| Revision as of 23:27, 15 January 2008 editManiwar (talk | contribs)3,751 edits →Centralized TV Episode Discussion: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:11, 11 January 2025 edit undo38.51.233.146 (talk) →Mass edits by blocked IP editor: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="270px" | |||
| | algo = old(90d) | |||
| |- | |||
| | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| !align="center"|]<br/>] | |||
| | counter = 14 | |||
| ---- | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |- | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Aan}} | |||
| | | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| *] | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| *] | |||
| }} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| *] | |||
| {{WikiProject Manual of Style}} | |||
| *] | |||
| }} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{archives|age=90}} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{shortcut|WT:WAF}} | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| {{shortcut|]}} | |||
| ==Spinout articles about a singular topic== | |||
| == Fan magazines 'mostly' unreliable == | |||
| I noticed a sentence that was italicized for no apparent reason. It turns out this was . Is the statement in question even still true, let alone worthy of emphasis? ] (]) 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've rewritten that whole paragraph, as it seemed poorly worded. ] (]) 04:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The guideline currently says: "Publications affiliated with a particular work of fiction (e.g. fan magazines), are mostly not considered suitable secondary sources about the primary works..." | |||
| == Plot summary points == | |||
| Fan magazines are often not affiliated with the work, and 'mostly' sounds like a recipe for 'special exceptions' for favoured franchises. We should have something more discrete, or just leave out the sentence altogether.--<strong>]</strong>] 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In regards to the edits reverted : | |||
| == ahem == | |||
| It seemed best to make this into one sentence, as multiple storylines in one work seems like the only conceivable case where a plot summary should not follow the order of events in the story. At first, I didn't even quite grasp the train of thought here, so condensing this into one sentence seems worthwhile. | |||
| I have recently been seeing many cases of in-universe articles being brought up as all plot, even in AfDs. Please clearly note in this guideline that '''just because it's in-universe doesn't mean it's all plot''' (yes, the bold was necessary). Take ], the main character of '']'', for example. While the article is without question in in-universe, it doesn't state at all what he does in the plot, but describes the character itself (personality, backround, design, relationships, etc.). An all plot article that is also in-universe would be something like ] (which isn't even approved by the Naruto task force, so an AfD wouldn't be a bad idea). Please clearly note that '''just because it's in-universe doesn't mean it's all plot''' in this guideline to prevent further mix-ups. ] (]) 22:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There is no benefit in trying to balance the length of a plot summary with the rest of the article. Rather, you should try to write the best plot summary you can, and the best exploration of real-world aspects that you can. As I explained in the edit summary, I also felt that some of that text contradicted itself. That text could be replaced, as a correlation between plot complexity and summary length is a worthwhile point. ] (]) 06:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Stating his personality, based on events in the (insert medium of choice for the character), is not only bordering on ]--unless they state it specifically--but based on plot actions. If you say he wears a red shirt, that's a plot element because it's verified by the plot. You talk about his fictional life in any way, it's based on what happens in the plots of his manga/anime life. The idea behind "in-universe" is speaking in a tone that presents the subject as if they are real. For that case to be so, and not be original research, it means you are verifying the information by things they've done...which are plot pieces. ] ] 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :When your edits are reverted and you make a talk page post requesting feedback, it is best practice to wait more than a day before making the same or similar edits again. Please wait for input here before making anymore changes. | |||
| :*I disagree with you that there is no relationship between the length of a plot section and the rest of the article. A notable stub with a 700 word summary of the plot and nothing apart from one other sentence places undue weight on the plot itself see WP:NOTPLOT. There are, should be no, magic numbers here. This is a subjective decision made by editors based on this guidance. Adding the reference to NOVELS is helpful and I will add it back. | |||
| :*I disagree with you that the only time that there are no other benefits with tweaking the timeline in the summary vs the fiction (remember that this article applies to writing about all types of fiction in articles). For example, if a character has an ulterior motive for doing something, it might make more sense in mentioning earlier in the summary, rather than then having to dedicate additional text to a relatively unimportant sub-plot regarding the reveal later. The current text provides adequate guidance to editors about when and why they should do this, which is sufficient. | |||
| :*The other minor tweaks did not seem to change or improve the guidance. | |||
| :As a general point, based on what I observed during your 100+ edits to NOVELs, which I wasn't able to fully monitor, please ask yourself before you edit, "what problem am I trying to solve"? Some of your edits were helpful, some of them made no real difference and were basically cosmetic and some stemmed from your misunderstanding of existing consensus. I have no doubt you're trying to make improvements, but making so many edits that mix wording and content changes are going to get reverted. I would suggest that if you see something that could maybe be worded better without changing the meaning, make one change and leave it for several days. If no one reverts it, make another one. If you see some content in a guideline that you disagree with, either make one change and open a talkpage discussion, or better yet just open a talk page discussion. I'm not trying to put you off making improvements, but you're going much too fast.] (]) 12:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was going to wait longer, but another user edited the section in question, introducing awkward wording, and I thought a better alternative would be to borrow wording from ]. Then while I was at it, I made other changes. Seeing the state of disrepair some of these pages were in has made me more bold in editing them. | |||
| ::In regards to balancing length of the plot summary with the rest of the article, the important thing is that we do our best to write a compact plot summary and also do our best with other topics. If the rest of the article consists of only one sentence, obviously it needs to be expanded, or if it can't be, the article shouldn't exist. Also, the current wording {{tq|The length of the prose should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself; simple plots may require only short summaries}} seems self-contradictory. A story could be long, but have a simple plot. | |||
| ::In regards to chronological order, mentioning an ulterior motive before it is revealed in the story was the kind of thing I originally thought that was primarily referring to. Hence . | |||
| ::As for "minor tweaks", I would say added a significant missing word. {{tq|are notable for their own standalone article}} technically means something very different. Likewise, a significant word was missing , as I noted in the edit summary, though it seemed better just to remove that whole phrase, as it was redundant. ] (]) 14:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::For your first point, your version doesn't recommend against writing a 700 plot summary with a five word sourced sentence, the previous version does so in my view it's better. For your second, I guess it would be slightly better if it was slightly more consistent regarding story length re plot complexity, but again what problem are we trying to solve? This is cosmetic at best, how many people are getting confused because they have a long story with a simple plot vs a short one with a complex one? This is a tweak at best, probably positive, but by lumping it with other edits that genuinely change the meaning you're making it hard for people to follow you. We can maybe discuss this further, maybe others will chime in. | |||
| :::Your change re chronology is not an improvement. You removed the text that said why and when someone might do it. If doing it improves and condenses the summary, that's all an editor needs to know to do it. If it doesn't, they shouldn't. | |||
| :::Sufficiently maybe reads slightly better, but it doesn't seem important in terms of how editors should proceed, the subjects are either notable or not. Maybe I'm missing something? You're right about the obvious missing word, but I disagree about the redundancy, category spam needs explicity discouraging as well as simply defining what's correct.] (]) 17:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How about changing {{tq|Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary}} to {{tq|Strictly avoid creating pages which consist of a plot summary and little else.}} That pretty much tells you not to have a plot summary and then just one sentence of sourced commentary. The unhelpful and perhaps contradictory points about balancing length could then be removed. ] (]) 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is not clear to me how what you propose is better than what is there already, and I'm not convinced yet that the current version is particularly unhelpful or contradictory. For the record, I think we should never have a plot only article. I think this guidance should also recommend that we don't have articles which have articles with minimal information apart from a full plot summary, so therefore I think the rest of the article should be considered when expanding a plot section. This isn't prescriptive and it doesn't need to be, but it's good practice for editors to consider which is what the guideline currently says. I think that the number of cases where you have a lengthy book with such a simple plot (or vice versa) that the current text provides serious issues to the editor are so vanishing rare that I don't see an issue to be solved, but if you have an elegant solution within the current text structure I'd be open to suggestions. ] (]) 08:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::See . I think we have solved this. It may be true that the points about balancing length would rarely cause a problem, but on the other hand they are not helpful either, as long as we make clear that a plot summary plus one or two sentences is not adequate for an article. ] (]) 14:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: How about {{tq|Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if presenting details in a different sequence improves and condenses the summary.}} That preserves "improves and condenses" while removing "do not need to stay true to" and "going out of order". ] (]) 16:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure what benefit there is in changing out of order to strictly follows beyond the fact that you said you didn't like it, but ok I guess. No to the other suggestion, we do not "present details" when writing a summary. ] (]) 16:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What about {{green|Summaries may deviate from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity}}? ] (]) 21:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't like "may deviate from". While you might technically deviate from the chronological order, that characterization doesn't seem right. ] (]) 01:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How about {{tq|Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if that would not make for a good summary.}} ] (]) 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ultimately, we want it to say that if a more concise or easier-to-understand plot summary can be made by presenting plot points out of order, do that. We want to encourage editors to make a better summary if they have to deviate, that negative form is not really capturing that. ] (]) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agree with Masem. IP, could you articulate what your problem actually is with the as-is text? ] (]) 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The way it's stated just sounds wrong to me. But if no one else sees a problem, I guess that's that. Sorry to have wasted your time with this. ] (]) 14:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Not a waste of time, language improvements help, just that here let's try to spin it positive, that going out of plot order can some times be a benefit.<span id="Masem:1733755142127:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNManual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :::::::::'246, you have now changed it to read "Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if going out of order improves and condenses the summary". Unless I have misunderstood this discussion, that not what other editors are expecting. Can we please finalise the wording here and not keep making partial changes to that sentence? For me, "going out of order" sounds highly colloquial, bordering on weird. Perhaps it would be suitably formal in US English, I don't know. I'm perfectly happy with "deviate from", but we could instead have {{Green|Summaries may depart from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity.}} ] (]) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm glad I'm not the only one to see a problem with "going out of order". I like your proposed wording, and would prefer "depart" rather than "deviate". ] (]) 18:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'd be fine with Michael's suggestion. ] (]) 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == "Primary information" and "secondary information" == | |||
| ::Sometimes, I think we go a little crazy with our application of ] and ]. Let me give you an example. Bignole already illustrated the prevelant thinking on fictional subjects. However, on non-fictional subjects we do not seem as rigid. An article about a highway may say, "this highway is the main connection between Denver and Boulder." This assertion may be based upon a map that shows (but does not state) this fact. I have not seen a big push to call this original research, although it technically is OR. If, in describing a wrestling match, the article states, "another westler entered the ring dressed as a referee," we do not require independent, third-party sources. We do not say "dressed as a referee" is original research. I think we need to relax a little on the topic of fiction. ] <small>]</small> 06:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In the ] section, is it even helpful to talk about "primary information" and "secondary information"? I realize information comes from sources, but it would be more straightforward just to talk about primary and secondary sources, and what information can be found in each. Also, the example of {{tq|another episode of the same TV series}} may be problematic, as using one episode as a source regarding a different episode is likely to be original research. ] (]) 09:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Needs revision == | |||
