Misplaced Pages

talk:What Misplaced Pages is not: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:40, 1 May 2008 editPixelface (talk | contribs)12,801 editsm →RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT: +in March, added a period← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:13, 25 December 2024 edit undoCFA (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,792 editsm Reverted edits by ChatGPT_can_blow_me (talk): disruptive edits (HG) (3.4.13)Tags: Huggle Rollback 
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 -->


== Violation of ] ==
== QUESTION:How not to be deleted pls see my talk page] (]) 03:46, 3 March 2008 (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 &mdash; 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 ] &mdash; 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&mdash;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 ] &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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 ] &mdash; 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" &mdash; 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." &mdash; 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" &mdash; 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." &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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)

== 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. ]&nbsp;(]) 20:50,&nbsp;],&nbsp;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. ]&nbsp;(]) 13:28,&nbsp;],&nbsp;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. &ndash; ] <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)
**Real-world context is what we need to have verification of articles on published works, as independant, third-party sources. We ''can'' use primary sources to support the description of a work, but without secondary sources for real world context and analysis, the article fails verification. The "study/fan guide" is meant to point at the fact that when we are writing articles, we do not write them for the benefit of those that enjoy those works, but to someone that may never ever encounter the work at all and requires a 60,000 ft overview of what that work is. There is a large different in writing towards that level, and writing towards those that do enjoy the work. Part of that entails writing just about the work's content from the primary sources (the guide approach) and writing about the work's content '''and''' influence or analysis in the real world (the encyclopedic approach). If any topic (work, character, episode, etc.) can demonstrate the latter, we should have an article on it. If not, its not that we can't cover it as part of a larger topic or listing article deemed appropriate by consensus; there should be no technical reason that a user cannot search on an episode name, character name, or other topic and either be taken to the article or seciton of article where the concept is described briefly, or to a disambig page (or equivalent Hatnoted page) to be pointed to such. I will also point that "study/fan guide" also points to issues of possible ] and ] in how the content is presented, even if real-world context is shown for a published worked; eg, the editor may unwillingly give one aspect of an article too much treatment or write it in a highly flattering way with peacock terms, a style that would be appropriate for a guide but needs to be scaled back or quoted to secondary sources if included here. The fact that we are already not a how-to guide, a travel guide, nor a comparison shopping guide implies that we are not a study/content guide for published works. --] 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
***"Real-world context is what we need to have verification of articles on published works, as independant, third-party sources." Per what policy? If you can find when "real-world context" was added to ], and where that conversation occurred on this talk page, I'd like to know. I'm still looking myself. You say "without secondary sources for real world context and analysis, the article fails verification." That is absolutely false. The ] only requires a reliable, published source. The book '']'' is a reliable source for much of the ] article. If any analysis is presented, secondary sources are needed. And your claim that we do not write articles for those who enjoy fictional works is absolutely false. Who do you think reads Misplaced Pages Masem? I don't agree with your characterization of the "guide approach" and "encyclopedic approach" at all. Why does someone have to demonstrate that the character ] has had an "influence on the real world" before there should be an article on Winston Smith? Or ]? Or any other ]? ] and the ] say nothing about "real world influence." "Real world influence" has nothing to do with ], ], or ]. And ] already covers original research. Masem, please read ]. It lists '''Travel guides''' and then explains what that means. You haven't explained what a "fan guide" means and that's the problem. Do you seriously think Misplaced Pages is not a study guide? Do you seriously think that it was *not* Doctor Who fans that worked to make ] a featured article? The majority of Misplaced Pages is written by fans, Masem. Who else are you going to get to work for free? --] (]) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
***Oh, and I found when "real-world context" was added to WP:NOT#PLOT. ] it September 3, 2006 with the edit summary "Make less insane" and ] also added "However, a plot summary is one of the most important aspects of any article on fiction, and, in most cases, consisting solely of a plot summary is grounds for expansion and cleanup, not deletion." However, "content that ] in an encyclopedia" is a '''reason for deletion'''. Therefore, an article being only a plot summary is a '''reason for deletion''', something that ], who the Plot summaries section in the first place (when there was ]) has denied again and again in the WT:NOT archives (see for example). I can find all kinds of opposition to this section in the archives. As far as I can tell, it has never had consensus and it doesn't belong here. It appears to be one of those things that people saw in policy and thought, well policy says so, so I guess that's the way things are. Masem, unless you can explain why plot-only articles should be deleted, I plan on removing this section again because it simply does not have the consensus needed to be in a policy. And I'd be happy to provide more quotes regarding ] from the ] archives. --] (]) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
**** Judging by the rest of this discussion, while exact wordings may have different support, there is overall strong support for this section.
**** Also note that verification requires "independent" sources. The work itself is not sufficient for verification of the work's plot.
