| Revision as of 09:24, 24 April 2008 editPixelface (talk | contribs)12,801 edits →Plot: summary of the discussion, new section: RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:17, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,707 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive 59) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|WT:NOT}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
{{Policy talk}} |
|
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive index |
|
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive index |
| Line 5: |
Line 7: |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
}}<!-- |
|
}} |
|
|
{{press |org='']'' |date=November 5, 2015 |author=Dewey, Caitlin |title=The most fascinating Misplaced Pages articles you haven’t read |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11/05/the-most-fascinating-wikipedia-articles-you-havent-read/}}<!-- |
|
|
|
|
|
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 600K |
|
|counter = 17 |
|
|counter = 59 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 10 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}}<!-- |
|
}}<!-- |
|
|
|
|
-->{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=14|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot II}}<!-- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
--><!--{{archives |
|
--><!--{{archives |
| Line 27: |
Line 28: |
|
{| class="messagebox plainlinks small-talk" style="width: {{{box-width|238px}}}" |
|
{| class="messagebox plainlinks small-talk" style="width: {{{box-width|238px}}}" |
|
| |
|
| |
|
*Topic: ] (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) |
|
*Topic: ] (November 2005–January 2006) |
|
*Topic: ] (May - July 2007) |
|
*Topic: ] (May–July 2007) |
|
*Topic: ] (2003) |
|
*Topic: ] (2003) |
|
*Topic: ] (July 2007 - ongoing; partially archived) |
|
*Topic: ] (July–October 2007) |
|
|}<!-- Topic archive box ends --> |
|
|}<!-- Topic archive box ends --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
== QUESTION:How not to be deleted pls see my talk page] (]) 03:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC) == |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> to this page has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#WP:NOTFANDOM}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Plot == |
|
|
|
|
|
In response to Pixelface's removal of the plot section with edit summary "this contradicts ]": Allowing primary sources doesn't contradict disallowance of certain material from them or with specifying some rules for how they should be presented. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''12:07, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)''</small> |
|
|
:Yes, that was my thought when I reverted. There's no logical connection between allowing primary sources (now and then), and permitting articles to be wholly plot summaries with no real-world context! ] (]) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Primary sources like books and films are acceptable sources per ]. Articles sourced from those works often will be nothing but a detailed summary of that work's plot early after the article is created — and even much later after the article is created. However, such articles do not make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information. Any recommendations on what else the article needs can be explained in ]. Articles like are not against Misplaced Pages policy. --] (]) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::IIRC, it's been held that <s>large</s> plot summaries are derivative works. {{red|We have short, if not no plot summary at all, to comply with fair use restrictions (talking about it scholarly, e.g. {{la|Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)}} (which is B-class), and continues to talk about how that episode was made and what people thought about it.)}} ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC), modified 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] "Copyright law only governs creative expressions that are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," not the ideas or information behind the works. It is legal to reformulate ideas based on written texts, or create images or recordings inspired by others, as long as there is no copying (see plagiarism for how much reformulation is necessary)." And ] doesn't mention derivative works at all so I doubt that's why it's included under ]. --] (]) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And last month ] contacted ] who said "plot summaries, in general, are not taken to be copyright infringement so long as they do not include any great degree of the original creative expression." --] (]) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::So the issue can't be argued on a legal basis (at least, at this time). Nonetheless, giving a lengthy plot summary without any form of additional commentary doesn't make for a particularly good encyclopedia article.--] (]) 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Well I think there's a difference between an article that's not good and an article that violates policy. --] (]) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: A bad article is (or at least, ought to be) against some policy or another. The whole point of our policy is to help us write better encyclopedia articles. Like an article that is mere plot summary, a page that is nothing more than a mere dictionary definition is also an example of "an article that's not good" but might be repairable and ]. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Being a policy violation just means we have to fix it. ] <small>]</small> 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Misplaced Pages has over 2.2 million articles and many of them are bad. An article being bad isn't against policy, because Misplaced Pages ]. Being a policy violation is more often than not used as an excuse for deletion. Bad articles just need to be cleaned up. How do articles like , that are simply plot summaries, make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information? --] (]) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That is fair; Pixelface raises a valid question as to whether or not WP:PLOT belongs in ] or if it should be a subsection of ]. This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy. I wouldn't be surprised if WAF didn't exist back when WP:PLOT was added to this page, so maybe it's time to rethink where we should be offering this guidance. |
|
|
:::::::Alternatively, I would welcome a guideline dealing with issues of plot only. Our approach to (excessively long) plot summaries in general is in bad need of reevaluation, and WP:PLOT isn't doing the trick.--] (]) 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::As for plots, all we ever needed was common sense in doing good ones, but we got caught between those who didnt like them at all, and those who couldnt think of anything to do but write down everything they saw. (The Pierre B. article even as it is is a little more than plot & much less than a full plot summary of a very complicated novel--it needs major enlargement using the immense critical literature). More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there. Even more generally, I think that page needs to be split up between the things describing content , and the ones describing nature of WP, and the details moved elsewhere. It's absurd to have ourt most used policies expressed in a negative way. ''']''' (]) 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
WP:PLOT is the result of community consensus. It is not here because of copyright reasons or sourcing reasons (which may or may not play a part, depending on the situation), but because that's what was decided. If anyone wants to remove or change the section then they need to show a change in consensus. -- ] 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Decided among a handful of people on this talk page or in article space? If it said Misplaced Pages is not a plot database, I could maybe see how ] belongs in ] — but that would pretty much mean the removal of all plot material. Plot summary-only articles don't make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information. ] simply doesn't belong in ]. --] (]) 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Surely the point is the word "summary" in the heading. It should give the rough gist of the narrative, not more than that. Also editors who can think of nothing to contribute other than Plot should think carefully before contributing. This is an "Encyclopedia" for goodness sake. Real world material should predominate. Having said that I do agree with "summaries" being included, but in balance with the rest of the article. The ] issue should mean that the summarization is just that, summary: no comment, no analysis, no review, nothing negative, nothing positive - just précis. Anything else can go in other sourced sections. :: ] : ]/] 11:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Editors who contribute plot summary information make valid contributions. Articles are usually not written by one person alone. How can you turn "real world material should predominate" into something that Misplaced Pages is not? Misplaced Pages is not a recap service? --] (]) 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content. There are works that fully justify a chapter-by-chapter synopsis and there are works that can be covered in a short paragraph. But having it under WP:NOT gives editors license to violate ] and make their own judgement call as to what is appropriate. MoS would be able to be a bit more specific. ] (]) 13:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:One of the (many) reasons for this guidance is that it is difficult to do an in-depth plot summary without it becoming analysis or synthetic—ascribing reasons to character actions or author decisions, for example, that are not "patently obvious" from the original text; this would then be OR unless it's sourced, in which case you should be talking about the coverage, not just referencing it (more or less). Detailed plot summaries are a minefield so caution against them is a very good idea. It doesn't belong in MoS because it isn't a matter of style&mdashit's a matter of content. ](]) 13:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Unsourced analysis and synthesis is already covered by ]. --] (]) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There are four aspects of what WP:PLOT states presently: |
