Wikipedia talk:Plot-only description of fictional works

History and purpose of the page

This page was created in an attempt to resolve some of the repeating discussions at WT:NOT over the exact nuance and meaning of the WP:NOTPLOT clause. The discussion on the Talk page (much of it archived and going back several years) shows a general agreement on the overall encyclopedic goal but great concern that the exact wording of WP:NOTPLOT could lead or has led some readers to unintended implications.

Proposals to expand the clause on the WP:NOT page have been met with great resistance - WP:NOT is already far longer than ideal. Proposals to remove the clause have met even more significant resistance. The intent of this page was to elaborate on and complement the WP:NOTPLOT clause and to fully articulate all the nuance and detail about Wikipedia's consensus position on plot summaries without bloating the WP:NOT page. The page was modeled after WP:WINAD, a drill-down page which has successfully filled much the same role for the WP:NOTDICDEF clause in WP:NOT.

As always, this is a work in progress. Discussion and improvements are always welcome. Note: If you are new to the discussion, please review the extensive WT:NOT archives. Rossami (talk)

Magnets for original research

I have several issues with plot summaries:

1. It is the current conensus that plot summaries don't require "chapter and verse" citations; my view is that it is not the consensus at all, just wishful thinking by those who can't be bothered with providing references;
2. Content without citations tends to be original research. Even if it is not, it tends to invite orginal research.

I think there needs to be an RFC about plot summary and references. In order to improve editorial practise, I think we need to jetison the current fashion that "citations aren't necessary because it is the primary source" mentality, and adopt a more modern and vigorous approach in which plot summary should be supported by references to chapters, scenes, (dare I say it) page numbers. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with your core point that too much plot summary on Wikipedia is original research, I'm not sure how this would fix it. Specifically, it's not yet clear to me how a plot summary can be cited without clogging up the paragraph with pointless trivia and detail. Do you have an example of a plot summary that you consider to be appropriately cited?
Or could you show us how Romeo and Juliet#Synopsis would be revised based on your concern? There are three footnotes in that section but they are merely pointers to very specific catchphrases from the play - not what I think you intend. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree w/ Rossami. It would lead to a ridiculous amount of detail in the citations that would largely be unnecessary. Can you give an example of where original research has crept into plot summary in a significant way? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Before I worked on the article Kender, it was virtually all plot summary, with virtually no citations. Editors were adding original research to it all the time. Now it is well sourced, this has stopped, and editors actively remove unsourced content. Without citations, plot summary is a magnet for original research, and this is usually the reason why many plot only articles get deleted - its a fatal combination, and citations combined with a real world perspective is the only way to reform the way fiction is handled on Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to paraphrase and see if I'm understanding correctly. You are not necessarily proposing that the plot summary itself must be called out for citations - you are saying that by increasing the demand for citations in the article as a whole (and holding the plot summary section to the same standard), the largely uncited plot summaries will quietly wither away. Or at least that the debate over the plot summaries tends to disappear. Do I have that correct? Rossami (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If I might butt in from the world of film... I agree with Gavin, and it constantly amazes me that the most ridiculously hard-assed, deletion-leaning editors will write paragraphs worth of purely original research in a plot-summary. My own method in plot summaries is to provide as concise a description of the plot as I can-- 1 or 2 sentences if possible (though, admittedly, I'm usually working on exploitation/cult films, not on Shakespearan classic, which would merit a more detailed description). And that plot description has a citation not to the film (as that would be original research-- my own description/interpretation of the film's plot), but to a description of that plot from a reliable secondary source. That way, the plot description is easily verified by looking at the source, rather than requiring a viewing of the film. Just my 2-cents. Dekkappai (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Rossami, I can't disagree with you that more citations an article has, the better it is. I would go further by saying that I am definetly in favour of inline citations for plot summary - see WT:WAF#Referencing for an earlier discussion on this issue. For works of fiction themselves, it is difficult to discern when plot summary strays into the realm of orginal research, or whether the plot summary is way too long. By indicating which chapter or scene is being summaried, problem areas are revealed. For elements of fiction, such as characters, this issue is more accute. I would say that most plot only articles that get deleted at WP:AFD do so because their content is original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two ways that plot summaries can be cited:

• Pulling appropriate quotes from the primary source (with the quotes in references, natch) as long as it does not take interpretation of the quote to understand its meaning.
• Pulling secondary sources that describe the plot. Generally necessary for interpretive aspects but can be used for outright facts as well.

Now, I don't think every statement in a plot section needs to be sourced, but based on what I've seen at FA and GA, there needs to be more than one per paragraph of plot (roughly). It's certain not necessary but should be encouraged for a starting fiction article. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ready for promotion?