**** Remember, first and foremost, WP is a highly generalized encyclopedia; people should be able to read any topic without a priori knowledge and come out from the article with a better understanding of what that topic is and why it is important, regardless of the type of work. If, in satsifying the highly generalized reader, some elements of a more specialized nature can be added that can help those that know the topic already to learn more, but these should not overwhelm the generalized information. For fiction, the priority in these articles is to explain to the reader that will never watch or read the work, but needs to learn about it for research purposes, why that work is important without having any understanding of the work; in achieving that, it is expected to provide some plot information as needed, but the "why", through reliable sources, is going to come from the real-world context of the work - did it win an award, was it highly or poorly received, etc. If all that is provided for a work, character, episode, etc is plot information, it fails its duty in informing the causal reader appropriately. Again, this mimics all the other "not guides": a travel guide may be useful to those that visit a location, but without telling why those places are important, it is indiscriminate information. Yes, real-world information does not exist anywhere in the pillars because it is a term that only applies to fictional works; the point is that to show that a fictional work or element of it is not indiscriminately added, and to that, you need to show why others needed to know about the work. If it is the case that the general reader needs to know about the episode was a significant turning point, or that a character was key to the resolution of the work, these statements cannot be stated from primary sources only without engaging in original research, though evidence from secondary sources are completely appropriate. But as long as the article can satisfy showing why the fictional element is important, then plot and other details, within balance to help fans to learn more, are reasonable inclusions to that article.
**** Also, we are talking about the ultimate fate of such articles. Instantaneous evaluation of a plot-only article right now should not be means for deletion, but instead, such articles need to be given a fair amount of time (about a month) to show good faith efforts to improve and include the real-world context, after the article is tagged for lacking these through {{tl|notability}}. Plot-only articles that, given this time, fail to still show why the fictional element is important, should be deleted -- but only after considering if there are merge targets that the information can be transferred to. Lists of Episodes and List of Characters are two well accepted article formats that one can group plot-only information as an adjunct spinoff of the main article on the work of fiction itself. Doing this, we do not lose coverage of these topics (redirects are cheap), only deemphasize them as stand-alone topics since they cannot show the "why" from above. Other types of information should be readily moved to offsite wikis and linked in from WP so that fans will still be able learn more. All this helps the maintainability of WP; instead of dozens and dozens of articles that each have to show their real-world context to describe why they aren't indiscriminate information, we instead have one or a small number of lists that are much more maintainable. --] 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
***** That was very well said. Please consider archiving that comment as an essay on plots. I'd like to be able to refer to your explanation in future discussions. ] <small>]</small> 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
*****No, Masem, I don't see "strong support" for the section, now or any time before now in the archives. Show me some diffs. And yes, the work itself is sufficient for verification of the work's plot. See the article ] for example () and tell me how many citations you see. You say that Misplaced Pages is a "highly generalized encyclopedia." Where do you get that from? The ]? No, that says "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." ] says ]. And no, there is no "priority" for fiction articles to learn "why that work is important." What policy is that from? Even if ] said something like what, why does that belong in a list of things Misplaced Pages is not? And again, you repeat "real-world context." Tell me which policy (other that the edit made by Kyorosuke) you're getting that from. You say "If all that is provided for a work, character, episode, etc is plot information, it fails its duty in informing the causal reader appropriately." How so? If a reader wants to learn about what happens to Winston Smith in ''1984'', how does plot information fail to inform the "casual reader."? And how is "failing to inform the casual reader" what Misplaced Pages is not? And no, you don't have to tell people why a geographical location is "important." There is no importance policy. You seem to be arguing like ] has been a policy since Misplaced Pages was created, "the point is that to show that a fictional work or element of it is not indiscriminately added, and to that, you need to show why others needed to know about the work." People don't NEED to know about anything on Misplaced Pages. Again, show me the importance policy. Please. You say "Instantaneous evaluation of a plot-only article right now should not be means for deletion", but '''that's what inclusion in What Misplaced Pages is not means'''. Content not suitable for Misplaced Pages is a reason for deletion. The inclusion of '''Plot summaries''' under Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information means that articles that are only plot summaries should be deleted, just like articles that are ads or original inventions. Again, you mention notability &mdash; which is not a policy and will never be a policy. So is ] some attempt to make ] policy? And again, please show me the importance policy, I'd love to read it. You're saying the '''Plot summaries''' section is in WP:NOT to help the maintainability of WP? If you can show me ANYWHERE in the WT:NOT archives where this section EVER had consensus, please do so. Or I plan on removing it again. There needs to be consensus for a section of policy to be a part of policy, and I cannot find anywhere where this section ever had consensus. --] (]) 07:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
****** Everyone participating in this current section, except yourself, clearly seems to agree that the current PLOT or a variation of it needs to be here. That's the current consensus I am pointing to. Articles needs independent third-party sources by WP:V; the work itself, while sufficient to support the plot summary within the context of a larger work, is not sufficient to support an article which lacks anything but plot summary. And why articles should be deleted verses how they get deleted