| {{RFCpolicy | section=Needs revision !! reason=Discussion of whether ] should be merged into ] !! time=05:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC) }} | |||
| After three weeks (12/22 - 1/13) of discussion: The poll section currently stands at '''10 Support, 6 Oppose, 2 Comments'''. | |||
| The comments were essentially: | |||
| * Suggest we roll it back to it's early 2007 state and merge off some sections. | |||
| * Wait until the new WP:FICT is posted, then mark WP:EPISODE historical. | |||
| This is my proposal for moving forward. After the new WP:FICT has been posted, I will mark WP:EPISODE historical and we will move on. I am still concerned that this is a stalling technique to keep this instruction-cruft, but in a spirit of cooperation and consensus I am willing to wait. ] <small>]</small> 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. It is obvious that there is NOT a clear consensus for a merge or change. There is plenty of discussion on ] as well and it can NOT be discounted. ] (]) 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. It is obvious that consensus is clearly in favor of deprecating ]. The discussion there mainly focuses on the lack of consensus and necessity for the guideline, followed by "Uh huh, it is too important because I said so." The noise to signal ratio notwithstanding, WP:EPISODE is instruction creep- pure and simple. ] <small>]</small> 04:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Collectonian. WT:EPISODE is way too heated (even if it's few strong voices) to consider simply closing this down. WP:FICT rewrite is still going forward and includes concepts that cover the general EPISODE idea, but still leaves room if EPISODE needs more specific guidance. --] 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::First, I clearly proposed waiting until WP:FICT is posted. Second, I do not understand why the vocal fringe can shout down consensus and there is nothing that can be done about it. ] <small>]</small> 04:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is no consensus to shout down. The "vote" above does not include any of the discussions going on at ] or ], or the insane number of discussions elsewhere (including, currently, ANI, RfA, and I believe RfC as well). This is a MUCH bigger issue than the relatively small amount of discussion going on here. If/When a new form of WP:FICT is posted, then this discussion should be revisted in light of what the new guideline states. Deciding to make decisions on a possible future version of the guideline is not conducive to anything, and if the new version is not accepted by the community at large, then the discussion becomes moot. ] (]) 04:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I agree, there is '''no''' consensus for the guidance in ]. I suppose I also agree that since there is no consensus for it (based on ANI, RfArb, RfC, AFD, et al) then discussion is moot. The guideline is effectively historical, whether someone marks it that way or not. ] <small>]</small> 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Again, you are interpreting "no consensus" as being "well I'm right" and, in face most of the discussion has NOT shown that there is a consensus against Episode but the actions of specific editors in applying it. There is a big difference. From this discussion, and others, the only thing obvious is that there is no consensus for removing the guideline, there is no consensus for merging it, and there is no consensus for keeping it as is. ] (]) 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, agreed. ] (]) 09:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::My comment has nothing to do with my rightness or wrongness. What I am attempting to do is analyze the discussion and determine what the consensus of editors suggests on how to move ahead. There '''are''' a few voices that say, "EPISODE is fine the way it is, leave it alone." The vast majority of voices say, "EPISODE is redundant and too specific, we should fold it in to the new WP:FICT and WP:WAF (and perhaps WP:TV)." | |||
| == Real-world perspective == | |||
| :::::::I do not see this as an issue of editor behavior. Some editors will continue to get rid of episode articles as fast as they can. Other editors will continue to create episode articles as fast as they can. A third group of editors would like to find a middle road, but all of that has little to do with this dispute over this over-specific, prescriptive, and completely redudant guideline. | |||
| This section is far too long, and concentrates too much on persuading editors what is bad about in-universe view, rather than just telling them not to use it. Probably it was written decades ago when there were still active arguments about how fiction articles should be presented. Now, all that's needed is to tell editors to use a real-world perspective, and to give some examples of what to avoid. ] (]) 09:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] is instruction creep. ] is redundant. ] is prescriptive. ] is unecessary. ] is useless. Yet, ] is held on to like some toddler's security blanket by certain editors that probably have not read it carefully in the past month and are unaware of what it truly states. It is time that this useless guidance go the way of the dinosaurs. ] <small>]</small> 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't sure what to remove. Do we even need the bullet-point lists? ] (]) 13:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ::Maybe just a few consolidated examples. It would also be less confusing not to mix up what's expected in the Plot section and what's expected elsewhere. ] (]) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm now thinking that it would be best to remove the entire bullet-point list from ], as those examples are almost all either redundant or not very helpful. If anyone thinks that a particular item from that list is helpful, and it is not redundant to something else on this page, please point it out. ] (]) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think we can remove the list entirely as I have seen all of those cases in misuse of plot summaries and the list. Trimming is fair but should stick to a few key cases.<span id="Masem:1734540234795:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNManual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :This could almost replace that entire section. It would remove a lot, but much of that is redundant to things that appear elsewhere on the page. | |||
| :{{tq|All Misplaced Pages articles should use the ] as their primary ]. As such, the subject should be described from the ''perspective'' of the real world. With fiction, this means ''not'' writing from the perspective of the fictional world. Many fan wikis and websites treat fictional worlds as if they were real, but this should not be done in Misplaced Pages. An in-universe perspective can mislead the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article.}} | |||
| :{{tq|Keeping a real-world perspective also means limiting the amount of detail regarding the fiction itself. An article about a fictional character should not necessarily include the kinds of details that would appear in a biographical article of a real person. ] should be kept to a minimum, not treated as actual history might be.}} ] (]) 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Will need to get back to this after Christmas. ] (]) 12:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Mass edits by blocked IP editor == | |||
| If we continue to make progress and we revise ], we need to revise this guideline as well. There are sections that could be transfered to ] (which specifically speaks to notability) and sections of ] that can be merged into this guideline. ] <small>]</small> 09:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've been trying my best to follow all the recent IP edits, to make sure they have been constructive. They seem to be in good faith, as far as I can tell, even if editors (including myself) have disagreed / modified some of them. I'm slightly suspicious that many of the recent edits have come from an IP coming from a blocked proxy server. I don't think it's inherently disqualifying, but it is suspicious enough to deserve review from longtime editors with a more transparent history. Creating an account helps other editors to evaluate our history of engaging in good faith. ] (]) 21:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : How about I give 10 days for discussion and then if no consensus to keep ] becomes evident, I'll redirect it to this guideline per ] and ]. ] <small>]</small> 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:The editor has been doing excellent and well-supported work overhauling a collection of guidelines that have, to my knowledge, never been systematically reviewed. I hope they will return. ] (]) 03:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thank you so much. I was considering stepping aside, but your comment has persuaded me that I should help to finish the cleanup, though I may restrict my activity to talk page comments for a while. I am the person who was using the IP. ] (]) 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Welcome back! ] (]) 22:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Welcome back. Like I said, I've found your work constructive on first review, so thanks for contributing. ] (]) 00:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For the record, {{IP|2A02:20C8:4120:0:0:0:0:A03D}} (which also appears to be a proxy?) just reverted all changes going back months at ], ], ], and ] while making reference to this discussion. the edit at ], and {{u|MichaelMaggs}} reverted the ones at ] and ] while I was writing this. I would also note that the IP was ] as an ], not ] for cause (or blocked for cause, for that matter). ] (]) 09:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is perhaps somewhere that a longer response period would be warranted. (Perhaps until January 7?) I say this only because we are entering a holiday period when many interested people will not be available to comment. I can't say which side will be favored, but it would be wise to avoid complaints that either result was snuck through when everyone was on holidays. ] (]) 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :How do we proceed with this page? In contrast with the other pages mentioned, there is still little consensus here about the improvements needed, and it probably makes sense to re-start the discussions again, going from the text of 7 November 2024 which is where today's revert has left us. Suggest working from there section by section (not necessarily in order), and seeking consensus here on the talk page in each case before updating the guideline. ] (]) 10:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I will definitely leave the discussion open until January 7. ] <small>]</small> 09:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Pinging users who have contributed since 7 November: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. ] (]) 10:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello, just a mindless patroller without a leg to stand on when it comes to MOS. I looked into the user contributions when I reverted it and saw little activity about discussion of this removal. In the future, I will be more diligent and I won’t revert without first evaluating the full talk page. Cheers, ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It would probably be better to revert to a more recent version, as the vast majority of changes after November 7 appear to be improvements. Other than questionable reverts, the only recent change that really stands out to me as problematic is ]. A new article realistically would not "meet basic policies and guidelines". Perhaps this was intended to say "once it is certain that the article should actually exist". The biggest remaining issue overall appears to be the formatted lists. I count six such lists on this page, not including the See also section at the bottom. I suppose the "Conclusions" list is good, but I suspect we could do without the rest, or at least cut them way down. ] (]) 15:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == 'Secondary information' == | |||
| *'''Oppose''' (merge of WP:EPISODE) — The issue with tv episodes is certainly large enough to warrant its own guideline — details of which should be hashed-out there. Certainly, this page should ''refer'' readers to the related page. --] 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ]'s ] to remove confusing reliance on a definition of 'Secondary information' (as distinct from ]s - an entirely novel concept in Misplaced Pages guidelines, so far as I can tell) has been undone by ] who has asked for consensus. As requested, I'm posting here to confirm my agreement with ]'s edits. ] (]) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Can you explain how ] is not an example of instruction creep? Should we have ] or ]? I do not share your belief that TV episodes are any larger issue than any other fictional concept and do not believe it needs a seperate guideline. ] <small>]</small> 10:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I also started a ] about this 11 days ago. You agreed, and it appeared that no one disagreed, so that was why I thought it was OK to make the edit. Do you also agree with ]? Four of the examples were things that shouldn't usually be included or would merit at most a brief mention, and plot is covered below, so I thought that list was unhelpful. ] (]) 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: If you think WP:EPISODE is an example of CREEP, then I assume you plan to propose a merger for the film notability guideline, and every other notability guideline that is a subpage of the general one? FICT is a manual of style. You cannot have both a manual of style and a notability guideline working from the same page, one is about style the other is about content inclusion. Secondly, you cannot redirect an active guideline page, based solely on the discussion from the people notified on this page. You need a little larger audience to gain a broader, less biased consensus on this issue. ] ] 10:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes I do. ] (]) 17:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I noticed that the section didn't say much about ''what'' secondary sources to use. Should we mention ]? That is useful for literature but maybe not other media. ] (]) 18:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Edits == | |||
| :::: ] is primarily a style guideline (at this point). The notability aspect is already taken care of (or will be shortly) at ]. I would be fine adding a bullet or two to WP:FICT that speaks directly to episode notability, but I think the guideline already covers it nicely (answering what demonstrates notability). I am proposing that the bulk of "How to write a good episode article" be added to this guideline. ] <small>]</small> 10:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| First of all, the point about "secondary information" has been discussed, in two different threads above. There was no objection to removing that wording. The removal was not entirely straightforward, but the recent reverts have not pointed to anything specific that someone might have disagreed with (if someone does want to discuss that, it would probably be best to use one of the above threads). The other edits were relatively small, but since they have also been mass-reverted: | |||
| :::: '''To BN:''' Secondly, any editor can, most certainly, improve any guideline when they choose. I am going to the extra length of attempting to get some discussion. It is the "people on this page" that primarily use this disputed guideline. This guideline does exactly what you say it should not, mixes notability with style concerns. Some editors have been using the style sections to redirect articles to lists without getting "a broader, less biased consensus." I think ] handles any notability concerns. Add to that ] which handles notability of "characters, items, places, and other elements within a work of fiction." Perhaps an argument could be made to expand the guideline to ], with ] handling the "depth of fictional coverage" issues. However, ] is too micro focused, redundant, a mix of style and notability, and being used to disrupt rather than improve the encyclopedia. ] <small>]</small> 09:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] Those are not usually things that should be included in Misplaced Pages articles, other than the plot, which is discussed further down on the page. | |||
| *] That section introduction seemed unnecessary; the section title and the See also link seemed more than sufficient. | |||
| *] ] was effectively linked twice in the same sentence. {{tq|Once an article about fiction or a fictional subject meets basic policies and guidelines}} gets ahead of itself. In context, the point is that sufficient sources exist, and thus there is the ''potential'' for such an article. | |||
| *] I removed "exceptional", because that is not the standard for GAs. Alternatively, we could remove mention of GAs, in which case we should probably also remove the GAs that are included in the list. Or we could remove the entire list, especially considering the rate at which articles on it are being demoted. But I have refrained from such bold edits. | |||
| *] The article being used as an example does not appear to entirely follow this. The first part of the sentence might have been OK, but it was basically redundant to what was just above. | |||
| ] (]) 22:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The mass-reverts seem to have been made without realising that your main proposal has already been discussed, twice, on this talk page. Nobody so far has raised any substantive objection. Perhaps you could leave it here for a few days just in case anyone wants to suggest alternatives or improvements. For clarity, I agree that the edits you have suggested are a great improvement. ] (]) 23:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: As Bignole has said, there are many other guidelines that are broken-out as subpages, so no, I don't view this as instruction creep. And from what I've seen, ] might not be a bad idea. The tv episode issue is a large issue; and, yes, there are other articles "covering" fictional things that are large issues. TV Episodes are merely the issue being discussed. --] 12:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have some reservations re the first and third edit but don't have much time atm. Would appreciate it if you could hold off until next week when I'll comment further. No particular opinion on the others but suggest as per the above to wait a few days. ] (]) 11:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Ridiculous suggestion. We have enough TV content added every day to make a specific guideline useful. ] (]) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :First point: yes, those are things not to include, and that's why they are listed to show the editor/reader what are things not to include in a plot summary. Second point: that's an introductory paragraph to the following sections, its actually normal style of writing to have such a preamble short paragraph leading into larger sections. Third point, its important to recognize how WP:NOT works here, given that is a core content policy (which NOTPLOT is a part of). Fifth point, while the aspect about being written in present tense is apparently wrong, as the article does use past tense for the flashback, the relevant point that the plot summary explains that there's this extended flashback, which is what the paragraph in WAF is trying to explain how to establish that a flashback is used. --] (]) 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - As per Bignole. ] (]) 18:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the ], the way it's written sure doesn't sound like "this is what '''not''' to include". If anything, the opposite. Furthermore, the last item on that list is the plot, which definitely should be included, though that is covered below. | |||
| ::On the ], I thought such a preamble was optional. In this case, the section title and See also link make clear what the overarching section is about. I also thought it was standard practice to try to avoid self-referential statements like "This section deals with". | |||
| ::On the ], however it's stated, it seems excessive to effectively link to that policy twice in one sentence. But the main part of that edit was to fix the next sentence, which got ahead of itself. | |||
| ::On the ], we could just remove the second part of that sentence. However, the previous sentence already states {{tq|Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements, such as ] ('']'') ... may require inclusion of out-of-universe language to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer.}} I'm not sure anything more is needed. ] (]) 16:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Since the only one of Masem's points which I didn't have a good answer for concerned the intro, and Scribolt also indicated that was a point he had reservations about, how about this rewrite: | |||
| *'''Support''' - While I may feel that the fiction guideline is not perfect. If we are ever to have realistic policies and guidelines the kind of policy cruft found at EPISODES needs to be severely trimmed. ] (]) 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*I don't really disagree with what you said, but "''needs to be severely trimmed''" seems kind of odd, given how short ] is. -- ] 02:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{tq|Misplaced Pages contains numerous articles on subjects related to fiction, including ] and elements therein. In order to adhere to Misplaced Pages's content policies, any such article should cite several ], ] ] sources that specifically cover the subject in some detail. This establishes the subject's real-world ], and also allows for a balanced article that is more than ].}} | |||
| *It really says nothing new about notability in ]. I think we need consensus on the notability guideline vis-à-vis episode articles (we need it on everything fictional, but this is what we're discussing now). If the community backs the enforcement of notability on the articles, then it should be kept, as it will be referred to often. If consensus is against it, then mark it historical. Until we have said discussion, however, I support keeping it separate. '''] ]''' 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)₵ | |||
| {{tq|With such sources in hand, editors should consider: (a) ''what'' to write about the subject, and (b) ''how'' to best present that information. These questions are complementary and should be addressed simultaneously to create a well-written article or ].}} | |||
| * I can't really see anything in ] that isn't already covered here - WP:EPISODE is just examples and rephrasings of this portion of the MoS. The only exception is the disputed section of WP:EPISODE, which deals with notability of episode articles. That may or may not deserve to stand on its own, depending on whether there is consensus for it. ] | ] 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 16:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support merge.''' The ] guideline is adequate to cover all the issues addressed in ], only it supports a much more sensible case-by-case attitude rather than the disgusting behaviour which has emerged from that one. ] (]) 22:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Get your facts straight, Rebecca. The page you are thinking of is ], which encouraged "batch" discussions. -- ] 02:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds good to me. ] (]) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a merge, or maybe a taking down of the guideline tag on ] and bringing it to the level of a WikiProject MOS page. It does look somewhat out of place in ]. Their is currently something which seems to merge the media notability guidance at ], so maybe whatever doesn't get merged here can be merged there. ] <small>] </small> 22:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Re the first point. The wording and presentation could surely be improved, but I read that section in the context of articles about fiction beyond Book X or film Y. We have articles about notable characters, and articles that contrast fictional works and content (e.g. ], which I chose somewhat at random and may or not be a good example). Content sourced/cited to the primary sources is not forbidden. What we should be getting across is that if narrative content of the type listed is "only" present in the primary source, then it's lacking in WEIGHT to mention it outside of the plot summary. Whether or not it's mentioned in the plot summary would be out of scope of this section as it comes down to whether or not it's particularly relevant to the story (for example, the protagonist's birthday in Midnights Children is indeed plot relevant). What we want to avoid, especially in character articles are long crufty sections describing fictional worlds / concepts without secondary source analysis. The current text at least lays this baseline, I might try a re-write based on what I wrote above. | |||
| Re the third point, I agree with Masem and don't believe it's excessive to link to both the NOT policy as well as a specific point within it. As well as reading better (at least touching in the prose as to why we don't want things to be just plot summaries) there are other points in the wider policy that are also applicable beyond the specific section that is hyperlinked in NOTPLOT. ] (]) 08:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Too many guidelines with too narrow a focus for each results in an inconsistent patchwork and makes it hard for editors to keep track of everything. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If you're looking at it that way, maybe delete the list and simply say {{tq|Details found only in primary sources should not be included outside of the plot summary section or a section on characters.}} While fictional dates of birth or performance features are occasionally important, that is fairly rare, so mentioning those as details that might be included in a plot summary isn't helpful. ] (]) 20:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Somewhat support the idea, but there's no reason to not have an episode specific example page. If anything, I think ] should still be a separate page, but incorporate ]. Notability should still be mentioned, but in the sense of quoting ], or something like that (like how we do for ] now). With that, you have enough good advice that fills up a page, and is now a style guideline. You could even call it a sub-page of WAF, but from an organizational standpoint I think it should be it's own page. -- ] 02:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I disagree. This section is not solely about a plot summary, and listing common forms of primary soured information (mostly fancruft) that should not be typically included is helpful. Please stop re-instating your changes until consensus is reached on the talk page. If anyone feels my recent change makes things worse we can of course return to the status quo. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The first two examples, at least, are things that usually should not be included at all, anywhere in an article, so mentioning them is misleading, especially if we talk about which sections they might be included in. Talking about secondary sources is also misleading in this context, as even something that happens to be mentioned in a secondary source does not automatically warrant inclusion. A secondary source might have a passing mention of such details, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should include them. ] (]) 13:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' television episodes are not the only sub-sections of fiction to have more specific MOS and guidelines, such as ]. Both have more specific needs that are better covered in a full guideline built on ]. Unless and until a full television MOS is written (the current one is um, inadequate, to be polite), Episode is the only real content guideline available for dealing with an already very contentious issue (indeed, its hatred by those who want to make episode articles for every last television series in existence despite them not meeting notability is the only reason both are now under fire). ] (]) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I fail to see how it is misleading as it now explicitly say that this is a list of the kind of primary sourced information which is '''not''' to be included in articles outside of the plot section. If anything listed here is covered in secondary sources (which you are correct to say they typically aren't), then the usual considerations of WEIGHT and DUE would need to be applied. I suggest you focus on getting your account unblocked, or if you are indeed a sock of a WMF banned user, you shouldn't be editing this or any other page in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When you say "if it's not in a secondary source, don't include it outside the plot section", that will inevitably give some readers the impression that it ''should'' be included in the plot section, or that it definitely should be included elsewhere if it ''is'' in a secondary source. In the fairly rare event that such points should be included, they might better fit into a Characters section if there is one, but noting that would make this even more cumbersome. | |||
| *'''Oppose''' (to merging in WP:EPISODE) At least in the sense that there is nothing wrong with providing more applicable approaches that summarize and apply existing site-wide guidelines for specific projects. ] may be a bit too instruction-y and need a bit of softening up, but while it logically falls out from WP:PLOT, WP:N, WP:WAF and WP:FICT, it is sometimes necessary to connect the dots in big bold letters to make sure newer editors are aware of how all these policies work together. --] 06:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If not for me, this page would be even more of a jumbled, confusing mess than it currently is, as would a few other guideline pages. Things not being carefully checked is the reason that all of this happened. ] (]) 15:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Again, I disagree. This is not about how to write a plot summary, it's about how to write an article about fiction. Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources provides greater benefit to the encyclopedia than the risk of some extraneous detail appearing in a plot summary of a book or film (which is covered elsewhere). Character articles are magnets for this kind of stuff. ] (]) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Can people also consider WP:EPISODE as it was in its early 2007 state? It might be an idea for instance to restore some of the advice of the old page, move some of the current directions to WP:TV/how to write an episode article and let the true "notability directives" be included in WP:FICT again. Just a thought. --] (] • ]) 10:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agreed here, this page is more than just about plot summaries but any content related to fiction, making sure there is a strong distinction of what occurs within the fiction versus what is actual real world factors. We have had too many editors in the past treating fiction as real which hurts WP. We have a separate page on the specifics of writing a good plot summary. ] (]) 17:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::''Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources''. That's not what the wording in question does. ] (]) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a merge, or removal. Until the ] issues are dealt with, weaponised guidelines like ] will always do more harm than good.--<strong>]</strong>] 11:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Your quote of me is accurate, but I was incorrect in what I wrote. If only primary sourced, then these things (including the plot itself) should never appear outside of the plot summary. If there is secondary souring and other policy considerations are met, what the secondary sources have to say can be summarised in the article. Whether or not these content appears in the plot summary depends on the narrative and is covered elsewhere. The addtion I made reflects this. It's clear we disagree on this, so I will not respond further to you, and will see if anyone else has any opinions. ] (]) 18:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*You do understand that a merge would not "weaken" the guideline advice that it contains, but simply mean that the same advice is organized differently? For example, I support a merge, but just not to this exact page (I support changing WP:EPISODE's focus back into a style guideline, and letting WP:FICT handle the notability issues). Also, ''how'' some people have handled mass redirects of articles, regardless if they were right or wrong, was not a method encouraged by WP:EPISODE. -- ] 17:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{A note}} Both {{u|Compulsive Brainstormer}} and {{u|213.169.39.234}} have been blocked as socks of {{u|Belteshazzar}} an LTA (see ]). Continue discussing you wish, but they will no longer be particpating (at least until they pull a new sock out the drawer). <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I don't agree, a merge would weaken the guideline, since it wouldn't have the privilege of being a named guideline and it would be subjected to more scrutiny.--<strong>]</strong>] 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*"''I don't agree''" It doesn't work like that. If you merge one guideline into another, it's ''still'' a guideline. You're also very mistaken that WP:EPISODE is a "weapon". Long before the page even had the shortcut WP:EPISODE, people were listing tons of episode articles for deletion, trying to discourage them, and so on. The only difference now is that when they do, they can also mention a page that lists the reasons why it's a good idea to not have an article for every episode. -- ] 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*And now they won't be able to mention such a page. It's not unrealistic that this will lead to a fall in the deletion rate. This means that important pre-Internet TV episodes might stand a better chance of avoiding being tarred and feathered to induce a non-existent 'fanbase' to improve them.--<strong>]</strong>] 11:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*How would that stop them from mentioning the page? That doesn't make any sense at all. The "deletion rate" didn't increase because of ]. WP:EPISODE was created to help prevent articles from being created that would have to be redirected/merged/deleted. WP:EPISODE actually discourages deletion and encourages keeping articles that have potential, even if they don't directly show it in the article text. -- ] 05:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - This guideline is a prime example of what happens when you devote far too much space to a guideline topic which needs very little. The content of this guideline would be far better served as small subsections (or a few sentences) within ] and ]. As it is the content has been expanded so much that the guideline now states things that were ''never'' stated or even remotely ''implied'' by the originating guidelines, and coupled with the highly aggressive and even threatening wording it is definitely what one could call "weaponized". Even if it were toned down enough there's still not enough content to really be its own, separate page; FICT and WAF handle the task quite nicely, along with ], ], ], etc. etc. -- ] ('''<sub><font color="blue">]</font></sub> <small><font color="red">]</font></small> <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>''') 07:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I have no problem merging appropriate things of WP:EPISODE into WP:WAF, but I'd really like to wait with that until the new WP:FICT is up to explain the need for established notability. I'd also like to WP:EPISODE to be marked as historical or something and linked from WP:WAF then. I know that there are older WikiProject-specific guidelines for episode coverage are out there (e.g. ], which I rewrote a little in the past few weeks), and I much prefer to direct interested editors to a guideline that has pretty much wikiwide concensus as opposed to local consensus that may be out-of-date. – ] <sup>]•c</sup> 09:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Reply''' I don't disagree with any of that. It makes no sense to get rid of an article as part of a merge ''before'' the information has actually been merged. -- ] ('''<sub><font color="blue">]</font></sub> <small><font color="red">]</font></small> <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>''') 09:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - per yukichigai. Additionally, there are editors who have used this ''suggested'' guideline to beat, revert, harass, and go on an all out campaign to rid wikipedia of Television articles. I will not point out specifics here unless requested to, however many of you are already aware of this. Merging this with already existing policies will bring a larger body to the issues outline television articles and bring more calm headed individuals to both sides of the controversy this article has caused. I strongly support merging as pointed out by yukichigai. --] (]) 15:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I think there are some distinct issues with Episodes that aren't present in some ofthe other fictions, and which need a distinct guideline. A major problem is that newer shows almost always have half a dozen websites about some TV genre reviewing them. IGN would be just one example. As such, it becomes way to easy to say 'well, i've got this web-review, so the article is notable', and boom, we swell back up with bloated plot summaries, quote and trivia sections, and one or two sourced sentences about the online reviews. Further, the relative explosion of every show's 'fan guide to the show' book publication also creates a sort of incestuous situation. Often, the publishing house owned by the broadcast network and/or production house publishes a book, or series of books, about the show, with tons of trivia and quote and so on; in fact, over at Scrubs, there's an Italian guy doing just that with our content. We need to address those issues of diluted, and possibly deluded, notability, and FICT isn't the place, because novels and films are far less prolific enterprises, and reviews about an author's efforts often reflect a year or more of work, as is the case with most films. Thus the meaning of a book or film review is greater than the episode reviews. The problem, in another light, si that we can incorporate all teh reviews of a movie or book into one section on one page, whereas for each episode, there could be a full section there (again, of only a couple lines.) I would say that the involvement of persistent or major media would be needed to separate any episode from the notable (example - Oprah's 500th show on losing weight is less notable than the one where Tom Cruise jumped the <s>shark</s>couch. ] (]) 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :* I would strongly object that film or literature is different. In our contemporary times, Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo automatically give all films reception/critical information. Many books are followed almost immediately by "fan-guides" (see Harry Potter). The basic fact remains that this "guideline-cruft", in it's attempt to be directive, has grown increasingly unclear, ineffective, and unnecessary. What we need is a ''broad'', ''descriptive'', ''consensus-based'' notability guideline for all fiction. ] <small>]</small> 03:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Notability sections added to ]=== | |||
| I have added some specific information on determining the notability of television episodes to the newest proposal for WP:FICT. See what you think and adjust as you feel necessary. ] <small>]</small> 08:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Working on a proposal for ]=== | |||
| I am working up a proposal to improve this guideline by merging in sections of ]. Please look at it ] and feel free to edit and improve it yourself. ] <small>]</small> 12:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :BTW, do you think we ''need'' a section on "Dealing with problem articles"? ] <small>]</small> 12:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wikipedians need advice for how to deal with problem articles. At least that much is clear. -- ] 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I wonder if we need to work this with the present ] drafting at the same time - notability issues are spread across both of them. If this ''is'' meant to be a manual of style approach, this one should not talk about but defer to both ] and WP:FICT appropriately, and primarily state that articles on fiction should have certain sections, should have plot information written in a certain tone, and the like. It is not that this page should not mention notability at all, but I think given the current somewhat hostile backlash against fiction and notability policies, centralizing such issues may be better than having two guidelines that might eventually conflict. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::I concur completely. I will work on this, but you should feel free to edit it and show me exactly what you are thinking. ] <small>]</small> 05:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break point 1=== | |||
| :By far, I still prefer the way ] summarizes the issues relating to episode articles. -- ] 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are expressing a preference for a detailed, "idiot proof," and (in my opinion) rather prescriptive guide. I continue to contend the current ] is redundant in several spots, inadequate in others, and too narrowly focused overall. I think guidelines should work the same way we recommend for articles on fictional subjects. Let's make an excellent, concise, and complete MoS guideline for writing about fiction. Then, if there is more guidance '''''necessary''''' than can be pragmatically put into a readable guideline, let's split out a "List of . . ." type of sub-guideline with an outline covering major areas like serialized fictional works. Then, if that sub-guideline becomes too large to be comprehensible (and only when consensus agrees this is so) we can consider a specific sub-sub-guideline on a particular fictional element. BTW, not everything needs to be spelled out precisely. I think guidelines that are more general and open to interpretation are easier to gain consensus and are actually better for Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 06:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not looking for an idiot proof guideline, I just don't want to have to tell an editor to look at three different pages and then explain to them how they relate to each other every time I mention them. A narrow focus isn't bad, and it does little more than say "this other guideline says this". Aside from the mass redirects/mergers that got everyone upset, which the arbcom case hopefully has cooled down, there isn't an issue with WP:EPISODE being "abused". There are ways we can better organize the guidelines, and I wouldn't mind having less "notability" advice (but having ''some'' with a link to ] for more info), and focusing WP:EPISODE as a style guideline. The real issue has always been how we deal with such articles, not the guideline that says what to avoid. -- ] 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''I just don't want to have to tell an editor to look at three different pages and then explain to them how they relate to each other every time I mention them.'' | |||
| :::: I think we are in agreement here. That is why I think there ought to be ''one'' comprehensive guideline on determining the notability of fiction-related subjects (]) and ''one'' comprehensive guideline regarding manual of style for fiction-related subjects (]). Part of the current dust up is that editors who have been stating they are just enforcing guidelines have been sending protesting editors to 5-6 different guidelines (], ], ], ], ], etc.). ] <small>]</small> 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Alright, I can see where you are going with this. I still don't see ] as bad, but if we can achieve the same thing within ] and ], then it has my support. -- ] 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I kind of agree with Ursasapien's last point here. This is really annoying to find half a dozen discussions on the same thing. It seems that we get one discussion on one page and when it starts going south for the initiator they go to another page. Then more people notice the first discussion and start taking part in it---only to realize that 4 others have been started and so go take part in those as well. We're fighting the same battle in multiple areas. I don't see why we need NOTEFILM and EPISODE, when we can simply have them both be part of FICT--only have separate sections on each of the mediums. ] ] 12:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, ideally, if the rewrite of WAF/FICT goes through and is considered guidelines, I would not include medium specific guidelines as these fall under specific wikiprojects. WP:FICT needs to be as streamlined as possible, text-wise, so that it is clear when articles are and are not notable; NOTEFILM and EPISODE can build from there to give case-specific information. If WP:FICT is doing it's job right, NOTEFILM/EPISODE and other similar project-level guidelines aren't saying anything new, just likely changing words that apply to generic fiction to ones that work for the specific medium. (WP:FICT can easily have a section on project-specific notability guidelines too). --] 14:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not sure I agree with you that there is a need for "medium specific" guidelines. We should be able to develop a FICT that is comprehesible and concise and that explains clearly were the "bright white line" of notability can be seen. Additionally, I think FICT needs to clearly state that depth of coverage/amount of seperate articles needs to be determined by notability, not style concerns (if that is where consensus leads). Perhaps, project specific style instructions can be created that refer back to the two key guidelines (FICT & WAF), but the current situation is untenable. We have more and more instruction creep with more diluted consensus and less clear direction. ] <small>]</small> 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break point 2=== | |||
| There seems to be a general consensus that the style functions of EPISODE should be merged into the general Writing about fiction guideline. The notability portion has already been merged into ]. As there has been no further comment on the merge for five days, I consider this discussion closed and have redirected ]. ] <small>]</small> 12:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't recall anything being merged over to FICT. When checking the history, I don't see anything in FICT that covers the content guideline of television shows. Short of you blanking EPISODE and just putting the archived pages over here, I don't see any merged content either. Just because people are talking about a draft doesn't mean there was consensus to go ahead with a merge. Secondly, you don't blank guideline pages like that, you should keep them as historical record by placing the historical tag at the top of them. ] ] 12:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I thought the new FICT was posted. It certainly has the relevant, non-repetitive parts of EPISODE merged in. I just checked. The history can always be accessed as the guideline has not been deleted. I am not one to delete stuff like that. I even went to the extra step of adding EPISODE's archives to WAF's talk page, but you undid that.] <small>]</small> 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's included in the current proposal, but not in ] directly, yet. -- ] 06:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The deadline has passed. No arguments to keep ], that pass ]/] muster, have been advanced. It could be userfied and put in ]'s user space if he wants a historical copy, but I think any redeemable parts of WP:EPISODE have already been merged into the proposals for WP:FICT and WP:WAF. WP:EPISODE is abominably redundant, juridique, and unecessary. The pseudo-guideline, itsself, causes confusion and disruption to the project. I think it ought to be redirected immediately. ] <small>]</small> 08:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Deadline? What deadline? And Bignole isn't the only one who will revert you if you just try to blank WP:EPISODE again. While I can ''understand'' your BURO/CREEP concerns, you are way over-reacting. As it stands right now, it still is a guideline, and it still has consensus. If we can do the same job with FICT and WAF, it has my support, as I told you before. The fact that we can make a guideline better does not mean that the guideline in it's current form must be rejected. -- ] 09:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(Part of this is copied from my comment on ]) I had set January 7th as a reasonable time to end the discussion/RfC. As I saw it, editors were generally in favor of merging ] and this had been done in both the drafts already. I took it upon myself, yesterday morning, to ] redirect EPISODE to WP:WAF. I was reverted twice and called a vandal. That, incidentally, is why the merge tag disappeared from WAF. I had already redirected EPISODE and felt the matter was settled. I do not think EPISODE is even necessary. All the "clean-up police" need is WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. Bignole contended EPISODE needed to be archived/marked historical. I do not see a purpose for this, but I have already archived it at ]. I propose that we make ] a disambiguation page like ]. I honestly can not see another way forward. ] <small>]</small> 10:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'd agree with the merge. And all the clean up police really need is ], ], ], ], ] and ]. The trouble starts when one side of an argument writes up a page, tags it as guideline and then says, "can so, look". We need to move beyond that. We need a centralised area where we can discuss what to do with contentious articles on fiction, and we need to generate consensus and respect the consensus making process and the consensus. ] <small>] </small> 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Hopefully the rewrite of ] is close to local consensus and ready to present to the world at large for consensus. --] 15:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::WP:EPISODE does reflect current consensus, and a merge wouldn't be changing what it said, only how we say it. We've got WikiProjects and deletion sorting pages and several talk pages to indicate this. This was never just one side of an argument. -- ] 07:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not sure how you interpret ] but it's quite clear to me that the arbitration committee made it a finding of fact that it is applied inconsistently. Since guidance reflects general practise, I fail to see how you can claim it has consensus amongst all Wikipedians. To me the evidence of the arbitration case points to the fact that there are at least two sides to the argument as to the consensus on interpretation of our guidance. However, you seem to be taking my comments as a personal attack, when they are applied more in the general. We need to move beyond pointing to guidance and back to seeking to build consensus per ]. All the wikiprojects and the deletion sorting pages show is one side of the argument. You need to re-read ] and note that the views of those who edit must also be taken into account. You also need to be aware that we have no binding decisions and that we don't even have to settle on a decision, have a guideline or worry overly much about it. No-one is going to judge Misplaced Pages and find it lacking. It is what it is and the world accepts it as such. Improve articles through editing. ] <small>] </small> 11:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::"''Like many editing guidelines,...''" implies that WP:EPISODE is no different from many of our guidelines seek to correct something that, but it hasn't happened all at once. General practice or default behavior does not always make a consensus. If it did we wouldn't need guidelines. Now you're saying that AfD arguments, WikiProject discussions, and many many other discussions on this topic only reflect one side because the other side didn't get consensus? The arguments were fairly considered, and the consensus is that not every episode should have an article simply because it exists. I'm not the one who needs to re-read consensus. -- ] 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::''Sigh''. I think it's best if I bow out of this because you don't seem to be understanding my broader points. What do you think a list of afd outcomes tells you? Do you think it tells you anything about articles which have never been nominated? Do you think it tells you about the opinions of those that have never participated? I'm not quite sure you are understanding exactly what I am saying but I will try one last time. The consensus in guidelines and at an afd cannot be considered a global consensus, especially not given the size of Misplaced Pages. Guidelines tend to reflect the shape of those that have edited them, and articles tend to reflect the shape of those that edit them, and consensus tends to be somewhere in th middle of the two grounds. Most certainly the consensus is that not every episode should have an article. There is, however, no consensus on which particular episodes should and should not. Like all things on Misplaced Pages, individual cases arrive at different outcomes or take longer to get to the same place. It's not about having hard rules, it's about reasoning with people and discussing rather than forcing the issue and being downright rude. Still, never mind. I remember when ] was drafted and people said, but we've got ] and ] and ] they do what you want ] to do, why do we need this. I guess at some point someone will propose ] and then ] and then ], and we'll get to do it all over again. Meanwhile, the articles will continue to grow. ] <small>] </small> 16:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Maybe we don't actually disagree on this. I get the feeling that our own personal definitions of these things are not being properly expressed between us. When I see an AfD, I do my best to think of how different people would react to it. I take in account similar past experiences, the current statements on the AfD, my own view, and similar comments made in other discussions. Often I have supported something, but taken the position of opposition because I knew that there would be reasonable opposition that should be represented, but that not everyone could track every discussion. One situation was about allowing a soft-redirect for redirection spoilers. At the time of the discussion, people who didn't like any spoiler warning were not active, but it was obvious there were those who wanted to limit and/or remove such warnings. I think this same reasonable judgement has been used by those who helped make these guidelines. I'm not looking for hard rules, but I do want to limit common misconceptions and loopholes. These guidelines are far from perfect, but I don't consider that a lack of consensus. Again, how some people handled the situation of merging/ redirecting really isn't really a reflection on the guideline, but a reflection on the lack of guidance we have for dealing with such situations. -- ] 04:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::''Again, how some people handled the situation of merging/ redirecting really isn't really a reflection on the guideline, but a reflection on the lack of guidance we have for dealing with such situations.'' This is where you miss my point. There is plenty of guidance and policies for this. They are at ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Those are our methods of dealing with these situations. Our methods do not include disruption, gaming the system or edit warring. They do not include instruction creep. Our methods include accepting that sometimes things go against you. They include collaborating. They include compromise, give and take and listening to the other side. they include reaching the best outcome. They include writing an encyclopedia. As the arbitration committee declared, we have plenty of guidance on handling the merging/redirection situation. It's called discussing to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. If that means an article with a lot of citation needed tags in it and a couple of templates on it, then so be it. If that's what the consensus is, then that's what the consensus is. For me, how some people handled the situation of merging/ redirecting showed the lack of respect for ]. The answer is not to keep writing more guidance. It is to keep talking to other collaborators and toedit the articles with respect to ], ] and ]. Tag things as needing citations. Wait a month. If they haven't been cited, remove them. We don;t have to have all articles in compliance with this disputed guidance at any point in the forseeable future. Luckily we have time on our side. Do you really believe your stated preference on this or any dispute is the one that will ultimately be the final decision? That's not the way to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Any contributor to Misplaced Pages must accept that their contribution is but sand in the shifting winds of time, more likely to be disregarded than recognised as the ultimate truth. Edit the articles. Don't write guidance on how you would like articles edited. I offer this from my own experience. I wrote half the policies and guidance you guys quote in arguments. It didn't change anything then. It won't change anything now. You need to edit, and lead by example. Meh. Forgive me, I've droned on long enough. I'll go back to my rocking chair. Remember, ]. ] <small>] </small> 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Are you talking to me? Because it doesn't sound like you are talking to me. Unless you are lumping me together with every other user you've encountered. I don't miss your point at all, rather, I don't think you are understanding me, or the logic behind my thinking, or what I actually support here. -- ] 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Did you write ''Again, how some people handled the situation of merging/ redirecting really isn't really a reflection on the guideline, but a reflection on the lack of guidance we have for dealing with such situations.'' If you did, then yes, I'm talking to you because we already have the guidance. Maybe you need to clarify what you meant or explain the logic behind your thinking if that's what is causing the issue. I'm fairly certain up above you wrote ''Again, how some people handled the situation of merging/ redirecting really isn't really a reflection on the guideline, but a reflection on the lack of guidance we have for dealing with such situations.'' ] <small>] </small> 09:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::We have ineffective guidance on how to deal with the situation. TTN, more often than not, leaves tags on articles, waits a long period of time, and starts the discussions himself. He's not the only one. Take a look at the talk pages of ] sometime. That was a "while ago" for me, long before I was heavily involved with guideline and policy pages, and I completely understood the frustration there. It took a long time to overcome the objections of one or two editors, for just one show. It still didn't end until somewhat recently, when those sub-articles were merged/redirected to larger ones. Our existing processes and strategies on how to deal with these articles on a large scale ''suck''. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::No they don't. This is why, for the past, what, six months I have asked people like you, Bignole and others, if we can come together and create a central area to hold these discussions so that more interested parties can comment and so build a better consensus. The problem isn't with what is being attempted, it is in how it is being attempted. Yes it takes time. But we have all the time in the world. Where is the need for rush? Our existing processes and strategies do not suck. They only suck if you feel your implementation is the desired outcome and must happen now. ] <small>] </small> 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::"''As the arbitration committee declared, we have plenty of guidance on handling the merging/redirection situation.''" No, no they didn't. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Yes they did. ''Misplaced Pages works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.'' | |||
| :::::::::::::::::"''Do you really believe your stated preference on this or any dispute is the one that will ultimately be the final decision? That's not the way to contribute to Misplaced Pages.''" What do you believe is my "stated preference"? Apparently you know nothing about me, because I sure as hell do give slack to articles, avoid forcing things, and accept that my idea might not always be the one used. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Then I am unclear why you are arguing with me, and why you have reverted me and other editors twice on this very page. ] <small>] </small> 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::"''Our methods do not include disruption, gaming the system or edit warring.''" It's a bit too convenient to say that when two sides in a dispute are both edit warring. I sure as hell don't game the system, nor would I call cleaning up bad articles to be disruption simply because other people are bothered by it. I make it a point to be very honest on Misplaced Pages, even when I end up making myself look like a fool, or look weak, because I'm not afraid to apologies or admit when I'm wrong. I make it a point to consider what other people say, and to keep an open mind about articles having their own situation that needs looking at. That does not, however, mean that when we discuss something, or when something is clearly unneeded, that we do nothing when a vocal minority decides to revert everything we've done. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::I am unclear where in my words you draw the assumption that I am either attacking you personally or one side only. When a vocal minority arises, however, my approach would be to listen to their concerns. Yours, if I read your words right, would be otherwise. You also, unless I read you wrong, seem to indicate that if your version of how an article should look is different from someone else's, you will fight to maintain your version. That is how I read "nor would I call cleaning up bad articles to be disruption simply because other people are bothered by it". Apologies if I have misread that statement. ] <small>] </small> 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::I don't think you're qualified to judge our motives, our personalities, or our goals. Maybe, just maybe, some of us think these guidelines are actually good advice, and not just tools for deleting what we personally don't like. What I personally like or not has little to nothing to do with my position here. I loved having screenshots on lists of episodes, and I still do. I even argued to keep them for a long time. But eventually, I realized it wasn't best for Misplaced Pages, and I even helped remove them. When I transwikied a few hundred articles over to Wikia, and started the guideline pages there, I strongly encouraged editors to not make pages simply for the sake of making pages, and to keep things focused. Why would I care, it's not on Misplaced Pages anymore? Because it really is good advice to not have an article for every last character, element, or episode simply because you can. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Some of us wrote these guidelines intending them to be advice. I'm not sure therefore how your statement applies to me. I am also unsure where you think I am judging you or others. Like I say, from the start you seemed to have taken every word I have said and every action I have performed as some sort of personal affront, judging by our conversation here and your reversions and comments and edit summaries. I have been on Misplaced Pages long enough to be able to surmise that some people are deletionists, some people are inclusionists and some people are other than those. I am helped in that assumption by people categorising themselves as such. Therefore I find it useful to talk about those two camps, and others, generalising what tends to happen on Misplaced Pages and how it impacts on people and how we need to understand that so that we avoid getting drawn into protracted disputes. The whole basis of ] for example, is that we try and understand that the person we are in dispute with also wants the best for Misplaced Pages. We therefore avoid characterising them as an opponent but rather a collaborator, someone we will share with, and we then need to establish the framework in which we will share. For example, editor b edits only in the article space, and adds information that he thinks informs readers and improves the article, fleshing out detail. He does this for maybe six months, and no-one interferes with his edits. He may get a welcome note, but he may or may not read it, and if he does, he may piece together the guidance and policies in his own way. Then editor a comes along, one well versed in guidance and policy, an editor involved in mainspace and who has just worked hard discussing with similar editors how to deal with certain edits, namely those made by editor b. So he reverts all the work editor b has done, and when editor a reverts him...well, what happens? We should assume good faith. All of us on Misplaced Pages at some point become ]. Some policy or guidance page will appear to us as the fabled filing cabinet , stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". ] <small>] </small> 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::I ''want'' to see us evaluate things on a case-by-case basis, when it's reasonable; meaning you don't have to discuss every last detail simply because one editor decided, on their own, to make fifty articles. When you know there's going to be an objection to an action, I believe in discussing things first. I believe that the more you try to force something, the more it's going to come and bite you in the ass later on. I prefer to make lasting edits, ones that I don't have to baby sit. That's why I've taken over a year and a half to move things like ] articles off en.wiki. I believe that it should be fundamental information to be able to identify and understand basic things about main characters, with or without real world information. I am not black and white, I am not an extremest. It is not fair to treat me as one. -- ] 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Then Ned, I am not sure why you are arguing with me. At every point I have tried to indicate that we follow the very method you yourself suggest. If you agree with it, I am at a loss to understand what the bone of contention is, nor why you would suggest we do not have the tools available to us to solve the issues in front of us. You indicate, if I read you right, that you think those tools suck. That's maybe the root of this, that you are feeling frustrated with Misplaced Pages and the way it works. I don't really have an answer to that. But it doesn't really impact on the discussion here, which should be about trying to get some guidance written which reflects what happens on Misplaced Pages. What is making that so hard is that there is so many differing practises. Some articles do just get left alone. ] <small>] </small> 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I still oppose the idea of the merge for the reasons I stated earlier. If there are issues with ], fix the guideline, don't ax it. WP:EPISODE combines multiple issues and focuses on one of biggest issues with some specific articles. Sure, we "should" be able to point to a bunch of other guidelines, but reality is that unless they specifically point to episodes, the fans of episode articles will use the removal of WP:EPISODE as a excuse to say that episode articles are all okay now and we will be flooded with even more of them. For many articles, yeah, the MOS is enough, but for problem children when you have editors demanding "show me exactly where it says no episode articles" we do need a point blank, idiot proof guide that incorporates the relevant guidelines and policies. | |||
| :I also strenuously object to Ursasapien's strong arm methods to remove WP:EPISODE before discussion is completed and a real consensus reached.] (]) 09:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Part of the point is that ] does not prevent editors from writing episode articles. In fact, at no point does WP:EPISODE even say, "no episode articles." You would have a much easier time pointing "problem children" to ] or ] for guidance on why a particular television episode does not merit a seperate article. Additionally, having WP:EPISODE combine multiple issues and focuses means that it does not fall directly in the category of a notability guideline nor a MOS guideline. It simply involves instruction creep to try to circumvent the creation of poor articles. However, it does so very poorly. I strenuously object to the continued insistence that this disputed guideline is necessary or even helpful. It has almost become an essay regarding a particular group of editors POV. If we say that '''most''' stand-alone articles on episodes of television shows fail ] and ], then let's just go with that. ] <small>]</small> 12:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Draft=== | |||
| ] | |||
| This takes a few sections I had in my WP:FICT draft about summary style and about how to deal with excessive in-universe articles and adds them to here. --] 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've ] included the section of the above on "Summary style articles" here (taken from the above draft with a bit of a rewrite) to match with the improvements to WP:FICT. --] 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Please participate in discussion === | |||
| Over the past several days, I have attempted to implement policy and the consensus of the discussion here by archiving ]. I have been reverted numerous times by random editors that have not participated in the discussion heretofore. I do not know why I should have to be prevented from impelmenting policy because some "local consensus" ] the global consensus of policy and wishes to exhaust my efforts to implement said policy. If further discussion is needed, then let us have at it. Arguments should be based on how we can bring EPISODE into compliance. Otherwise, I see no way we can keep it as a guideline. ] <small>]</small> 06:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please at least be honest in your requests for more comments. You have been an editor less than a year, are not an admin or a seasoned editor in any way shape or form, and you just decided that you should "be bold" with a guideline that affects a large number of Misplaced Pages articles even though there was NO clear consensus for attempting to delete it You also claim that the people preventing you from doing so by a "local" consensus while rudely discounting the very valid arguments that do not agree with your own views. Your blatant lie that your efforts were reverted by "random editors" who did not participate in the discussion is highly inappropriate. One of the first people to revert you was one you just claimed was a "supporter" on your own talk page! Most of the people who have reverted your inappropriate blanking of ] did in fact participate in the discussion, which was still on-going as of yesterday. ] (]) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have been editing WP since ], ], TYVM. I am not an admin nor do I wish to be. I do not feel like I can best assist WP in that role. I continue to wait for you to point to some guidance that states new editors must get permission from an administrator before editing. I am a reasonable person and attempt to edit judiciously. I acted on a suggestion from Ned. I posted said proposal here and recieved only positive feedback. Now, Ned says I should wait and I respect that. However, I do not appreciate your rude, aggressive tone and I do not appreciate being called a liar. You said you had participated in this discussion recently. Could you point me to any discussion you have posted since ]? ] <small>]</small> 07:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::BTW: Random editors could be referring to ] and ] who have not participated in this discussion at all. ] has made some suggestions as Ned has, but I think he has warmed to the wisdom. ] <small>]</small> 07:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There isn't a consensus to merge WP:EPISODE. It's just a promising idea right now, depending on some drafts and revisions. Also, we can't forget that we're coming out of the holidays, where activity around all of these pages had noticeably died down. -- ] 07:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm here to reiterate my opposition this merge and request that the unilateral redirection and such cease. The regurgitation of phrasing used in discussions to support merging of not-notable episode articles for use in ''this'' discussion (here, an/i...) smacks of trolling. I suggest caution. --] 10:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I brought forth an honest discussion that ] is not compliant with ] and ]. We have had a lengthy discussion, but no one has been able to demonstrate how this disputed guideline does not break guidelines and why it is necessary to the project. A number of editors have expressed a similar concern. We have a way to move forward and improve the project. I am will to be patient and work toward consensus, but I truly think this issue needs to be addressed. | |||
| ::Are you accusing me of "trolling" (whatever that is)? Are you suggesting that I am a troll? I suggest caution, so you do not violate ]. ] <small>]</small> 10:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I support it and thought I saw a consensus somewhere, although I may have lost it. The issue I have with it is the fact that a lot of the issues regarding ] are faced by a lot of other projects, and it seems redundant to have to work up separate guidance for each area when the issues and the resolution are pretty much the same. It would be easier if we could point people to one guideline which covered the base issues rather than have highly specialised guidance which in practice doesn't particularly work well and causes divisiveness. ] <small>] </small> 11:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Comment: Above user Collectonian came across rather strong and said ''...you just decided that you should "be bold" with a guideline that affects a large number of Misplaced Pages articles even though there was NO clear consensus for attempting to delete it''. Well interestingly enough, ] has editor that do just that. Episode does not have community consensus and has been a discussion of '''etiquette''', '''3rr''', and various other policy concerns. Peruse some of the editor talk pages who support this suggestion article and you will quickly see an outcry from the vast majority of the community. Please note, this is a guideline and really holds no value. It would be better suited added to an existing guidelines, as I pointed out above. --] (]) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to agree to a point that the content of WP:EPISODE is/will be covered by ] of the ] guidelines in addition to what is already stated at ]. Information specific to episode article format should be moved to guidelines for ] (which I note seem rather lacking). However, I don't recommend this move until the new version of WP:FICT is in place. --] 16:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Centralized TV Episode Discussion == | |||
| Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --] (]) 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:11, 11 January 2025
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 Archives | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Spinout articles about a singular topic
I noticed a sentence that was italicized for no apparent reason. It turns out this was done 16 years ago. Is the statement in question even still true, let alone worthy of emphasis? 183.89.250.246 (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've rewritten that whole paragraph, as it seemed poorly worded. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Plot summary points
In regards to the edits reverted here:
It seemed best to make this into one sentence, as multiple storylines in one work seems like the only conceivable case where a plot summary should not follow the order of events in the story. At first, I didn't even quite grasp the train of thought here, so condensing this into one sentence seems worthwhile.
There is no benefit in trying to balance the length of a plot summary with the rest of the article. Rather, you should try to write the best plot summary you can, and the best exploration of real-world aspects that you can. As I explained in the edit summary, I also felt that some of that text contradicted itself. That text could be replaced, as a correlation between plot complexity and summary length is a worthwhile point. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- When your edits are reverted and you make a talk page post requesting feedback, it is best practice to wait more than a day before making the same or similar edits again. Please wait for input here before making anymore changes.
- I disagree with you that there is no relationship between the length of a plot section and the rest of the article. A notable stub with a 700 word summary of the plot and nothing apart from one other sentence places undue weight on the plot itself see WP:NOTPLOT. There are, should be no, magic numbers here. This is a subjective decision made by editors based on this guidance. Adding the reference to NOVELS is helpful and I will add it back.
- I disagree with you that the only time that there are no other benefits with tweaking the timeline in the summary vs the fiction (remember that this article applies to writing about all types of fiction in articles). For example, if a character has an ulterior motive for doing something, it might make more sense in mentioning earlier in the summary, rather than then having to dedicate additional text to a relatively unimportant sub-plot regarding the reveal later. The current text provides adequate guidance to editors about when and why they should do this, which is sufficient.
- The other minor tweaks did not seem to change or improve the guidance.
- As a general point, based on what I observed during your 100+ edits to NOVELs, which I wasn't able to fully monitor, please ask yourself before you edit, "what problem am I trying to solve"? Some of your edits were helpful, some of them made no real difference and were basically cosmetic and some stemmed from your misunderstanding of existing consensus. I have no doubt you're trying to make improvements, but making so many edits that mix wording and content changes are going to get reverted. I would suggest that if you see something that could maybe be worded better without changing the meaning, make one change and leave it for several days. If no one reverts it, make another one. If you see some content in a guideline that you disagree with, either make one change and open a talkpage discussion, or better yet just open a talk page discussion. I'm not trying to put you off making improvements, but you're going much too fast.Scribolt (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to wait longer, but another user edited the section in question, introducing awkward wording, and I thought a better alternative would be to borrow wording from MOS:NOVEL. Then while I was at it, I made other changes. Seeing the state of disrepair some of these pages were in has made me more bold in editing them.
- In regards to balancing length of the plot summary with the rest of the article, the important thing is that we do our best to write a compact plot summary and also do our best with other topics. If the rest of the article consists of only one sentence, obviously it needs to be expanded, or if it can't be, the article shouldn't exist. Also, the current wording
The length of the prose should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself; simple plots may require only short summaries
seems self-contradictory. A story could be long, but have a simple plot. - In regards to chronological order, mentioning an ulterior motive before it is revealed in the story was the kind of thing I originally thought that was primarily referring to. Hence this edit.
- As for "minor tweaks", I would say this added a significant missing word.
are notable for their own standalone article
technically means something very different. Likewise, a significant word was missing here, as I noted in the edit summary, though it seemed better just to remove that whole phrase, as it was redundant. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)- For your first point, your version doesn't recommend against writing a 700 plot summary with a five word sourced sentence, the previous version does so in my view it's better. For your second, I guess it would be slightly better if it was slightly more consistent regarding story length re plot complexity, but again what problem are we trying to solve? This is cosmetic at best, how many people are getting confused because they have a long story with a simple plot vs a short one with a complex one? This is a tweak at best, probably positive, but by lumping it with other edits that genuinely change the meaning you're making it hard for people to follow you. We can maybe discuss this further, maybe others will chime in.
- Your change re chronology is not an improvement. You removed the text that said why and when someone might do it. If doing it improves and condenses the summary, that's all an editor needs to know to do it. If it doesn't, they shouldn't.
- Sufficiently maybe reads slightly better, but it doesn't seem important in terms of how editors should proceed, the subjects are either notable or not. Maybe I'm missing something? You're right about the obvious missing word, but I disagree about the redundancy, category spam needs explicity discouraging as well as simply defining what's correct.Scribolt (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- How about changing
Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary
toStrictly avoid creating pages which consist of a plot summary and little else.
That pretty much tells you not to have a plot summary and then just one sentence of sourced commentary. The unhelpful and perhaps contradictory points about balancing length could then be removed. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)- It is not clear to me how what you propose is better than what is there already, and I'm not convinced yet that the current version is particularly unhelpful or contradictory. For the record, I think we should never have a plot only article. I think this guidance should also recommend that we don't have articles which have articles with minimal information apart from a full plot summary, so therefore I think the rest of the article should be considered when expanding a plot section. This isn't prescriptive and it doesn't need to be, but it's good practice for editors to consider which is what the guideline currently says. I think that the number of cases where you have a lengthy book with such a simple plot (or vice versa) that the current text provides serious issues to the editor are so vanishing rare that I don't see an issue to be solved, but if you have an elegant solution within the current text structure I'd be open to suggestions. Scribolt (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- See . I think we have solved this. It may be true that the points about balancing length would rarely cause a problem, but on the other hand they are not helpful either, as long as we make clear that a plot summary plus one or two sentences is not adequate for an article. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not clear to me how what you propose is better than what is there already, and I'm not convinced yet that the current version is particularly unhelpful or contradictory. For the record, I think we should never have a plot only article. I think this guidance should also recommend that we don't have articles which have articles with minimal information apart from a full plot summary, so therefore I think the rest of the article should be considered when expanding a plot section. This isn't prescriptive and it doesn't need to be, but it's good practice for editors to consider which is what the guideline currently says. I think that the number of cases where you have a lengthy book with such a simple plot (or vice versa) that the current text provides serious issues to the editor are so vanishing rare that I don't see an issue to be solved, but if you have an elegant solution within the current text structure I'd be open to suggestions. Scribolt (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- How about changing
- How about
Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if presenting details in a different sequence improves and condenses the summary.
That preserves "improves and condenses" while removing "do not need to stay true to" and "going out of order". 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)- I'm not sure what benefit there is in changing out of order to strictly follows beyond the fact that you said you didn't like it, but ok I guess. No to the other suggestion, we do not "present details" when writing a summary. Scribolt (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- What about Summaries may deviate from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity? MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like "may deviate from". While you might technically deviate from the chronological order, that characterization doesn't seem right. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- How about
Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if that would not make for a good summary.
183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)- Ultimately, we want it to say that if a more concise or easier-to-understand plot summary can be made by presenting plot points out of order, do that. We want to encourage editors to make a better summary if they have to deviate, that negative form is not really capturing that. Masem (t) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Masem. IP, could you articulate what your problem actually is with the as-is text? Scribolt (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The way it's stated just sounds wrong to me. But if no one else sees a problem, I guess that's that. Sorry to have wasted your time with this. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not a waste of time, language improvements help, just that here let's try to spin it positive, that going out of plot order can some times be a benefit. — Masem (t) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- '246, you have now changed it to read "Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if going out of order improves and condenses the summary". Unless I have misunderstood this discussion, that not what other editors are expecting. Can we please finalise the wording here and not keep making partial changes to that sentence? For me, "going out of order" sounds highly colloquial, bordering on weird. Perhaps it would be suitably formal in US English, I don't know. I'm perfectly happy with "deviate from", but we could instead have Summaries may depart from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad I'm not the only one to see a problem with "going out of order". I like your proposed wording, and would prefer "depart" rather than "deviate". 183.89.250.246 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with Michael's suggestion. Scribolt (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad I'm not the only one to see a problem with "going out of order". I like your proposed wording, and would prefer "depart" rather than "deviate". 183.89.250.246 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The way it's stated just sounds wrong to me. But if no one else sees a problem, I guess that's that. Sorry to have wasted your time with this. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Masem. IP, could you articulate what your problem actually is with the as-is text? Scribolt (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ultimately, we want it to say that if a more concise or easier-to-understand plot summary can be made by presenting plot points out of order, do that. We want to encourage editors to make a better summary if they have to deviate, that negative form is not really capturing that. Masem (t) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- What about Summaries may deviate from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity? MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what benefit there is in changing out of order to strictly follows beyond the fact that you said you didn't like it, but ok I guess. No to the other suggestion, we do not "present details" when writing a summary. Scribolt (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
"Primary information" and "secondary information"
In the Sources of information section, is it even helpful to talk about "primary information" and "secondary information"? I realize information comes from sources, but it would be more straightforward just to talk about primary and secondary sources, and what information can be found in each. Also, the example of another episode of the same TV series
may be problematic, as using one episode as a source regarding a different episode is likely to be original research. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Real-world perspective
This section is far too long, and concentrates too much on persuading editors what is bad about in-universe view, rather than just telling them not to use it. Probably it was written decades ago when there were still active arguments about how fiction articles should be presented. Now, all that's needed is to tell editors to use a real-world perspective, and to give some examples of what to avoid. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't sure what to remove. Do we even need the bullet-point lists? 183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe just a few consolidated examples. It would also be less confusing not to mix up what's expected in the Plot section and what's expected elsewhere. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm now thinking that it would be best to remove the entire bullet-point list from MOS:INUNIVERSE, as those examples are almost all either redundant or not very helpful. If anyone thinks that a particular item from that list is helpful, and it is not redundant to something else on this page, please point it out. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we can remove the list entirely as I have seen all of those cases in misuse of plot summaries and the list. Trimming is fair but should stick to a few key cases. — Masem (t) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm now thinking that it would be best to remove the entire bullet-point list from MOS:INUNIVERSE, as those examples are almost all either redundant or not very helpful. If anyone thinks that a particular item from that list is helpful, and it is not redundant to something else on this page, please point it out. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe just a few consolidated examples. It would also be less confusing not to mix up what's expected in the Plot section and what's expected elsewhere. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- This could almost replace that entire section. It would remove a lot, but much of that is redundant to things that appear elsewhere on the page.
All Misplaced Pages articles should use the real world as their primary frame of reference. As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world. With fiction, this means not writing from the perspective of the fictional world. Many fan wikis and websites treat fictional worlds as if they were real, but this should not be done in Misplaced Pages. An in-universe perspective can mislead the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article.
Keeping a real-world perspective also means limiting the amount of detail regarding the fiction itself. An article about a fictional character should not necessarily include the kinds of details that would appear in a biographical article of a real person. Backstory should be kept to a minimum, not treated as actual history might be.
Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Will need to get back to this after Christmas. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Mass edits by blocked IP editor
I've been trying my best to follow all the recent IP edits, to make sure they have been constructive. They seem to be in good faith, as far as I can tell, even if editors (including myself) have disagreed / modified some of them. I'm slightly suspicious that many of the recent edits have come from an IP coming from a blocked proxy server. I don't think it's inherently disqualifying, but it is suspicious enough to deserve review from longtime editors with a more transparent history. Creating an account helps other editors to evaluate our history of engaging in good faith. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor has been doing excellent and well-supported work overhauling a collection of guidelines that have, to my knowledge, never been systematically reviewed. I hope they will return. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. I was considering stepping aside, but your comment has persuaded me that I should help to finish the cleanup, though I may restrict my activity to talk page comments for a while. I am the person who was using the IP. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome back! MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome back. Like I said, I've found your work constructive on first review, so thanks for contributing. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. I was considering stepping aside, but your comment has persuaded me that I should help to finish the cleanup, though I may restrict my activity to talk page comments for a while. I am the person who was using the IP. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
For the record, 2A02:20C8:4120:0:0:0:0:A03D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which also appears to be a proxy?) just reverted all changes going back months at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Novels while making reference to this discussion. I have reverted the edit at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, and MichaelMaggs reverted the ones at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Novels and Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers while I was writing this. I would also note that the IP was WP:Blocked as an WP:Open proxy, not WP:Banned for cause (or blocked for cause, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- How do we proceed with this page? In contrast with the other pages mentioned, there is still little consensus here about the improvements needed, and it probably makes sense to re-start the discussions again, going from the text of 7 November 2024 which is where today's revert has left us. Suggest working from there section by section (not necessarily in order), and seeking consensus here on the talk page in each case before updating the guideline. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging users who have contributed since 7 November: User:Scribolt, User:Masem, User:Shooterwalker, User:HeartGlow30797, User:Frost, User:Tea2min, User:Boneless Pizza!, User:Sofia. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, just a mindless patroller without a leg to stand on when it comes to MOS. I looked into the user contributions when I reverted it and saw little activity about discussion of this removal. In the future, I will be more diligent and I won’t revert without first evaluating the full talk page. Cheers, Heart 13:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would probably be better to revert to a more recent version, as the vast majority of changes after November 7 appear to be improvements. Other than questionable reverts, the only recent change that really stands out to me as problematic is this one. A new article realistically would not "meet basic policies and guidelines". Perhaps this was intended to say "once it is certain that the article should actually exist". The biggest remaining issue overall appears to be the formatted lists. I count six such lists on this page, not including the See also section at the bottom. I suppose the "Conclusions" list is good, but I suspect we could do without the rest, or at least cut them way down. 38.51.233.146 (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
'Secondary information'
Compulsive Brainstormer's recent edits to remove confusing reliance on a definition of 'Secondary information' (as distinct from Secondary sources - an entirely novel concept in Misplaced Pages guidelines, so far as I can tell) has been undone by Frost who has asked for consensus. As requested, I'm posting here to confirm my agreement with Compulsive Brainstormer's edits. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also started a thread about this 11 days ago. You agreed, and it appeared that no one disagreed, so that was why I thought it was OK to make the edit. Do you also agree with this removal? Four of the examples were things that shouldn't usually be included or would merit at most a brief mention, and plot is covered below, so I thought that list was unhelpful. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I do. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed that the section didn't say much about what secondary sources to use. Should we mention Google Scholar? That is useful for literature but maybe not other media. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I do. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Edits
First of all, the point about "secondary information" has been discussed, in two different threads above. There was no objection to removing that wording. The removal was not entirely straightforward, but the recent reverts have not pointed to anything specific that someone might have disagreed with (if someone does want to discuss that, it would probably be best to use one of the above threads). The other edits were relatively small, but since they have also been mass-reverted:
- Special:Diff/1265917739 Those are not usually things that should be included in Misplaced Pages articles, other than the plot, which is discussed further down on the page.
- Special:Diff/1266101815 That section introduction seemed unnecessary; the section title and the See also link seemed more than sufficient.
- Special:Diff/1266167883 WP:NOT was effectively linked twice in the same sentence.
Once an article about fiction or a fictional subject meets basic policies and guidelines
gets ahead of itself. In context, the point is that sufficient sources exist, and thus there is the potential for such an article. - Special:Diff/1266198785 I removed "exceptional", because that is not the standard for GAs. Alternatively, we could remove mention of GAs, in which case we should probably also remove the GAs that are included in the list. Or we could remove the entire list, especially considering the rate at which articles on it are being demoted. But I have refrained from such bold edits.
- Special:Diff/1266213635 The article being used as an example does not appear to entirely follow this. The first part of the sentence might have been OK, but it was basically redundant to what was just above.
Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- The mass-reverts seem to have been made without realising that your main proposal has already been discussed, twice, on this talk page. Nobody so far has raised any substantive objection. Perhaps you could leave it here for a few days just in case anyone wants to suggest alternatives or improvements. For clarity, I agree that the edits you have suggested are a great improvement. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have some reservations re the first and third edit but don't have much time atm. Would appreciate it if you could hold off until next week when I'll comment further. No particular opinion on the others but suggest as per the above to wait a few days. Scribolt (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The mass-reverts seem to have been made without realising that your main proposal has already been discussed, twice, on this talk page. Nobody so far has raised any substantive objection. Perhaps you could leave it here for a few days just in case anyone wants to suggest alternatives or improvements. For clarity, I agree that the edits you have suggested are a great improvement. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- First point: yes, those are things not to include, and that's why they are listed to show the editor/reader what are things not to include in a plot summary. Second point: that's an introductory paragraph to the following sections, its actually normal style of writing to have such a preamble short paragraph leading into larger sections. Third point, its important to recognize how WP:NOT works here, given that is a core content policy (which NOTPLOT is a part of). Fifth point, while the aspect about being written in present tense is apparently wrong, as the article does use past tense for the flashback, the relevant point that the plot summary explains that there's this extended flashback, which is what the paragraph in WAF is trying to explain how to establish that a flashback is used. --Masem (t) 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the first point, the way it's written sure doesn't sound like "this is what not to include". If anything, the opposite. Furthermore, the last item on that list is the plot, which definitely should be included, though that is covered below.
- On the second point, I thought such a preamble was optional. In this case, the section title and See also link make clear what the overarching section is about. I also thought it was standard practice to try to avoid self-referential statements like "This section deals with".
- On the third point, however it's stated, it seems excessive to effectively link to that policy twice in one sentence. But the main part of that edit was to fix the next sentence, which got ahead of itself.
- On the fifth point, we could just remove the second part of that sentence. However, the previous sentence already states
Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements, such as flashbacks (Citizen Kane) ... may require inclusion of out-of-universe language to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer.
I'm not sure anything more is needed. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Since the only one of Masem's points which I didn't have a good answer for concerned the intro, and Scribolt also indicated that was a point he had reservations about, how about this rewrite:
Misplaced Pages contains numerous articles on subjects related to fiction, including fictional worlds and elements therein. In order to adhere to Misplaced Pages's content policies, any such article should cite several reliable, independent secondary sources that specifically cover the subject in some detail. This establishes the subject's real-world notability, and also allows for a balanced article that is more than just a plot summary.
With such sources in hand, editors should consider: (a) what to write about the subject, and (b) how to best present that information. These questions are complementary and should be addressed simultaneously to create a well-written article or improve a preexisting one.
Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Re the first point. The wording and presentation could surely be improved, but I read that section in the context of articles about fiction beyond Book X or film Y. We have articles about notable characters, and articles that contrast fictional works and content (e.g. Beowulf and Middle-earth, which I chose somewhat at random and may or not be a good example). Content sourced/cited to the primary sources is not forbidden. What we should be getting across is that if narrative content of the type listed is "only" present in the primary source, then it's lacking in WEIGHT to mention it outside of the plot summary. Whether or not it's mentioned in the plot summary would be out of scope of this section as it comes down to whether or not it's particularly relevant to the story (for example, the protagonist's birthday in Midnights Children is indeed plot relevant). What we want to avoid, especially in character articles are long crufty sections describing fictional worlds / concepts without secondary source analysis. The current text at least lays this baseline, I might try a re-write based on what I wrote above.
Re the third point, I agree with Masem and don't believe it's excessive to link to both the NOT policy as well as a specific point within it. As well as reading better (at least touching in the prose as to why we don't want things to be just plot summaries) there are other points in the wider policy that are also applicable beyond the specific section that is hyperlinked in NOTPLOT. Scribolt (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you're looking at it that way, maybe delete the list and simply say
Details found only in primary sources should not be included outside of the plot summary section or a section on characters.
While fictional dates of birth or performance features are occasionally important, that is fairly rare, so mentioning those as details that might be included in a plot summary isn't helpful. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I disagree. This section is not solely about a plot summary, and listing common forms of primary soured information (mostly fancruft) that should not be typically included is helpful. Please stop re-instating your changes until consensus is reached on the talk page. If anyone feels my recent change makes things worse we can of course return to the status quo. Scribolt (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first two examples, at least, are things that usually should not be included at all, anywhere in an article, so mentioning them is misleading, especially if we talk about which sections they might be included in. Talking about secondary sources is also misleading in this context, as even something that happens to be mentioned in a secondary source does not automatically warrant inclusion. A secondary source might have a passing mention of such details, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should include them. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see how it is misleading as it now explicitly say that this is a list of the kind of primary sourced information which is not to be included in articles outside of the plot section. If anything listed here is covered in secondary sources (which you are correct to say they typically aren't), then the usual considerations of WEIGHT and DUE would need to be applied. I suggest you focus on getting your account unblocked, or if you are indeed a sock of a WMF banned user, you shouldn't be editing this or any other page in Misplaced Pages. Scribolt (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you say "if it's not in a secondary source, don't include it outside the plot section", that will inevitably give some readers the impression that it should be included in the plot section, or that it definitely should be included elsewhere if it is in a secondary source. In the fairly rare event that such points should be included, they might better fit into a Characters section if there is one, but noting that would make this even more cumbersome.
- If not for me, this page would be even more of a jumbled, confusing mess than it currently is, as would a few other guideline pages. Things not being carefully checked is the reason that all of this happened. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. This is not about how to write a plot summary, it's about how to write an article about fiction. Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources provides greater benefit to the encyclopedia than the risk of some extraneous detail appearing in a plot summary of a book or film (which is covered elsewhere). Character articles are magnets for this kind of stuff. Scribolt (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed here, this page is more than just about plot summaries but any content related to fiction, making sure there is a strong distinction of what occurs within the fiction versus what is actual real world factors. We have had too many editors in the past treating fiction as real which hurts WP. We have a separate page on the specifics of writing a good plot summary. Masem (t) 17:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources. That's not what the wording in question does. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your quote of me is accurate, but I was incorrect in what I wrote. If only primary sourced, then these things (including the plot itself) should never appear outside of the plot summary. If there is secondary souring and other policy considerations are met, what the secondary sources have to say can be summarised in the article. Whether or not these content appears in the plot summary depends on the narrative and is covered elsewhere. The addtion I made reflects this. It's clear we disagree on this, so I will not respond further to you, and will see if anyone else has any opinions. Scribolt (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. This is not about how to write a plot summary, it's about how to write an article about fiction. Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources provides greater benefit to the encyclopedia than the risk of some extraneous detail appearing in a plot summary of a book or film (which is covered elsewhere). Character articles are magnets for this kind of stuff. Scribolt (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fail to see how it is misleading as it now explicitly say that this is a list of the kind of primary sourced information which is not to be included in articles outside of the plot section. If anything listed here is covered in secondary sources (which you are correct to say they typically aren't), then the usual considerations of WEIGHT and DUE would need to be applied. I suggest you focus on getting your account unblocked, or if you are indeed a sock of a WMF banned user, you shouldn't be editing this or any other page in Misplaced Pages. Scribolt (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first two examples, at least, are things that usually should not be included at all, anywhere in an article, so mentioning them is misleading, especially if we talk about which sections they might be included in. Talking about secondary sources is also misleading in this context, as even something that happens to be mentioned in a secondary source does not automatically warrant inclusion. A secondary source might have a passing mention of such details, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should include them. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. This section is not solely about a plot summary, and listing common forms of primary soured information (mostly fancruft) that should not be typically included is helpful. Please stop re-instating your changes until consensus is reached on the talk page. If anyone feels my recent change makes things worse we can of course return to the status quo. Scribolt (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: Both Compulsive Brainstormer and 213.169.39.234 have been blocked as socks of Belteshazzar an LTA (see Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Belteshazzar). Continue discussing you wish, but they will no longer be particpating (at least until they pull a new sock out the drawer). Jauerback/dude. 21:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)