Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Plot section

The following discussion 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.

---

Current text

• Shortcut: WP:TVPLOT, MOS:TVPLOT

Further information: What Wikipedia is NOT

The main purpose of plot summaries is to provide context for the rest of the information. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction § Fair use states:

As the Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States, 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 ... Information about copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's non-free content policy requires minimal extent of use.

As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words. Complicated plots may take more space to present than simpler plots. For articles on the main work, this section should be brief, only discussing the important plot elements for each season (though, if the article is becoming overly long it may be best to trim it to over-arching plots for the entire series) that steered the course of characters' lives, or the course of the show. See "Confirmed Dead" as an example.

For season articles, there are a couple of ways to present plot information: in a basic prose section that gives season story arcs and main plot points and/or a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, as articles using {{episode list}} should not exceed 200 words in accordance with the instructions for that template). See Smallville (season 1) as an example.

The plot summary is an overview of the episode's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes and technical detail. Meaning of pop cultural references should also not be included if they are not supported by citations of reliable secondary sources. Per Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers, all of the episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers, and without using disclaimers or warnings in the article. In short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this guideline.

Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. WP:PSTS says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge ... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source". This includes allegorical or pop cultural references to real-world events. Since the episode is the primary source and the infobox provides details about it, citing the episode explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming or "lost" episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources, or when a passage refers to a recurring theme or storyline in multiple episodes.

For nonfiction-based TV shows (such as talk shows, game shows, news programming, reality shows, etc.), a "plot summary" may be interpreted as an outline of the show's format, or gameplay rules in the case of game shows.

New, updated text

Further information: What Wikipedia is NOT

Plot summaries provide context, allowing a reader who has not seen the work to understand the other sections of the article that comment on the plot (such as "Production" or "Reception"). Therefore, this section should be the first in an article, or as close to the start as possible. In addition to "Plot", other appropriate headings for this section may be "Premise", "Synopsis", or "Overview". As per WP:TVLEAD above, all articles should contain a sentence or two in the lead to summarize the overall storyline, generally done via a non-copyrighted logline or preview summary.

Plot sections should summarize the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens, or attempt to evaluate, interpret or analyze it. Avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, technical detail, as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actor's names. Also note that Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers is that all of an episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers, and without using disclaimers or warnings.

Plot summaries may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given (per WP:PSTS). Exceptions to this include "lost" episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources. A plot summary may only be included if an article has further commentary on the work; it will otherwise violate U.S. copyright laws, and therefore will not meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy. For instance, just having a plot summary is not allowed, but using a plot summary to establish context for some production and reception information is allowed. Likewise, plot summaries that are accompanied by this commentary but are copied directly from official sources will also violate Wikipedia's copyright policies, unless these summaries can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia.

For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} (such as State of Affairs). If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary. If the plot summaries are moved to a separate list of episodes (such as with The Blacklist) or to individual season articles (such as with Monk), then the plot summary at the series article should be replaced with a simple overview or premise section that allocates around 100 words per season (such as a logline for each season in non-copyrighted language). This may lead to articles about long-running series having quite long premise sections; it is highly recommended that these be cut down, as this should be a brief overview that avoids redundancy with the more detailed plot summaries that have been split off. Individual season articles should use either episode tables with no more than 200 words per episode (such as Smallville (season 1)), or a prose summary of no more than 500 words, not both. Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words.

For non-fiction series, such as talk shows, game shows, news programming, or reality shows, a "plot summary" may be interpreted as an outline of the show's format, or gameplay rules. This will likely be enough for such shows as news programming or talk shows. However, some non-scripted reality series, for example, may require similar summaries as scripted series, in which case they should follow the guidelines noted in the paragraph above. Additional appropriate headings for this section may be "Format" or "Gameplay".

Proposed changes

Proposal 1: Copyright Add text in new paragraph advising that content shouldn't be copied and pasted:

Plot summaries must not be copied directly from official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. All plots, including episode summaries, must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policies.

Proposal 2: Remove quote Remove the existing quote from MoS/Writing about fiction.

Proposal 3: Section title Append the following sentence to the final paragraph, suggesting appropriate terms for this section where the header 'Plot' might not work: In lieu of heading the section as "Plot" on unscripted program articles, the section may be headed more appropriately with terms such as "Premise," "Format," "Gameplay" or "Overview."

Proposed final wording for section

Proposal 4 -- Whats new?^(talk)

Further information: What Wikipedia is NOT

The main purpose of plot summaries is to provide context for the rest of the information.

Main series articles should include a very brief summary in the lead (such as the logline for the series) which describes the most basic premise of the program within a sentence or two at the most. The article should also contain either a list of episodes (ideally using Template:Episode table and Template:Episode list) which include the plot of each episode, or a plot section which summaries the show as a whole in prose form - but not both. If the article includes (or links to) a list of episodes, where each episode has its own synopsis (such as State of Affairs), then there should not be a plot section as it would be redundant including detailed plot elements twice. If there is not a list of episodes, but the program has separate articles for each season (such as Monk) the length of a plot section in the main article should be no more than 100 words per season (such as the logline for the season). If the program does not have season articles or an episode synopsis list (such as Scouted), the section should be no more than 500 words total per season.

Season articles should also include a brief summary in the lead (such as the season logline) as well as either a list of episodes or a plot section, but not both, following the same guidelines and limits as main series articles in the previous paragraph. Episode articles should include a brief summary in the lead, with a plot section of no more than 400 words. An episode synopsis should be no more than 200 words when using Template:Episode list in accordance with the instructions for that template. See Smallville (season 1) as an example.

The plot summary is an overview of the episode's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes and technical detail. The meaning of pop cultural references should only be included if they are supported by citations from reliable secondary sources. Per Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers, all of the episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers, and without using disclaimers or warnings in the article. In short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this guideline.

Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. WP:PSTS says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge ... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source". This includes allegorical or pop cultural references to real-world events. Since the episode is the primary source and the infobox provides details about it, citing the episode explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming or "lost" episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources, or when a passage refers to a recurring theme or storyline in multiple episodes.

Plot summaries must not be copied directly from official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. All plots, including episode summaries, must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policies.

For nonfiction-based TV shows (such as talk shows, game shows, news programming, reality shows, etc.), a "plot summary" may be interpreted as an outline of the show's format, or gameplay rules in the case of game or quiz shows. In lieu of heading the section as "Plot" on unscripted program articles, the section may be headed more appropriately with terms such as "Premise," "Format," "Gameplay" or "Overview."

Proposal 4a - adamstom97 (talk)

Further information: What Wikipedia is NOT

Plot summaries provide context for the rest of an article, allowing a reader who has not seen the work to understand what is meant in further sections, such as production or reception, that comment on the plot. Therefore, this section should be the first in an article, or at least as close to the start of the article as possible. In addition to "Plot", other appropriate headings for this section may be "Premise", "Format", "Gameplay", or "Overview."

Per WP:PSTS, plot summaries may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given: do not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source". Exceptions to this rule include upcoming or "lost" episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources. A plot summary may only be included if an article has further commentary on the work; it will otherwise violate U.S. copyright laws, and therefore will not meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy. For instance, just having a plot summary is not allowed, but using a plot summary to establish context for some production and reception information is allowed. Likewise, plot summaries that are accompanied by this commentary but are copied directly from official sources will also violate Wikipedia's copyright policies, unless these summaries can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. Essentially, all plot summaries must be written in original language, giving only a basic description of the work, and accompanied by further commentary and information throughout the rest of the article. To ensure the plot summary is just a "basic description", avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail, as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actor's names.

Also note that per Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers, all of an episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers, and without using disclaimers or warnings in the article: in short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this guideline.

Regarding summary lengths, plot summaries for series articles should ideally use Template:Episode table and Template:Episode list to give the plot of each episode in 200 words or less. If appropriate for the specific series, the plot section could consist of a prose summary of 500 words or less per season instead. An article should not have both episode tables and prose summaries. If the plot summary is split off from the series page, to a separate list of episodes (such as The Blacklist) or individual season articles (such as Monk), then it should be replaced at the main article with a simple overview or premise section that allocates around 100 words per season (such as the logline for each season). This may lead to articles about long-running series having quite long premise sections; it is highly recommended that these be cut down, as this should be a brief overview that avoids redundancy with the more detailed plot summaries that have been split off. Again, plot summaries moved to individual season articles should consist of either an episode table with 200 words or less per episode, or a prose summary with 500 words or less for the season, not both. Separate episode articles should have a prose plot summary of 400 words or less. In the lead of all TV articles, a brief line or two on the plot should be added as well, usually a non-copyrighted logline or preview summary. See WP:TVLEAD above for more on this.

For non-fiction series, such as talk shows, game shows, news programming, or reality shows, a "plot summary" may be interpreted as an outline of the show's format, or gameplay rules. This will likely be enough for such shows as news programming or talk shows. However, some non-scripted reality series, for example, may require similar summaries as scripted series, in which case they should follow the guidelines in the paragraph above.

Proposal 4b — Joeyconnick (talk)

Further information: What Wikipedia is NOT

Plot summaries provide context for the rest of an article, allowing a reader who has not seen the work to understand what is meant in further sections—such as "Production" or "Reception"—that comment on the plot. Therefore, this section should be the first in an article, or at least as close to the start of the article as possible. In addition to "Plot", other appropriate headings for this section may be "Premise", "Format", "Gameplay", or "Overview."

Per WP:PSTS, plot summaries may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given: do not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source". Exceptions to this rule include upcoming or "lost" episodes which are not available to the public to verify, for which editors are required to use secondary sources. A plot summary may only be included if an article has further commentary on the work; it will otherwise violate U.S. copyright laws, and therefore will not meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy. For instance, just having a plot summary is not allowed, but using a plot summary to establish context for some production and reception information is allowed. Likewise, plot summaries that are accompanied by this commentary but are copied directly from official sources will also violate Wikipedia's copyright policies, unless these summaries can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. Essentially, all plot summaries must be written in original language, giving only a basic description of the work, and accompanied by further commentary and information throughout the rest of the article. To ensure the plot summary is just a "basic description", avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail.