are two different things; yes, we don't allow plot only articles, but it is improper to immediately delete them on site, instead letting editors give a chance to do something about it. That's the balance between maintaining encyclopedic quality verses the editing process of a volunteer system. If Winston Smith can ultimately show real-world info, the article should be kept, if not, then merged to 1984. --] 14:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
*******Please look at the entire talk page. And I'll be happy to quote more people from the archives. There's no consensus for the fan guide rewrite, and there's no consensus that the current wording of ] belongs in ]. You said "Articles needs independent third-party sources by WP:V" but that was also added to policy by ], the user who PLOT to NOT when there was ] on this very talk page. It's likely that phrase had no consensus either. There's no consensus to merge ] on ] either, and you and ] appear to be the only people in favor of it. And why are you suggesting a merge if plot-only articles should be deleted? If you think editors should be given a chance to do something about plot-only articles, should they be given only five days &mdash; the time it takes for an AFD to close? Content ] suitable for an encyclopedia is a reason for deletion. Would an article that was an advertisement be okay if it was merged into another article? Would a how-to guide be okay if it was merged into another article? There is no policy on real-world info and the of "real-world context" by ] was never discussed on this talk page as far as I know. Why should the Winston Smith article "show real-world info" and why should the article be deleted if it does not? I think articles probably shouldn't be only plot summaries either. However, articles that *are* only plot summaries should not have to be improved within five days or face deletion. That is why ] belongs in a guideline like ] instead of a list of things Misplaced Pages is not. ] leads to such nonsensical events as the splitting of a plot summary into its own article and then having the plot summary deleted altogether. --] (]) 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
********I have looked at the entire page; there's no consensus on which version to keep, but there is strong consensus to have something that, effectively, states WP is not a collect of plot-only articles. And despite your insistance this is a style guideline, it is not: it is a combination of both style and content, just like travel and how-to guides. We say WP should not be a travel guide: this means that we avoid, from content, including "places to eat" and "things to do" in articles talking about geographic destinations ''unless'' they have citable information of why they should be included, such as a highly notable restaurant or a nationally renown festival. It also means we avoid describing, in style, these notable elements to make them sound more attractive or as must-see places, but instead gather information into logical chunks. In the same vein, because we are not only plot summaries, then from content, we simply do not reiterate plot details without any other information, but instead make sure these are included as part of the general discussion of the work to explain why the work is of importance or renown to be included in WP. From a style approach, we know we don't split off plot summaries or the like, and there's general ways of organizing various works of fiction depending on the media that includes plot along side that real-world information. Mind you, exact details - exactly how notability should be judged, and how the articles should be organized, needs to be defined in guidelines and not the policy (the RS/V comparison), but consensus again shows that a topic that is only plot is not an appropriate article for WP, and we use those guidelines to define exactly why.
********A plot-only article, if ultimately can only be made plot-only, should be deleted in 5 days if consensus is for that, but it is clear from TTN's past work and the Ep and Char cases that we don't want to do AFD of these articles immediately. Articles should be tagged for 2 weeks to a month to show good faith efforts for improvement, whether merging plot-only aspects to acceptable coverage of the larger work, or to demonstrate real-world considerations of the work. If no such efforts are attempted, or clearly there is no way these can be met, then and only then should AFD be considered, barring any other dispution resolution routes. This approach (tag, wait, and then AFD) needs to be emphasized more, likely in ], ] or ] (or all three, and I know this is in the third), because to otherwise ] people to fix an article in five days without warning is not what we should be doing. That doesn't weaken why PLOT should be in NOT; if anything else, it provides a point for newer users to know what the policy is (both NOT, NOTE, FICT, etc.) and work to improve towards those. The ArbCom case clearly (to me at least) states that we need to focus on more colloborative efforts, and even if tagging a plot-only article as being such can be seen as a problem to some, tagging and waiting is certainly an acceptable step in the editing process. --] 17:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
* "Real-world context" is not a meme, it's policy - and it "started" to keep unencyclopedic material out of an encyclopedia. However, I agree that the "fan guide" wording is unhelpful, even if you have stretched it way past what it was intended it to be. <b>]</b> 09:41, 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)
'''Oppose''': It is more ambiguous and will lend itself to varying interpretations. To a fan of a fictional work, even 1000 words of plot summary may be adequate and falls far short of recreating that work; to someone who hates the show, 200 words may seem excessive. And there is no objective dichotomy between "fan" and "not fan" but gradients from one end of the spectrum to the other. Much as I agree with the sentiment that WP should not be a fan site, or should not recreate fictional works, the underlying subjectivity of the concepts will not make this wording very useful. I'm not sure the existing wording is much more helpful, but I think it is more concise, and doesn't introduce the difficulty of defining when you are substituting a Misplaced Pages article for the actual work of fiction. ] (]) 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
* '''Strong oppose.''' ...''fan guide''... and ...''not a replacement for reading''... are pejorative...belittling some Misplaced Pages editors is not helpful. Cheers! ] (]) 01:48, 28 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"''. ]&nbsp;(]) 13:31,&nbsp;],&nbsp;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)
*'''Oppose.''' I think the policy statements found in ] and ] are good enough. Cheers! ] (]) 01:54, 28 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)

