotations) are not covered under that policy. --tjstrf talk 10:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't mentioned specifically by name, but the policy covers all non-free content. —Angr 10:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. Plot summaries do not fall into that category. --tjstrf talk 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do. The fact that they aren't mentioned by name is irrelevant. Plot summaries are derivative works of the material they summarize and therefore subject to Wikipedia's fair use policy, regardless of whether that page explicitly says so. However, whether this tag mentions that or not is actually not terribly important. As Crotalus Horridus mentioned, there are other reasons apart from copyright issues why plot summaries should not be long and detailed. As long as the tag encourages people to shorten plot summaries to the minimum necessary, it's doing its job. The fact (and I mean "fact" quite literally) that long plot summaries are (in the case of copyrighted works) in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and in some cases quite possibly copyright law) in addition to being unencyclopedic does not actually have to be mentioned. —Angr 23:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me the point is that WP content should be freely reusable. A plot summary which is not a "significant taking" from the original work will be freely reusable (if it's GFDL licensed). So the free/non-free issue doesn't arise. It's not like an non-free image which can only be used for certain purposes. On the contrary, if the plot summary is non-infringing for WP to use, it's hard to see how it could be infringing for anybody else to use.

For examples of entirely legitimate plot summaries, from a source which does aim to be a scholarly and encyclopaedic, namely the film journal Sight and Sound backed by the British Film Institute, see eg their articles of record for The Lives of Others or Zodiac. Jheald 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is, any plot summary that is long and detailed enough to warrant this template in the first place is a "significant taking" from the original work; like any derivative work it has its own license (the GFDL) but is also subject to the restrictions of the original. Does Sight and Sound, like Wikipedia, have a policy of using the bare minimum of fair-use material possible? Or do they use as much fair-use material as they can without getting sued? Because doing the latter is in flat contradiction to Wikimedia (not just Wikipedia) policy and practice. —Angr 08:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sight and Sound is a British magazine, and their website is (or at least appears to be) hosted in the UK, so US fair-use laws are surely not as relevant as British fair-dealing ones (which I believe are often more restrictive). Loganberry (Talk) 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

overly long?

I was wondering, should I add overly long or excessively detailed? Greg Jones II 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template conflicting with infobox

Is there any way to shrink the width of this template? When viewing film articles at a 1024x768 resolution, this template often conflicts with the film infobox, so whitespace is shown until the infobox ends and then this template is shown. Is there any way to decrease the width of the box this templates displays, so it doesn't conflict with the infobox? I usually think that a long section of whitespace before a section begins is more annoying than a long section of text. --Pixelface 06:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what article you are talking about, but if it has an infobox then it probably also has some content other than the plot summary. In that case you should simply remove this template. Loom91 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Take for example the Resident Evil: Extinction article. Using a monitor with 1024x768 resolution, and Internet Explorer 6.0.2800, the width of the plot template conflicts with the infobox, so the plot template ends up coming after the infobox, leaving whitespace under the Plot heading until the infobox ends(jpg). Using Firefox 2.0.0.3, the text of the plot template bleeds into the film infobox.(jpg) Editors are using the plot template to mark Plot sections they think are too long, but it often conflicts with the infobox and makes the sections even longer. I've tried to research the issue at WP:TEMP and WP:TMP. WP:TMP has a section that says:

A caution about line breaks

Note that some templates may accidentally cause extra linebreaks in the rendered articles. This is especially true of Wikipedia:Infobox templates and other template boxes that usually float on the right side of an article, since the additional lines will not be seen on the template page.

As a general guideline, avoid two break lines together in your template. These may "add up" with other breaklines in the article and be displayed as unwanted white space.

I notice the {{plot}} template refers to Template:Ambox which is the article message box template. That page says that ambox is "just a thin wrapper for the ambox CSS classes in MediaWiki:Common.css". I notice that page specifies the width for table.ambox as 80%

Maybe that width can be changed across the whole site or maybe I can just change it on my own account. The MediaWiki:Common.css page says any changes to Common.css should be first proposed to Wikipedia:Village Pump. Perhaps one of the expert template coders would know what do .

I took a look at Help:User_style and I think I found a solution (for me personally). I created a subpage on my userpage called monobook.css and copied this code to it, and changed 80% to 65%.

/* Article message box template styles */
table.ambox {
  width: 65%; 
  margin: 0 auto; 
  border-collapse: collapse; 
  background: #fbfbfb; 
  border: 1px solid #aaa; 
  border-left: 10px solid #1e90ff;       /* Default "notice" blue */
}

That seems to have worked.(jpg) All other message boxes are shrunk too but I don't mind. --Pixelface 08:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As I guessed, the plot template had no buisness in that article. It was probably vandalism. Loom91 08:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was quite vandalism. Many editors just tag a Plot section with the {{plot}} template if they think the section is too long. If the {{plot}} template is placed directly under the Plot heading, the tag often conflicts with the infobox (like in 16 Blocks or Enough). But, like I said, my monobook.css fix shrinks all message boxes so they don't display after the infobox. --Pixelface 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wording

The wording of this template doesn't seem to be very useful.

This article or section contains a plot summary that is too long compared to the rest of the article.