Are there any new thoughts or builds on this page? Is it ready for wider distribution yet? Rossami (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems ready to me personally. Could be brought up on Wikipedia talk:NOT (among other places). --Cybercobra (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded on my initial contributions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Temporarily change to against officially proposing until requested clarification done (see Gavin's talk). --Cybercobra (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am on board now. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My concern has been addressed. A-OK by me. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Notability" in the Rationale section

I think the recent addition of the "notability" wording in the Rationale section of the page confuses more than clarifies the issue. The work of fiction must clearly pass the notability threshold to have a page here at all. Once it has a page, though, the plot summary is not an independent page. The plot summary is a component of the encyclopedia article. With the exception of the CliffsNotes brand, a plot summary can not be independently notable. It is part and parcel of the original work.

Pending clarification, I'm going to partial revert to the earlier wording. Rossami (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be right, as this is an issue picked up at WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Excess of proposals

This seems to be a third proposal in an area already crowded with Wikipedia:Fiction and WIkipedia:Notability (fiction). What does this proposal offer that is new compared to those already existing proposals? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's meant to augment WP:PLOT, not as a notability guideline. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, so is Wikipedia:Fiction. Indeed, given the proposal to consolidate our fiction guidelines to a single page that hits all the pertinent points of coverage, this seems to me to be a step backwards. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if those involved in this page were even aware of WP:Fiction. I, for one, wasn't. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there's the problem then. Which one was first? I haven't checked, but I'd suggest we consolidate and shoot for one page for fiction content issues. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Notability (fiction) is about whether or not the work ought to be covered in the encyclopedia at all. This page starts from the premise that the underlying work is appropriate for inclusion and goes from there. Wikipedia:Fiction (add me to the list of those not knowing about that page) seems to have some overlap but in both directions - some overlaps with plot-summary specific content and some with Fiction (notability).
I would agree that a merger is probably appropriate. Looking at the histories, the two pages appear to have been started at roughly the same times (both just a few months ago) and have about equal participation so far. Rossami (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this page is very important at the moment. When the RFC finishes, editors will be asking: what is the consenus? If this page can reflect WP:NOT#PLOT as closely as possible, then it will be very useful in the debate, because the it will illustrate the key issues in the debate, and be the forum for continued discussion. If it can be agreed that this page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, then this would be a very strong indicator that WP:NOT#PLOT is the consensus view. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Old Wording

One of the unexpected results from the RFC started by Masem seems to be pointing towards the re-adoption of old wording:

The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I have amended the lead paragraph to reflect this[1], but have kept the new wording, as it goes a long way to providing a clear definition of the this policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Focus

One problem I have with this approach is that it seems to me primarily negative, in a way that is more about chasing off bad contributions than encouraging good ones.

Fiction articles shouldn't be plot-only - that's true. But it is preferable, to my mind, to define what they should be. A policy on what a fiction article ought to be that includes what it can't be is more useful than one that simply sets up what is forbidden. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst that sounds a superior approach, it ignores how WP:NOT works. It is actually quite difficult to define what any article should contain, as it is unlikely that such a definition could be precise enough to provide any useful guidance, whilst at the same time encompass the entire range of encyclopedic content in all its myriad of forms. Instead, encylopedic content is defined in terms of what it is not, in the sense that what is not encylopedic sits outside the boundry of content suitable for inclusion within Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to a clear statement that a plot-only article is unacceptable as part of a larger policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC on adoption

I think a reference to the page should now be added to WP:PLOT, but before this happens, I think we need to have some sort of RFC to get feedback from the wider community. Has anyone a suggestion as to what wording would be best to move this forward? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose adopting this as a guideline. It can be summarized in one sentence "the coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary" in some other place, like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). We don't need this WP:CREEP. Mark it as info page. Pcap ping 14:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks to be redundant to Primary and secondary information to my eye. Infopage may well be best for it. Hiding T 11:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary

Can people please join discussion to work out the nature of Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. It was tagged as a guideline for a year, and then a user changed it to a how to page. I thought it worked better as an Info-page, and now myself and Dreamguy are tag warring over whether it has consensus or not. I've set my stall out at Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary#Bizarre argument. Hiding T 10:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletionism never dies

Time and time again another reason to remove content from Wikipedia rears its ugly head. This is yet another in a long, painful series of drawn out self-aggrandizing screeds about why this and that content should not be in Wikipedia. Or, even worse, that certain content should only be present if other content exists, as this proposal suggests. Since no one -- least of all the rabid deletionists -- can possibly fulfill all these demands, perfectly good content constantly gets cut under these "poison pill" guidelines. It is harder to create than destroy. It is even easier to destroy when a growing cadre of excisers are on watch. Wikipedia is not paper, and a good thing too, because the place would be filled three stories high with article confetti if it was. - 23:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.204.210 (talk)

Failed?