*This remains my first choice too. ] ] 12:25, 19 April 2008 (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)
** ] shouldn't be deleted, it should be improved. It needs real-world sourcing and references. It's technically a delete candidate as it stands, but in reality it's not, as if it was sent to AfD someone would improve it - it's just an utterly crap article at the moment. Meanwhile, I agree with Ned - the current wording is fine (or even DGG's with the addition of the word "must", as I suggested). However, removing PLOT from WP:NOT and sending it to WP:WAF where it would be endlessly wikilawyered over, would be a recipe for chaos. <b>]</b> 09:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
***But "content that ] in an encyclopedia" is a criteria for deletion. The inclusion of '''Plot summaries''' in ] means that the ] article should be deleted. Again, why should a cleanup issue be listed in what Misplaced Pages is not? And again you repeat the "real-world" sourcing meme (that appears in ] no less than 18 times for no apparent reason). --] (]) 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
**** Because it's not a clean-up issue, it's policy. You calling it a "meme" makes no difference. But just think how ludicrous this sounds, really - "Oh, I've missed the latest episode of ''whatever program''. I must found out what happened! I know - the very thing - I'll look in an encyclopedia!". Meanwhile, yes, you're quite right - in its current state, ] is a deletion candidate. My point, however, was not process-based, but pragmatic - that it would never happen, because it would need to be an AFD - at which point someone would fix it. Unlike Smith, however, there are plenty more fictional character and other articles which wouldn't get fixed, because they <i>can't be fixed</i> - there's no out-of-universe sources, context, or analysis available for them. And that is what NOT#PLOT is there for - it's a vital cleanup tool. The only reason I can see for trying to shuffle NOT#PLOT off to WP:WAF is to give such unencyclopedic content-free articles an easier run at being wikilawyered away from deletion or merging at AfD. <b>]</b> 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
*****Do you know WHY ] is policy Black Kite? Because ] it despite ] and ] the part about "real world context." That's it. You're saying someone would fix the ] article at AFD. Again, why waste people's time at AFD for a cleanup issue? Why force people to improve the article in five days or else? Where is the "out-of-universe sources, context, analysis" policy? There is none. Inclusion in ] is a reason for deletion. Period. If articles like ] are being '''merged''', which is the obvious thing to do, ] simply doesn't belong in policy. You may support ] Black Kite, but it simply doesn't have the consensus required to be in policy. --] (]) 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
******If there was no consensus for the addition, why has it remained in the page so long? ] <small>] </small> 21:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
******* Because Pixelface doesn't understand the concept of consensus. He believes it means that unless hordes of people descend on difficult-to-find backwater talkpages to defend a particular policy every time he raises a point, it means those policies don't have consensus. He's completely wrong, of course, but refuses to accept it. <b>]</b> 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
******** At what point does such behaviour become disruptive? ] <small>] </small> 09:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
**** If I understand it correctly ] may provide reasons for deletion, but does not mandate deletion. ] could also be a way of noting an article has gone in the wrong direction, and should be improved. ] (]) 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
*****Improved in five days or else? --] (]) 08:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
*The wording is very good as it stands - admirably clear and to the point. Its basic tenets have been amply reconfirmed at numerous AfDs, which to, my mind me at least, offers clear and unequivocal evidence that this position still enjoys community consensus. ] (]) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
**Only if you accept the premise that those editors who frequent AFD are representative of the community of editors as a whole. ] (]) 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
*I'll agree with keeping the status quo as well. This section is supposed prevent the creation of articles such as ] and countless other "articles" that were (and would be nothing more than) plot summary dumps, but still allows for shorter summaries as part of a larger article about the work or other fictional element as a whole. ] doesn't fall under this rule because the article is supposed to be about the character and can be more than just a plot summary since there are sources that talk about his character and his real world impact. If his article is just plot summary, but we know it can be exapnded to meet the notability guidelines, then we clean up and expand the article. On the other hand, something like ] ''would'' fail this rule since it's purpose would be nothing more than a longer regurgitation of the novel's plot. ]'s goal is to prevent articles that are only "plot guides" and nothing more that that, and the current wording does that just fine. ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
**It's supposed to prevent the creation of articles? Do you think new editors read ] before creating articles? Plot of Naruto: Shippuden was ] at its first AFD, which is more evidence that ] doesn't have consensus. Also see ], ],], ], and ] for example. The article ] *does* fall under ]. And so does every article in ]. And "notability" has nothing to do with what Misplaced Pages is not, except for the fact that Misplaced Pages is not The Notability Project that anyone can edit. Questions of "notability" are completely separate from What Misplaced Pages is not. You really think an article like ] couldn't be merged into the ] article? That it should be nominated for deletion instead of placing a {{tl|merge}} tag on the article like ] suggests? ] doesn't actually prevent articles that are only plot guides. It serves as a blunt instrument to nominate and delete fictional character articles like ] or ]. --] (]) 08:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
* A question of clarification on something may be useful here. The words "plot summaries" can be taken to mean two things. The first is the direct, literal meaning in that it is a summary of a plot of a work, and does not include character descriptions, setting information, etc. The second is the one that basically includes all in-universe elements that are derived from the plot, including characters, setting, and the plot itself. My question is: which way are we interpreting this? The change I suggested emphasizes more the latter, but I've seen people argue this current version doesn't cover characters, and thus there are arguments to whether this applies at all. --] 12:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
* I think a valid point that has been made by ] is being glossed over or ignored here. The article on ] fails ]. Therefore, it should be deleted. Anyone willing to prod it? If not, then it seems to me that you agree that that ] is a MoS issue, not a WP:NOT issue. Please address this point, anyone. ] (]) 06:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
**I was going to reply that Winston Smith should be proposed to be trimmed&merged (not deleted), and unless someone volunteers to cleanup/expand the article in the next one or two months, the merge should be performed so that wikipedia can have the cake (coverage of the character) and eat it too (NOT#PLOT is observed). But I see the article is already being proposed for a merge, so I'm a little late to the game. &ndash; ] <sup>]•]</sup> 14:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
**For any of us to do that at this time could be seen as reaking of ]; since it's in the works, however... --] 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
*Current version covers things well enough. ] ] 12:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Please note''' I appear to be misrepresented in the debate above. If people want my opinion, I would expect them to ask for it. My position is that ] is a tool for improving Misplaced Pages. Sometimes that means deleting stuff. I support the inclusion of this section. Misplaced Pages articles should not exist to regurgitate plot. ] <small>] </small> 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