|
|
* An article that is solely a plot summary (of whatever length) is not appropriate for WP |
|
|
* An article that is a plot summary (of a certain length) with real-world aspects is appropriate for WP |
|
|
* The "certain length" of the plot summary in case two is defined elsewhere. |
|
|
* "Real world aspects" include several possible sources. |
|
|
The first two points fit with the rest of WP:NOT - they describe what is and is not appropriate for a page's content with WP. The third and fourth point is a MOS (]) issue and should not be spelled out in NOT in depth, just like we don't spell out what ] are in ], though giving a hint of what both proper length and appropriate real-world aspects helps to "preview" the underlying MOS for this. I think implying that more details can be found in the MOS on length and real-world aspects is fine, but the language pertaining to the first two statements needs to remain given that it reflects consensus and matches with other statement on WP:NOT. |
|
|
|
|
|
To the case in point, in that does PLOT contradict WP:PSTS, again, breaking it apart like this shows that there's still no contradiction. Primary and some secondary sources can be used to source a plot summary, but even if secondary sources are used, if it still remains just a plot summary, it's not acceptable. Real-world content is going to come from secondary, and at times, primary sources. There's no apparent conflict in these. --] 13:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP. The first two points raised by Masem say that: ''An article should not consist exclusively of information of type A, but should have also information of type B''. Why is there a restrictive policy only when A is ''plot details''? For example, articles about planets should not consists solely of physical characteristics, like mass or distance from the sun, but should also have information about human discovery and exploration. An article about an historical figure should not consist uniquely of a chronology of her life, but give also a description of her work and its influence. Nevertheless nobody ever deleted the mass of a planet or the date of birth of an historical figure on the ground that there were not enough information of a different kind. This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest. ] (]) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Regarding the treatment of plot information in this way, it's simply the case that the community has reached a consensus that this is the case. Consensus can change, but a small number of people raising an objection does not mean that it has. |
|
|
::Regarding the "fix it rather than delete it" concern, that is a general point on wikipedia; it's always better to fix something rather than delete it, and this page does not suggest that any offending material should be deleted. All it says is that articles (or sections thereof) that have certain characteristics shouldn't be on wikipedia; this can be rememedied equally be removing the article, or by adding and/or removing material from the article, depending on the precise case. This page does not give an preference to any of those methods, as far as I can see. ](]) 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: WP:PLOT is not being treated any differently than WP:NOT#DICT, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:NOT#STATS or WP:NOT#NEWS. All of those clauses say that ''An article should not consist exclusively of information of type A, but should have also information of type B''. Topics make the list here not because they are unique circumstances but because they are demonstrated problems - areas where lots of new users have confusion and need clarification. Nothing on this page has ever said that pages which violate WP:NOT must be deleted rather than fixed. ] <small>]</small> 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] is often referred to in AFD nominations (because it's mentioned at ]) and ]'s inclusion in ] turns a cleanup issue into an inclusion issue. People don't say, "Hey this how-to guide would be really great if it contained some sourced analysis." No, how-to guides are something Misplaced Pages articles are not. People don't say, "Hey, this personal resume would be great if it contained some sourced analysis." No, resumes are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Many articles contain plot summaries, many featured articles contain plot summaries, and many stubs contain plot summaries. A stub with just a plot summary is not against policy because Misplaced Pages is not paper. When new users write plot summaries they need to make sure not to insert their own personal interpretations, but that's already covered by ]. --] (]) 21:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:An article like ] (which is just a plot summary) is not against policy. Articles such as those don't turn Misplaced Pages into an "indiscriminate collection of information." The book ''Les Miserables'' is an acceptable source to use when writing an article about the character Cosette. Any additional info the article may need is an issue for ], not ]. The article needs cleanup tags, not deletion. --] (]) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::] doesn't say that it ''should'' be deleted. ](]) 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And yet ] is frequently cited in ] nominations. --] (]) 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The mere presence of a statement at WP:NOT seems to enable it to be used as a deletion criterion. While I would be inclined to delete an article that is solely a plot summary, I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF. --] (]) 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: ''(edit conflict)'' So is ]. Neither policy section requires deletion unless there is consensus that the page can't be fixed or that the fix would require such a complete rewrite that the discussion participants feel that none of the current contents would be useful. (Note that lack of repair after a substantial period of time is often considered ''de facto'' evidence that the page can't/won't be fixed but that's a case-by-case decision made by the discussion participants. I'm still not convinced that WP:PLOT is being used any more adversely than any of the other clauses on this page. ] <small>]</small> 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:We should remove the plot section of what Misplaced Pages is not. A brief plot summary is perfectly in line with encyclopedic standards as passed down through the centuries. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:No one is arguing against the inclusion of a plot summary in part of a larger article discussing other parts of the work. The issue is that plot only articles do not convey the importance or notability of the work to anyone unfamilar with the work to begin with. --] 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't think it's really a big deal or problem if we have sub-articles that provide plot elements. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'd go a step further, and claim it would be a good thing. ] (]) 01:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:As has been the consensus for a long time WP:NOT#PLOT absolutely needs to stay here. We have a horrendously bad proportion of articles that are nothing but plot summaries and one of our most important content policies needs this further bit of explanation that coordinates with ]. WP:NOT#PLOT is the perfect example of what "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" means and that is why it is here and needs to stay here. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::How do '''plot-only stubs''' make Misplaced Pages an "indiscriminate collection of information?" --] (]) 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If plot-only stubs are ok, then at what point do we say that the work itself isn't notable to be included? A prime time TV show? A local cable show? An unaired screenplay? A high school orignal play production? A 5th grader's short story? If we don't require additional information, then we could literally have billions of articles on fiction that is never published beyond one person. Requiring some demonstration of real-world aspects in addition to plot show why the work should be known to the world at large and thus shows at least some degree of publication. I will point out, however, that merging plot-only stubs into appropriate list of episodes or the like is an acceptable approach to those that want lots of plot and those that rather not see it. --] 01:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Whoa whoa whoa. Why are you talking about "notability" on a policy page? This is a list of things Misplaced Pages is not. For one thing, Misplaced Pages is not The Notability Project that anyone can edit. --] (]) 11:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Because in lieu of just plot summaries, WP:PLOT states that demonstration of notability should be present alongside concise plot details. Remember, ] is derived from ], because not everything in the world is appropriate for inclusion, and some standard must be set, fictional work or otherwise. (also see comment below)--] 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Notability shouldn't be mentioned anywhere in this policy. ] didn't come from ]. ] came about from people saying "nn" in AFD debates, which was then misguidedly twisted into "Everything should be worthy of notice" (without specifying who exactly it's supposed to be "worthy of notice" to). It's true that everything in the world is not appropriate for inclusion, but plot summaries obviously are. If someone began an article on '']'' tomorrow, and it was just a plot summary, should the article be expanded or deleted? If it should be deleted, then the '''Plot summaries''' section should stay in ]. If it should be expanded, then the '''Plot summaries''' section belongs in ]. --] (]) 01:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::On what is in PLOT right now, the details beyond just plot in the current version ''are'' was passes for notability for publicized works. Basically, PLOT spells out that an article on an aspect of a publicized work (the work itself, an episode, a chapter), etc. must ultimately have notability to retain it. This is primary to prevent the use of primary sources to be a replacement for verifiability; while primary sources can be used for some aspects, they cannot be used as the only means for verification. Thus, PLOT is a combination of satisfying WP:NOTE and WP:V for articles on publicized works. As for the War and Peace example, obviously a new article on that would not be right away - there is a good faith assumption that a new article should ''ultimately'' conform to PLOT, particularly once the fact that PLOT is not met is related to the editors of that page. Mind you, based on the group experience of WP, there's certain cases where PLOT is likely expected to be met (classical works of literature), while other areas where PLOT is unlikely to be met (many contemporary works of fiction) - we need to give every case the benefit of doubt to show it (which is why PLOT is not a CSD) but it cannot go forever once the lack of PLOT requirements is recognized. --] 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::If PLOT is a combination of WP:NOTE and WP:V, then it *definitely* needs to be removed as soon as possible, unless WP:NOTE became a policy when I wasn't looking. The book '']'' is a ] for the article ], and is an acceptable source per ] — as long the article only makes descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source. If the article ] only cites the book '']'', it is only a plot summary, and I see no reason why such a stub would be against policy. If someone wants more information in the article, like interpretations, they should add it and cite secondary sources — but that sort of advice does not belong in ]. If PLOT is meant to be treated with exceptions (for classical works of literature for example), it's in guideline territory and better suited to ], not ]. --] (]) 04:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Primary sources are acceptable in conjunction with other secondary or third-party sources and ''should'' be used to prevent OR/NPOV when describing the character or plot element, but by ] they cannot be the only sources to support an article: ''If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.'' But it is not that classical literature or major Broadway productions are getting exceptions, it is that there are likely to be more non-trivial information besides just what can be found from the primary work to describe them more, such that further dissection of the topic on that fiction to the major individual characters is very much possible. This does not true for all works of fiction, or even elements of major fiction; I would suspect most fiction falls that way in that while the work may be notable, specific aspects of the work are not. Since we are not a collection of ] we need to only cover, in more than passing detail, elements of fiction that can be described beyond the primary source; otherwise, we would have easily tens of thousands on articles on every minor, one-shot, cameo character, every little item in any work of fiction ever produced, and so forth. PLOT is the way to make sure we don't have kudzo like growth of articles dealing with published entertainment. Other parts of NOT does the same for other types of articles: geographic articles do not expand to become travel guides, articles on manufactured items do not become consumer guides, and so forth. --] 05:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Now, I will add that the way that PLOT is written, it does enforce notability without considering possible additional guidelines for it. If we instead stated that ''Misplaced Pages articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should not solely contain a detailed summary of that work's plot, but instead should include coverage of the work's notability in conjunction with a concise plot summary as defined by ], ] (and other applicable notability guidelines that I haven't listed here).'', what this does is say that we ask for notability demonstrations, but exactly what those are should be defined in the appropriate guidelines, in order to separate the policy from the guidelines. This is similar to the appropriate for WP:V and WP:RS. Mind you, overall, this does not change what the grouping of PLOT and the notability guidelines mean all together, but it does improve the policy to avoid the convolution of notability into it. This also, potentially, opens the door for additional means of what it means for something to be notable to be agreed to be consensus for some articles (emphasis on consensus, however) --] 05:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Masem, the editor who proposed PLOT also added "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." to ], as can be seen at this RFC you started, and they admit that PLOT "has nothing to do with notability, never has, never will. It has to do with article content. WP:PLOT doesn't apply to this question, even though a vast number of people seem to assert it does." ] is just a generality to keep people from putting their weekly grocery lists on Misplaced Pages. To say that the plot of Hamlet doesn't belong in an encyclopedia is false. "PLOT is the way to make sure we don't have kudzo like growth of articles dealing with published entertainment." What's wrong with articles dealing with published entertainment? Misplaced Pages is not paper. And we have CSD, PROD, and AFD to get rid of articles that the community doesn't want here. Putting something in WP:NOT turns it into a ]. Nobody says "This resume would be great if it could be expanded" or "This advertisement could become a featured article." PLOT is totally antithetical to ], and articles about ], ], and ]. PLOT may have been ''intended'' to guide readers to improve articles like ], but PLOT is instead being used as a criteria for article deletion. It was influenced by ] and that's where it should stay. --] (]) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Because like other poorly organized, planned and presented topics, we have decided by consensus that they are an example of what we don't want. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::]. And it appears there is no consensus that '''Plot summaries''' belongs under ] in ]. --] (]) 11:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It can, but as discussed below you have not demonstrated a change. That would require far more, particularly for something that has lasted for so long. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here. Further, I think per WP:PAPER this is something we should have here. Fiction is an important part of our society, and to cut plot out of wikipedia is foolish IMO. ] (]) 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*I reverted the revert of the revert by Masem. Not sure if that was the right thing to do, but I think at the least WP:PLOT lacks consensus and shouldn't be here.... I plan on not touching it again for quite a while (no revision war here). ] (]) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
** This is incorrect, particularly with policy pages. ] needs to be followed: the PLOT section has been part of NOT for a good while with consensus, and removing it was met with a revert; those that want to have it removed need to demonstrate consensus that it should be removed. (Note, opposition to the policy is not the same as lack of consensus; consensus cannot make everyone happy). --] 01:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***How about you demonstrate consensus here that plot-only stubs make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information? --] (]) 12:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
****First off, while I have only been on WP editing for 1.5yr where PLOT was already present, the fact that it is only being challenged recently, and primarily as the result of actions of ] and the ArbCom cases, tells me that yes, there may be something to question the PLOT phrase but historically, the statement has consensus and it is up to those that want to remove it to show that ]. However, since removing it was challenged, the appropriate course of action is to mark the section "disputed" and direct people to the talk pages. Policy pages absolutely need to stick to ] editing approaches moreso than any other page. |
|
|
****I did some digging on this since PLOT was added before I was here. is the talk page discussion, forwarding to , the aspect formed after ] was created in July 2006, after the result of ]. From reading these and considering this, I can see some aspects as to why PLOT could be considered as part of ], but the thing is, at the core of that statement is ''why'' PLOT falls under IINFO: because that statement is basically strongly supporting ] (a guideline) as ''policy'' so I can see the concerns for it. Mind you, I don't think this means that PLOT goes away completely: there needs to be a better way to state this that does not make FICT as strong as policy (it shouldn't be), unless consensus is there that WP:FICT should be upheld as policy (I'm not saying it should be, I'm just considering how strong notability arguments come into play for the AfD of fictional characters and the list). |
|
|
****Here's the thing to consider: there was a recent article in the Economist called "The Battle for WP's Soul", and PLOT and FICT are firmly at the center of that. If we absolutely stick to PLOT, we'd have to get rid of all non-notable "Lists of characters"... which will cause a significant subset of editors to leave the project. If we remove PLOT and weaken FICT, we'll have an explosion of articles for every character,episode, and whatnot, and I know there will also be a significant subset of editors that will leave the project. We need to tread very lightly here before making a sweeping change here that will have profound impact on the project. |
|
|
****Just to toss out a change, I would state that I think we could change PLOT to restate it as "WP is not a reading or fan guide for works of fiction" - we can still provide concise information on characters, story, etc, in context of real world aspects, but the spirit of PLOT is that we don't give every single character and episode detailed coverage unless there is notable information to talk about that further in an encyclopedic manner; "WP is not a replacement for reading or watching the work". Note this doesn't prohibit plot-only articles, but there is some context that these need to be in (aka FICT's spinouts) and that commonly there use should be at high discretion. Mind you, this may also mean we have to consider how fan-heavy works like Star Trek are approached and possibly given freedoms that other fictional works will never achieve. We are a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias, but we are not the ultimate place for all human knowledge. --] 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***Sorry, I added similar comments on your talk page, but I'll repeat them here. I believe that WP:PLOT lacks consensus. The !votes on two pure plot articles (History of For Better or For Worse as well as the Back to the Future Timeline) indicate that a large group disagrees with WP:PLOT. It's not a case of making everyone happy, it's a case of people not agreeing with it. Inertia doesn't drive policy (or if it does, I can't find anything that says it does) consensus does. And I don't think this has consensus. ] (]) 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
****I will argue that we have two types of plot-only type articles. There are those that, currently under discussion at ], spinouts of notable topics that may be plot-only, non-notable elements (lists of characters, objects, and likely include, the timeline articles above). The argument presently there is that policies suggest that spinout articles of non-notable lists or the like ''are'' acceptable, as long as the information is there to help support the notable parts of the work (aka there's no difference between that information being in the main article, and that information being split due to SIZE). We're still polishing this, but this seems to be a generally acceptable solution to both inclusists and deletionists. The other plot-only articles are the ones of concern, when they are not spinouts but are treated as their own article, which gives them artificial notability that plot-only discussion is not demonstrated. In nearly every case I've seen, such articles can be merged into a larger, acceptable article (whether the main article or the spinout article) while still providing coverage of the topic. ''Those'' are the types of articles that need to be avoided per PLOT. --] 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*****I'll largely agree with that as a way to handle plot issues. But at best that's a writing-style guideline. Not a definition of what WP is. ] (]) 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
****Well, you'd have to do a much better job of demonstrating consensus before you could justify removing something from one of the main content policies that has been in it for so long. It doesn't have it's own shortcut for no reason. In fact, it's been in for so long, under such wide community consensus you'd need a widely publicized <s>poll</s> discussion to demonstrate that consensus had changed and there was now a consensus to remove it. Just because small pockets of editors that work on fiction believe one way does not mean that belief is good for the project nor how the rest of the project feels. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*****Great, let's have that poll. ] (]) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***** ''']'''. Taxman: Do you *personally* want to keep the section in, yes or no? --] (]) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC) <small>'' (Sorry, but sometimes when you smell something and it stinks, you gotta say that it stinks). ''</small> |
|
|
******Ok, agreed, I should have said discussion because I agree polls suck too. You should also be more clear on whether you are calling bullshit on just that point or something more. My stance should be clear, that it absolutely needs to be here because it clearly is an excellent example of what Misplaced Pages is not. It absolutely needs to be in the policy and then expanded upon in the guideline. Among the people that argue against WP:NOT#PLOT are those that wish to include expansive plot with nothing else and there are multitudes of reasons why we cannot do that that we have not even begun to enumerate here, not the least of which is the various copyright decisions that clearly say that type of thing is a copyright violation. I know people love to write about their favorite fiction and plot is the easiest thing to write about and I know people want to water down the policies so they can do that more easily, but just like our other content policies we need to stand firm. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*******As much as I really, really love using Misplaced Pages to look up details of plots, characters, etc (I was just doing that a few minutes ago) I fully agree with Taxman.--] (]) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
******: @Taxman: A gracious reply sir! :-) --] (]) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*******Taxman, I'm not saying articles ought to remain plot-only stubs. I'm saying I see no reason why plot-only stubs should be against policy. And regarding "copyright violations", I will repeat something I said on this page nearly a month ago: |
|
|
*******] "Copyright law only governs creative expressions that are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," not the ideas or information behind the works. It is legal to reformulate ideas based on written texts, or create images or recordings inspired by others, as long as there is no copying (see plagiarism for how much reformulation is necessary)." |
|
|
*******And in February 2008, ] contacted ] who said "plot summaries, in general, are not taken to be copyright infringement so long as they do not include any great degree of the original creative expression." |
|
|
*******WP:NOT#PLOT isn't about copyright. It was suggested based on ] — where it should stay. Articles on this site shouldn't be written entirely in German either, but we don't make that a policy violation. --] (]) 03:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* Leave the section on plot summaries here. It has wide-ranging and long-standing consensus. A couple of recent disagreements and a few examples of AFD discussions where the community decided to temporarily give an article the benefit of doubt does not demonstrate that the clause has lost its relevance or that consensus has changed. As has been said many times before, WP:PLOT does not mean that all plot-only pages must be deleted - only that they can not ''stay'' plot-only. In this regard, it is no different that WP:WINAD, et al. ] <small>]</small> 03:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**Rossami, I know you supported it in June 2006 when it was proposed, but it doesn't appear like '''Plot summaries''' had consensus to begin with. In the archives you can see Leflyman thought it would be "extremely contentious" and Leflyman basically predicted the TV Arbcom cases. Leflyman also said "I suspect that if this were to be seriously promoted, a veritable rebellion would be fomented on Misplaced Pages." and "attempting to ban plot summaries outright just isn't going to meet with success." Badlydrawnjeff said "is it worth the drama, and does it really improve anything?" and "are we really improving the encyclopedia if we remove plot summaries?" The user who proposed it, Hiding, said "we start treading on copyright issues, original reseacrh issues and neutral point of view issues" but copyright is not an issue as Mike Godwin said, referring to a fictional work is source-based research not original research, and describing the plot of a fictional work in a neutral manner does not seem to be a big problem. JeffW said "I don't really see that plot summaries break any of the above policies." Williamborg said "Oppose — They are wonderfully useful for those who are trying to translate; they often provide the clues missing when you get mired in the original text. Instead of rooting plot summaries out, encourage them to grow into respectable analyses." And TomStar81 said "Oppose — I agree with Mwalcoff and Leflyman on this one." |
|
|
**Maybe you think that "PLOT does not mean that all plot-only pages must be deleted" but that is not how it's being interpreted by people who look at ]. Articles written entirely in German should not stay only German either, but we don't list articles written in foreign languages in WP:NOT. --] (]) 20:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**:Even though the PLOT addition was contested, they opposed Hiding's wording of the proposal. Looking at the discussion, I think it's safe to assume that a) blow-by-blow transcripts are bad, and b) plot summaries ''should'''nt be used alone, but as a part of a larger work looking at the topic as a whole. Hell, badlydrawnjeff, an admitted inclusionist (and an extreme one at that) agreed with those principles. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Break: Suggested change to PLOT === |
|
|
:''(moved down and into a ] to allow for wider attention)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
===Break: Summary=== |
|
|
On April 16, 2008, I removed the '''Plot summaries''' section from ] based on my interpretation of the above discussion. This was reverted by ]. I then removed the section again and ] reverted me again. ] then me as a vandal to ], despite the fact that the ] explicitly that "Policy/guideline/essay/other project namespace page alteration" is not vandalism. Why ] did not report ] for being a vandal after ] also the section, I do not know. I also the '''Plot summaries''' section on March 28, 2008. This was by ] who said "it seems you're reading consensus wrong." I don't think I was reading consensus wrong. I will try and summarize the above discussion and I appreciate any input if someone thinks I've interpreted consensus wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
I said "Plot summary-only articles don't make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:PLOT simply doesn't belong in WP:NOT." and later said "If someone began an article on ''War and Peace'' tomorrow, and it was just a plot summary, should the article be expanded or deleted? If it should be deleted, then the Plot summaries section should stay in WP:NOT. If it should be expanded, then the Plot summaries section belongs in WP:WAF." |
|
|
*] said "This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy." |
|
|
*] said "More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there." |
|
|
*] said "I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content." |
|
|
*] said "I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP." and "This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest." |
|
|
*] said "I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF." |
|
|
*] said "We should remove the plot section of what Misplaced Pages is not." |
|
|
*] said "I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here." and Hobit later said "I think at the least WP:PLOT lacks consensus and shouldn't be here" |
|
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, ] said "WP:PLOT is the result of community consensus" — an offered no new argument why it should be a policy or why plot-only pages should be deleted. ] said "Surely the point is the word "summary" in the heading. It should give the rough gist of the narrative, not more than that." — again, not an argument why it should be a policy or why plot-only pages should be deleted. ] said "The first two points fit with the rest of WP:NOT - they describe what is and is not appropriate for a page's content with WP. The third and fourth point is a MOS (WP:WAF) issue and should not be spelled out in NOT in depth" — and argument in favor of moving half of it to WAF, a guideline. ] said "Regarding the treatment of plot information in this way, it's simply the case that the community has reached a consensus that this is the case. Consensus can change, but a small number of people raising an objection does not mean that it has. Regarding the "fix it rather than delete it" concern, that is a general point on wikipedia; it's always better to fix something rather than delete it, and this page does not suggest that any offending material should be deleted." — again, an argument that it's here because there was consensus at one time. Not an argument as to why it should be policy now. And being listed in WP:NOT *is* a reason to delete, per ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Now, there were a few editors who said the Plot summaries section should stay in WP:NOT. |
|
|
*] said "As has been the consensus for a long time WP:NOT#PLOT absolutely needs to stay here." and "WP:NOT#PLOT is the perfect example of what "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" means and that is why it is here and needs to stay here." . Taxman also said "Well, you'd have to do a much better job of demonstrating consensus before you could justify removing something from one of the main content policies that has been in it for so long." and "Just because small pockets of editors that work on fiction believe one way does not mean that belief is good for the project nor how the rest of the project feels." Taxman also said "you have not demonstrated a change. That would require far more, particularly for something that has lasted for so long." but up to that point, Taxman was '''the only person''' who explicit favored keeping it in policy. Taxman also said "it absolutely needs to be here because it clearly is an excellent example of what Misplaced Pages is not. It absolutely needs to be in the policy and then expanded upon in the guideline. Among the people that argue against WP:NOT#PLOT are those that wish to include expansive plot with nothing else and there are multitudes of reasons why we cannot do that that we have not even begun to enumerate here, not the least of which is the various copyright decisions that clearly say that type of thing is a copyright violation." but nobody above who argued to remove WP:NOT#PLOT had said they wish to include expansive plots with nothing else. And plot summaries '''are not copyright violations''', as has been explained by ]. |
|
|
*] said "I fully agree with Taxman." . That's the second person who favored keeping WP:NOT#PLOT as a policy. What exactly he was agreeing with is unclear. |
|
|
*] said "Leave the section on plot summaries here. It has wide-ranging and long-standing consensus." and "As has been said many times before, WP:PLOT does not mean that all plot-only pages must be deleted - only that they can not stay plot-only." and argument that it has wide-ranging consensus, yet Rossami was only the third person to favor keeping it as policy. And WP:PLOT *does* mean that plot-only pages must be deleted, because inclusion in WP:NOT is a reason for deletion in the ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
When I removed WP:NOT#PLOT on April 16, it looked to me like there was a rough consensus to remove WP:NOT#PLOT from this policy — and certainly no consensus for it to stay in policy. If you think I've misinterpreted the above discussion, I would like to know. Any input would be appreciated. --] (]) 09:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT== |
|
|
{{RFCpolicy| section=RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT !! reason=Whether the section on Plot summaries belongs in a list of things Misplaced Pages is not or a guideline like ] !! time= 09:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC) }} |
|
|
I've made a request for comment about ]. The question I would like editors to answer is whether the '''Plot summaries''' section of ] belongs in ] or if it belongs in a guideline like ]. Inclusion in ] is a ]. If articles like should be deleted, ] should remain in this policy. If articles like should not be deleted but expanded, I believe that ] belongs in a guideline such as ]. I believe I've seen two editors suggest this issue be added to {{tl|cent}} and I suppose if someone would like to do so they're welcome to. --] (]) 09:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RE: WP:FORUM == |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages is not a forum. However, discussing the referent of the article can help lead people to searching for the juiciest reliable sources. If you don't know it ever happened, how can you research it? ] (]) 01:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a policy on the inclusion in articles of external links to discussions on the topic of the article? Seems like it would be useful to have such links more widely and would help discourage the use of Misplaced Pages as a forum. Fholson 03:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== NOT#DIRECTORY/Sales Catalog and online video game "funny money" costs == |
|
|
|
|
|
We're asking this same question at but to get other input here: |
|
|
|
|
|
Many of our video game articles that involve content that can be purchased through the various online stores (Xbox Live, Wii Shop, PlayStation network) include the cost of these products. For the case of Xbox Live and Wii Shop, this is "funny money" in that you pay for points, then spend the points; the PS Store is directly cash. A recent article brought for review suggests that such prices are inappropriate in the more general case per ], specifically the sales catalog point. There are cases where including the cost is relevant (one game's downloadable content was noted by secondary sources to be expensive, for example, so stating price helps, or that stating that in the general case for items from one shop are in a certain price range, but not in reference to a specific title), but in general, a lot of the uses of these are just a number. Nearly all of these numbers can be sourced. This can be seen as a problem for the various "list of games" articles that we have, and could be seen as the same for individual topics. |
|
|
|
|
|
Is this an acceptable use, or should we consider purging these numbers from the articles? --] 16:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:if its relivent (that note about outside sources saying its expensive) otherwise the prices should be nuked. ] 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Even the outside sources stuff does not justify including something as variable and irrelevant as prices. 1) They change; 2) they vary by country, venue, etc.; 3) they simply are not encyclopedic content. --] | ] 16:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Actually, this is part of the argument against it: Wii and Xbox prices are "funny money" points, and the cost does not change (save for sales) nor vary by country/region (the cost of the funny money, on the other hand, does). Not that I don't agree with this reasoning, just that this is presently what others see as being the means to keep them. I will argue, however, that the "justified by outside sources" is something to consider, see as an example where a general price point (but not specific to a game or specific bit of content) should stay. --] 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The "prices" will change whenever the manufacturer chooses to do so; and do change whenever there's a sale, etc. This is the kind of ephemeral triviality that gives Misplaced Pages a bad name. --] | ] 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Straw polls binding? == |
|
|
|
|
|
It used to say straw polls "should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding." Now someone has changed the statement to say straw polls "should be used with caution, if at all, and will NOT NECESSARILY be treated as binding." (my emphasis). Is that an appropriate change? When is a straw poll ever binding? ] (]) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd say the new language is misleading, and should be reverted. --] | ] 17:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree with Orangemike on this one. Straw polls are just a tool, after all. And when is anything ever binding (except foundation policy) when we ]? ](]) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Lots of things at Misplaced Pages can be binding. WP:IAR ]. That said, I thought the recent change was trivial - "may not be" and "will not necessarily be" are semantically equivalent. I don't see those two phrases as having any different meaning or even different connotation. <br> But since it's been brought up, I'd like to propose going back to much older wording. Not just "straw polls should be used with caution" but "]". Some are uncomfortable with such blunt wording but I do not think we can overestimate the damage that gets done to the consensus-seeking process when people attempt to impose a voting-based process on top of it. Polls are almost never the right answer for Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 02:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Rossami, yes, some of us are uncomfortable with such blunt wording. "actively evil", "not think we can overestimate the damage", etc are exaggerations to the point of being incorrect under close examination. It damages your/our credibility to make incorrect statements, especially as they will be quoted out of context. Polls can be useful, though I cannot think of an example outside AfD, MfD, RfA, etc (where, of course, the !votes are weighted by the accompnying rationale). Also, as a rule, in a concensus driven community, there is rarely such a thing as a "right answer". Agreed, polls should never be binding. What if we agree that result was a bad idea? --] (]) 03:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: You've qualified your wording so thoroughly that you've come all the way around to what's actually said in "Polls are evil". I don't think we damage our credibility to say so. But yes I do recognize that I'm currently in the minority on this point. ] <small>]</small> 03:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I've actually found it very useful, in complex disputes, to break down the points of debate into small units and poll on each; this helps to see where people stand and where there is and isn't real disagreement. I think polls are overused, but they do have a place and a value. ](]) 10:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Therefore, all content hosted in Misplaced Pages is not:" == |
|
|
|
|
|
The above is from ]. Could we have this in English please? Perhaps "Therefore, no content hosted in Misplaced Pages should be:" --] (]) 09:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Shortcuts == |
|
|
|
|
|
]s are good. Like redirects, we should have as many shortcuts as make sense to help our readers quickly find the right section of the page (as long as the shortcut is not patently offensive or misleading). |
|
|
|
|
|
That said, I have concerns with the recent trend of ''showing'' every conceivable shortcut to the page or section. In some cases on this page, the linkbox showing the list of shortcuts is longer than the text it's describing. In the interest of avoiding clutter and improving readability, we should prune back which shortcuts we choose to advertise in the linkboxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pruning the linkboxes will not impair the functioning of any of the existing redirects. The shortcuts will function properly whether we choose to advertise them or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
Following the principle that we should keep the one that is most immediately obvious and memorable shortcut (and where two are about equally clear keep the shortest), I recommend pruning the following from display in the linkboxes. Any thoughts or changes? ] <small>]</small> 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{| border=1 |
|
|
! Section !! Leave !! Prune or hide !! |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia || WP:NOTPAPER || WP:NOT#PAPER, WP:PAPER || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary || WP:NOTDICDEF || WP:NOT#DICT, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not ... original thought || WP:NOT#OR, WP:FORUM, WP:NOT#CHAT, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM || WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT, WP:NOT#PUBLISHER || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox || WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTADVERTISING || WP:SOAP, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#OPINION, WP:NOT#ADVOCATE, WP:ADVERTISING , WP:NOT#ADVERTISING || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not a mirror ... || WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTREPOSITORY || WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#LINKS, WP:NOT#MIRROR, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not a blog ... or memorial site || WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTMYSPACE, WP:NOTMEMORIAL || WP:NOT#BLOG, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, WP:NOT#MYSPACE, WP:NOT#FACEBOOK,WP:NOT#MEMORIAL || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not a directory || WP:NOTDIRECTORY || WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:DIRECTORY || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook || WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK || WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:NOT#MANUAL, WP:NOT#TRAVEL, WP:TRAVEL, WP:NOT#INTERNET, WP:NOT#TEXT, WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK, WP:GAMEGUIDE || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball || WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:FUTURE || WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, WP:NOT#CBALL, WP:CBALL, WP:BALL || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate ... || WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#FAQ, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#LYRICS, WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS || WP:NOT#INFO, WP:IINFO || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not censored || WP:NOTCENSORED ||WP:CENSOR, WP:CENSORED, WP:NOT#CENSORED || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not a democracy || WP:NOTDEMOCRACY || WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, WP:DEMO, WP:DEMOCRACY || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy || WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY || WP:BUREAUCRACY, WP:BURO, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not a battleground || WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND || WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:BATTLE, WP:BATTLEGROUND || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| Misplaced Pages is not an anarchy || WP:NOTANARCHY || WP:NOT#ANARCHY, WP:ANARCHY || |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|| And finally... || WP:NOTSTUPID || WP:NOT#STUPID || |
|
|
|} |
|
|
:I agree there are way too many on the soapbox one for example. I believe we need at least a week of discussion before taking action though. I have to think if I agree 100%, but I know you're right. ] (]) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also agreed. Toss all the NOT# ones out completely; they are probably holdovers from before the MediaWiki software was capable of redirecting to article sections. <s>In fact, I'll do that right now. The others I'll leave in place pending further discussion.</s> Hmm, well, some of them need to be replaced by new redirects, so I'll hold off on that. But the whole # style is ugly and archaic.--] (]) 03:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If the shortcuts function, why not list them on this page? I see no reason for removing them. I don't think clutter or readability is an issue here. --] (]) 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed with Father Goose about the #s. Otherwise, i suggest that just as Misplaced Pages is not censored has WP:NOTCENSORED rathe than WP:CENSORED, the other ones should also have NOT eg WP:NOTDEMOCRACY rather than WP:DEMOCRACY. The abbreviation shouldn't imply the opposite of the policy. |
|
|
::But I do not think we should actually remove the existingre directs, just deprecate them. People accustomed to them will undoubtedly go on usingthem. {{unsigned|DGG}} |
|
|
:::Yes, we're not proposing to delete the redirects (that would create redlinks on old discussion pages for no reason), but just to keep the number of policy shortcuts listed on the page to a minimum. |
|
|
:::In response to Pixelface, I believe clutter ''is'' an issue here. Given that there are dozens of NOT criteria on the page, one or two memorable shortcuts for each NOT criterion is already an absurd amount.--] (]) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I've created some new ones in the "WP:NOTFOO" format as suggested by Father Goose. The ones left on the list in the old "WP:NOT#FOO" format usually had a slightly different redirect already at the name. We can probably clear those up with some disambiguation notes. ] <small>]</small> 12:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Section merger == |
|
|
|
|
|
As I was going through the analysis immediately above, I noticed that we have two sections saying basically the same thing. ] is a subset of "Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought" and ] is a subset of "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I don't have a strong opinion about where the topic should go but it does seem like the sections should be merged. ] <small>]</small> 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggested change to PLOT == |
|
|
|
|
|
:''(moved from ])'' |
|
|
I propose that PLOT be rewritten as such to expand on what this really implies: |
|
|
* '''Study, reading, viewing, or fan guides: Misplaced Pages's coverage of published works is not a replacement for reading, hearing, or seeing the work for oneself. Misplaced Pages articles on published works, including non-fictional and fictional works, should not provide in-depth descriptions of the content of the work nor detailed plot summaries, but instead should describe the development, critical reception, influence, and historical significance of the work as a whole or aspects of the work. Such coverage should be supported by real-world context and sourced analysis, and can be augmented by concise plot summaries and limited coverage of characters and elements from a work of fiction. |
|
|
This makes PLOT more explicit, in that we basically should not be a replacement for the work itself, as most guides tend to be. This is also inline with WP not being guide for travel, consumers, etc. Mind you, I understand that could also be seen as a significant shift which is why I'm only proposing this or wording like it to see how it would fly. --] 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I enthusiastically agree with the idea you're forwarding here. However, assuming it is ever actually embraced as policy, I wonder how hard it'll be to actually implement it. People have gotten into the habit of dumping the complete plot of a work into Misplaced Pages... can we make a convincing case that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a publisher of ]s?--] (]) 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Surethe idea is right, but how you are planning to discriminate it is another matter. Replacement for what purposes? "in depth" how are you going to define it. All this is too detailed for a policy page, and should be discussed along with the guidelines for writing about fiction. ''']''' (]) 04:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I have no problem with handling it in a guideline, which would probably involve moving WP:PLOT into such a guideline. As a very approximate rule of thumb, one paragraph (50-100 words) per half hour length seems about right to me for an overview. Greater plot detail can readily be included in commentary sections that discuss various plot points. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::As a reader of Misplaced Pages, I've learned the hard way to not read any article about any work of fiction I plan to see or read in the future. But I don't see why we can't structure our articles so that those who want a sense of the work can read the first few sections, and those who want a detailed analysis can read the whole article.--] (]) 09:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Brilliant'''!! Fully agree to this proposed change by Masem. ] (]) 20:50, ], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|
|
*Very nice clarification. It clearly explains what Misplaced Pages is and is not, and hence in my view this is the perfect place for it. ] (]) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Weak oppose''' I might be misunderstanding your proposal, but the proposal sounds like current plot summaries should be shortened further (''should not provide in-depth descriptions of the content of the work nor detailed plot summaries'' vs. ''not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot''). The plot summary, which summarizes an entire book, movie, etc into a few paragraphs, can never be a replacement for reading or watching. A certain level of in-depth summary is necessary for readers to understand other facets such as receptions, significance, etc. If someone is using Misplaced Pages to avoid reading, then that's their problem. <span style="background:#CDF;width:4em;font:.9em;text-align:center;">]</span> 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**Indeed, plot summaries should be kept to the necessary and useful minimum. ] (]) 13:28, ], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|
|
**It is not so much to prevent users of Misplaced Pages from skipping out on reading the work for themselves, but to make sure our coverage of works doesn't end up looking like that. What are currently good plot summaries (typically 100-200 works for every 10 minutes) are fine, and we shouldn't be looking to cut these further, but this is more to point to the fact that editors, particular fans of certain types of fiction, tend to pontificate their work and that we end up describing every little factoid of plot. We should encourage that at offsite wikis and freely link into them, but what is at en.wiki should be just the basics to set the stage to appreciate the real world aspects and analysis of the work. Basically, to be completely clear, this is stating that while the first ] states that Misplaced Pages is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias, one type of specialized encyclopedia that we are ''not'' is that of a reader or fan guide for published works (just as we are not a travel guide or a consumer guide). --] 14:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* I like the current wording, I like Masem's wording, and DGG's wording is also fine. As long as it is made unmistakenly clear that plot-only articles (or articles containing little else than plot) are not what wikipedia is for, I am not opposed to any change in the fineprint. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* I am happy with both, except I wonder how they fit in with supplementary articles which may have sprouted out eg. fictional timelines, due to length or layout concerns. Also, if something is clearly notable, then wording which encourages ''addition'' of critique, rather than wholesale ''removal'' of plot should be encouraged. Carrots generally work better than sticks and some ideas on how to find RL material eg biographies, film reviews, critical essays etc. should be highlighted. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
** On this end, in ] we've realized that providing exactly these types of likely sources to support the elements of a work of fiction as to show notability is appropriate, as to help people locate information. We also probably should make the transwiki of material a more visible and acceptable option (read: get over the issues of COI vs Wikia, and the stigma of wikis for EL's). --] 15:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***Agree totally - thing is is to highlight a quick and easy link to a "how to" essay from this bit here.Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* I agree with what sgeureka said, I like all three wordings and think they capture the basic idea. Though if I had to choose I think I prefer Masem's over the other two, just slightly. ]]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', I think this version says it much more clearly than the current, and I like that it particularly includes characters as far too many people try to get around "but its not plot, its character description". I also agree that the current guidelines of 100-200 words for every 10 minutes (400-900 for films) are fine. Its that most people ignore them that tends to result in plotty articles. Some sort of guideline for written work would be tremendously helpful as well. I've seen far too many articles on books that are insanely long on plot, and some graphic novel articles giving a panel by panel description! How many words is considered good to summarize a 200 page graphic novel, or 300 page novel for example? ] (]) 04:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. It might be worth retaining "Plot summaries" at the beginning, so it starts "Plot summaries and study, reading, viewing, or fan guides" but other than that it's great. ] (]) 10:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Skeptical, not an improvement'''. I think the language about ''"not a replacement for reacing..."'' is a red herring and detracts from the issue. I don't think that those editors who are wont to fill articles with plotcruft would agree that they are doing so in order to make the article a "replacement for reading..." the real thing. Therefore, as an argument for why one should not fill articles with plotcruft this statement just falls flat. ] ] 12:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
** I agree it won't stop those deadset to spell out every detail, and I don't think it's NOT's job to ''prevent'' this. NOT's issuance on not being a travel guide does not prevent those with pride in the city/country they live in to fill the geographic article with touristy details - but approached from an encyclopedic manner. Stating that we aren't a reading guide can only help to focus (if even a fraction of editors) to describe their favorite published work in a more encyclopedic tone. The worse that could happen is.. well, no change from the current since PLOT's core elements are still part of this; the emphasis of PLOT is not weakened. --] 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''': I support this being added under "Misplaced Pages is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook" (after being adapted appropriately); but oppose it replacing the current ]. <font face="Brush Script MT" size="4">] </font> 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'' In my view, this is a good clear statement of what WP is not.--] (]) 10:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strongest possible oppose''', no offense ] but that's the worst idea I've ever heard on Misplaced Pages. You want ] to say "Misplaced Pages is not a fan guide"? That may be true in some sense, but then you'll get people saying "Why do we have an article on ]? Misplaced Pages is not a dinosaur fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on ]? Misplaced Pages is not a Georgia Tech fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on the ]? Misplaced Pages is not a camera fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on the ]? Misplaced Pages is not a train fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on ]? Misplaced Pages is not a Halo fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on ]? Misplaced Pages is not an astronomy fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on ]? Misplaced Pages is not a Simpsons fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on ]? Misplaced Pages is not a Gwen Stefani fan guide.", and so on. You have to think about what unintended consequences your actions may have sitewide. Do you really think Misplaced Pages is not a study guide? It's obvious that articles are not replacements for published works and there's really no need to include that in a list of things Misplaced Pages is not. Articles should not contain in-depth descriptions of the content of the work? Are you serious? And I'm personally quite interested in finding out when this "real-world context" meme got started and what policies back it up. --] (]) 07:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - partly per Pixelface, partly because I think it introduces substantial ambiguity into the section, and partly because whether an article is an adequate replacement for "reading, hearing, or seeing the work for oneself" is something for readers to determine for themselves. We can determine what content our articles should contain, but it is ''not'' for us to dictate the needs or preferences of our readers. (I assume that this was not intended, but that's how the proposed wording reads to me...). ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 07:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Alternative=== |
|
|
''Misplaced Pages coverage on published works (such as fictional stories) generally should contain an appropriate summary of that work's plot or contents but also should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on such matters as a work's development, reception, influence,and historical significance.'' |
|
|
This should apply to non fiction as well--we have too many article on slightly notable nonfiction containing a detailed summary of the contents far beyond what is warranted by the works importance. Things may be clearer if we get away from the overemphasis here on fiction, which should go in more detailed guidelines. ''']''' (]) 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I can imagine that people might get hung up on the definition of appropriate, but I think this is a slightly more elegant way to put things. Best, --] <sup>(])</sup> 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Yes, I quite like this; I would be tempted to say "...but <i>must</i> also contain real-world..." to make it quite clear that sole screeds of plot summary are not appropriate Misplaced Pages articles, but apart from that, it's all good. <b>]</b> 09:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Indeed; I think we want something sort of between this and the above; certainly something that is stronger and slightly more focussed and clearer than what we currently have. The net effect needs to be that ''no'' article should every be solely "plot" (or in-universe content, etc), and that there needs to be an appropriate balance between the two. Defining what's appropriate in terms of that balance is much harder, and belongs somewhere like ], really. ](]) 13:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::], speaking from experience, people will ignore and dismiss it as being ''"only a guideline"''. ] (]) 13:31, ], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|
|
::::If the guideline is referenced here, then the policy would be telling people to follow the guideline; and whatever happens, people will wikilawyer, it's inevitable. ](]) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Strongly oppose''' that wording encourages solely in-universe material and makes real-world context and analysis an afterthought ] (]) 10:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' This guideline talks about what WP is not; this wording avoids saying the extended plot summary is not appropriate, and is therefore is too wishy-washy. --] (]) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*Seems good enough to me, but wording like that belongs in ], not a list of things Misplaced Pages is not. "Content ] suitable for an encyclopedia" is a ]. Should we delete all articles that lack sourced analysis? Unless you're saying that an article "should contain real-world context and sourced analysis" within five days (the length of an ]), that sort of language does not belong in this policy. --] (]) 07:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Current version=== |
|
|
''"Plot summaries. Misplaced Pages articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
While I won't say that I'm opposed to the above suggestions for WP:PLOT's wording, I would like to say that the current wording would be my first choice. -- ] 05:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mention of summary style in nutshell == |
|
*This remains my first choice too. ] ] 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The nutshell summary says "{{tqi|Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a ] reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject.}}" ] is about splitting out subtopics into separate articles and the relation between these child articles and their parent article. I don't see its relevance here. The nutshell summary seems to have in mind something more like ], in it's guidance on summarizing existing sources and its claim that Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. I'm inclined to remove the wikilink and possibly rewrite this statement entirely. Thoughts? ] (]) 11:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
*Sweet and short. This is indeed my preference as well. At most it could be expanded to include non-fictional works (or be clarified that it includes non-fictional works). <font face="Brush Script MT" size="4">] </font> 10:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Nope. Still doesn't belong in ]. Inclusion in ] is a ]. The current wording suggests that an article like ] should be deleted, which is ridiculous. --] (]) 07:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
:I wouldn't agree that that particular part of the nutshell is intending to refer to OR - it's more that not every fact warrants inclusion. ] (]) 05:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Can we remove the "And finally" section? == |
|
== Hosted in Florida? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought the servers had been moved to California. Maybe the policy needs to be updated. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 11:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
it has no place in wikipedia and it shouldn't even exist in the first place ] (]) 12:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::no, just the WMF the ''offices'' have moved. The servers remain in Florida. ''']''' (]) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:makes no sense to remove. It's a catchall that NOT cannot enumerate everything WP is not. ] (]) 13:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Could the deletionists please cool their jets? == |
|
|
|
::its just unfunny jokes if you checked it out, humorous essays shouldn't be part of main policies ] (]) 16:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Not sure about removing the whole "And finally" section, since it has been on this page for at least a decade now (though I don't think anything of value will be lost if the section does get removed). But I agree that policy pages shouldn't link to "humorous" essays or essays that haven't been thoroughly vetted by the community, so I've removed the links from that section. ] (]) 00:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Notice of a requested redirect from ] to here == |
|
I would like to gently point out that there are times when a brief listing of different quotations on a topic may indeed help to illuminate that topic, and the excessively strident language of this guideline on this point |
|
|
("If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.") should probably |
|
|
be toned down. (The page on my mind, at the moment, is ].) -- ] (]) 05:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect request can be found on ]. ] (]) 03:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:That's more of an organizational standpoint than a deletionist standpoint. We have Wikipquote for quotes, so we don't need entire quote sections in articles. Which isn't to say you can't quote someone, but a section dedicated to it would be better on Wikiquote. -- ] 06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
The redirect WP:NOTFANDOM to this page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22 § WP:NOTFANDOM until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.85 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)