We actually have policies and guideline on this matter, which state pretty clearly:

Policy: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PLOT

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In addition to other sections of this policy, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:

'...'

2. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. (See also: Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot)

also

Guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Fair_use:

Fair use

As the Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, Wikipedia articles must conform to U.S. copyright laws. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation. This may apply irrespective of the way information is presented, in or out of universe, or in some entirely different form such as a quizbook or "encyclopedia galactica".

Information about copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Many works of fiction covered by Wikipedia are protected by copyright. Some works are sufficiently old that their copyright has expired, or the rights may have been released into the public domain.

Now what this template does now is state that plot summaries should be in proportion to the article. This is absolutely true, and it's covered by our policy, but it doesn't fairly reflect what our policy says.

I would suggest a change of wording to say something like:

This plot summary is long and contains too much detail. In its current form it may be against our policy What Wikipedia is not:

Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries

In addition, it may be contrary to our guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction):

The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible"

--Tony Sidaway 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy says "not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot". It does not say articles should not contain a detailed plot summary, but that they should not contain only a detailed plot summary. A plot summary of a fictional work, even a detailed one, is a legitimate form of encyclopedic information about that work. Plot summaries so detailed that copyright considerations become relevant are rather extreme, I don't think we need templates to deal with those. Loom91 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot length

How about a general guideline for plot length, depending if the article is about a show, a film, a book, etc. It would help people writing these plot summaries to know how much to write. Similar to WP:LEAD#Length. Mahanga^Talk 16:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not in general set a limit on how much information to include about a subject. Write whatever amount of information yoou consiider appropriate. Loom91 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously we're setting some sort of limit on the plot length or else this template wouldn't exist! Mahanga^Talk 05:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:NOVSTY for Narrative prose related article recommendations. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The cryptic shortcut WP:NOVSTY actually points to a WikiProject page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, which purports to be part of the Wikipedia manual of style. How did that happen? How did a style guideline come to be part of a WikiProject? --Tony Sidaway 10:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't think I added it, think someones else did. However it is a project based guideline. Much like that over on WP:Film :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a policy or guideline that limits the length of plot summaries. As worded, this template refers to the length of the plot summary relative to the rest of the article. As I see it, it urges editors to expand the rest of the article, rather than shorten the plot summary. Loom91 18:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So how does all this contradict Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot and the original wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Plot and the original template wording here. Also Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PLOT has a character which strongly suggests a limitation is in order, even if it doesn't in itself give numbers. Then there is Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Plot_summaries which also has size related suggestions. I believe the limitations have a value, but I can see that a rewording or rephrasing of them to give a "softer" tone might well be in order. We cannot have a plot size free-for-all though already many fiction based articles have large, poorly written and some almost pointless plot summaries that give an unencyclopedic flavour to the wiki. I see the need to encourage input, within some soft boundaries. Oh, by the way I didn't come up with any of these I am just seeking to defend what I believe was the previous consensus. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

On Tony Sidaway's revert of two edits made by Loom91

Loom91 made the following change:

Before:

This article or section contains a plot summary that is too long compared to the rest of the article.
Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot.

After:

This article is too short or lacking in detail compared to the plot summary.
Please expand the rest of the article] and focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot.

This is inconsistent with usage of the tag at present, and contradicts our policy (shortcut WP:PLOT) which states that "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic", and certainly doesn't view the correct response to a plot summary of excessive length as expanding the rest of the article.

Accordingly I have reverted to the former wording. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot length

As this whole subject of Plot length guidelines is under challenge we need some centralized arena for it's debate. So that project are consistent with one another and some true consensus is reached. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the plot length guidelines under challenge? --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An existing consensus can be challenged. However in this case, I don't see any prior consensus. Such a consensus may well exist, but it has never been documented (at least, I haven't yet seen any evidence). Loom91 08:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And here is the single guy who is challenging them! However He does have a point about the documentation of the consensus. I have no doubts myself that in this arena at least consensus exists, however as Loom91 (talk · contribs) rightly points out the consensus documentation resulting from a public debate seems hard to find. So how to we kick off such an unbiased and even handed debate to put the matter to some kind of "rest". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As to official policy, this template is an expression of WP:PLOT, which has been discussed extensively on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and has strong consensus. Other expressions of policy relevant to this template are Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF) and (more specialized but a good expression of the prevailing opinion on coverage of fiction) Wikipedia:Television episodes (WP:EPISODE). --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

None of which demonstrates consensus for setting hard celings on plot length. Loom91 17:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They don't, strictly speaking, but there is no reason to treat these recommendations, guidelines as "hard" ceilings. Conversely there is no demonstrated consensus about not having some statements of ceilings. In fact during these recent debate you are to only one to have insisted on this view.  :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, guidelines are not merely essays. They are considered to be prescriptive documents which need to have demonstrated consensus. You need consensus to make statements, not to not make them. Loom91 18:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody else interested in fixing plots?

I've begun to deal with articles that have been tagged with this template. Sometimes I revert the plot summary to a more suitable version from an older revision, sometimes I substantially rewrite it, and sometimes I just remove a tag that in my opinion has been misplaced on the article or where the plot summary has already been cleaned up. On one article (Rain Man) I removed some 10 kilobytes of plot summary, still leaving a substantial 800-word summary.

Is anybody else doing such work, or interested in doing it? --Tony Sidaway 06:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged a lot of episode articles with this template, usually along with tags for notability. Since the guidelines for television-related plot are currently under revision, resulting in a potential redirection of all-plot articles, I haven't really bothered with trimming plot yet. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm mainly concentrating on articles about full novels, plays and feature films. --Tony Sidaway 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say "This plot summary is too good. Please make it less so."? -212.139.90.104 (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Long and detailed" doesn't necessarily mean "better". I could write a six page essay on this but the preceding sentence both states and illustrates why I don't. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say "This plot summary is too good. Please make it less so."?.

You could also add Please make it inaccurate which I have seen occur by 3 different editors when they reverted to an old version .Garda40 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Garda. Wikipedia is one of my favorite sources of plot information. I disfavor deletionism for this reason and I am sure a lot of casual users would agree. Did someone lose their scroll buttons? Not. Paper. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Plot

Template:Plot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Wnt (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this template has done Wikipedia a great amount of harm; I've encountered many articles that have been damaged on its account. I am tired of seeing articles reverted arbitrarily to some past version, new edits reverted because "you can't add any more", or other arbitrary deletions of the good work that many editors put into Wikipedia. Some of the "cleanup" applied for purposes of this tag is worse than run-of-the-mill vandalism.

The template cites authentic Wikipedia policies, but I think it badly misinterprets them. Specifically, it tells people that the "plot summary" is "too long or detailed". But the policies speak only of providing adequate interpretation and commentary for what plot is provided. For example, if Wikilinks are provided for ideas in the plot summary, this provides vital context to facilitate understanding, but this doesn't make the section any shorter. Worse, if the plot section actually contains explanation or analysis of the plot, this is more likely to trigger complaints that the section is "too long" than credit for providing the necessary information for "fair use" issues.

The template also fails to distinguish copyright fears (as detailed in WP:WAF) from the WP:PLOT concerns about encyclopedic quality, citing both in its documentation. For example, it does not say whether it can be used in articles about works that have lapsed into the public domain. Therefore it is unclear which policy or which standard is felt to be violated in each instance the template is added to an article.

An additional problem is created because although the template (debatably) is linked to a continuous legal requirement that the plot summary be justifiable by fair use, it is presented as a cleanup template that is deleted after the "cleanup" is finished. In other words, there is no easy way to find all the articles that have been mangled already, and readers receive no warning that this version of Wikipedia has been censored according to the laws of Florida to remove good faith edits. By contrast, for example, articles subject to the restrictions on biographies of living persons bear tags that remind readers of this fact.

As an alternative, I propose that those concerned that WP:WAF or WP:PLOT is being violated should reference those policies on the talk page of the article, describing the problem in words, and calling for a solution specifically relevant to that article, just as is done for most other Wikipedia policies.

Those who disagree with me and think the template should be kept should at least consider major revisions to it. If they feel a fair use rationale for plot summaries is lacking then the template should say to add a fair use rationale, as opposed to say arbitrarily picking an old revision from the history. Wnt (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As an example, compare the development of Romper Stomper (a particularly disturbing film well worthy of close analysis) from the January version [4]. For this article, first the tag was applied; then the "too long" plot summary was replaced with a paragraph; then the "discouraged" Trivia section, which included many specific facts about places, costumes, and characters from the plot (which should have more than provided the needed fair use rationale) was deleted also. The net effect is that a very well-done Wikipedia page was reduced to an item from a video store catalogue, which if not outright prohibited by WP:NOT perhaps ought to be. Wnt (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Style tweaks

{{editprotected}}

I've made some tweaks to the styling to better match other cleanup templates. Code is on the sandbox, just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

Are there any guidelines about how long a plot summary ought to be? How long is too long? Downstage right (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See the Novels element at WP:NOVSTY. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Could this template be expanded to cover related material

As well as plot summaries, there is a wide range of similar material that is likewise essentially just summarisation of the primary source that is the article's topic. E.g.:

• Synopsis (for non-fiction)
• Episode list (for serials)
• Story arcs list (also for serials)
• Contents list/chapter titles (for books)
• Cast list (for audio/video productions)
• In some cases, I've even seen editors attempt to reproduce the index of a book in articles on them

While none of these (except the last) is unreasonable per se, when they become excessive (either individually or collectively) they become problematic, particularly in articles lacking any substantive third-party-sourced information (such articles can unfortunately often survive an AfD on a claim of 'inherent notability', with little, or even no, third party content). Would it be possible to reword the template to cover this wider problem (either with a short list of most common offending material, or if somebody can think of a term that covers this range of material generally)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sound like a case for a template "family" in the style of this one but specific to each type of element. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A 'family' would probably be excessive, as the templates would often have to be used in combination. One option would be a template that allowed the exact material-type(s) of concern to be entered as a parameter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, you could do that & and the existing use as a single template -- without the parameter specified it could say "plot summary", with one it would say whatever was in the parameter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with that is that templates are normally used by "logical" name. The logical name could redirect to a all singing all dancing functional piece of code that does the work. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a single "logical" name for the generalised case. Just as "plot" is short for "plot summary", can't it also be short for "plot summary and/or other similar material"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you see "similar" to encompass "indexes", "cast lists", "episode lists", "contents". I can certainly need to see the type of template here being used to limit these but an editor wanting to place the appropriate tag will not automatically think of "plot" as the one too use. Unworkable! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about a 'primarysummary' template that says something like 'This article may contain excessive information summarising the primary work. Please include more information from secondary sources.' With a sentence coming up between the two if the parameter is used stating 'This information may include [parameter].' Essentially it would be a template midway (in terms of generalisation) between 'primarysources' and 'plot'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a better name - but I still think that based on extensive experience of what tags people add to articles the shorter and more "targeted" or relevant name is what works best. So, again I would say one each or one each redirected to a workhorse generic template with the actual code in it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please replace {{DCMA| to {{DMCA| in <includeonly> section. The former is probably a typo. --fryed-peach (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} There is no policy requiring a strict comparison of plot summary length to rest of context. The words "compared to the rest of the content" should be cut. It is still, of course, highly possible for a plot summary to be over-long and detailed. Likewise, the sentence "Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot." should become "Please edit the article and make the plot summary more concise, focusing on important plot points, instead of merely reiterating every detail. "Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear.Cop 663 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, there's another problem, where the article does not provide sufficient real-world context and discussion. For that, a separate template should probably be made, something like {{impact}} or {{no discussion}}. But the two problems are not one and the same thing, and there's no reason to treat them as such. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As the current wording has been in place for over two years, this probably deserves a little discussion. Feel free to replace the request in a few days if consensus is reached. Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have a small group of extremely vocal people who, instead of following policy, edited the policy page. The policy was always pretty clear, and I hope that their wikilawyering doesn't effect this template here. Of course it's sad that a template has more protection from malicious editing than the policy itself, but at least we can be thankful someone had the sense to protect it here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Even if you're talking about WP:NOT#PLOT, it never said what this template said, or not for more than a few days. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes it did. For YEARS. The WP:NOT section on plot was stealthily edited for a while before the recent attempt to remove it completely happened. This template represents the original, longstanding consensus version of how to treat plots, and, frankly, it represents the current consensus better than the actual policy page thanks to constant wikilawyering and gaming the system there. DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hell, and if you' look at this talk page you'd know that already. DreamGuy (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to propose the same thing (although for a different reason). The problem with this template is that it tries to tackle two separate issues at the same time. 1. The length of the plot summary, and 2. That the article lacks sufficient real-world information. This makes the template's wording very awkward, even more so on articles which only have one of the two issues. For articles which lack real-world information there is already {{In-universe}}. Hence, I am proposing that this template be changed solely to a plot-length template. - kollision (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Split?

I agree with the above discussion. This template tries to do too much and conflates the distinct issues of overly detailed plot summaries and articles that lack non-plot coverage. I think the template should be changed to focus on just one issue, and another template should be added to focus on the other.

Template 1:

This plot summary may be too long or overly detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise.

Template 2:

This article consists solely of plot summary when it should also discuss the work by including critical commentary and background information. Please edit the article so it's more than just a plot summary.

--Cybercobra (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The template as currently worded is not two separate topics, as they go hand in hand. I would oppose any changes to this template. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They do not go hand in hand. An article may have an overly detailed plot section, yet also have adequate non-plot coverage. Likewise, an article may consist entirely of a plot section of reasonable length. The issues are separate and the templates ought to be too. The current template makes it sound like an article is bad if its plot-to-discussion ratio is too high, which is not necessarily true and is an overgeneralization. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

An article IS bad if the plot-to-discussion ratio is too high. THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT. That's policy, for crying out loud. If you refuse to acknowledge policy then that's a either a problem with you being ignorant or stubbornly refusing to accept a policy you wish wasn't there. Either way we're not going to change the template to match your misunderstanding of how things work at Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cough. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

all the more reason to make this template more specific, since another already exists for the (presently) overlapping purpose. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cybercobra's suggestion is eminently sensible. I have therefore created Template:Plotlength, which does the job of 'Template 1'. Now we have Template:Plotlength and Template:Allplot, which together explain the problem much better than Template:Plot, which will hopefully go away if we all ignore it.Cop 663 (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't just up and ignore longstanding consensus and change a template that is locked by making a new one. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this. If you want to make {{plot}} more useful then improve it, rather than forking it. The new template is substantially identical to the current one, and having two templates is just confusing. The two should be merged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to merge, as the other one wa created solely to replace this one based upon reasons that make no sense. Creating the fork template was done because this template was locked and couldn't be edited and because there was no consensus to edit this one. Therefore the new template's reason for existence was to get around the pesky problms of getting people to agree. He even says the goal was to make the template so nobody would use this one. That's not how things work here. I've tagged the other template for deletion. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: Idf an article happens to develop tis plot faster than its discussion, that is no reason to cut the plot, and force multiple rewritings of the plot as the article expands. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see an article which consists solely or primarily of plot where the plot section in question is of sufficient quality that it would be largely unchanged were the article improved to Featured status. That it might happen in theory is irrelevant here, as we're looking to create tags with a practical use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd point you to several, but I suspect it'd result in them being slapped with this tag and butchered. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for behaving jerkily by forking the template. Too much caffeine. However, I continue to think that a tag saying "This plot summary may be too long or overly detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise" would be entirely harmless: it does not conflict at all with policy, and is less confusing than the current tag, which implies that synopses must somehow be cut or expanded as an article grows or shrinks. Cop 663 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the use case we're aiming for here? An article which is otherwise very good but still has a four page long plot section? That's already covered by {{plot}}. An article which has an FA-length plot section but needs expanded otherwise? That wouldn't be covered by your change. What articles would be tagged with this variant in preference to the current one? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the proposed wording is better than that in {{plot}} because it is less confusing.Cop 663 (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, that seems to cater for a use case which does not exist: namely, the article with a long plot section which is otherwise well-written and should be left as it is. I cannot recall ever seeing an article develop from being purely or mostly plot into a good article without the plot section first being heavily trimmed. That would seem to suggest that the latter is a precondition for the former. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just three film examples of articles "with a long plot section which is otherwise well-written and should be left as it is": Vertigo (film), Latter Days, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Don't you see how inappropriate the current wording "The plot summary in this article is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the content." is!? All that needs to be done is to remove the "compared to the rest of the content" part in this template. Then what we will have is two separate templates for two separate issues. We'll have this template and {{Allplot}} (which should probably be renamed). One template for where the plot summary needs trimming and one for when the article consists primarily of a plot summary and lacks real world information. Articles that have both issues can be tagged with both templates. The aforementioned three examples would be tagged with the reworded {{Plot}}. Articles like this, this, and this would be tagged with {{Allplot}}. And this, this, and this would get tagged with both. - kollision (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. No new template is needed, just chop off that chunk at the end, which won't alter the essence of the template. A plot that is too detailed is still too detailed regardless of how long or short the accompanying critical analysis sections are. Their changing lengths don't magically make the plot's length any more (in)appropriate. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly!!! Cop 663 (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I reread it, if this is a plot length template and {{allplot}} is a lack of real world information template then the second sentence ("Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot.") is also not appropriate for this template. The template would continue to tackle the real world issue, which it shouldn't since {{allplot}} exists. So I support Cybercobra's proposed rewording and changing of the links (which can be seen above as Template 1 and at {{Plot/sandbox}}). - kollision (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Plot sections should not simply be narratives; they should discuss the work as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Real world discussion of the work (such as the development or reception) is done outside the Plot section, not in it. Any discussion that might be included in the Plot section would only be limited to clarifications of complicated plots, different interpretations of the plot or possibly themes. But they are not a requirement and should not be presented as such. Maybe you meant "Articles should not simply be narratives; they should discuss the work as well." which I would have completely agreed with. But what we're trying to do here is split this template which covers two issues into two separate templates (see what I said above on 14 July). This template would become solely a plot length template and would have nothing to do with lack of real world information. If an article lacks real world information it would be tagged with {{allplot}} (which already has the second sentence of this template). - kollision (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with kollision's analysis. To put any further discussion into the plot would also invite OR interpretation. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Kollision completely misunderstands WP:NOT policy here -- simple description of the plot for a detailed summary is just trivia with no encyclopedic purpose. PLot summaries, when they exist, should be quite concise. The main reason to discuss plot at all is to say why it is important, which means discussing the work and its important/influence/reaction. The fact that lots of people do not understand the basics of what an encyclopedia is even for (as described on WP:NOT) does not mean that they can use Wikipedia as something it was never intended to be. Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes for culturally and historically insignificant works of fiction -- There needs to be an answer to "So why is it important?" or else it has no point here. With Shakespeare's plays the importance is the large influence such works have had on all literature since then, and describing plot points is so that we can reference how the phrases in the works became idioms, or the characters are universally known, etc. What happens in the plot of most recently released movies or most of the episodes of TV shows are of no encyclopedic purpose. Plot summaries in those cases are just trivia: added by fans for the benefits of other fans of no value. We can't change this template, or our WP:NOT policy to reflect the rush of people who aren't here to make an encyclopedia and just want everything to be fan sites. The reasons given for suggesting this template be changed violate a core principle of Wikipedia, and therefore must be rejected. DreamGuy (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You are over-elaborating the policy. What WP:NOT actually says is the articles on fiction "should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context." Nothing here conflicts with the suggested split that Kollision has suggested.Cop 663 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]+[edit conflict] I never said that articles shouldn't discuss the work, I was just objecting to Chris Cunningham's notion that the discussion be done in the Plot section. WP:PLOT states "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." It says the real world context should be included in the article, it does not say that the real world context should be included in the Plot section. The proposed changes to this template complies fully with Wikipedia policy. {{allplot}} still exists! It has taken over the job of articles that lack real world coverage. The proposed changes to this template would make it a plot length template. If an article has both issues, it can get tagged with both. - kollision (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. This premise is simply false. The plot section is not exempted from our guidelines on article content, which includes that material always be presented from a secondary viewpoint rather than being explained in-universe. Good plot sections explain the plot rather than repeating it. DreamGuy is bang on the money. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an article in which the plot is explained, rather than repeated? Cop 663 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Gremlins 2: The New Batch does a reasonable job. Firefly (TV series) and Press Gang do much better, but they're TV show articles, which makes it easier to avoid straight narration. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any others? Seriously, I can't see a huge difference between the synopsis of Gremlins 2 and a 'straight' synopsis (e.g. the one for Gremlins), except that there's a brief note about one of the characters being based on a real life person. The Firefly synopsis is a rather special situation, as you say. Please could you give more examples, because I'm still uncertain what the ideal synopsis that you describe would actually look like.Cop 663 (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is silly. Dreamguy and Chris both think real-world information should be integrated into the plot summaries (or vice versa). But the guideline they're quoting - Wikipedia:INUNIVERSE#Plot_summaries - simply says plot summaries should be written using phrases such as "In the film..." or "The novel begins with...". This is all fine, and makes sense. But it has nothing to do with the issue of overlong plot synopses. So let's say again: The problem with this template is that it does not address articles that have overlong synopses but plenty of real-world coverage. Examples: it does not address the following articles: Vertigo (film), Latter Days, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. We need a template that says "This plot summary may be too long or overly detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise." I would like to create this template. Does anyone seriously think this would be against policy? Cop 663 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the above discussion, I'd far rather that this template were modified by omitting the disputed clause about relativity than it be forked again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, forking should only be a last resort. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, are there any remaining arguments in favour of the current wording? Cop 663 (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not related to this discussion, but the nominator's rationale in this TfD (which I stumbled upon) eloquently expresses many of the principles underlying the sentiment for why this plot template needs adjustment. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I request this template's phrasing be modified to substantially match the above "Template 1" text per the above discussion. Even if not granted, this should help keep the conversation going. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use editprotected as an RFC attention beacon. I have read all of the above and considering the history of plot and the very poor wording of the request, I'm not getting into this. (and neither has another editprotected admin this desire, judging from the 1,5 day this request has been ignored). Propose one or several line(s), hold !vote and/or discuss, find consensus and then editrequest with an EXACT phrase please. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. And it appears someone beat me to the !vote. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested rewording of template: please vote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result was reworded. See #Request for edit to this template --Cybercobra (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

From the discussion above, it seems that the template as it stands is poorly worded. At present, it reads "The plot summary in this article is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the content. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot." This wording applies best to articles that are mostly plot description and little real-world information. It fails to address articles that contain lots of real-world information, but for which the plot synopsis is overlong. The words "compared to the rest of the content" are confusing because they (inadvertently) imply that plot synopses must constantly be re-edited to make them larger or smaller as the article's real-world information grows or shrinks. The following wording would thus be simpler and more broadly applicable:

• This plot summary may be too long or overly detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise.

Please vote on whether you agree that this wording is better. Cheers. Cop 663 (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

• Support, as proposer.Cop 663 (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support as rekindler of the discussion of this issue. See my comments in the discussion above. Note that {{Allplot}} already exists to handle the parallel case of "nothing but plot" irrespective of the summary's length. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, as proposed. Garda40 (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per my comments in the above discussions. kollision (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 14:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - no changes are needed, and in fact changes would be detrimental because it would suggest people are allowed to do things they are not allowed to do. The arguments that the template is misleading are incorrect, it's just that the people proposing the change don't understand WP:NOT policy concerning plot summaries. DreamGuy (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please could you clarify the things that people are 'not allowed to do', and how they specifically relate to the wording of this template? The WP:NOT page that you link to is about articles that are only plot summaries, but this problem is already covered by Template:Allplot. The proposed rewording of this template is to make it applicable to articles that already contain real-world information. Cop 663 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested alternatives

• Nothing against the proposed wording, but I think the "too long" page link should be changed to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Length since the text it originally linked to has since been moved to a different page. kollision (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Good point.Cop 663 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

• This template represents longstanding policy and cannot be changed by a simple straw vote among some people on an out of the way page not normally visited by a representative sample of informed editors. DreamGuy (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• That's never stopped policy change in the past so why should now be any different Garda40 (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• I suppose an RfC might be in order, although it seems there's a lot of them lately. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for edit to this template

{{editprotected}} It is requested that this template be reworded as follows. The following wording appears to have consensus (see above); objections were made by one editor but they did not seem pertinent to the issues, and the editor in question has not responded to an invitation to clarify his objections. Cop 663 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• This plot summary may be too long or overly detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise.

 Done, I wish all editprotected requests were so easy. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article/section

Could we reintroduce the article/section distinction, please? It looks odd placing this at the top of articles now. Suggested layout is in the sandbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me.Cop 663 (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the template usually section-specific anyway? Not that I feel strongly about it or anything. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In my experience it's often used at the top of articles. At least with the rewording it isn't wrong to place it there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

'Overly' is excessively colloquial

Or it is according to Chambers Dictionary (also apparently that meaning isn't in 1913 Webster's). It certainly has a much more informal (and possibly uneducated) ring to a British ear than would 'excessively' or simply 'too'. Could that single word be changed back again again please? --93.96.136.249 (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for edit

{{editprotected}} This template links to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, an essay that contains bizarre views, like claiming that a summary of the Odyssey shouldn't bother to mention every adventure Odysseus faces on his way home, that individual scenes - not "all individual scenes", just "individual scenes" should not be described, and other absolutely bizarre material.

This should be changed to links to WP:WAF, the actual guideline covering plot summaries. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 01:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WAF is the guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. This should link to WAF, it actually links to an essay that makes ridiculous assertions. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 02:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Weren't these links agreed to in the above discussions? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 02:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of, implicitly; the matter of where to link never came up in discussion, but the rephrasing changed it nonetheless apparently. No great thought was put into what ought to be linked to. FWIW, I don't have a problem with changing it. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so how about the following?

• This plot summary may be too long or detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise.

I've disabled the request for the moment. I suggest leaving it a few days to allow other people to comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary used to be a guideline/How to page/Infopage until DreamGuy arbitrarily demoted it as lacking consensus. Hiding T 09:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it never actually ent through the process of becming a guideline. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 11:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no process. Hiding T 12:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is: Wikipedia:Guideline#Proposals. Generally, an RfC is considered necessary to prove said consensus. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a recent addition to the page. The relevant version of that page to our debate is here, which makes nomention of RFC. The process at that time was to reach a consensus. DreamGuy to date remains the only person to have challenged the consensus in that page, and yet his challenge apparently destroys the consensus. I'd love to see that applied to all policy. Hiding T 12:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday's beliefs about what are bizarre claims and are not are completely out of step with policy. The idea that we need to summarize every detail of a fictional work is so completely contradictory to what an encyclopedia article is for that it's amazing. He knows from previous participations in RFCs and so forth that his own personal opinions on plot-related matters are completely out of step with Wikipedia consensus. This template is locked specifically to prevent arbitrary changes out of step with policy being made. DreamGuy (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• The idea that linking to the MoS instead of some essay is somehow against policy is ludicrous. Martin's suggestion seems like a good one. — Jake Wartenberg 05:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes but this template only links to an essay thanks to DreamGuy's edit warring on the issue. The whole situation is a mess. Hiding T 12:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't actually see any vote to make WP:How to write a plot summary a guideline; can you point me to it? I'm pretty sure you can't just declare something a guideline. I mean, no offense, but I could write "WP:Plot summaries must be over 5000 words, get some selected people together, and call it a guideline because all of us agree. But that wouldn't mean anyone should listen to the ridiculous advice there. It wasn't like the essay being claimed to be a guideline had uncontroversial advice - indeed, much of it was appallingly bad, like saying that no individual scenes could be described, which I'm not even sure is a logical possibility. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 17:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • When you point me to the requirement for a vote, for sure. I doubt that's possible, because we don't vote on anything, but I think you know that anyway, since the link I posted above clearly states "A proposal's status is not determined by counting votes." And you should feel free to tag anything you like as a guideline, it's one way to test consensus. The page we're discussing stayed tagged as a guideline for a year and was widely linked to and treated as a guideline before DreamGuy decided he didn't like it. We can have a semantic debate about the whole situation, or we could simply agree that the situation is a mess. I'm rather tired of semantic debates, to be honest. I think we've both been on Wikipedia long enough to know better than this, and that this conversation will get us nowhere. Unless I make a guideline out of a page which says it will. Back in the good old days, when someone didn't agree with a guideline they just changed it. In the new fangled future they simply tag war the issue. Is that progress? Hiding T 23:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Just realised you even endorsed the change to this template so that it pointed to the "guideline". Hiding T 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I hadn't noticed it was part of the proposal. Back on the main subject off-topic diversion, see Wikipedia:Guideline#Proposals ("The Request for comments process is typically used to determine consensus for a new policy, via the {{rfctag|policy}} tag"). Similar requirements for consensus to be demonstrated appeared in [5] versions from a year ago. ("Proposals should be advertised to solicit feedback and to reach a consensus.") Can you show any evidence of any sort of discussion or attempts to gain outside feedback leading to it becoming a guideline? It's a simple question. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Phil states he advertised at various places on the talk page. I have no reason to doubt that. It's a simple answer, very simply found. Also, did you really say you supported a proposal you hadn't actually read? Hiding T 12:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• [Unindent]I hadn't read through the link, and presumed it had rational advice. The suggested rewording I did read, and it seemed a massive improvement. Now, back onto the off-topic: Can you point me to Phil's statement. I've asked you for a link several times now. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I just told you, it's on the talk page. You simply go to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and click the little talk tab at the top. I know you're a long-standing editor, and you aren't someone who generally acts in an obstructionist way, so I'm starting to wonder what the communication problem is that currently exists between us. Given you haven't asked me for a link several times, you've asked me for RFC's and votes, and given none of those were needed, it just feels like you're getting irritable or something. If it is something I'm doing, rest assured that I mean only to act in good faith and this it certainly isn't intentional. What would probably be a better topic for discussion would be whether you think a version of the page should be a guideline? That includes versions of the page that we haven't yet written, of course. The other line of discussion seems to be an argument that is being reduced to some sort of level of wiki-lawyering, which I'm sure we both agree is not really worthy of our time. If a page lasts a year tagged as a guideline, it was probably doing something right, wasn't it? I thought we might have been able to find agreement that DreamGuy's behaviour was not acceptable, but perhaps you don;t feel that way as you agree with the outcome? I'm not sure I believe in the means justifying the ends, personally. Hiding T 21:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] Okay. I see zero attempts to get widespread consensus on there, so it's clearly not a guideline. Thank you. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 15:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic

Outside of DreamGuy, is there any objection to liking to WP:WAF? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 00:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• maybe it would be better to link to WP:PLOT. Hiding T 12:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's the rationale for {{allplot}}. This template is covering a completely different issue, where there's sourced discussion and context, but the plot summary is poorly written. That isn't at all covered by WP:PLOT. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served}
    • Does it cover that? I can't quite work that out from the text in the template, and don't remember that being it's purpose back in the day. I hadn't realised we'd got allplot too. Is there a demand for two templates? SO the purpose of this template is now that it is aimed at poorly written summaries. Is there discussion on that point? All the discussion I can find on this page seems to be targeted towards the fact that this template is used when the plot summary is too long. I'd probably agree with a link to both, to be honest, rolling the template back to here, which was a long-standing version that seems to have been acceptable to a vast number of users. Hiding T 21:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been lengthy discussions about this. Long story short: This template is not generally used in situations where WP:NOTPLOT applies, so the template was split. Why on earth would you want to make this template inappropriate to the vast majority of articles it's in? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the lengthy discussions, as I can;t find them. Also, I can't see how the changes would make the template inappropriate to the vast majority of articles it's in, can you describe how such changes would do so, thanks. Hiding T 09:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One more thing

This template is often used in situations it shouldn't be. Other templates, such as {{POV}} say that they're disputed, and don't order people to fix it immediately. Is this a problem? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 09:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• POV is a different issue, this template is more like templates such as {{Essay-like}}. Which template currently orders people to fix the issue immediately? Hiding T 12:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was template not moved. @harej 14:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Template:Plot → Template:Plot-too long — In order to finalize the changes initiated by the rewording of the template, the template should be moved from its current name to something which more specifically reflects the current wording and specific meaning, e.g. Template:Plot-too long, similarly to the nongeneric naming of Template:Lead too long and the other intro-related template tags. The current name is too general, considering Template:All plot. Both templates are equally policy-based (All plot refers to WP:NOT#PLOT) resp. guideline/essay-based (this template refers to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary) and address distinct but both widespread, not to say rampant issues. --87.79.87.64 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no reason to move the template. The name is short and specific enough. "All Plot" is not a widespread template and is not a very useful template. If the article is all plot, the Plot tag already suffices or it should be quickly deleted if there really is nothing but plot as it would not be identifiable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already responded to AnmaFinotera's points here. To reiterate: The distribution of transclusions between the two templates is simply due to the fact that {{Plot}}'s wording was recently changed to address a different issue. Almost all transclusions of Template:Plot date back to before the change of that template's wording (when the wording was much more similar to the current template:All plot). Following the move, Plot will be kept as a redirect to the new and specific template name until all of the current transclusions have been appropriately disambiguated between the two very distinct templates. Since the current wording of Plot appears to have consensus and it addresses an entirely distinct issue, I also strongly oppose your deletion request for {{All plot}}. The least you should have done before the deletion request and your opposition here would have been to at least try and propose a unified wording, if you believe it can and should be done (for the record: I believe neither is the case, the two templates are in fact entirely different from each other), and see how it goes over here. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case there is any confusion over what the two distinct issues addressed by the two templates are:

• {{Plot}} currently addresses plot summaries which are too long or overly detailed in themselves (not in relation to the rest of article).
• {{All plot}} addresses articles which consist of nothing but the plot summary, not whether the plot summary is too long in itself.

Those are the distinct issues, and based on that I don't believe the templates could or should be merged. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the name is fine as is. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this is not a vote, I'd like to hear your reasoning. I've unambiguously laid out why and inhowfar the current name is in fact not fine. I'd prefer it if you didn't just ignore the valid reasoning I provided for my request. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't always get what you want, and I don't want to have to type more than eight characters when tagging long plots. And I'll ignore what I want. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason for you to be that aggressive. Just don't ignore valid reasoning presented by other users in a discussion in which you are ostensibly participating. Everything else is intellectual dishonesty. It's bad style and serves only to derail the discussion; please don't do it. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, you don't have to type in more than eight characters, because at least until all of the current transclusions have been properly disambiguated, Template:Plot will keep redirecting here. But the current title is giving the wrong message, it's confusing, and it should be moved. But I've already written all that and more above, which you also chose to ignore. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no ambiguation, so the rename is not necessary. ZooFari 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean ambiguity? Because there is very clearcut ambiguity, owing to the fact that the pagename "Plot" is more generic than the template actually is; until recently, this was also the only plot-section-related template, this is no longer the case. --87.79.169.145 (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archive 1