* '''Oppose'''. I believe the current version contradicts the 'no original research' and 'verifiability' policy. In other words, if an editor can write a 'plot summary' from good secondary sources outside of the work itself, then why not? I'm certain one can write a very good article on the plot of Hamlet from scholarly sources. Cheers! ] (]) 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
** And that means you can write an article that approaches Hamlet on analysis and other aspects more than just plot alone. That is, if you can write a plot summary from ''secondary'' sources, there's bound to be other information necessary to round out the article to broadly cover it. --] 06:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

===WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed===
The problem with WP:NOT#PLOT is not necessarily how it is worded, but how it is used. Because ] gives ] as a reason for deletion, it is used in AfD and DRV debates as a reason to delete, rather than improve, many articles about notable published works.
"Policy trumps consensus" is an oft-heard slogan at AfD and DRV, and as such it is used not just as a reason for deletion, but as a ''reason to ignore "keep" arguments''. Despite several statements above from supporters of this policy that it is not intended to ''require'' deletion of articles which don't comply, that is exactly how it is being intepreted in deletion debates, and by several (though not all) administrators who close such debates. As such, it circumvents deletion policy by not requiring an actual consensus to delete. The very fact that the policy says "should" or "should not", and not "must" or "must not", indicates that this should be a guideline, not a policy. Anytime a policy says "should", it might as well say "must", because that's how policies are used and interpreted in Misplaced Pages. There might be a consensus that articles should not solely consist of plot summary, but that does not create a mandate to delete all articles which contain mostly plot summary or descriptions of plot elements. This is why WP:NOT#PLOT should not be policy. Those who object to the deletion of plot summary articles are routinely rebuffed in AfD because of the existence of this policy, and then they are rebuffed by the supporters of this policy because "it doesn't require deletion". Such ] is not conducive to a healthy editing atmosphere. ] (]) 02:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:Funny, you'd think that ''removing'' or culling over bloated plot summaries from articles would act as a shield in an AfD. You know, ''fix'' the problem instead of waiting for the article to be deleted and vetching latter.
:That is assuming that we are looking at articles that have more to them than ''just'' plot summary. In which case the article may not be salvageable.
:The long and the short: Writing about fiction ''only'' in an in-universe context, which is what plot summaries are, isn't good. Having something to point to as a statement that the primary focus of the articles should, if not must, be the real world context of the topic is a good thing. It keeps us honest both with what were doing and how we're treating the property of others, which the works of fiction (TV shows, films, games, etc) are. - ] (]) 03:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