Also note that per Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers, all of an episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers, and without using disclaimers or warnings in the article: in short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this guideline.

Regarding summary lengths, plot summaries for series articles should ideally use Template:Episode table and Template:Episode list to give the plot of each episode in 200 words or less. If appropriate for the specific series, the plot section could consist of a prose summary of 500 words or less per season instead. An article should not have both episode tables and prose summaries. If the plot summary is split off from the series page, to a separate list of episodes (such as The Blacklist) or individual season articles (such as Monk), then it should be replaced at the main article with a simple overview or premise section that allocates around 100 words per season (much like a logline for each season but written in original, non-copyrighted language). This may lead to articles about long-running series having quite long premise sections; it is highly recommended that these be shortened as much as possible, as these sections should be brief overviews that avoid redundancy with the more detailed plot summaries that have been split off. Again, plot summaries moved to individual season articles should consist of either an episode table with 200 words or less per episode, or a prose summary with 500 words or less for the season, not both. Separate episode articles should have a prose plot summary of 400 words or less. In the lead of all TV articles, a brief line or two on the plot should be added as well, usually a non-copyrighted logline or preview summary. See WP:TVLEAD above for more on this.

For non-fiction series, such as talk shows, game shows, news programming, or reality shows, a "plot summary" may be interpreted as an outline of the show's format, or gameplay rules. This will likely be enough for such shows as news programming or talk shows. However, some non-scripted reality series, for example, may require similar summaries as scripted series, in which case they should follow the guidelines in the paragraph above.

Proposal 4c (melding Adam's 4a and Whats new?'s from below) - Favre1fan93 (talk)

Further information: What Wikipedia is NOT

Plot summaries provide context, allowing a reader who has not seen the work to understand the other sections of the article that comment on the plot (such as "Production" or "Reception"). Therefore, this section should be the first in an article, or as close to the start as possible. In addition to "Plot", other appropriate headings for this section may be "Premise", "Synopsis", or "Overview". As per WP:TVLEAD above, all articles should contain a sentence or two in the lead to summarize the overall storyline, generally done via a non-copyrighted logline or preview summary.

Plot sections should summarize the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens, or attempt to evaluate, interpret or analyze it. Avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, technical detail, as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actor's names. Also note that Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers is that all of an episode's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers, and without using disclaimers or warnings.

Plot summaries may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given (per WP:PSTS). Exceptions to this include "lost" episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources. A plot summary may only be included if an article has further commentary on the work; it will otherwise violate U.S. copyright laws, and therefore will not meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy. For instance, just having a plot summary is not allowed, but using a plot summary to establish context for some production and reception information is allowed. Likewise, plot summaries that are accompanied by this commentary but are copied directly from official sources will also violate Wikipedia's copyright policies, unless these summaries can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia.

For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} (such as State of Affairs). If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary. If the plot summaries are moved to a separate list of episodes (such as with The Blacklist) or to individual season articles (such as with Monk), then the plot summary at the series article should be replaced with a simple overview or premise section that allocates around 100 words per season (such as a logline for each season in non-copyrighted language). This may lead to articles about long-running series having quite long premise sections; it is highly recommended that these be cut down, as this should be a brief overview that avoids redundancy with the more detailed plot summaries that have been split off. Individual season articles should use either episode tables with no more than 200 words per episode (such as Smallville (season 1)), or a prose summary of no more than 500 words, not both. Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words.

For non-fiction series, such as talk shows, game shows, news programming, or reality shows, a "plot summary" may be interpreted as an outline of the show's format, or gameplay rules. This will likely be enough for such shows as news programming or talk shows. However, some non-scripted reality series, for example, may require similar summaries as scripted series, in which case they should follow the guidelines noted in the paragraph above. Additional appropriate headings for this section may be "Format" or "Gameplay".

Previous discussions

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 6#General Plot limit for episode articles - most recent

Discussion

• I would suggest adding a sentence in this section reinforcing that episode plots should not be directly copied from an EPG, TV guide or similar because they likely breach copyright. I've come across a few instances (mostly non-fiction/reality shows and thus aren't met by the quote from MOS/Writing about fiction) where text has been lifted directly from an official source. Perhaps text along the lines of "Plot summaries cannot be copied directly from official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. All plots, including episode summaries, must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy." -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of these cases recently, so I agree with an addition along those lines. I find the opening of this section to be a bit unnecessarily complex - the quote about fair use doesn't get the point across all that clearly for me. I would re-write the opening to be a single paragraph that more clearly states that per fair use (with the link we already have), plot summaries only meet Wikipedia's non-free policy if accompanied by sufficient analysis or explanation. Something like that. I think the opening should also include Whats new?'s proposal and the note from the end that series without a plot (non-fiction) should still have a premise that outlines the show's format.

Then, I would have the info on minutiae, spoilers, and primary sources. I think all of this is pretty good as is. To finish us off, I'd have a final paragraph dedicated to summary lengths, making some sort of clear statement about series overviews and season overviews; keeping episode table summaries at 100-200 words (with a note about no season overview when we have a season episode table?); and changing episode article summaries to 350-400 words, as was discussed recently (I have been trying to stick to not much over 350 recently, and I've found the length to be pretty good). - adamstom97 (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I like something like that Whats New? I think we could also add something to this or after about not including summaries for upcoming episodes, as users sometimes do this exact thing for an episode airing in a couple weeks that have a preview summary out. Adam, I think we can cut down the quote for sure. Possibly look to WP:FILMPLOT for some help on that front if at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this one for awhile. I think the strict 100-200 words for episode summaries is a bit much. I remember before it had something like "up to 350 words for complex storylines". I don't believe it should be 350, but at least *up to* 250, for some wiggle room here. It's annoying when a well-written summary that happens to be 215 words gets slapped with a "too long" tag. The problem is not the exact word count, but if the summary is actually excessively detailed or not. Sure, a summary that's 500 words is probably too long. But that doesn't mean a summary of 235 is excessively detailed. A discussion here is exactly how I feel (agreeing with what user TheFreeloader said). Another point I have is: it's unfair and doesn't make much sense that we're given the same word count restrictions for summarizing a 20-minute episode of a sitcom and 60+ minute episodes of complex dramas with dozens of characters and multiple storylines. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It depends on where you're having the summary. Honestly, I think 500 words is a bit more for an episode article given that we only give 700 words to 2 hour long movies (or 3 hour long movies). We also manage to tell a plot within 200 words (give or take a bit), so I cannot imagine that more than doubling that is going to make a huge different in understanding the episode. I would be ok with moving the LoE summary up a little bit, if the episode summary came down a little bit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think for me, whatever length amount we decide, we just need to clarify when those are used. For example, a parent/main article usually has a plot/premise section for the series as a whole. How long is that, especially since it covers the whole series? Do we give a length for how much each season should get, like 150 words, and together with the other seasons that will be whatever length it is? Or does the whole series, such as a 10 season run like Smallville, get the whole series summarized down to something like 300 words? Next, season articles usually use the episode tables, so how many words are the limit in the tables? Do we have a caveat if a stand alone episode article is created, does that mean the summary in the table should be shortened? And while not very common, some season articles also have an overall plot/premise section. What is this length? And finally, stand alone episode articles, what is the plot length there? That's the most of what I'm looking to getting out of clarifying, because right now, there are few bolded values but it can come off a bit unclear where those numbers apply. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts itemized (I'm sure I'll have more):

• Copy/pasting - I agree that we need clear "don't steal/plagiarize/violate copyrights" notice.
• Keep tabular summaries 150-200 words - I'm not a fan of extending the short episode summaries. I think if our community can summarize the entirety of the 121-minute Star Wars (film) in 650 words (what with nerds across the world tempted to add their favorite nerdbait--"B-b-but what about the part when Han shot first?! <type type type>") then we probably don't need 250-300 words for a 44 minute CSI. Didn't Faulkner say you have to "kill your darlings"? Editors typically treat the upper limit of film plot length and TV plot length as the bare minimum. I think it requires a perspective shift--If you aim for 175, then going over and hitting 200 shouldn't hit a problem. And maybe by extension, maybe we just agree to not flag if someone goes 10% over the limit?
• Establish/Clarify: What should the length of the Plot section in a TV main article be, and what is the focus? Note Naagin (TV series)#Plot. There are dozens of series like this that will never have a List of episodes article. Do we want the plot summary to contain season-by-season summaries each not to exceed 500 (or 350, or whatever #) words? Do we want a single summary that describes the overall shape of the series in 500 (or 350?) words? Is the latter realistic? 650 is possible for Star Wars, but for a show like Saath Nibhaana Saathiya which has produced 1900+ episodes spanning what looks like 22 years in their narrative universe, what would those guidelines look like? I mean check out Guiding Light (1970–79)#Plot development. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that there needs to be some common sense leeway on episode articles, given that there are a variety of different episode lengths (from 30 minutes to up to 2hours for some special episodes), and a vast difference to describe the plot of a sitcom versus something like a drama. For example, take anything Steven Moffet's touched (Doctor Who, Sherlock), and you will generally have a very complicated plot that can't readily be summarized even in 700 words (by FILM standards), while an average episode of something like Sinfeld or Big Bang Theory could easily be reduced to 300-400 words if not less. Here, one guidance I would consider is that unlike films, plots of notable television episodes do get covered in reviews. If such plot coverage exists, then there is some leeway to go into more plot details, but that should be backed up by sources. Another way to put it: we should reduce the amount of text in any episode or season article that can only be attributed to the work itself, but when you can start adding third-party secondary sources, some length is appropriate. Concise is still the target, and there should be metrics when there are no sources to help back the plot up, but I don't think we want to be hard-line numbers as much as the FILM project uses. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with clear guidelines for length of series and season plots as well as episode summaries. I agree with other comments that, while we should agree on a word count range for various cases, I don't think being over (or under) by a slim amount should warrant a major issue. I think the wording we should be along the lines of "episode summaries should not exceed around [X] number of words" rather than a harsher statement such as "summaries are strictly limited to [X] words." I would also agree different upper limits for different sections, but episode summaries in tables should be towards the lower end of numbers here. The series/season plot should give the lengthier, overall detail of the story, where as the episode summary should be a simple, brief overview of what happened in that episode. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you touched on something at the end, which is this idea of "season plot summaries". If it's on a season page, I don't see why there needs to be 3 locations that have a plot summary. Not all do this, but I have seen it. You get a summary of the plot in the lead, then a section summarizing the season, then an episode table that does it. The middle one doesn't need to exist. If you summarize the season in the lead, you don't need a separate section containing details that are either in the episode table (redundancy) or they aren't in the table (why not?).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I sort of touched on this in my comments above. I'd be fine with adding wording to say, at least for fiction-based seasons, a season overview section should not be used. However, that might be more applicable to do for non-fiction based shows, such as reality series, to just give an X number of words summary, rather than minuscule summaries for each of the episodes. But all in all, it should be one or the other for season articles, the single summary, or individual plots in the episode table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there are some different needs for fiction vs non-fiction (reality, game, etc) shows. For fictional shows with individual season articles, I think we should note that the season plot as a whole should be summarised in the lead, with more specific details in the episode table (and limited to a TBD number of words), but no seperate section. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Finally getting around to contributing to this discussion. I think that the 100-200 words limit for summaries in episode tables should remain as such, but some less-observed series do use only several sentences to summarize an episode, so perhaps remove the 100 words minimum, and keep the 200 words maximum? I always give a bit of leeway when tagging summaries that are too long (typically up to 215 words), but claims that a longer episode should have a longer summarization (that is, in the episode table, not the episode's article) are unfounded - if a two-hour episode can meet the current guidelines, then why can't a 90-minute episode? A summarization isn't meant to be overly detailed; the length of the episode doesn't matter. I definitely disagree with reinstating the "350 words for complex story-lines", as anyone can turn that to their own uses and claim that any series is "complex". The summaries for episode articles should also remain at a maximum of 500 words, to reflect the practices used in the Film WikiProject. That's where the detail that is not added into an episode summary can be displayed and expanded upon.

There are several articles that use both the prose and tabular format for the events of the season; see Game of Thrones (season 1) for what I believe is a well-executed example of this. The prose summarizes the season as a whole, the table summarizes each episode as their own. However, there definitely needs to be a limit on the prose as well if it is to be allowed; see Game of Thrones (season 5) for a poorly-executed example - it comes in at 523 words, compared to Season 1's 326 words.

Agreed on adding a section to not copy content from anywhere that is not Wikipedia (with a link to the copyright policies in question), that it should be in an editor's own words, and that it applies for anywhere on a television-related article, whether it's a season's prose section, episode table or episode article. I'm also planning on going back through the discussion archives of the Television WikiProject, to read over some of the discussions that were raised with this particular guidelines, and see if we can cover some of those issues. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Alex, if you come across any discussion of particular interest, can you put them in the section above? When I set up this discussion, there were just so many, I didn't have the time to look through them all and see if any were still relevant. The one I did link was and was why I did that. Thanks. As to your post, I think we're trying to figure out if on a season article, the plot/premise section is necessary if episode table summaries are also used. I feel that is excessive, though the GoT (season 1) article seems like a good example to model something on if we were to allow both. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree that GoT does the summary well, only in the fact that you can't do redundancy well. It is what it is. Well written or not. The reality is that the "season summary" should happen in the lead, and not in a separate section. You should be able to summarize a season in far less than 500 words, because individual arcs should be covered in the episode summary. These sections feel more like a loop around for not being able to put more detail into an episode summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

On plot lengths, I'm fine with leaving "...100–200 words..." as long as it is clear that this is a guideline, and not a "hard rule", and that some episodes summaries will run less than this, and a few will run more. The guideline is less the problem here than editors' taking "100–200 words" too literally, and either insisting upon staying within that limit, or "tag bombing" some episode lists with {{Long plot}} and {{More plot}} tags. As long as common sense is employed in regards to TVPLOT, things should go fine...

My only other comment, which is only somewhat related to this topic, is just a very, very general concern with Wikipedia articles devoted to specific episodes. There are a few episodes – Buffy's "The Body", the last episode of "MASH", Seinfeld's "The Contest", etc. – that will get enough press coverage to warrant standalone articles. But I'm very, very uneasy with the sheer number of single-episode articles we have on the project – e.g. for SpongeBob. I'm wondering if as a project we need to go through this and figure out which of these need to go... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

For episode plot lengths, I agree with 100-200 words as a guideline, rather than a rule, allowing flexibility where needed but giving editors something to point to regarding clear misuse. I'd be fine dropping the minimum limit, particularily in regards to non-fiction programs (such as factual programs, some reality shows, etc), but again if it was a guideline rather than a rule, the obvious exceptions then take care of themselves. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

We need a maximum limit somewhere, and 200 is as good as any. 250, maybe. But if it's not implemented more firmly, any editor can complain and say "but this series needs it", "but this episode is complex", "but that's not enough", etc. We can continue to raise it as much as we want, but it still remains a guideline for a short summarization, not a complete minute-by-minute summary, and 200 words is sufficient. I always give some leeway when tagging excessive summaries; this script allows up to 215 words, and I typically go up to 220 before tagging. 20-odd words isn't hard to trim. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus will determine what's appropriate – any single editor who wants an episode summary to run 300 or 350 words or more is very, very likely to be overruled by consensus (esp. at WT:TV) in all but the most exceptional circumstances. I don't believe a "hard limit" is necessary or desirable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that no hard limit is needed. Some people do not understand what "summary" means and, at least with the shows whose pages I follow, many tend towards tedious, repetitive, minute-by-minute recountings of the episode: Jack and Jill did this, then they did this, then Sammy joined them and they did that. A hard limit is crucial as something to point to and there's no reason for it to be any higher than 200 per episode. As many have already stated, much longer works or entire seasons have been summarized effectively with word limits not much higher than 200. Leaving episode summary length to "local" consensus means these summary tables could vary hugely, even for episodes of similar length and complexity, depending on whether you get a bunch of concrete-operational editors who are wordy... the proper "place" to come to consensus, and the proper scope for such consensus, is "here". —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my point, Joey, I couldn't have said it better myself. Every article should run by the consensus of the whole guideline, not local consensuses per article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• To speed up discussion here, I've put two proposals in the "proposed changes" section above regarding removing the existing quote and adding a paragraph about not copy & pasting content, given neither are contentious in recent discussion (although please raise issues with either proposal if necessary). Since word limits are the hot debate in this section, perhaps we should get that sorted and come to a consensus on that. The current text essentially:
  • A: suggests (not mandates but suggests) 200–500 words for series/season overviews
  • B: suggests 100–200 words for episode or brief season summaries
  • C: subsequently restricts 200 words when used in the table.

Perhaps everyone can briefly state, of the 3 above, which they agree should remain, and which they would change and what they would be changed to (including change of upper limit, lower limit as well as suggestion V restriction) -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• With respect to the proposed bit about not copying copyrighted materials, I think it should be changed from Plot summaries cannot be copied directly from official sources... to either Plot summaries should not be copied directly from official sources... or the stronger Plot summaries must not be copied directly from official sources.... If they "couldn't" be copied from official sources, then we wouldn't need to have this guideline. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Re-written "must not" -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• @AlexTheWhovian, IJBall, Bignole, Favre1fan93, Masem, Cyphoidbomb, Drovethrughosts, and Adamstom.97: Forgive the pinging around the holidays, but just to speed up discussion, see above comments regarding added formal proposals as well as the A,B,C suggestion on how to (more quickly) progress consensus on word limits. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • As I've said previously, I'm fine with the guideline "suggesting" (even "strongly suggesting") word limits like those suggested above. I just don't want the guideline to imply that anything that is a "mandate" or a "hard limit", because 1) guidelines can't take account of every eventuality, and 2) guidelines aren't supposed work like "rules" in any case. So, I'm against C "restricting" a word limit – it should just be "suggested" that plot summaries shouldn't (generally) go over 200 words in episodes tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I am heartily for outright restrictions on upper limits, provided there is some "give" (say 10%) before they are tagged as over the limit. So I guess that's A, B, and C? —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (No problems with the ping; helps me get away from the family drama that wants to arise at this time of year.) I would be agreeable with A and B, with a slight modification to B: "suggests 200 words for episode or brief season summaries". That is, to remove the minimum of 100 words, as it's really not necessary. I do believe that episode summaries shouldn't be "restricted" as such, so I wouldn't vote for C. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • (I seem to have not been watching this page like I thought I was, and have missed most of the discussion so far, so thanks for the ping!) I'm not sure about series/season overview lengths, but I think we should have a note there saying that it is either a season overview or an episode table—I know there are some examples of well written summary/table combos, but a well written episode table can clearly describe overarching storylines on its own, so having the overall summary is redundant. Then for episode pages, I think 350-400 words (as I mentioned above) is all that is needed, while episode table summaries should be 100-200. These should be suggestions, but summaries shouldn't be wildly shorter or longer. Also, for the episode summaries (page and table) I think we should say that these are suggestions for standard 40-60 minute episodes, so people can know to adjust summary lengths based on different episode lengths. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm with Adam here mostly. I think we need to tell people that they should pick either a season overview section or an episode table summary (they can have an overview and a table, if the table doesn't have summaries). Yes, as Adam pointed out, there are well written ones but this isn't about well written sections. This is about redundancy. The lead should already be summarizing the season in one of the paragraphs. Don't need to do it twice if you're going to summarize every single episode. In that case, I'm ok with a season overview (in place of an episode summary) being longer, to allow for more room to properly summarize overall story arcs. I would get rid of the minimum side of things. I think episode page summaries shouldn't be more than 400 words, but I wouldn't say "350 to 400", because it implies that they need to be more detailed when that may not. Some episodes are efficiently summarized in 200 words or 300 words, and I don't want editors to think that they have to go up to 350 words to satisfy the guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
        • OK, so seems to me so far there's agreement on removing minimums from both series articles and season/episode summaries. Also appears agreement on more clearly stating that it is season summary or episode table but not both on season articles. Still a bit unresolved on whether to 'suggest' or 'restrict' the maximums, so perhaps some others would like to weigh in there, or otherwise reach a compromise. To throw something else relatively minor in: should be have a clear naming convention for this section. I note several terms can be used, eg. "Premise" on The Player and The Blacklist, "Gameplay" on Jeopardy!, no section on Westworld, "Format and rules" on Survivor, "Format" on Big Brother and Q&A, "Overview" on 8 Out of 10 Cats and "Plot" on Chicago Fire. I think they're all acceptable, and some don't work on others (eg. "Gameplay" doesn't work on a drama, and "Plot" doesn't work on a game or news show, but "Overview" or "Format" are interchangable to most). Maybe we need a clear list of acceptable terms? The MoS has it listed as "Plot section" and the final paragraphs admits there are issues with the word 'plot' in some cases, but perhaps an acceptable list of terms would help? -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Perhaps we could say "strongly suggested", so there are no absolutes but there should also be a good specific reason to go beyond the maximum. As for title, I think it should be "Plot" or "Premise" for fiction, depending on the content of the section, and then probably "Premise" or "Format" for non-fiction, again depending on the content. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
            • I'm going to read through all of this after the holiday and create a straw poll for all to !vote on what we are deciding. But from what I've skimmed, I'm in agreement with most of the comments presented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
            • For fictional/scripted series, I'm OK with any of "Plot", "Premise", "Story" or even "Overview" or "Summary" for the header title – I don't think we need to restrict the choice of header here. (I have no opinion on what to do with unscripted series or game shows – honestly I don't really care!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
              • Agree with a specific reason to go over a maximum, with that reason agreed upon by others (not just one editor's opinion). For section heading, I don't think its a huge deal as I said before given all work in context, but think it might be helpful to clearly state somewhere in that final paragraph some suggested terms for a little consistency, especially for unscripted shows where 'plot' or 'premise' doesn't work. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the discussion about title of section for unscripted shows (news, game, reality, factual, etc) where 'Plot' doesn't make sense, given there was no opposition, I've added a formal proposal to the section above. If there are any issues or new commenters, please do discuss here. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll

Okay, so here is a straw poll to get some !Votes on what we've been discussing, to then formulate into the MOS text. I will also drop a line at WT:TV and the MOS talk that this poll is happening. The poll is to cover both the word limits for plot as used on the various articles, and how the plot should be featured on the articles. Please put your !Votes for each of the letters and numbers as indicated below, or an "all" or "none" vote. I hopefully made this clear for all. Please let me know if I didn't.

• Plot to be featured on each type of article (excluding reality/game show, etc. related articles):

A: Main/Parent articles with episode table summaries - summary in the lead (ie the logline for the series) and the plot in each episode in the episode tables

B: Main/Parent articles without episode table summaries - summary in the lead and a plot/premise section (which should ideally consists of season loglines, if available and slightly expanded, etc.)

C: Season articles - summary in the lead (possibly the logline for the season) and the plot of each episode in the episode tables OR a plot section covering the entire season (both of these should not be used)

D: Episode articles - summary in the lead (possibly a non-copyvio of the preview summary for the ep) and a plot section

• Episode lengths. It seems all who contributed were in favor of removing minimum word counts, but keeping a hard maximum (with some small wiggle room):

1: Episode tables - up to 200 words

2: Episode article plots - up to 400 words

3: Overview plot/premise sections for main articles - 200-500 words (I think this was what was suggested)

3a: Overview plot/premise sections for main articles - ~100 words per season summary, so depending on how many season a series has, it will have a relative amount of overview (ie the 12 (and counting) seasons of Supernatural should not have the same amount of summary info as the two season Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23).

4: Season plot sections (if not using the episode tables) - 200-500 words (I think this was what was suggested)

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Straw poll question

For C, do you mean "OR a plot section covering the entire season" (not the entire episode)? —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did. Fixed. Thanks for the catch! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• For 3a, what will the situation be with unscripted shows. The thought occured to me when on the article of news program Insiders which has a format section totalling 300 words. The section falls under the word limit of 3a (Overview on main article), but being a news program it doesn't have 'seasons' as such. If, however, we are going to count shows without defined seasons (such as news/talk programs) then as this show has been running since 2001, it is entitled under the 100 words/season rule, to 1,600 words for the format. Perhaps we need a hybrid of 3 and 3a, whereby the limit on main articles is either 100 words per season or up to 400 words (same as episode plot). Just a thought -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

!Votes

• Support A-D, Support 1, 2 and 4. I'm not entirely sure in my original posting if 3 and 4 were what were suggested. Regardless, I think 200-500 is a good amount if doing a single, season plot section. I might suggest for #3, ~100 words per season summary, so depending on how many season a series has, it will have a relative amount of overview (ie the 12 (and counting) seasons of Supernatural should not have the same amount of summary info as the two season Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 3a. Recently added based on my comment above for others to easily support or oppose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Same: Support A–D, Support 1, 2 and 4. Again, as long as the wording about the word limits is along the lines of "suggested" or "strongly suggested" rather than "mandated" or "required". On #3, I'm not 100% sure that 500 words will always be enough to summarize the plots of some TV series, which is why I'm not supporting that one right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support A-D and 1,2, 3a, & 4, but with Favre's suggestion about being clear that a show with 12 seasons shouldn't be treated the same as one with 1 season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support A-D as well as 1, 2, 3a and 4 per Favre's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support A-D and 1, 2, 3a, and 4, and I'm totally fine with the strongest language possible (I would prefer must be no longer than X) on the limits... especially for episode tables, i.e. 1, with the understanding that when tagging as overlimit, we give some wiggle room there. I would much rather state limits strongly, knowing some will go over them and then dealing with those cases in context as appropriate than be wishy-washy on the limits, which will only give ammunition to those who have no proper understanding of what "summary" means. Even "strongly suggested" is too weak, in my experience. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment @IJBall, Bignole, Sjones23, and Joeyconnick: I've added a 3a option based on my comment in my initial support !vote. Wanted you all to be aware in case you wish to adjust or amend any of your comments, or readd a !Vote in light of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support A–D, and 1, 2, 3a, and 4, per above. I do still believe, however, that episode table summaries and prose summaries should be able to be used together. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support A-D and 1, 2, 3a, 4. Just a quick comment also: the straw poll notes Plot to be featured on each type of article (excluding reality/game show, etc. related articles), however the episode lengths should always apply to unscripted program articles also. Additionally (while rare) there are cases where unscripted shows have parent and season articles (eg. Real World and its seasons) where plot layout rules are relevant. The second season of that show's article, for example, has an episode summary table, as well as a "Season changes" section, which some (not me) may interpret as equivelent to "Plot." -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support A-D and 1, 2, 3 and 4. Oppose length of 3a but agree with the rest of it. I feel 100 words for a season summary is a bit too anemic and unrealistic. Using F1F93's Supernatural example, the summaries in the 250 range seem more reasonable to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious how the new guidelines are going to affect Naagin (TV series), which has two large ≈500 word season summaries. Are those going to have to be condensed to 100 words, or can they remain 500s since there are no season articles? I just want to be sure I understand the changes. Thx, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I actually was going to say, for series summaries/premises maybe it should be "in general 200–500 words and, if over 5 seasons, no more than 100 additional words per season greater than 5". A little more complicated but should give shows with fewer seasons a bit more wiggle room. It maybe hard to describe a show's entire premise in 100 words even if it's just a 1-season show and of course, at the beginning, they all are 1-season shows. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, if you look at Smallville, it summarizes 10 years in much less than 100 words a season. At that length, it really needs to be asked, "do we do a full season "summary" on the main page". We would likely have season summaries on multiple pages and episode summaries and we're just creating redundancy. Summarizing the main point of the season shouldn't really take a lot of words. There's a different between summarizing a season and summarizing every season's arc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bignole: My concern with the Naagin example above, is that there simply isn't enough competent manpower available to bring those articles up to speed, so there will almost certainly never be any season articles for it. Doubt it'll ever make it to List of Episodes stage. So in my capacity of an admin gnome, I'm trying to figure out what community standard I should be enforcing there. Allow 500 words per season on the main page (because that's the only place a season summary will ever be found), or confine it to 100 words (seems counterproductive) or allow the plot section to become this? (I'm kidding. I wouldn't do that...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that what you bring up is a good point in that particular case and probably involves another caveat about what to do with shows where the information lies in one location. That isn't the case with Supernatural though, and majority of shows.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