Hi all, I'd boldly listed this as failed. It is a proposed guideline with no real discussion for more than a year and hasn't gotten consensus. I was reverted with a quire reasonable application of BRD. So I'm starting the discussion. In general WP:GUIDELINE indicates that an RfC should be held and the RfC should be closed as accept, reject or no consensus within a few months. The intent doesn't seem to be that a proposal like this been in limbo indefinitely. I'd ask that someone who supports this as a guideline start an RfC proposing it or we mark it as failed (or an essay or something). Hobit (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose marking this as failed, at least for now. Rejecting this as a guideline would send a message that articles consisting of plot-only descriptions of fictional works are OK. And they're not. Reading the rest of this talk page, it seems much of the criticism is that it's too negative: that it focuses more on what you shouldn't do than what you should, more on what isn't allowed than what should be encouraged. I think this criticism is misplaced; the proposed guideline does state that plot-only coverage is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it devotes an entire paragraph on fixing, rather than deleting, it. This proposed guideline provides more detailed commentary on the WP:NOTPLOT policy, it's completely consistent with it and consistent with other content policies like WP:PRESERVE. Rejecting it outright would not be constructive. I urge that this proposed guideline be accepted and, if it isn't, that we at least consider improving it to the point that it can be accepted, or merge the relevant and important bits into policies and guidelines that could do with more elucidation. We should NOT just reject it and thereby open the door to plotsummary-only articles. Reyk _YO! 00:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • <ec>I understand your worries and I'm perfectly fine keeping this as a proposed guideline if someone is actively trying to get it to become a guideline. I just don't think it should say marked as a proposed guideline indefinitely. We could also move it to an essay or delete it if folks think that marking it as failed sends the wrong message. Assuming no one steps forward to actively try to get this proposed guideline accepted, would either of those solutions be acceptable? (If someone does step forward and actively tries to drive this toward an RfC of course I'd think leaving it as proposed during that time would be fine...) Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose failing, but support making Essay - WP:NOT#PLOT is our policy, and WP:WAF is our guideline on writing fiction. This is more how to deal with certain cases, and comfortably fits into generally accepted, but unenforceable, advice - the perfect recipe for an Essay. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly fine with that. Hobit (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Given the comments here, I'm planning on labeling it as an essay. Objections? Hobit (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot summaries as original research

Discussions on using a work as a reference for its own synopsis

Please add to this list if you identify a new discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section
• Descriptive plot summeries and primary sources
• Fiction in Wikipedia
• Original research in plot summaries
• GradeSaver
• Closing credits on Children of Men
• Constructing a fictional character's biography from only primary source - OR/SYN or not?

Explanation of the practice

When creating plot summaries, editors often use the work itself as the source from which a plot summary on Wikipedia is written. Sometimes interpretation of the work necessarily happens. The Wikipedia community has historically condoned this kind of original research when the content of the summary was uncontroversial.

As examples of this precedent in practice, here are some articles with plot summaries which are not referenced as rigorously as non-fiction factual content would need to be.

• Romeo_and_juliet#Synopsis
• Great_Gatsby#Plot
• Casablanca_(film)#Plot

Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Translating from the actual original work to a summary is an interpretation, that's a matter of fact - we are deciding which facts are the core of the story, etc. However, our expectations on WP is that when this interpretation is done, it is done with a certain vigor as to not affect the intent of the story. If the original work , sans any other sources , remains vague on a point we cannot assume beyond that; for example, the film Total Recall ends with a "is this a dream or reality" question: our summary cannot attempt to answer that question from the plot alone. If external sources do talk about that, we can include that with the source.
  The reason we don't require sourcing explicitly for plot is that we assume in good faith that the original work is implicitly the source, and per WP:V, can be reviewed by any reader for that. One can source the work with inline templates, often using quotes from the work, but this can both drastically increase the size of the article and make it difficult to read.
  Note that the "interpretation" that is being pointed out for fiction is true of when we paragraph and summarize non-fiction reliable sources for any other part of an article. If I take a chapter of a book and condense its contents to two sentences or the like, that's "interpretation" but because I have an inline ref/source that meets WP:V, anyone can check that. We're only more explicit with the inline because the source is not going to be obvious when its part of a larger topic. For fiction works, the source of the plot is plainly obvious. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• All articles in Wikipedia are summaries of sources. I do not see any difference between summarizing a primary or secondary source. We could for example rely on a summary in a secondary source, if one were available, and would therefore be summarizing a summary. TFD (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• It really depends on how "accessible" the plot is. If it is your everyday TV episode or a 200 pages novel whose plot is straight forward (the vast majority of fiction), then OR hardly ever creeps into the plot summary and is practically a non-issue. However, when it's up to the viewer/reader to gather the plot facts and combine them to a story (e.g. the Mythology of Lost or the multi-POV narrative A Song of Ice and Fire spanning thousands of pages), then it's best to rely on secondary sources or to refer to specific episodes/pages to prevent OR that fills in the gaps. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved "Wikipedia talk:Plot summaries" page to "Archive 1" subpage of this one

See the section heading. I noticed Wikipedia talk:Plot summaries still existed where it was despite the Wikipedia:Plot summary page having been merged with the main article here... so I moved that talk page to Wikipedia talk:Plot-only description of fictional works/Archive 1. Seemed straightforward enough. V2Blast (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Permastub rules

Per our deletion policy, stubs that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status should be either renamed, merged, or refactored into articles with wider scope, that can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status, or deleted if it cannot be renamed, merged, or refactored.

What advice is this paraphrasing? The linked deletion policy only reads

Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists.

Unless, the advice has just softened over time? czar 17:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)