: Can we please table this discussion? For weeks now, we've had people regurgitating the same arguments back and forth at each other. So far, no one advocating to remove this section has answered either 1) under what conditions would an encyclopedia would consider a page that consisted solely of plot summary to be a good article or 2) how WP:NOT#PLOT is different from WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTGUIDE or any of the other WP:NOT sections dealing with content. Just like pages that consist only of a dictionary entry, pages that consist only of plot summary are not what encyclopedias are about. If a dicdef page can be expanded, fix it. If a plot-only page can be rebalanced, ]. <br> The arguments to remove the section are based on the false premise that pages which currently violate WP:NOT ''must'' immediately be deleted. The actual wording of ] is "Content ] suitable for an encyclopedia". If it can be made suitable, then fix it and the point is moot. If the content's not suitable, then I don't see any reasonable argument why it ought to be kept. If a page could possibly be fixed in the future but neither the AFD participants nor anyone who has the page watchlisted can be bothered to do so, that's a more difficult judgment call but even ] has a limit. If a page has not been fixed after a reasonable amount of time and visibility, I do think that can be de facto evidence that the page can't/won't be fixed. The AFD process is surprisingly good at making those judgment calls for dicdefs, and the clauses of WP:NOT so I see little reason to suspect that it suddenly fails only for plot summaries. <br> Regardless, if you see plot-summary pages nominated at AFD that you think could be fixed, the right thing for the project is to prove your point by improving the article, not endlessly arguing that Misplaced Pages should lower its standards. That's also the easiest way to win the argument. If you make substantial improvements which successfully address the concerns raised during the deletion debate, those early concerns get no weight during the closing. ] <small>]</small> 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::It's my impression that a number of "list of episodes" articles are little more than plot summary pages, yet several of them are ]. My understanding of why this is done is because multiple seasons of TV shows contain a lot of plot that even in very summarized form fill a page unto themselves. In that respect, we do still have real-world commentary and analysis of the TV shows, along with the plots of the individual episodes, but they are on separate pages. Are any changes to WP:PLOT needed to reflect this practice?--] (]) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
:::LOEs as well as Lists of Characters are currently subject of debate at WP:FICT, but the way to consider them is that they are notable by themselves (]) or they are considered as a spinout of the notable work due to length (though when and how they should be used is in some question). These lists are considered as support for the main article of fiction, and thus must meet other policies (V/NOR/NPOV) but as long as they are treated as a supporting spinout, they are effectively the same as if they were part of the article itself, thus keeping in line with PLOT. --] 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:::No change should be needed. ''"A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work."'' (originally worded as "a part of a larger topic", but meaning the same thing) leaves the door open to seeing these pages not by themselves, in context with other articles on the show. While there is often disagreement about how much plot we should summarize for a given work, things like LOEs and season pages are often seen by most as an acceptable amount for fundamental information. -- ] 06:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

== 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)
::no, just the WMF the ''offices'' have moved. The servers remain in Florida. ''']''' (]) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

== Could the deletionists please cool their jets? ==

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)

: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)


Is this not a violation of ]: ?
== RFC: Victim Lists ==
{{quote|The Wikimedia Foundation has suspended access to this page due to an order by the Delhi High Court, without prejudice to the Foundation's rights. We are pursuing all available legal options.}}


The policy currently says that content violating the ] will be removed. But it seems content may also be removed at the behest of government organs (eg courts) of other countries too? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 07:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
] is an attempt by me to create community consensus on the inappropriateness of lists of victims on Misplaced Pages. As this relates to this guideline, and I used it in formulating reasons why these lists are inappropriate on Misplaced Pages, I felt it important to notify those who pay attention to this page that this discussion was occuring. ] (]) 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
:Please read ] which explains the policy that prevents this article from being viewed at this time. ] (]) 07:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::Then should a sentence or two about Office actions be added to WP to clarify our policy on censorship? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::No, per ]. Office actions regarding content are exceeddingly rare. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 01:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
== RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span>&#32;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:NOTWIKIA}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span>&#32;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)