100 words is way too strict, you would have to go through GAs and FAs to bring them to standards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This brings up a good point - there is a bit of a double standard if a season summary can be 500 words on a season article, yet only 100 on a main article regardless of whether a season article exists. It may encourage editors to create season articles for shows that don't warrant them just to get the extra 400 words. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. My instinct with Naagin is to try to wrangle the season summaries to under 500 words. I guarantee there will never be a List of Episodes article and prior attempts to create a S2 article basically just regurgitated what was in the main article. (No, they didn't even consider that maybe they should create a S1 article first...) I guess another way to go, would be to relax the threshold for what is required to create a season article, but then you'd just have the same problem with bloated plot summaries... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should allow bigger season summaries at a series page just because there is no season article. That's like having bigger episode summaries in an episode table just because no episode article exists, which we obviously don't want to happen. We write plot summaries to give context to real world information (production, reception) so if there is not enough of that to justify a separate season article, then there is no justification for having a longer season summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the reason I said ~100 words for a main article doing a series overview, was the fact that, in my experience, season loglines released to promote each season are about 100 words, as those should generally be the basis for the main page overview of the series (obviously expanded slightly as needed). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the 100 words per season for main articles, but I fear editors will create incredibly thin season articles just to be able to write more. Perhaps to prevent this, is there or could there be a clear policy on when a season article is necessary (or more to the point, when it is not). -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support A-D, Oppose length of 1 (should be 215 - 230 words to allow for "wiggle room"), Strongly Oppose 3a as unrealistic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Elaborate on how it is unrealistic? Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The idea that it's unrealistic because we would have to update FA and GA articles is a little based in the false assumption that this has never happened. Policies are updated and guidelines are updated pretty regularly when you think about how old Wikipedia is. No one stops to say "hey, this is going to affect lots of articles". If it's the right way to do it, then you do it, and you slowly get articles up to code where needed. It's happened before, like when this MOS was first created, and it'll happen again down the line.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support A-D and 1, 2, 3a, and 4. Also support wording to allow wiggle room if absolutely necessary. I don't think the fact that many articles do not currently match these numbers is a good reason not to implement them here. If we make these changes, then we can have more control over new articles, and anyone interested can take their time moving through older articles and making any adjustments that need to be made. I also don't feel that any "unrealistic" arguments are valid, as these limits are all definitely enough to get a decent summary from a decent writer. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment 3 may be too restrictive, in the specific case of special standalone episodes. I was just pointed to this discussion today after I initiated a discussion on the talk page for The Return of Doctor Mysterio, this year's Doctor Who Christmas special, regarding the length of its plot summary. I believe that a standalone special episode of a regular program presents the worst of both worlds when it comes to summarizing it; one must not only cover arc significance with respect to other episodes, but must also explain the large number of new elements introduced in the story. It stands to reason that episode summaries can be shorter than feature film summaries, even when episodes are as long as films, because episodes use many elements that are already explained elsewhere, in a description of the premise or in a character list. For this reason, I believe there should be a provision that true standalone episodes (whether because the individual episode is a special, or because every episode stands alone in the case of an anthology series), can have summaries up to the same length as that recommended for feature films. --DavidK93 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In this Doctor Who case you mention, if it is an episode (regardless of whether it is part of a regular season or a standalone special), it is still an episode article, thus falls under the 400 words limit. 400 words seems sufficent for the plot of one episode surely! -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually, "arc significance" is really only relevant to fans, not average reader. All pages on Wikipedia should be able to stand on their own, and not rely on "catching you up". That's why we have links. We don't discuss World War I on the World War II page to "catch you up" on what happened. The same that we don't recap the previous Harry Potter movies in each subsequent film page. We link and let readers read it for themselves. If they are to the point that they are on a specific episode's individual page, I don't think they need to be "caught up" or educated on the significance of the episode within a story arc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the special longer than a normal 42 minute episode? Because that would allow a slightly longer summary per these new guidelines. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they do. None of them are based on the minutes of a show. They are based on the length of the series as a whole. If we based it on that, then LoTR films would likely be 2000 words. LOL.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Length of any episode and number of episodes per season is not relevent to word count. They all get the same plot summary length. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

In the guidelines, yes; in reality, no. In general, a longer work takes more words to describe. Sure, some long works are plodding and don't actually have so much content that requires a long summary; and some short works are action-packed with complex things going on that are harder to summarize briefly. But, typically, more happens in a one-hour program than in a half-hour one and more happens in a three-hour movie than in a ninety-minute one, and I don't think it's right that no distinction is made. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Surely" not, Whats new?; if I thought it were, I wouldn't argue otherwise. Not all episodes are equal and, as I described, this standalone special is very different from a regular series episode. Setting aside arc significance for the moment, the fact remains that this type of standalone special requires more words to summarize because it consists heavily of new elements; it seems to me that the typical use of common elements is a reason why episode summaries can normally be shorter than film summaries. In fact, this varies significantly for different types of programming. A sitcom, for example, is a situation comedy based specifically on a "situation" that doesn't change; every episode shares characters and settings so that a plot summary consists almost exclusively of descriptions of action. In contrast, a show like Doctor Who (or Quantum Leap or Touched by an Angel, for further examples) is already disadvantaged in making the plot summary fit within the prescribed length, because every episode features new settings and new characters. When you have to start off with a sentence like, "The Doctor and Clara enter an Antarctic research station where a team of five are in cryogenic stasis," that doesn't actually describe a plot event but would be critical to understanding the plot, that's space that isn't available for descriptions of events. Further, Bignole, I disagree with you about arc significance; in your particular example, the main article on World War II mentions World War I five times. But, to clarify, what I meant was that a special episode typically has a subplot that pertains to a larger arc and thus is part of this episode and must be summarized alongside the main standalone plot. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning WWI is not going out of its way to describe what happened in WWI. You can reference things without having to explain them, because they is why they have other pages. To explain them. Longer episodes do not mean you need words to cover them. I find that logic flawed, and I can put to a numerous amount of 3+ hour movies that did not need an extra amount of words to describe them. If you're having trouble with summarizing, then that is an editor education issue, and not an issue with the guideline. That's based on practice and learning over time when is truly not relevant. TV shows often include things that are not relevant in the moment but set up something later. Thus, you don't need to mention it in that episode just because YOU know that it will be important. We're not here to tell people everything that happens in a show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a sliding scale for word limits based on length of an episode/series/season. Articles are not designed to be effective transcripts of everything that happened in the episode. In the case of this Doctor Who special, the character of the Doctor is the same, the general settings and characteristics are the same. If there are new characters, there is a cast section to detail info about them if need be. 400 words should be sufficent. Wikipedia is not here to describe every subplot in exorbitant detail. There needs to be a consistent limit across episode articles, and the overwhelming majority seem settled on 400 in episode articles. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support A-D and 1, 2, 3a, and 4. However, I do have concerns that the 500 word upper limit is excessive for programs with several seasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondary vote

In the interests of closing this topic area out: it seems A - D and 1, 2 and 4 have overwhelming support. There just remains contention around 3 or 3a and some new issues raised as part of the discussion. To extend point 3 of the proposals I'll continue the numbering scheme:

3b: Overview plot/premise sections for main articles - 100 words per season summary (same as 3a) IF the program has separate season article(s). IF the program does NOT have separate season article(s), allow 200-500 words per season (same length as 4). Rationale being that titles without season articles will need more words to summarise the plot(s) on the main article page, and will also deter overzealous users from creating thin, unneeded season articles just for the sake of getting the higher word count.

Please indicate support for 3b or opposition in favour of former proposals 3 or 3a and then we should be able to move on to the next section for discussion. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support 3b - I'm good with that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support 3b - I'm also good with that. In the little bit of time I've had to think on this, I was going to propose something similar to what you came up with Whats new?, to have the plot on the main articles be more "fluid" and adaptable to correspond to what supplemental articles exists for said series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Also, here is a courtesy ping to all the users who !Voted or commented above: @IJBall, Joeyconnick, AlexTheWhovian, Cyphoidbomb, Knowledgekid87, Adamstom.97, and DavidK93: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Sjones23:. Messed your ping code up previously. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• No strong opinion on this – I'll go with what others decide. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This sounds fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, I would just like to go over how I am interpreting this whole thing to see if what I am thinking is correct.

Series articles - (a) logline for the series in the lead; (b) series overview/premise section with ~100 words per season.

Episode articles - (c) intro in lead, perhaps a non-copyvio of the episode's preview summary; (d) plot summary with up to 400 words.

Season articles - (e) logline for the season in the lead; (f) plot summary of 200-500 words OR an episode table with up to 200 words per episode.

If there is not a separate season article, then (f) should be included after (b) - if (f) is a 200-500 word plot summary, then that would be at the series article as well as the premise, and if (f) is an episode table, then that would be at the series article as well as the premise. The latter is already the standard practice, so for simplicity and consistency should the former not be also?

I'm not sure if that thinking is right, or if I am a bit off base here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I think you've got it, although for the main article, there should be the lead logline, then EITHER episode table(s) OR plot section - not both. Depending upon the existance of season article(s), the length of the plot section differs. Episode table limits don't change. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so we should be saying:

Series articles - (a) and (f)

Episode articles - (c) and (d)

Season articles - (e) and (f), replace (f) at series article with (b)

I think that last part is a bit of a change in thinking, with articles such as Legends of Tomorrow (both premise and episode tables) being common. Just wanted to be sure. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I'm good with the rationale. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 3b as written - My big concern here is the upper limit. What is being suggested is a program with 8 seasons could have 4,000 words for the plot summary in the main article. That's far too much as, for some series, it could easily be 11% or more of the total used for episode summaries. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think we should be using percentage amounts in our wording AussieLegend? That might be more beneficial for us, as we are not giving a hard number count, but rather a moveable scale that can be applied appropriate to different articles. So TV series with more seasons should would relatively have more words (within reason) than one with less, yet they are both appropriate amounts because we have given a percentage, not a hard limit range. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Percentages aren't a bad idea, just harder to explain and implement. The Walking Dead (TV series) currently has season summaries on its main article, with the longest clocking in at nearly 400 words and I don't think it looks too excessive (that program has season articles, so under 3b they would drop to 100 anyway). I would think it highly unlikely for programs with that many seasons not to have sufficient season articles, but even if not, I think a limit is easier both to enforce/manage and explain then a sliding scale. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that long lasting series are more likely to have proper season articles, especially these days where behind-the-scenes information is so much more readily available. By my count, The Walking Dead has over 1800 words for season summaries. Per these new rules, that would be cut down to around 700, and the season articles would be left to give all those details. So really, these new guidelines will hopefully, for the most part, cut down on summary lengths rather than allow unnecessarily longer ones. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I see AussieLegend's concern. I guess we could use a "pushing it" length plot summary for a "show without season articles" summary to make the case for creating seasons articles for that show. There's probably no perfect solution... I tend to think though, as Adamstom.97 points out, it's likely a show with many seasons will naturally gravitate towards having season articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is better to have a clear, definitive, easily understood limit that the casual editor can refer to, instead of complicating the issue with lengthy exceptions and calculations. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You'd think that a show with many seasons would naturally gravitate towards having season articles, but one that immediately comes to mind is Castle, which lasted a full 8 seasons and 173 episodes without a season article.[1] It wasn't until 4 months after it finished that season articles were created. I think that we should include some form of comment that says, despite the listed limits sometimes "less is more". The plot in a main article should still be just a brief overview, with specifics in the episode table summaries. The Last Man on Earth, as an example, adequately provides an overview for its 3.5 seasons in 198 words, and there is really no need to go beyond that. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: The way I've written it in the final proposal below is "should be no more than 100 words per season" and "should be no more than 500 words total" so it is not encouraged to get to that point, nor have any minimums been included. There is also a paragraph about what to not include from existing text. The main Castle article currently meets the new requirements, while its season articles would have the Overview sections removed to comply. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So, putting it all together

Assuming A to D and 1, 2, 3b and 4 are agreed to with majority support, and there are no last minute new or unresolved topics in this section (hurry there's still time!), I've attempted to put it all together as follows to be added to the MoS.

Note that the talk quotes (green serif text) are new additions to the section. The first two paragraphs in green are completely new based upon the A-D, 1-4 discussions here which I've just written up now, so please feel free to suggest changes or a complete rewrite if things aren't clear or you have better example pages (ones that already complied with the new rules were hard to come across!). Those new paragraphs replaced the two existing paragraphs on this topic area. The new text in the last two paragraphs and removal of the existing quote are based on previously agreed to proposed changes. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have moved this up to the proposal section as we have done with previous discussions, and I have added my proposal that takes your's Whats new?, and gives it a bit of a c/e per my earliest sentiments for everybody to see. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment on 4a: I don't mind some of the simpler language used, but I feel like the lengthier explanation I wrote in my proposal about the differences between series, season and episode articles might make it a little easier to comprehend. You have also reintroduced a minimum word count for the prose summary (was discussed to remove all minimums). It is also geared towards scripted series, with no overt explanation of what do on a main article for a program without season articles or episode list (as I gave the example of Scouted and the 500 words, because the 100 words/season isn't particularly relevant for shows that don't really do seasons - news and game shows most notably). -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I rewrote the whole section because (a) it had similar information all over the place and (b) it wasn't very clear. I tried to be very clear about the fact that a series article gets a table or prose summary, but if that is split off then it gets a premise. I also reiterated twice that series and season articles should have a table or prose summary, but not both. There isn't any more to it. The exact word counts I used were based on what we just voted on (200-500 words per season, for example), so if we aren't going to include minimums then that hasn't been made clear, and may require another wee poll just to check where everyone is on that. As for non-scripted shows, I somehow missed the line you added there, so sorry about that. But before I add anything along those line to my proposal, that is another thing that we haven't discussed - where did the 500 word limit for scripted series come from? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

From the straw poll " It seems all who contributed were in favor of removing minimum word counts, but keeping a hard maximum" but if you think it necessary to straw poll again feel free. Proposal 3b and its predecessor was for 100 words/season IF season articles exist, otherwise up to 500 words total. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, I see that now. I must have got confused because right below that it says 200-500 words, and that is what everyone has been using since. If we want to remove the "200-" then that doesn't make much of a difference. But, the 500 word limit from 3 was replaced by 3a, which says nothing of the sort, after several editors felt that was not enough for some longer series. That was then replaced by 3b, which says 200-500 words per season OR 100 words per season and season articles. It seems that despite our best intentions to make things clear with the straw poll and whatnot, there is still some confusion as to what has been discussed.

Just to make things clear, this is what I believed had been agreed, which you told me just above was correct: series articles get 200-500 words per season OR an episode table with up to 200 words per episode; if those summaries are split off to a season article, they should be replaced with ~100 words per season; and episode articles should have up to 400 words. That is what we voted, and what you confirmed to me just above, so that is what I have written in proposal 4a. This is why I am confused about the no minimums, since no one pointed out that we were all still using them, and why I am confused about this hard 500 word limit, which was never agreed on and seems to go against what we agreed on.

So, accepting no more minimums (an easy fix), can we please discuss whether there needs to be an upper limit for the premise (rather than the ~100 words per season that we voted for), if so, what should it be, and what to do with unscripted series, which I don't think we have properly discussed yet, in terms of whether they need special treatment or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I see your confusion now, I've added 500 words total per season to make that clearer, in line with 4b. There doesn't appear to be much interest from those who have commenters with regards to non-fiction shows (some have openly stated it in the discussion) which is fine, but I don't think they need special treatment. Just depending on the program, it may or may not have seasons. A daily news show will not for example, but by the same token, there's not any lengthy plotlines that can be discussed there, and most unscripted shows (except reality shows perhaps) will likely come in closer to 100-200 words in a prose section. -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have added some stuff about non-fiction series to my proposal, and I have clarified exactly what should be where, so that it is very clear what all the different expectations and word limits are for each type of article. I am pretty happy with my version of the proposal, and I'm pretty sure we've now covered everything discussed. Now, we need some other editors who haven't proposed different wording here to chime in if there is anything they think we have missed, and if they have a preferred proposal above out of 4, 4a, and 4b. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for interested parties in developing the final wording for this section: @IJBall, Joeyconnick, AlexTheWhovian, Cyphoidbomb, Knowledgekid87, Bignole, AussieLegend, DavidK93, Sjones23, and Favre1fan93:. See #Proposed changes and either support one, suggest your own from scratch, or modifications to any or the existing text. This discussion should be able to close after this, and we can move on to the next section. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, a lot has been covered since I last checked in! It seems like the content has been more or less agreed upon, are we now seeking a vote among Proposals 4, 4a, and 4b? I prefer 4 and can obviously see the differences from the others, however I'm wondering about the overall thinking of those who created the "opposing" proposals. For example, Adamstom97, what is your general issue with Whats new's wording that prompted you to reorganize the information so? I'm not looking to start a huge new discussion, just looking for some insight into your approach. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 03:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Yes you're correct, essentially just attempting to agree on final wording now. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I always took issue with the layout and wording of the section. I spend a lot of time writing and re-writing articles, and I focus a lot on organising and c/e stuff. I felt from the beginning that this section had been put together in bits and pieces over time, and it ended up a bit all over the place. That's why I proposed reorganising everything straight away when this discussion began; I thought this was a good chance to clean the section up and help it read and flow better. So I don't have any issue with what Whats new? did, I just wrote the section how I always thought it should be, with the new stuff we discussed added in. For instance, and sorry if this comes across as rude or something, but looking at Whats new?'s proposal, it doesn't have all the summary lengths together, or all the fair use stuff together, and it doesn't seem to clearly explain why we have the fair use and copyright stuff, or how all the plot summary stuff actually works. It just seems to be a first draft, and I took that first draft, put everything in a more logical order, explained some stuff better, and removed some things that shouldn't be there (we shouldn't go into lead stuff that much, because there is a separate section for that, so I cut that stuff down and added a link up to the lead section). I am happy to adjust my wording if needs be, but I definitely think that the other proposals are not of a high enough quality, nor that well explained for new editors, to be added to the MOS as is. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I like Adamstom.97's version better, which is why I am happy to acknowledge mine is just a copyedit of his. I think the only significant problem I have with it is that I struggled to understand the part in the second paragraph that begins A plot summary may only be included if it is further analyzed in an article... I think I follow it now but I think if I had trouble initially, people newer to TV articles may also. I think the confusion stems from the use of "an article" when I think what is meant is "the Wikipedia article in question" (many people think of common sources for TV pages on Wikipedia as "articles" on the show or the season) and also the vague, unexplained use of analyze: I would prefer "referenced" or "is required to contextualize the other content in the page." At least, I think that's what's meant, that plot summaries can only be used in an article that includes other materials that refer to them. I wouldn't say that other materials or sections in TV-related articles usually analyze the summaries, though. If you talk about a "Reception" section that discusses how a set of episodes (i.e. a season) was received, that's not analysis of the plot... that's simply reporting how it was received. Analysis would require the "Reception" section to dive into why it was received the way it was, which not that many journalistic sources tend to do. Likewise, a ratings table isn't analyzing the plots... it's just data about the episodes. Same with a "Cast" section or a "Production" section: none of these are analyzing anything. Any analysis would be in the secondary sources that would be cited elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, not the Wikipedia article itself. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Joey, I have adjusted that bit to try make it easier to understand. The analysis wording comes from previous versions and other parts of Wikipedia, and I didn't even think of it as you have described here. Hopefully the new version is improved. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I figured it was historical and/or related to other parts of Wikipedia, but I think this version is a lot clearer. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this premise/overview section the same thing as an episodes section? Is it worth mentioning anywhere (reiterating from WP:TVOVERVIEW) that a List of episodes' series overview table should be transcluded to this section at the main article? Some main articles have both premise and episodes sections. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I still oppose the length of #1, summing up complex or translated episodes cant always be done in 200 words or less. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

With respect, we're not re-debating individual elements, just deciding how the information is presented. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedical, I think that is something that should be discussed down with the OVERVIEW stuff when we get to that section, because there is a bit to that situation and getting it right. But the idea is that an overview table would be transcluded to this premise/overview section which is replacing an episodes section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Final vote call

@IJBall, AlexTheWhovian, Cyphoidbomb, Knowledgekid87, Bignole, DavidK93, Sjones23, and Favre1fan93: Just one final courtesy ping for users to vote upon or suggest final wording for the plot section so we can close and move onto the next. Read and comment/vote for final wording in proposals section here as soon as possible please -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Original text: here
version 4: here

version 4 changes from original: here

version 4a: here

version 4a changes from 4: here

version 4b: here

version 4b changes from 4a: here

Dropbox folder with "Track Changes" files, in Word and PDF format

Final votes and comments

• Support 4a: Doesn't have everything I want but in the interest of getting somewhere, it's the closest. (Should we have a separate section for voting? This page has gotten a bit messy.) —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there anything substantially different between 4, 4a, and 4b? 4a does not have the changed text bolded, so I'm having a harder time going back and forth to determine what might be different (sorry, I haven't kept up with the recent convo of it). 4b looks like it may just be tightening up the wording of either 4 or 4a, but nothing really changed substance wise. I may be missing it though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm also finding it very hard to follow. Could we possibly have someone reproduce the options all in a bulleted list alongside the current content? I'm interested in providing input, but the information is too diffuse for me to do that (perhaps because I wasn't part of most of the conversation, so did not encounter this content as it was created). --DavidK93 (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  Reply to Both - The difference between them is really wording. Whats new? proposed a version (4) with everything we talked about, and that version highlights all the new text. I proposed an alternate version (4a) that was basically a c/e of the first proposal, and then Joey did the same (4b), though I think Joey now prefers my version (4a). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Indifferent I'm indifferent to the resulting text layout, though 4b does seem tighter with Adam's wording. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree that this has gotten quite messy and confusing for the casual observer. To answer @Bignole and DavidK93:, essentially Proposal 4 is the existing text with the changed/new issues discussed here (in green text) inserted into it. 4a was written from scratch, and 4b is a rewording of 4a - but they all say much the same. Seems most people don't have strong opinions on how it reads (people just want it over)! If most are indifferent or not interested in the wording, we may need to stick with the original text, simply append the changes to the end of it, and come to a rewrite at a later date when there's more interest. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  I supported 4 originally, so if there isn't anything substance-wise that changed and it's just c/eing and simplifying the language, them I'm good with whichever version people think conveys the same message more efficiently and accurately.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think going with the original text in 4 at this point is appropriate. People finding it hard to tell changes apart is not the same thing as either consensus or indifference. I am pretty committed to coming up with a more polished version than 4 and even I am finding it hard to follow the changes/iterations. Give me a few hours and I'll see what I can come up with in terms of clearly identifying what is different between each of the three options. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  I've added some links that hopefully help people understand the three main versions we're considering. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Joey, we'll see how that goes, but as I said earlier, two other editors have noted their indifference to wording, so if there aren't enough editors with opinions either way to get a consensus, I'd suggest putting a pin in it for now, append the agreed to positions in simple language to the end of the existing text and moving forward for now - I know there have been a number of discussions elsewhere about the cast section put on ice waiting for that section to open here -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Proposal I would suggest adding a sentence somewhere along the lines of "names of the actors should not be included in the 'plot' section but listed under 'cast'". Although most editors would think this was obvious, there are instances where plot sections are littered with actors names in brackets as each character is first mentioned, despite their all being listed again in the cast section usually immediately following. IanB2 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  Good idea Ian. I don't think that is a major issue that needs to be discussed here first, so I have just added it in to my proposal (proposal 4a) above. If you have any thoughts on which of the three proposals (4, 4a, and 4b) are written the best, particularly for someone who hasn't been involved in all this process, then that would also be a great help. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Response To be absolutely honest, I haven't commented because I find all of them difficult to assimilate. I think the issues are that there is a hierarchy of instructions, some applying to all articles and some to certain types of article, that isn't reflected in the structure of any of the proposals, and also that flowing prose is not the best way to present what is actually a list of discrete instructions. Personally I would like to see something set out like this:

STARTS This section summaries the plot, to allow someone who has not seen the programme to understand the rest of the article.

All articles should contain a sentence or two in the lead to summarise the overall storyline.

All plot sections should:

• summarise the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens, or attempt to evaluate, interpret or analyse it;

• normally be first in the article, after the lead;

• avoid minutiae like dialogue, individual jokes or technical details;

• be written in original language, and not copied from official sources that are copyright (secondary sources may be used for 'lost' or upcoming episodes);

• only include popular cultural references if they are supported by reliable secondary sources;

• not refer to names of actors, which belong in the cast section;

• contain spoilers as per WP:SPOILER; please respect this.

Main series articles (good examples: State of Affairs, Scouted, Monk) should only include a plot section if there is no episode list with the plot for each episode, and in that case of no more than 500 words per season, or no more than 100 words per season if there are also separate articles for each season.

Season articles (good example: Smallville (season 1)) should only include a plot section if there is no episode list with the plot for each episode, and in that case of no more than 500 words.

The plot sections of episode articles (good example: ?) should contain no more than 400 words.

Episode lists within series or season articles should contain a synopsis of no more than 200 words for each, and use Template:Episode list.

For a nonfiction show (such as a news, talk, reality or game show), the "plot summary" may be interpreted as an outline of the format or gameplay rules, and the section may better be headed "Premise," "Format," "Gameplay" or "Overview".

ENDS. The bottom line is that, if I am an editor, I want a handy, simple and clear checklist of the points I need to follow, not an extended piece of prose going all round the houses about plot sections IanB2 (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Reword "contain spoilers as per WP:SPOILER" to "should not have spoilers removed as per WP:SPOILER". It doesn't need to contains spoilers, but if they are present, they shouldn't be removed. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind IanB2's 'checklist' style layout (perhaps with the bullet points in prose form; we don't want it too long and a few minor changes including AlexTheWhovian's point). Consensus on final wording is proving far more complex and lengthy than I had hoped. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's finish this off now

Taking some of the points raised in the discussion to date about final wording, coupled with minimal interest in final wording, I'll propose the following text which is largely based of the far more simple suggestion of IanB2, removed the bullet points to present things in prose form for consistency, change the spoiler section per AlexTheWhovian's note and added in some necessary detail from Joeyconnick's 4b proposal to create the following:

Plot summaries provide context for the rest of an article, allowing a reader who has not seen the work to understand what is meant in further sections — such as "Production" or "Reception" — that comment on the plot. Therefore, this section should be the first in an article, or as close to the start of the article as possible. For non-fiction series, such as talk shows, game shows, news programming, or reality shows, a "plot summary" may be interpreted as an outline of the show's format, or gameplay rules. In addition to "Plot", other appropriate headings for this section may be "Premise", "Format", "Gameplay", or "Overview."

As per WP:TVLEAD, all articles should contain a sentence or two in the lead to summarise the overall storyline via a non-copyrighted logline or preview summary.

Plot sections should summarise the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens, or attempt to evaluate, interpret or analyse it. Per WP:PSTS, citing the episode plot is not typically necessary as the program is the primary source, although secondary sources may be used for 'lost' episodes which are not available for the public to verify. Avoid minutiae like dialogue, individual jokes or technical details. It should be written in original language, and not copied from official sources that are copyright unless these summaries can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. Do not refer to names of actors or cast members in this section (they belong in the cast section). Only include pop culture references if they are supported by reliable secondary sources, and do not remove spoilers per WP:SPOILER.

Main series articles (good examples: State of Affairs, Scouted, Monk) should only include a plot section if there is no episode list detailing the plot for each episode in the article, of no more than 500 words per season, or no more than 100 words per season if there are separate articles for each season of the program or a 'list of episodes' article, such as the logline for each season in original, non-copyrighted language. An article should NOT have both episode tables and prose summaries, as these should be brief overviews that avoid redundancy.

Season articles (good example: Smallville (season 1)) should only include a plot section only if there is no episode list with the plot for each episode, of no more than 500 words. Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words.

Plot summaries for series and season articles should ideally use Template:Episode table and Template:Episode list to give the plot of each episode in no more than 200 words.

I think it is well time to put a clock on closing this discussion, and while this version won't make everyone happy, I would argue it is simple yet thorough enough for the average editor to understand without getting too complex or detailed. We can revisit the wording of this section at a later date, but for now let's just get some version of text copied into the MoS and move to the next section. Please pick apart spelling, rewording, necessary additions/deletions but unless a group of users wants to fall strongly behind a previous proposal, I move we put this forward, close this discussion down and move onto the cast section. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I like 98% of this. Only concerns are as follows, both in the third paragraph (and I'm sorry if this was address earlier): In this section, I have concern with saying upcoming episodes here, citing the episode plot is not typically necessary as the program is the primary source, although secondary sources may be used for 'lost' or upcoming episodes which are not available for the public to verify. This wording to me makes seem acceptable to include preview summaries for upcoming episodes, which we do not allow. Am I interpreting this incorrectly in what your intent was? And my final note is this: Do not refer to names of actors or cast members in this section (they belong in the cast section). I know we might get into the nitty gritty of this in the next discussion, but I feel this is only applicable to articles with cast sections. In a case of a List of episodes, the lead should cover the main cast members, but no more, so it would be okay, in my eyes, for the summaries there to list actor names in parenthesis (but not below the plot as Guest listings etc). So my prosed adjustment would be this (including it in the same spot): Do not refer to names of actors or cast members in the plot section if a cast list or section exists in the same article. If this might be too divisive right now, then I'd say let's remove this sentence, and once we come to consensus in the next discussion, add something back in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Good notes. I've removed "upcoming" from the text (I think it is clear enough with just the 'lost' example as to when sourcing is required). With the cast section up next, probably best not to make that change just yet as you say, but there would be no problems changing that line based on consensus outcomes of the next discussion (status quo might be best for now so we can shut this discussion down). -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that there are some differing views on this final wording, but I don't think this new proposal is helping. Ian's proposal of basically bullet pointing everything out doesn't seem appropriate for the MOS – this section is quite important and requires the extra explanations from the earlier proposals to clear up confusion and different interpretations, and to help out new editors. From looking through the last wee bit of discussion, there seems to be some small support for the sort of wording that myself and Joey have proposed. Therefore, to wrap this up, I suggest we have a last look at 4a or 4b and give any last concerns/suggestion regarding specific bits there. To start off, I am very happy with my version (4a), but would be happy to make any last changes if needed before that version is moved over to the MOS (if others agree with this approach). - adamstom97 (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I understand you're position on this and share in some of your frustration with the process, but given none of the previous wording inspired much interest, I think a simpler way to go is best for now. As I pointed out, we can come back to the wording - the important part here was the changes made to word length, etc. I removed the bullet pointing, but the average editor doesn't need the extra explanations and rationale based on this discussion or different proposals made here - if they are interested, they can be pointed to this very discussion and read it for themselves. Again, if there's any significant late interest in former proposals or strong objections to this more basic edition, we can go back, but failing either I think it makes more sense to make a change and move on. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I know this has dragged on for a while, but if we don't finish the conversation now then we will still have to deal with it at some point. I think it is better we do it now so that it actually gets done. Since most editors don't seem to care too much about the exact wording, I think it is just up too the few of us still actively involved here to make a decision. Like I said, I think the extra explanation is necessary for the MOS, and there has been some support for the sort of wording Joey and I proposed above. Would you and Favre be open to using my wording with a few tweaks if you had any? That way we get it done and can move on, and not need to worry about it again afterwards. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It is all the extra explanation and other padding that makes all of the three earlier prose versions so difficult to understand. The MOS is, after all, a manual, and a good manual should be clear and concise (and you won't often find one written in continuous prose). If there is really a need for detailed explanation it can surely go on the talk page; as someone who came to it fresh, as Adam originally observed, my view is that the one thing they were not doing is 'clearing up confusion'. People will refer to it, I suggest, in two principal circumstance - as an editor making a quick check to confirm they are editing correctly - and as someone engaged in a dispute seeking support for their position. In both cases the easier it is to discern what the manual is suggesting, the better, surely? And the idea that we should adopt an unclear format 'for consistency' does itself seem peculiar to me. (Also note, in the latest prose version, "do not have spoilers removed" should read "do not remove spoilers" for grammatical consistency) IanB2 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 and IanB2: I agree with Ian's analysis on the issue, and that's why I've taken his simplified version as a way forward. He makes a good case for removing the extra explanation, 'padding' and rationale, because most editors won't care. This discussion will live on if people want to know how decisions were arrived at. That is why I would oppose going forward with 4a or 4b. My original proposal 4 was the existing text with the new issues added in, which creates the same lengthy and unclear issue. I don't see the case for all the extra rationale and explanation in your version Adam -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to disagree with you both there, as one of the biggest issues I have experienced with this MOS is people misinterpreting the guidelines, or not understanding exactly what they are saying. We need extra explanation to make it clear exactly what we mean, exactly what the rules are, so we can cut down on confusion and arguments concerning what exactly it is the MOS intends. Your latest proposals don't explain some very important guidelines that we need people, especially new editors, to know, including why there should not be articles that consist solely of plot. Your explanation for the different summary lengths is also jumbled and confused, which is why we shouldn't try to break up information just for the sake of having bullet-point like statements. Mine and Joey's proposals are the only proposals so far that accurately explain to readers how the summary length system works, and why, in a clear and easy to understand way, and they also have all the information we have discussed (your new proposals omit things that should be kept). I can't condone adding anything less than 4a or 4b to the MOS, which is supposed to be helpful, not just a rushed job because we can't be bothered taking the time to work out the best option. But I recognise that this could come across as me just wanting to get my way, which is why I am happy to further discuss altering my version. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

if the earlier proposals did what you say, Adam, then you might have a point. But as someone neutral to the earlier debates I gave an honest view, when you asked me, that they sadly fail on these very terms. And, as a manual intended to help editors to produce good readable, accurate and clear content, don't we hope that the MOS would set a good example? Further, one particular reason why instruction+justification (even were it clear) isn't the right approach for a manual is that it opens the door for one editor to argue their position from the instruction and another from the justification, which is the sort of unhelpful dispute that can bog people down for ages on WP IanB2 (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

All the summary length info is in the simplified text. The discussion points which have occurred here aren't relevant to other editors, and as I earlier explained, if they want to know the rationale for why things are or why the limits are as they are set, they can read through this discussion. As Ian pointed out as a fresh pair of eyes, your average editor doesn't need to know the justification unless they're interested. What specifically is omitted that you think has to be kept? -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to try an meld Adam's and What's into 4c so we can hopefully close this discussion. Stand by. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay let me know what you think. Please feel free to make small grammar/other changes as necessary but let me know your thoughts overall. I tried my best to meld the simplicity I think Whats new? and IanB2 were looking for, with some of the more indepth-ness Adam wanted to ensure was still there. I think it is a good outcome and hope you agree too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with this new proposal, except for the summary lengths paragraph. The second line ("These articles could consist of a prose summary of 500 words or less if appropriate for the specific series and no episode list with the plot is used for each episode") doesn't make sense to me, and I again take issue with the jumbling up of information there. We need to explain the initial series article guidelines, then what to do when a season article is split off, and then the episode article information as well. Trying to mix the series and season information together is just confusing. A possible alternative:

Plot summaries for series articles should ideally use {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} to give the plot of each episode in no more than 200 words (such as State of Affairs). If appropriate, these articles could consist of a prose summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should not have both episode tables and prose summaries. If the plot summaries are moved to a separate list of episodes (such as with The Blacklist) or individual season articles (such as with Monk), then the plot summary at the main article should be replaced with a simple overview or premise section that allocates around 100 words per season (such as the logline for each season in non-copyrighted language). This may lead to articles about long-running series having quite long premise sections; it is highly recommended that these be cut down, as this should be a brief overview that avoids redundancy with the more detailed plot summaries that have been split off. Again, the summaries moved to season articles should be episode tables with no more than 200 words per episode, or a prose summary of no more than 500 words, not both. Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words.

- adamstom97 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fun times! Well, I feel like we're getting somewhere. I have the same concerns as Adam directly above... the paragraph on lengths is tripping me up. I would try:

For series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} (such as State of Affairs). If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should not have both an episode table and such a prose summary. If the plot summaries are moved to a separate list of episodes (such as with The Blacklist) or to individual season articles (such as with Monk), then the plot summary at the series article should be replaced with a simple overview or premise section that allocates around 100 words per season (such as a logline for each season in non-copyrighted language). This may lead to articles about long-running series having quite long premise sections; it is highly recommended that these be cut down, as this should be a brief overview that avoids redundancy with the more detailed plot summaries that have been split off. Again, the summaries moved to season articles should be episode tables with no more than 200 words per episode, or a prose summary of no more than 500 words, not both. Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words.

Is that clearer? (not sure we should be using State of Affairs since the first ep summary in that one, for the pilot, is currently miles longer than 200 words, but maybe this will encourage us to fix that) —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I like your work Favre1fan93. I prefer Fav's version than your modifications Adamstom.97 and Joeyconnick because you again bring in unnecessary detail and redundancy (eg. your version mentions the word limits twice, Fav's examples show it applies to series and season articles succinctly). I don't love the third paragraph, but happy to compromise on using it. Only minor changes - you use the line about 'not analyze, evaluate, interpret' in both second and third paragraph, so that should be omitted from one of them (redundant). I also don't think the last paragraph serves a purpose - it basically says unscripted shows should follow the same rules as above if necessary - I think that is obvious enough without needing to overtly state it. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Good to see some progress; thanks for your work on this Favre. My input:

• - the first sentence would be simpler as "Plot summaries provide context, allowing a reader who has not seen the work to understand the rest of the article"
• - in the second para after "spoilers" the comma should I think be a semi-colon
• - starting the third paragraph "Per WP:PSTS" is poor phrasing, particularly for a new editor. Better to start with the actual sentence and refer to the policy at the end in brackets? The point about not analysing or interpreting is repeated from the first para and doesn't need saying again. The last couple of sentences of the third para seem to be straying back towards the convoluted wording of the earlier proposals.
• - we should avoid words like "ideally" and "if appropriate" (fourth para) since these effectively undermine the direction being given. Even "highly recommended" invites the reader to disregard the recommendation.
• - "fewer" not "less" when we are counting words
• - the last para about non-fiction shows makes a similar point to that already made in the first para; we should deal with non-fiction shows at the beginning, or the end, not both
• - what happened to the point about not mentioning the actors' names, unless there is no separate 'cast' section? I thought this was non-contentious?

IanB2 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree (but not strongly) with the first and third points. Agree with the second. I noted the sixth point in my earlier reply. The cast section is to be discussed shortly, so that can likely be added in when consensus is achieved in that discussion, but no problems adding in the status quo if necessary. Don't particularly care about the other suggestions either way. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, Joeyconnick, Whats new?, and IanB2: Okay. So I've read your comments and made adjustments. Adam and Joey, I reformatted the length paragraph per your suggestion. Whats, I leaned more with Adam and Joey in separating out the series info from season looking it over again and I don't think the duplication is an issue. It will probably be better in the long run to have it clearly defined if issues arise in the future, or the lengths for just season articles need adjustment etc. To round out your comments Whats, I removed the duplication about analyze, etc and move all the non-fiction info to the final paragraph, per Ian. Ian, adjusted the first sentence and reworded the starting of the third paragraph. I didn't feel the end of that paragraph was straying towards convoluted wording as you noted. Please expand if you still feel so. Finally, I did remove the part about actors names as I felt that should be discussed in the WP:TVCAST discussion next. I also was not aware if discussed here (if so please point me to it), but we can add this bit in the second paragraph very easily should consensus be formed in the next discussion. I think this might be it. Let me know your thoughts again. All changes in this single diff. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Yeah I'm happy to compromise on that. I would suggest just make two minor changes, (1) For the 4th paragraph I would begin it For main series articles just keeping in mind that the UK and other countries don't always distinguish clearly between series and season, so adding main might help any initial confusion. (2) The very final line, I would move all the alternate section names to the first paragraph (some are duplicated, but all should exist somewhere) -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't duplicate the alternate section names like that. Otherwise, I am happy to compromise with this. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason I did that, was the ones at the end are mainly for non-fiction series, while the ones at the top are for fictional ones. Since we don't cover non-fiction until the end (that is more appropriate there than in the first paragraph), how do you both suggest we fix that? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I do understand that reasoning, so happy to keep it like that. We may just have our final version finally! -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps just give the non-fiction specific ones at the bottom (gameplay and format) as additional titles, with the others up the top. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Kept specifics, removed duplicates. Let's see what Joey and Ian have to say, if anything, and then I'm going to be bold and close out this discussion and add the new text to the MOS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that looks good. Hopefully the Cast discussion is more simple! -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good job - just a few bits of navel fluff left to pick out:

• In the first sentence "the rest of" is singular, therefore it should be "comments" not "comment" (or alternatively use "other sections of" rather than "rest of"). The bit between dashes might be better in brackets?
• In the second sentence we don't really need to refer to "article" again in the sentence, just say "as close to the start.."
• In the second para the hanging "per" isn't grammatical - either put "as" before it or, better, delete "per" and insert "is that" before "all of an...". Also "..in the article" at the end is superfluous.
• In the third para "to this rule" is superfluous and also conflicts with "may be" in the previous sentence (i.e. "may" isn't really a 'rule')
• I still find the fourth para really heavy going, but if you are all happy with it, so am I. You are right that in the UK we don't use the word "season" (except to refer to the temperature of the rain); much of our TV either goes away never to return or never goes away at all.
• The last para does make the sentence about alternative titles in the first para redundant. I would delete the reference from the first para and insert "alternative" between "Appropriate" and "headings" in the last one

IanB2 (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@IanB2: I adjusted all the notes sans the other titles comment in your last bullet. If they are not included in first paragraph, only including in the last will make it seem as though what we are listing are only applicable to non-fiction series. And we should not have a final single paragraph at the end of this section just for the alternate titles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I like it. I would have kept in the part about keeping actors names out of the summaries as a) that's current and b) I strongly hope that does not change in the discussion on the subsequent section, but I don't think that's worth stonewalling about. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Yeah agreed, this is a version everyone active here has been able to compromise on. Close it down and let's move on -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added back the info on cast names because most seemed for it. I will voice my opinions and concerns about this in the next discussion. Closing now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2017 (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.