== Mention of summary style in nutshell ==
{{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)
* Why have you moved this RFC down here? There's already an entire conversation above about this - did it not suit your agenda? Presumably this is another idea to get several people to agree with you in order to make another attempt to smuggle an important part of WP:NOT away from policy, to a guideline where you and your fellow travellers can attempt to wikilawyer over it in deletion debates to your heart's contents. When even an arch-incolusionist like ] includes "...but also should contain real-world context and sourced analysis" in his proposed wording, isn't it obvious this is a non-starter?<b>]</b> 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
**I moved it down because the RFC had received no comments in five days and was apparently overshadowed by the other section that someone else moved down. I feel I can safely ignore the rest of your comment. --] (]) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*** Well, you usually ignore anything you don't like or that doesn't fit your views, so that's nothing new. It doesn't make it any less true. <b>]</b> 06:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*:Yeah, this is really getting to be ] now... but . ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
*::Will, please read on the talk page. --] (]) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
**And Black Kite you seem to be ignoring that DGG said "More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there" --] (]) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*Misses the point of ] and Misplaced Pages entirely. The article on Winston Smith you link to is not best suited to Misplaced Pages. Whether it gets improved or deleted and a new article put in its place does not matter overly. You're trying to make a distinction which does not exist. Should we delete as being a dictionary definition or improve it? We don't delete things because of ]. We delete things because of editorial consensus. ] is a guide to editors as to what tends to get deleted or needs to be improved. It's a style guide and an inclusion list all in one. ] <small>] </small> 21:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
**We apparently do ] things because of NOT. It's actually a ]. --] (]) 01:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
***No, we delete things because of editorial consensus. Show me one instance where an admin deleted something unilaterally because of ]. We delete things because of ], we delete things because of ] and we delete things because of ]. We discuss how ] applies at ], but we never delete because of ]. Hope that clarifies the decision making process on Misplaced Pages. ] <small>] </small> 09:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
****Here's an example for you. For example, this resulted in no consensus, so the article was kept. Yet Black Kite took it to , which again resulted in no consensus &mdash; yet Nakon deleted it anyway for some reason. This resulted in no consensus &mdash; yet it was unilaterally deleted because of ]. This ] had no consensus, so it should never have been added to policy &mdash; yet you did anyway. Why did you do that? In February 2007 you " ] is not a deletion tool.", but it actually is, because it's a ] in the deletion policy. Does that clarify things for you? --] (]) 12:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*Well the Winston Smith article should not be deleted. I've never seen a verifiable article that is plot only that could not be re-written to have real-world context, so I would agree that this is a manual of style issue. (edit conflicted) ] (]) 21:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
** Pixelface has sneakily linked to an old version of ] in order to cover up the fact that someone, correctly, has tagged it for a proposed merge with its parent article, exactly as should happen unless the article is brought into line with policy. <b>]</b> 21:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
***You can look at the current version of the article if you'd like. And if you want to have your say about Eusebeus's proposed merger, you're free to do so in the area designated for the merge discussion. --] (]) 01:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*No, it should not be moved. In fact, it should be enforced more rigorously. I'm with Hiding and Black Kite on this one. --] &#x007C; ] 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
*I hoped that Pixelface would start an RfC like this so that it can be established once and for all (at least the near future) that PLOT is going to stay where it is: in NOT. &ndash; ] <sup>]•]</sup> 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
*Of course, PLOT must remain NOT. As others rightly have pointed out, the reductio-ad-absurdum argument with the Winston Smith article doesn't cut it. Articles don't automatically get deleted for failing NOT in their present form; they get deleted if there is consensus that they have no potential of ever not failing it. Winston Smith might have such potential (or possibly not, in which case it can be merged). Most of the popculture-TV series-etc-cruft articles we have seen conflicts over do not have this potential. ] ] 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
**How about the argument that the '''Plot summaries''' section never ] before Hiding it to NOT? --] (]) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*** Apart from the discussion here where there was only one completely dissenting voice, with even inclusionist-to-end-all-inclusionists ] being ok with it? <b>]</b> 11:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
****In that alone, ] said "I think this would be an extremely contentious issue." Leflyman also said "I suspect that if this were to be seriously promoted, a veritable rebellion would be fomented on Misplaced Pages.", "attempting to ban plot summaries outright just isn't going to meet with success." and "Nearly ''everything'' on Misplaced Pages is, in effect, a "summary" so why stop at "plots"?" ] said "is it worth the drama, and does it really improve anything?" and "are we really improving the encyclopedia if we remove plot summaries?" ] said "I don't really see that plot summaries break any of the above policies." and "As for copyright issues, IANAL but I would think plot summaries would fall under fair use." ] opposed, as did ]
****Later on ], you can see that the Plot summaries section does not have consensus to be in policy:
****On October 17, 2006 ] "I strongly disagree that a ] exists."
****On December 28, 2006, ] "Plot summaries no longer applicable?" and "Has the No plot summaries guideline outlived its purpose?"
****On February 2, 2007, ] "We need to remove the part about plot summaries."
****On February 7, 2007, ] "It's obvious, in action and at AfD, that this part of WP:NOT isn't at all close to how we actually operate."
****On February 7, 2007, ] "So, if in fact the WP:NOT Plot Summary section doesn't actually have strong consensus, and a lot of editors actually want to include plot-only articles, then the plot bullet point of WP:NOT should probably be ammended or removed to match what the policy consensus actually is."
****On February 7, 2007, ] "I totally agree that it should be removed." and later "was there ever an actual consensus to add this?"
****On February 7, 2007, ] "The only relevant discussion appeared to be here, and, I'll be honest, it didn't seem to have much in the way of consensus. Or, to put it another way, I've refrained from adding things to policy/guideline pages with less opposition."
****On February 8, 2007, ] "If the only thing I can provide to a redlinked article is a plot summary to start, that shouldn't be abandoned immediately."
****On February 8, 2007, ] "WP:NOT are for things that should be prohibited. It's not for things we simply want to discourage, but are will tolerate for a short time. If we simply want to discourage plot summary articles, then the statement should be moved into a guideline instead of policy."
****On February 9, 2007, ] "If we just want to discourage plot summary articles, then we should move the point into a guideline, either WP:FICT or WP:WAF. That gives the plot articles a chance to be improved and keep AFDs down to those what are unlikely to improve, have been tagged for cleanup for a while but have not been improved, or are far too extensive to make a rewrite feasible. If we keep the plot summary statement in WP:NOT, then we are affectively saying that plot summary articles should be deleted regardless of if they can be improved towards encyclopedic quality or not."
****So no, there was never consensus for Hiding's addition to policy <del>and he appears to have added it so he could cite it in AFD debates such as .</del> --] (]) 12:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*****For that last point to be true you'd have to ignore so much of my contributions it would be embarrassing. Are you actually going to remove it from policy or not? I have the courage of my convictions. Do you? ] <small>] </small> 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
******I've removed it five times already. I removed it three times in March. ] removed it once. I removed it once again. And I removed it twice on April 16, 2008, and then ] me as a "vandal" to ] because he doesn't know what vandalism is. I got for 12 hours for this "vandalism" because ] doesn't know what ] is, so no, I hesitate to remove it again. I have strucken part of my last sentence since you say it was wrong. Forgive me for thinking that you added it to policy so you could cite yourself in AFDs. However, the rest of my comment stands. --] (]) 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
****** The whole conversation is embarrassing, frankly, since he's completely ignored the linked conversation I put in, and has trawled for out-of-context quotes from various people - at least one of those quotes above is taken from an editor who said in the next sentence "I think the way to "improve" the situation is to promote better written, less fancrufty content" - in other words he wanted the policy <i>strengthened</i>. Still, let him remove it again if he wants to - I think he knows what the outcome would be. <b>]</b> 17:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
****Let's put this into context. Consensus in various guidance at the time was as follows:
* ]: ''Articles about fictional topics should not be simple book reports; instead, the topic should be explained through its significance on the work. The reader should be able to feel like they understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work after reading an article about one. A reader should be able to understand why this person/place/thing/event is relevant to the story.''


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)
* ]: ''It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. Wikibooks, Misplaced Pages's sibling project, contains instructional and educational texts. These include annotated works of fiction (on the [[wikibooks:Wikibooks:annotated texts bookshelf) for classroom or private study use. Wikisource, similarly, holds original public domain and GFDL source texts. See wikisource:Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks.''


: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)
* ]: ''(ensure) fictional passages are short, grounded with real-world language, and do not form more than a small portion of the article.''
****Now I don't mind if you want to test whether consensus has changed Pixelface, but let's drop the lie that there was no consensus. If there was no consensus, it would never have survived in the policy. I can't see where there was an edit war over the text, I can't see where it was removed. You personally don;t happen to agree with it, and that's fine. But if there is consensus behind it, you have to respect that consensus. The consensus when it was added was that it should remain. Why don't you simply remove it and see if the consensus is that it should be removed? ] <small>] </small> 12:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
* You've already got lots of comments above (including mine). Leave it alone. ] <small>]</small> 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
**The RFC is to gain wider input from the community. You've already made your opinion known Rossami. --] (]) 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
***This, from you, is more than a tad ironic. This tactics of badgering every single post that is counter to your opinion is the sure sign of the disruptive editor. ] ] 06:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comments'''
*#The plot section does belong here as a statement of what is not acceptable content. Article that are only based on plot summary are not encyclopedic and invite writing articles that fully substitute for reading or viewing the original source.
*#Where this was placed to begin with was above multiple threads directly related to this. Moving it fells like an action to ignore what has already been posted.
*#''If'' it is acceptable to relocate the request to "restart" the discussion, it is also acceptable for those that have already commented to voice their opinions again. - ] (]) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
**J Greb, are you saying plot summaries are not acceptable content? And why are you ignoring that the section was also moved down "to allow for wider attention"? --] (]) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*Yes, PLOT should remain part of NOT. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


== Can we remove the "And finally" section? ==
'''comment'''I think its fairer to say there was not clear consensus on just how it should be worded or replaced, and therefore it wasnt changed. there was no consensus behind the view that it should be kept as is. the question remains open.''']''' (]) 19:07, 30 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)
== The box at the top. ==


:makes no sense to remove. It's a catchall that NOT cannot enumerate everything WP is not. ] (]) 13:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I have a question about that, why are those four threads more important than the rest? And how? Oh and before you ask the reason I didn't post my view in any of the polls is because I got nothing to say there. ] (]) 21:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
::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)

Latest revision as of 05:13, 25 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Misplaced Pages is not page.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Violation of WP:CENSORSHIP

Is this not a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED: Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation?

The Wikimedia Foundation has suspended access to this page due to an order by the Delhi High Court, without prejudice to the Foundation's rights. We are pursuing all available legal options.

The policy currently says that content violating the Law of the United States will be removed. But it seems content may also be removed at the behest of government organs (eg courts) of other countries too? VR (Please ping on reply) 07:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Office actions which explains the policy that prevents this article from being viewed at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Then should a sentence or two about Office actions be added to WP to clarify our policy on censorship? VR (Please ping on reply) 08:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
No, per WP:CREEP. Office actions regarding content are exceeddingly rare. Ca 01:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"WP:NOTWIKIA" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WP:NOTWIKIA 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:NOTWIKIA until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.85 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"WP:NOTFANDOM" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Mention of summary style in nutshell

The nutshell summary says "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a summary-style reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject." Misplaced Pages:Summary style 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 WP:OR, 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? Daask (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2024 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we remove the "And finally" section?

it has no place in wikipedia and it shouldn't even exist in the first place 37.210.71.142 (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

makes no sense to remove. It's a catchall that NOT cannot enumerate everything WP is not. Masem (t) 13:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
its just unfunny jokes if you checked it out, humorous essays shouldn't be part of main policies 37.210.71.142 (talk) 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. Some1 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: