Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:08, 3 May 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Misplaced Pages is not page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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: 14 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Misplaced Pages is not page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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: 14 days

Plot

In response to Pixelface's removal of the plot section with edit summary "this contradicts WP:PSTS": Allowing primary sources doesn't contradict disallowance of certain material from them or with specifying some rules for how they should be presented. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:07, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

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! Moreschi (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources like books and films are acceptable sources per WP:PSTS. Articles sourced from those works often will be nothing but a detailed summary of that work's plot early after the article is created — and even much later after the article is created. However, such articles do not make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information. Any recommendations on what else the article needs can be explained in WP:WAF. Articles like Pierre Bezukhov are not against Misplaced Pages policy. --Pixelface (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, it's been held that large plot summaries are derivative works. We have short, if not no plot summary at all, to comply with fair use restrictions (talking about it scholarly, e.g. Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (which is B-class), and continues to talk about how that episode was made and what people thought about it.) Will 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC), modified 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAIR says "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 WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't mention derivative works at all so I doubt that's why it's included under WP:NOT#INFO. --Pixelface (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And last month Father Goose contacted Mike Godwin 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." --Pixelface (talk) 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.--Father Goose (talk) 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. --Pixelface (talk) 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 a policy violation. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Being a policy violation just means we have to fix it. Rossami (talk) 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 is not finished. 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 Pierre Bezukhov, that are simply plot summaries, make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information? --Pixelface (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fair; Pixelface raises a valid question as to whether or not WP:PLOT belongs in WP:NOT or if it should be a subsection of WP:WAF. 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.--Father Goose (talk) 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. DGG (talk) 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. -- Ned Scott 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 WP:PLOT belongs in WP:NOT — 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. WP:PLOT simply doesn't belong in WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 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 WP:PSTS 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.  :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 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? --Pixelface (talk) 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 WP:NPOV and make their own judgement call as to what is appropriate. MoS would be able to be a bit more specific. 23skidoo (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the (many) reasons for this guidance is that it is difficult to do an in-depth plot summary without it becoming analysis or synthetic—ascribing reasons to character actions or author decisions, for example, that are not "patently obvious" from the original text; this would then be OR unless it's sourced, in which case you should be talking about the coverage, not just referencing it (more or less). Detailed plot summaries are a minefield so caution against them is a very good idea. It doesn't belong in MoS because it isn't a matter of style&mdashit's a matter of content. SamBC(talk) 13:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced analysis and synthesis is already covered by WP:NOT#OR. --Pixelface (talk) 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 (WP:WAF) issue and should not be spelled out in NOT in depth, just like we don't spell out what reliable sources are in Verifiability policy, 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. --MASEM 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. Eubulide (talk) 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. SamBC(talk) 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. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT is often referred to in AFD nominations (because it's mentioned at WP:DEL#REASON) and WP:PLOT's inclusion in WP:NOT 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 WP:NOT#OR. --Pixelface (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

An article like Cosette (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 WP:WAF, not WP:NOT. The article needs cleanup tags, not deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT doesn't say that it should be deleted. SamBC(talk) 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet WP:PLOT is frequently cited in AFD nominations. --Pixelface (talk) 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. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So is WP:WINAD. 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. Rossami (talk) 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, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 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. --MASEM 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, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go a step further, and claim it would be a good thing. Hobit (talk) 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:WAF. 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 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How do plot-only stubs make Misplaced Pages an "indiscriminate collection of information?" --Pixelface (talk) 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. --MASEM 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. --Pixelface (talk) 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, WP:N is derived from WP:IINFO, because not everything in the world is appropriate for inclusion, and some standard must be set, fictional work or otherwise. (also see comment below)--MASEM 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability shouldn't be mentioned anywhere in this policy. WP:N didn't come from WP:IINFO. WP:N 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 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. --Pixelface (talk) 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. --MASEM 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 Les Misérables is a reliable source for the article Cosette, and is an acceptable source per WP:PSTS — as long the article only makes descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source. If the article Cosette only cites the book Les Misérables, it is only a plot summary, and I see no reason why such a stub would be against policy. If someone wants more information in the article, like interpretations, they should add it and cite secondary sources — but that sort of advice does not belong in WP:NOT. 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 WP:WAF, not WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 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 WP:V 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 indiscriminate information 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. --MASEM 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 WP:NOTE, WP:FICT (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) --MASEM 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 WP:V, 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." Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information 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 reason for deletion. 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 literary character stubs, and articles about characters in written fiction, fictional characters, and fictional works. PLOT may have been intended to guide readers to improve articles like Madame Defarge, but PLOT is instead being used as a criteria for article deletion. It was influenced by WP:WAF and that's where it should stay. --Pixelface (talk) 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. - Taxman 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. And it appears there is no consensus that Plot summaries belongs under WP:IINFO in WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 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. - Taxman 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. Hobit (talk) 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). Hobit (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is incorrect, particularly with policy pages. WP:BRD 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). --MASEM 01:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • How about you demonstrate consensus here that plot-only stubs make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information? --Pixelface (talk) 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 User:TTN 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 consensus has changed to have it remvoed. 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 WP:BRD editing approaches moreso than any other page.
      • I did some digging on this since PLOT was added before I was here. here is the talk page discussion, forwarding to this change, the aspect formed after WP:FICT was created in July 2006, after the result of Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy/Minor characters. From reading these and considering this, I can see some aspects as to why PLOT could be considered as part of WP:WAF, but the thing is, at the core of that statement is why PLOT falls under IINFO: because that statement is basically strongly supporting WP:FICT (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. --MASEM 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. Hobit (talk) 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 WP:FICT, 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. --MASEM 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. Hobit (talk) 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 poll 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. - Taxman 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Great, let's have that poll. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
        • BULLSHIT!. Taxman: Do you *personally* want to keep the section in, yes or no? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, but sometimes when you smell something and it stinks, you gotta say that it stinks).
          • 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. - Taxman 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.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

            @Taxman: A gracious reply sir! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 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:
            • WP:FAIR says "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, Father Goose contacted Mike Godwin 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 WP:WAF — 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. --Pixelface (talk) 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. Rossami (talk) 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 WP:DEL#REASON. Articles written entirely in German should not stay only German either, but we don't list articles written in foreign languages in WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 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. Sceptre 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Break: Suggested change to PLOT

(moved down and into a new section to allow for wider attention)

Break: Summary

On April 16, 2008, I removed the Plot summaries section from WP:IINFO based on my interpretation of the above discussion. This was reverted by Sceptre. I then removed the section again and Sceptre reverted me again. I also removed the Plot summaries section on March 28, 2008. This was reverted by Sgeureka 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."

• Father Goose 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."
• 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."
• 23skidoo 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."
• Eubulide 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."
• SmokeyJoe said "I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF."
• Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said "We should remove the plot section of what Misplaced Pages is not."
• Hobit 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, Ned Scott said "WP:PLOT is the result of community consensus" — an offered no new argument why it should be a policy or why plot-only pages should be deleted. Kevinalewis said "Surely the point is the word "summary" in the heading. It should give the rough gist of the narrative, not more than that." — again, not an argument why it should be a policy or why plot-only pages should be deleted. Masem said "The first two points fit with the rest of WP:NOT - they describe what is and is not appropriate for a page's content with WP. The third and fourth point is a MOS (WP:WAF) issue and should not be spelled out in NOT in depth" — and argument in favor of moving half of it to WAF, a guideline. SamBC said "Regarding the treatment of plot information in this way, it's simply the case that the community has reached a consensus that this is the case. Consensus can change, but a small number of people raising an objection does not mean that it has. Regarding the "fix it rather than delete it" concern, that is a general point on wikipedia; it's always better to fix something rather than delete it, and this page does not suggest that any offending material should be deleted." — again, an argument that it's here because there was consensus at one time. Not an argument as to why it should be policy now. And being listed in WP:NOT *is* a reason to delete, per WP:DEL#REASON.

Now, there were a few editors who said the Plot summaries section should stay in WP:NOT.

• Taxman 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 Mike Godwin.
• Dougweller 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.
• Rossami 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 deletion policy.

When I removed WP:NOT#PLOT on April 16, it looked to me like there was a rough consensus to remove WP:NOT#PLOT from this policy — and certainly no consensus for it to stay in policy. If you think I've misinterpreted the above discussion, I would like to know. Any input would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Shortcuts 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? Rossami (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 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. In fact, I'll do that right now. The others I'll leave in place pending further discussion. 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.--Father Goose (talk) 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. --Pixelface (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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.--Father Goose (talk) 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. Rossami (talk) 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. WP:NOT#JOURNALISM is a subset of "Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought" and WP:NOT#NEWS 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. Rossami (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change to PLOT

(moved from #Break: Suggested change to PLOT)

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. --MASEM 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 abridgements?--Father Goose (talk) 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. DGG (talk) 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.--Father Goose (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Brilliant!! Fully agree to this proposed change by Masem. Dorftrottel (canvass) 20:50, April 16, 2008
• 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. Jakew (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Sceptre 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. eDenE 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, plot summaries should be kept to the necessary and useful minimum. Dorftrottel (talk) 13:28, April 17, 2008
  • 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 pillar 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). --MASEM 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. – sgeureka 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, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • On this end, in WP:FICT 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). --MASEM 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, Casliber (talk · contribs) 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. Stardust8212 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? Collectonian (talk) 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. Percy Snoodle (talk) 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 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. --MASEM 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 WP:NOT#PLOT. G.A.S 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• 'Support In my view, this is a good clear statement of what WP is not.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose, no offense Masem but that's the worst idea I've ever heard on Misplaced Pages. You want WP:NOT 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 Acrocanthosaurus? Misplaced Pages is not a dinosaur fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on Ramblin' Wreck? Misplaced Pages is not a Georgia Tech fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on the Canon T90? Misplaced Pages is not a camera fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on the Pioneer Zephyr? Misplaced Pages is not a train fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on Halo 3? Misplaced Pages is not a Halo fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on Callisto? Misplaced Pages is not an astronomy fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on You Only Move Twice? Misplaced Pages is not a Simpsons fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on Hollaback Girl? 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. --Pixelface (talk) 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 original research and non-neutral points of view 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. --MASEM 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 WP:NOT#PLOT, 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 verifiability policy only requires a reliable, published source. The book 1984 is a reliable source for much of the Winston Smith 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 Winston Smith has had an "influence on the real world" before there should be an article on Winston Smith? Or Jean Valjean? Or any other fictional character stub? Misplaced Pages is not paper and the five pillars say nothing about "real world influence." "Real world influence" has nothing to do with verifiability, no original research, or neutral point of view. And WP:NOT#OR already covers original research. Masem, please read WP:NOTTRAVEL. 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 Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) a featured article? The majority of Misplaced Pages is written by fans, Masem. Who else are you going to get to work for free? --Pixelface (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I found when "real-world context" was added to WP:NOT#PLOT. Kyorosuke added it September 3, 2006 with the edit summary "Make less insane" and Kyorosuke 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 does not belong in an encyclopedia" is a reason for deletion. Therefore, an article being only a plot summary is a reason for deletion, something that Hiding, who added the Plot summaries section in the first place (when there was no consensus for it) has denied again and again in the WT:NOT archives (see here 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 WP:NOT#PLOT from the WT:NOT archives. --Pixelface (talk) 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 {{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. --MASEM 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. Rossami (talk) 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 Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back for example (oldid) 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 five pillars? No, that says "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." WP:NOT says Misplaced Pages is not paper. And no, there is no "priority" for fiction articles to learn "why that work is important." What policy is that from? Even if WP:WAF 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 WP:NOT#PLOT 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 — which is not a policy and will never be a policy. So is WP:NOT#PLOT some attempt to make WP:N 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. --Pixelface (talk) 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. --MASEM 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 WP:NOT#PLOT belongs in WP:NOT. You said "Articles needs independent third-party sources by WP:V" but that was also added to policy by Hiding, the user who added PLOT to NOT when there was no consensus for it on this very talk page. It's likely that phrase had no consensus either. There's no consensus to merge Winston Smith on Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four either, and you and Eusebeus 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 — the time it takes for an AFD to close? Content not 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 addition of "real-world context" by Kyorosuke 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 WP:NOT#PLOT belongs in a guideline like WP:WAF instead of a list of things Misplaced Pages is not. WP:PLOT leads to such nonsensical events as the splitting of a plot summary into its own article and then having the plot summary deleted altogether. --Pixelface (talk) 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 WP:N, WP:DEL or WP:FICT (or all three, and I know this is in the third), because to otherwise bite 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. --MASEM 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. Black Kite 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...). Black Falcon 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. Fletcher (talk) 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! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 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. DGG (talk) 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, --Bfigura 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I quite like this; I would be tempted to say "...but must 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. Black Kite 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 WP:WAF, really. SamBC(talk) 13:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Where, speaking from experience, people will ignore and dismiss it as being "only a guideline". Dorftrottel (talk) 13:31, April 17, 2008

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. SamBC(talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose that wording encourages solely in-universe material and makes real-world context and analysis an afterthought Percy Snoodle (talk) 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. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Seems good enough to me, but wording like that belongs in WP:WAF, not a list of things Misplaced Pages is not. "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" is a reason for deletion. 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 AFD), that sort of language does not belong in this policy. --Pixelface (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the policy statements found in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research are good enough. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 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. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• This remains my first choice too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 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). G.A.S 10:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nope. Still doesn't belong in WP:NOT. Inclusion in WP:NOT is a reason for deletion. The current wording suggests that an article like Winston Smith should be deleted, which is ridiculous. --Pixelface (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Winston Smith 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. Black Kite 09:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • But "content that does not belong in an encyclopedia" is a criteria for deletion. The inclusion of Plot summaries in WP:NOT means that the Winston Smith 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 WP:FICT no less than 18 times for no apparent reason). --Pixelface (talk) 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, Winston Smith 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 can't be fixed - 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. Black Kite 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Do you know WHY WP:NOT#PLOT is policy Black Kite? Because Hiding added it despite no consensus on the talk page and Kyorosuke added the part about "real world context." That's it. You're saying someone would fix the Winston Smith 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 WP:NOT is a reason for deletion. Period. If articles like Great Expectations plot details are being merged, which is the obvious thing to do, WP:NOT#PLOT simply doesn't belong in policy. You may support WP:NOT#PLOT Black Kite, but it simply doesn't have the consensus required to be in policy. --Pixelface (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • If there was no consensus for the addition, why has it remained in the page so long? Hiding T 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. Black Kite 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
              • At what point does such behaviour become disruptive? Hiding T 09:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • If I understand it correctly WP:NOT may provide reasons for deletion, but does not mandate deletion. WP:NOT could also be a way of noting an article has gone in the wrong direction, and should be improved. Fletcher (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Improved in five days or else? --Pixelface (talk) 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. Eusebeus (talk) 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. Catchpole (talk) 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 Plot of Naruto: Shippūden 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. Winston Smith 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 Plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four would fail this rule since it's purpose would be nothing more than a longer regurgitation of the novel's plot. WP: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. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's supposed to prevent the creation of articles? Do you think new editors read WP:NOT before creating articles? Plot of Naruto: Shippuden was kept at its first AFD, which is more evidence that WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't have consensus. Also see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot of Naruto I, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Last Exile Plot,Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot Synopsis of 8-Bit Theater, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot of Mortal Kombat, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Great Expectations plot details for example. The article Winston Smith *does* fall under WP:NOT#PLOT. And so does every article in Category:Fictional character stubs. 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 Plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four couldn't be merged into the Nineteen Eighty-Four article? That it should be nominated for deletion instead of placing a {{merge}} tag on the article like WP:ATD suggests? WP:PLOT doesn't actually prevent articles that are only plot guides. It serves as a blunt instrument to nominate and delete fictional character articles like Fantine or Cosette. --Pixelface (talk) 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. --MASEM 12:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think a valid point that has been made by Pixelface is being glossed over or ignored here. The article on Winston Smith fails WP:NOT. Therefore, it should be deleted. Anyone willing to prod it? If not, then it seems to me that you agree that that WP:PLOT is a MoS issue, not a WP:NOT issue. Please address this point, anyone. Plvekamp (talk) 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. – sgeureka 14:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For any of us to do that at this time could be seen as reaking of pointiness; since it's in the works, however... --MASEM 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Current version covers things well enough. Seraphim♥ 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 WP:PLOT 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. Hiding T 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! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 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. --MASEM 06:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What if an article is just a plot summary written entirely from secondary sources and yet contains no analysis? Should the article be deleted? --Pixelface (talk) 09:06, 3 May 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 deletion policy gives WP:NOT 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 bureaucracy is not conducive to a healthy editing atmosphere. DHowell (talk) 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. - J Greb (talk) 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, fix it.
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 WP:DEL#REASON is "Content not 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 Eventualism 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.
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. Rossami (talk) 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 featured lists. 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?--Father Goose (talk) 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 (Smallsville (Season 1)) 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. --MASEM 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. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As to your questions, "Under what conditions would an encyclopedia consider a page that consisted of plot summary to be a good article?" — I don't think that's relevant to this policy. This isn't about good articles, this policy is about what doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. Saying ungood articles don't belong on Misplaced Pages sounds like a good idea in theory, but you can't say ungood articles qualify as content not suitable for an encyclopedia written by volunteers. Under what conditions would the English Misplaced Pages consider a page written entirely in German to be a good article? Probably never. But we don't put "Articles are not simply German" under WP:IINFO. Regarding your second question, on 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.", there appears to be some people who think WP:NOTDICDEF should be changed to a guideline, as can be seen here after the AFD for Dude. Misplaced Pages has all kinds of articles on words, slang, medical terms, etc. In my mind, WP:NOTDICDEF is meant to direct people to Wiktionary. And as far as I know, nobody has argued that propaganda, OpEds, self-promotion, advertising, sales catalogs, price guides, instruction manuals, how-to guides, or travel guides would be acceptable as long as they were presented along with "real-world context and sourced analysis." If a dicdef page can be expanded, I agree, people should fix it. If a plot-only page can be improved, people should fix it. However, Misplaced Pages is not a forced labor camp. It's a volunteer project. I feel that the idea that a plot-only page has to be improved within five days or be deleted goes against the editing policy. If a new contributor creates a page with just a plot summary, and someone immediately AFDs it for "failing PLOT", I think that would be pretty sad. A better way to help people write better articles would be to teach them how to look for sources and cite them. Yes, it would help if people would improve plot-only stubs. But deleting them doesn't improve Misplaced Pages. And I certainly question whether Misplaced Pages has high standards. It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Misplaced Pages makes no guarantee of validity. Any information you may find in Misplaced Pages may be inaccurate, misleading, dangerous or illegal. The medical information provided on Misplaced Pages is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise. The great majority of articles are written primarily or solely by individuals who are not subject matter experts, and may lack academic or professional credentials in the area. I'm not saying that as an excuse to "lower our standards." But I think the standards of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV are what we should be looking to when writing articles. If someone creates a new article and it's just a plot summary, I say let it be unless there's plagiarism involved. Let people work on it. Let people improve it. This is a wiki. The editing policy offers good advice in this regard. PLOT is utilized as an appeal to authority in AFD debates. I think AFDs are more about evaluating subjects rather than the current state of the article. If an article is currently just a plot summary, that says nothing about whether Misplaced Pages should cover that topic. When there have been AFD nominations based on PLOT, there has been no consensus to delete. I also think this DRV resulted in no consensus, yet the article was deleted anyway. This was an article where the plot summary was split off from the main article, and people appear to want to delete it instead of merging it back in. That makes no sense to me. If someone wants to nominate an article that's only a plot summary for deletion, let them, but let them come up with a different reason than "fails PLOT." I think we need to take PLOT out of NOT for exactly the reasons DHowell gave — in addition to the fact that nobody can seem to agree on what PLOT should actually say. --Pixelface (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this page for days now and I have seen this discussion has gotten far. But I can't really see the problem with the section, I find it fine. Sure it's short, but there is a "see also", I'm not asking what's wrong with the section as it already has been explained. But after the last sentence on that paragraph there is a see also. My question is why is it there instead of the top of the section? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe FT2 first added the See also portion to point editors to more advice on the topic. It's common to put See also notes at the end of things, like this very policy for example. I feel I should note that of the pages the See also bit currently links to, Misplaced Pages:Television episodes has a disputed tag and Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) is a proposal and I don't think either of them should be currently linked to from this policy. --Pixelface (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hosted in Florida?

I thought the servers had been moved to California. Maybe the policy needs to be updated. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

no, just the WMF the offices have moved. The servers remain in Florida. DGG (talk) 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 Beat Generation.) -- Doom (talk) 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. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Victim Lists

Misplaced Pages:Victim Lists 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. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT

Template:RFCpolicy I've made a request for comment about WP:NOT#PLOT. The question I would like editors to answer is whether the Plot summaries section of Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information belongs in Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not or if it belongs in a guideline like Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Inclusion in WP:NOT is a reason for deletion. If articles like Winston Smith should be deleted, WP:NOT#PLOT should remain in this policy. If articles like Winston Smith should not be deleted but expanded, I believe that WP:NOT#PLOT belongs in a guideline such as WP:WAF. I believe I've seen two editors suggest this issue be added to {{cent}} and I suppose if someone would like to do so they're welcome to. --Pixelface (talk) 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 User:DGG includes "...but also should contain real-world context and sourced analysis" in his proposed wording, isn't it obvious this is a non-starter?Black Kite 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. --Pixelface (talk) 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. Black Kite 06:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is really getting to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now... but Pixel has a history for this... recent too. Sceptre 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Will, please read this section (oldid) on the talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 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" --Pixelface (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Misses the point of WP:NOT 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 this article as being a dictionary definition or improve it? We don't delete things because of WP:NOT. We delete things because of editorial consensus. WP:NOT 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. Hiding T 21:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We apparently do delete things because of NOT. It's actually a reason for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 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 WP:NOT. We delete things because of WP:CSD, we delete things because of WP:PROD and we delete things because of WP:AFD. We discuss how WP:NOT applies at WP:NOT, but we never delete because of WP:NOT. Hope that clarifies the decision making process on Misplaced Pages. Hiding T 09:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Here's an example for you. For example, this AFD resulted in no consensus, so the article was kept. Yet Black Kite took it to DRV, which again resulted in no consensus — yet Nakon deleted it anyway for some reason. This AFD resulted in no consensus — yet it was unilaterally deleted because of WP:NOT. This policy proposal had no consensus, so it should never have been added to policy — yet you did anyway. Why did you do that? In February 2007 you said " WP:NOT is not a deletion tool.", but it actually is, because it's a reason for deletion in the deletion policy. Does that clarify things for you? --Pixelface (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The deletion review was closed with a consensus of overturn and delete, which contradicts your assertion that it resulted in no consensus. Please don't misrepresent the facts, it doesn't help matters. If you think there was no consensus there, you should have escalated the situation with the closer and seek to find where the consensus really is. I appreciate this is probably part of that. The problem seems to be, are you prepared to accfept that you may be wrong and actually there is consensus for WP:PLOT? Unless all those editors who oppose PLOT actually voice their opposition, by WP:CONSENSUS they give their consent for it to remain. Also, you keep asserting that the addition had no consensus. People have already explained that the discussion on the talk page showed consensus. People have already explained to you that consensus is formed through editing and discussion. People have explained to you that it would not have remained so long in the policy if ut did not have consensus. You ask why I added it: Please read the advice to be bold , our decision making process, the ability to revert and discuss and even our editing policy. They might explain how Misplaced Pages works and why I added it. I believed it had consensus. Because of our interaction guidance you have to accept that, and refrain from questioning my integrity. I also believed that if I was wrong, someone would remove it, and then through further discussion, clarification and editing a consensus would emerge. I hope this puts the matter to bed for you. If not, will you accept arbitration to settle this? As to the reasons for deletion listed at deletion policy, those are the reasons editor's use in deletion debates. People can use tools for many different purposes. Is a hammer a tool for carpentry or a tool for murder? Things don't get deleted because of words, they get deleted because of people. I agree that the close of the DRV doesn't count the numbers. However, do you think the article was encyclopedic? Consensus, expressed through WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:WAF, WP:NOT, WP:FICT, WP:BETTER and WP:NOT appears to be that the article is not encyclopedic. Do you think the consensus has changed? Hiding T 06:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Consensus hasn’t been demonstrated for WP:PLOT being in WP:NOT. What is happening here is an example of how much easier it is to prop up the staus quo than to change it. I think User:Hiding is clearly wikilawering. WP:PLOT should be in WP:WAF because: (1) it is an arguable point better suited to a guidline; (2) WP:PLOT is not pet se a deletion criterion, and WP:NOT is frequently considered to be a list of deletion criteria; (3) WP:WAF is all about advice for better writing about fiction, and WP:PLOT is clearly within that scope; and (4) WP:NOT is overly full of stuff like this, which if considered afresh would probably not gain enough support for “policy” status. There’s been an awful lot said on this little question, but I fail to see a simple reason why some people feel that WP:PLOT should be in WP:NOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Hey Smokey Joe. Do you think Misplaced Pages articles should simply be plot summaries? Hiding T 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I think WP:PLOT should be an emphatic statement in WP:WAF, that WP:NOT has crepted too big, that “articles should not be simply plot summaries” or “plot summaries should contain only so much detail”, while true, is not a fundamental requirement and so should not be “policy”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Hang on, you have me confused. You think it is true that articles should not be simply plot summaries? Hiding T 08:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
            • If they wouldn't gain enough support, why are editors who want to remove it now unable to gain any consensus to do so? You only have to look at this page and previous debates. Meanwhile, (1) WP:PLOT is clearly not arguable - if an article is merely an infobox, a plot summary and a bit of trivia, it fails, simple as that. (2) Unencyclopedic material should be deleted. Bare, unsourced, no-real-world-information plot summaries are unencyclopedic and belong on fanwikis. (3) Plot summaries are hardly "writing about fiction", they're duplicating fiction. I wouldn't call that "writing". (4) There's your reasons. Black Kite 07:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
              • “why are editors who want to remove it now unable to gain any consensus to do so?” Because it is much easier to prop up the staus quo than to change it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 2 May 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) Catchpole (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pixelface has sneakily linked to an old version of Winston Smith 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. Black Kite 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. --Pixelface (talk) 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. --Orange Mike | Talk 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. – sgeureka 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How about the argument that the Plot summaries section never had consensus before Hiding adding it to NOT? --Pixelface (talk) 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 User:badlydrawnjeff being ok with it? Black Kite 11:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • In that thread alone, Leflyman 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"?" 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?" JeffW 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." Williamborg opposed, as did TomStar81
      • Later on WT:NOT, you can see that the Plot summaries section does not have consensus to be in policy:
      • On October 17, 2006 TheronJ said "I strongly disagree that a consensus exists."
      • On December 28, 2006, Davidbspalding asked "Plot summaries no longer applicable?" and "Has the No plot summaries guideline outlived its purpose?"
      • On February 2, 2007, Netuser500 said "We need to remove the part about plot summaries."
      • On February 7, 2007, Badlydrawnjeff said "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, Dugwiki said "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, Matthew said "I totally agree that it should be removed." and later asked "was there ever an actual consensus to add this?"
      • On February 7, 2007, Badlydrawnjeff| said "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, Badlydrawnjeff said "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, TheFarix said "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, TheFarix said "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 and he appears to have added it so he could cite it in AFD debates such as this one. --Pixelface (talk) 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? Hiding T 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I've removed it five times already. I removed it three times in March. Hobit removed it once. I removed it once again. And I removed it twice on April 16, 2008 and 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. --Pixelface (talk) 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 strengthened. Still, let him remove it again if he wants to - I think he knows what the outcome would be. Black Kite 17:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
            • No Black Kite, I didn't "ignore" the linked conversation you put in. You linked to an oldid of this talk page. Is this the section you're referring to on that oldid? Notice how I linked to that thread as it appears in the archives? I believe we're both referring to the same section. You can search for Williamborg's oppose in your oldid; however, TomStar81's oppose doesn't appear in your oldid. I haven't presented any quotes out of context. Those are all comments in the archives that provide evidence the section does not have consensus to be in policy. You're right, Leflyman did say "I think the way to "improve" the situation is to promote better written, less fancrufty content." So how do you interpret that as meaning he wanted Hiding's policy proposal "strengthened"? I'll let someone else remove the Plot summaries section. This RFC is to discuss that section and get wider input from the community. Please explain why you think the Plot summaries section belongs in a list of things Misplaced Pages is not and why you feel that plot-only articles should be deleted. --Pixelface (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Because they're unencyclopedic, invariably unsourced, are a magnet for original research and could generally be easily summarised in "List of...." articles. Why have 20 pages of bare plot when they could be summarised in one page, making much more sense to the casual reader? Huge chunks of plot summary belong in fanwikis, not an encyclopedia. Referring to Leflyman, I think "fancrufty" sums up plot-only episode articles quite well, no? Black Kite 07:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Let's put this into context. Consensus in various guidance at the time was as follows:
• Misplaced Pages:Guide to writing better articles: 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.

• Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction): 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.

• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): (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? Hiding T 12:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to remove it again. But I did do some looking and these are all the edits to the Plot summaries section as of right now. Which version of the section do you feel has consensus? --Pixelface (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Misplaced Pages articles are not simply plot summaries seems to be the consistent factor in those changes. That's where I nail my colors. Beyond that, I'm all ears. That's all I'm fighting for.Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Apologies. As an encyclopedia we do more than give you a summary of the plot. A plot summary is not the focus of an article. That's where I think consensus lies. Look, what do you reckon? You lean further towards including plot summaries than I do, and others lean further towards excluding them than I do. So where's the middle ground? Am I on it, or nearer to it than either side? I don't know. I do know this, though, There's a huge gulf between the two sides which needs to be bridged somehow, and arbitration isn't going to work, we've seen them duck this issue twice now. I don't have the answer. All I have is my best guess. What have you got? Hiding T 08:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
            • First off, I apologize for misrepresenting you on this page. That was not my intention. I know you had the best interests of Misplaced Pages in mind when you added it to policy. Regarding your bolded phrase, if that's what is consistent between those revisions, maybe we should shorten it to just that until people can agree on the rest of the wording. I agree, as an encyclopedia we ought to give readers more than just a plot summary. I think it's good advice. I think it sets a good standard for users to follow. But I think that's different than saying articles that are just plot summaries are not suitable for inclusion.
            • Masem suggested there may be some confusion with the issue of plot summaries. In your opinion, is the Cosette article simply a plot summary (oldid)? Or do you think biographies of fictional characters don't quite count as plot summaries? Is pointing out that Cosette is a fictional character created by Victor Hugo sufficient real-world context to keep the article? To me this seems to be a dispute about what order certain information should be added to an article. If someone starts an article with just a plot summary, I feel the article should be allowed to expand and I don't favor putting a deadline on that. Others seem to think that an article that is just a plot summary should be deleted for failing this policy. In that case, a deadline of five days is given for improvement. I believe some people have said if an article with just a plot summary has no reasonable chance of expansion, with "real-world context and sourced analysis", it should be deleted. I think it's fine if someone wants to nominate the Cosette article for deletion — but I hesitate to let them cite WP:IINFO as their reason. If there's consensus to delete the article, it should be deleted. But I think PLOT is used like loaded dice to influence the outcome of AFD debates.
            • The WP:NOT policy is often cited as a reason for deletion and I think this policy contains examples of hard deletion candidates (advertising, original research, how-to guides) and examples of things that can be improved (adding reception information to a plot summary, putting statistics into a table). When Kyorosuke added the language concerning "real-world context and sourced analysis", that user also added "consisting solely of a plot summary is grounds for expansion and cleanup, not deletion." I agree with that view. The Les Misérables article does have real-world context and sourced analysis. I think the original language of PLOT ("offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Misplaced Pages:Article series.") meant that it was okay for just the Les Misérables article to have information about its impact. Do you think each of the primary character articles must also contain real-world context and sourced analysis? --Pixelface (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I think there's a general agreement that a plot-only article without any tags or talk page notifications to indicate that the article fails PLOT or other content/style approaches that would otherwise make it a deletion target, should not be brought to AFD until 1) such tags have been placed and 2) sufficient time has been given for editors to attempt to correct and expand the article to address the tagged warnings, at least a month. The whole TTN arbcom case centered around extremely bold editing and overwhelming editors. If a plot-only article gets tagged and a month later, no one has stepped up to do anything (or worse, has ignored said advice and made the problem worse), then AFD is a fair call, which does bring the article to the attention of a wider group of editors and has a second chance for being saved. This is a mindset we want to encourage more - that the instantaneous state of an article should not be the reason for deletion, but instead the long-term state; if tagging an article doesn't lead to either evidence for it to remain or corrections as suggested, then and only then should deletion be considered.
              • Now, I agree that article series suggests that notability/real-world info only need to be shown at the topic level, not at each article level. However, to have separate articles for each character or each element creates several problems; each article reiterates the plot of the main work in some fashion, and while not every part of the plot is repeated in each character, the creation of X character articles without additional real-world information is basically X retellings of the plot. It is also hard to deny that plot-only articles can end up full of OR and POVness, though these are correctable - how much is left, however, is in question. This can also lead to undue weight on the plot aspects; as I've stated before, our purpose is first to inform the general reader why they should care about the work or the character or the like outside of understanding the work, and once and only once that is done, we can then talk to some degree about what the reader interested or a fan of the work would like to know. Furthermore, while notability is applies to a topic, verifiability is applied at the article, and that requires reliable third-party sources to support each article; most fictional characters do not support that aspect.
              • But I will stress again that just because PLOT as presently written and other policies do not allow for character articles does not mean we cannot cover these characters in more concise forms building the characters into the main work of fiction or into breakout lists for more notable works. We do not need to remove coverage of such aspects, and should still allow a user to search on a character name and be immediately taken to the right page through redirects and disambigs. --MASEM 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                • As far as I know, the only tag related to plot summaries is {{plot}}. That template doesn't say an article fails policy, it's usually used to tag a Synopsis section someone thinks is too long, like this one for example. The Plot summaries section doesn't suggest people tag and wait for improvement. I now notice there is a template that links to WP:NOT called {{allplot}} which reads "This article or section appears to consist entirely of plot summary. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot." and no pages currently use that tag. It was created March 17, 2008 by Black Kite. Black Kite DRV'd the History of For Better or For Worse article on March 17 after there was no consensus to delete in this AFD, and following this ANI thread. The reason for the DRV given by Black Kite was "An article which clearly completely fails a standard policy WP:NOT#PLOT, but was kept. Given the recent RfAR on fiction, where editors described WP:NOT as "disputed", this could set a precedent." I don't think there was a consensus to delete in that AFD. And I don't think there was consensus to overturn in that DRV, yet the article was still deleted. Black Kite has made some comments related to that article that I adamantly disagree with. Black Kite said "It's clearly procedural - "The community" doesn't get to rewrite policy, and the AfD should've been closed in line with policy - which it wasn't. If it was WP:BLP that was the issue here, there would be little argument - why is WP:NOT different?" For one thing, I think BLP has consensus and PLOT does not. At ANI, which led to the DRV, Black Kite said regarding the History of For Better or For Worse article that "The article clearly fails policy and so consensus (which was fairly even anyway, and thus not consensus) is irrelevant." I don't think consensus is irrelevant. Kurt Weber replied that "Policy does not trump consensus; rather, consensus trumps policy" I have been removing a section of policy I don't think has consensus and the idea that the community does not get to rewrite policy seems rather strange to me.
                • I object to any and all attempts to make the concept of "notability" a policy. I don't think it's our job to tell readers why they should care about a fictional character. If someone doesn't care about EastEnders, they probably won't think the 672 articles about EastEnders characters (or even a featured article about an EastEnders character) are worthy of their attention. How does putting an article that is just a plot summary into a list improve the situation? Then you've just got a list with a bunch of plot summaries, which sounds to me like it would still fail PLOT. I think we need to remove the Plot summaries section until people can agree on what it should say and how it should be applied. I invite anyone who supports keeping Plot summaries listed under WP:IINFO to create a subpage in their userspace with the language they think the Plot summaries section should contain. Then we can compare the different versions and hopefully come to some kind of agreement. The current situation is such that someone can split off a plot summary from any article and then nominate that plot-only article for deletion for failing PLOT. --Pixelface (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • {{plot}} may be one, but there are several also related to plot-only articles, with two main ones coming to mind: {{in-universe}} and {{notability}}; but even without tags, notification on a talk page about a plot-only article needing cleanup is completely appropriate to start the process. However, how articles are deleted is not a function of NOT or PLOT, that's over at WP:DEL. All I'm trying to say about the "tag and wait" approach is that throughout all policies and guidelines and how we approach articles, we need to impose that better; calm, rational editing cannot take place if we don't work between WP:BOLD and WP:DEADLINE, and that means giving time to allow improvements should they be needed.
                  • Does an article on the timeline of FBOW fail PLOT? That is impossible to say. I think the AFD and the DRV of that article showed that how the information was presented was not satisfactory as it was not an encyclopedic approach, but they did not suggest that a different approach would never be acceptable either. FBOW is not my favorite comic, so I don't follow it heavily, but a year-by-year summary seems awfully arbitrary (compared with, say, a soap opera or a long running tv show, where by-season breaks actually make more sense); furthermore, the distillation of the events seem rather arbitrary: what's the value of the fact that in 1985, Farley was captured by the dog catched and had to be regotten for $20? Here is a case where, instead of presenting information that benefits the fan, would be better to think first of the general user; the timeline would be better presented as short character bios (tied to years, since the comic ages), and possibly a section on significant plots (Farley's death, for example). It still, ultimately, is a timeline albeit in a different form, and likely plot-only but 1) is part of the FBOW coverage meaning that it is an article series and thus is fine, and 2) is much more likely to be able to attach real-world aspects to the work (Farley's death, for example, gets a few notable hits from a google search).
                  • On the other hand, if there are truly 672 articles about EastEnders characters, there's a problem there. Just as with FBOW, a long-drawn out work, we don't describe everything that happens, but only the key highlights. It is very doubtful that all 672 articles are main characters and that they all meet PLOT, so first of all, a lot of those would need to be removed. Likely there's only 20-40 odd characters that are really important (not a brit, so can't comment on this beyond), and this is where the list format comes in handy: it helps editors to organize their thoughts better of how to present the characters, helping to enforce parallelism in writing as well as better balance between each character's description. If I created a list of characters article and spent 5 paragraphs on one character, and only one for each of the others, I'd obviously see a problem. Moreso, a list of characters is much much much more maintainable in the long run that a list of characters: watchlisting 672 articles is an insane proposition, and that's assuminging I know where they all are. That's why lists of characters and episodes are generally acceptable as they fall within the "article series" concept and thus do not need to meet PLOT or notability guidelines.
                  • I still think it's clear that PLOT wants to be kept, with a strong consensus on this page; the previous discussion was to see if there was support for changing the wording (which doesn't seem to have strong support, so thus is not changed). There needs to be clearly demonstration that there is a large consensus that PLOT should be removed, even temporarily, and I only see maybe two editors out of the rest asking for this. There's not even enough input against having PLOT to make it as disputed as can be done. While removing sections in guidelines while under development can be seen as ok, policies must remain as fixed as possible and only change when the consensus shows they should, or by exact application of the WP:BRD cycle. --MASEM 22:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • The {{in-universe}} template links to WP:WAF. And the {{notability}} template links to WP:N. You say how articles are deleted are not a function of NOT but DEL, but NOT is listed as a reason in DEL. Inclusion in NOT automatically becomes a reason for deletion. We have season articles for television shows so I don't see how a year-by-year summary of a comic strip is arbitrary. The fact that Farley was caught by the dog catcher in 1985 does not have to have "value." It just has to be verifiable. It's something people remember about the strip. I don't see a problem with 672 articles for EastEnders characters. And no, I disagree that we should only describe "key highlights." "Highlight" is a concept as subjective as "worthy of notice" and often is a judgement of whether someone liked something or not. Again, there is no importance policy. Things don't have to be "important" to be written about on Misplaced Pages. Do the Bushmen think Bart Simpson is important? Somehow I doubt it. Is Bart Simpson actually important in the grand scheme of things? No. Is Hamlet actually important in the grand scheme of things? No. Different things are important to different groups of people. And you don't have to watchlist 672 articles. You can check the related changes for a category. It looks to me that articles such as List of minor EastEnders characters (1991) still fail PLOT. It was nominated for deletion by Collectonian but was kept at its AFD. I don't think there's a strong consensus to keep NOT in this policy, as I explained in this comment and this comment. PLOT has been removed from this policy by three different users. There was a past disagreement over whether it should say "Plot summaries" or "Descriptions of fictional works." There doesn't seem to me to be a version of the section that many people agree on. As I said in the section titled Break: Summary, I felt there was a rough consensus to remove PLOT from NOT. Even if you disagree, I don't think one has to obtain consensus to remove a section from policy that does not have consensus. It needs to have consensus to begin with. I don't think it had consensus to begin with. And in the talk page archives, TheronJ, Dugwiki, Matthew, and Bdj all made comments questioning whether consensus existed for the section. You say "policies must remain as fixed as possible and only change when the consensus shows they should" but I don't think the initial proposal thread had consensus to change this policy. When you reverted me and Hobit on March 29, this talk page looked like this. You don't seem to have addressed the comments by Father Goose, DGG, 23skidoo, Eubilide, SmokeyJoe, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, and Hobit that were present on this page at the time you reverted. You don't seem to have addressed the comment by DHowell under the heading WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed. I don't think there's consensus on this page for any version of PLOT. It may even be beneficial for people to stop evaluating consensus for a few weeks and simply state what they personally think the wording should be. --Pixelface (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • Consensus can change, and so to determine if PLOT should go, we don't look at the past, we look at what the consensus is right now. You are the one arguing for it to be removed, and you know you've been reverted by bolding making the change, so those that want to remove PLOT need to show strong consensus to remove it. And I will say that I have addressed the general point of DHowell's issues which overlap with yours and others in that we need to make sure that instanteous failure to meet PLOT is not treated as a deletion reason; it's the ultimate failure of an article to meet PLOT that should be used; the "tag and wait" method is there to help demonstrate that. This is an editor behavioral issue, and one that cannot be addressed in NOT but instead at DEL and NOTE and sub-notability guidelines, in that if an article fails PLOT or is not notable this instance, it does not necessary mean it should be deleted. I know DEL says otherwise, and that's why I'm saying we need to make sure DEL better reflects the attitude that articles that fail PLOT or NOTE now that aren't tagged or notified that they do need better time for improvement before AFD (NOTE, on the otherhand, does suggest this) That point, the fact that deletionists are fast on the trigger to AFD PLOT-failing articles, is a large chunk of the arguments, and that can be solved while still having PLOT met; it's just a matter of making editors aware this behavior is not helpful. I will state, however, if you insist that PLOT is removed, you will have editors invoking NOTE regardless to have the same articles deleted. A plot-only article, in the void of no PLOT, will still fail NOTE, and thus will still be challenged and deleted if not corrected. --MASEM 00:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                        • We look at the past to see if it ever had consensus to be policy to begin with. When I removed it on March 29, this talk page looked like this. There were 7 people (in addition to me) who made arguments in favor of removing the section or moving it to a guideline. And only 3 people explicitly said it should stay in this policy. I believed there was a rough consensus to remove PLOT and you reverted me saying discussion was needed. Discussion had been going since March 10. Now, alot more discussion has occurred since then of course. But it doesn't appear to me that there is consensus on what language, if any, that PLOT should contain. Are you saying that someone needs to obtain consensus to remove a part of policy that has no consensus? If you think PLOT has consensus, please tell me what the consensus is for PLOT to look like. I don't care if editors invoke NOTE to get articles deleted. That has nothing to do with the WP:NOT policy. If I don't think NOTE applies to a particular situation, I'll ignore it and say what I think the best thing to do would be. And no, a plot-only article does not necessarily "still fail NOTE." I could write a purely descriptive summary of the film Iron Man (or any other released film that doesn't currently have an article) right now using only secondary sources and I think it would be presumed to be notable. So, are you saying articles lacking analysis must be deleted? --Pixelface (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                        • At this point, I feel you are using too much wikilaywering, pulling specific statements out of context, to try to defend the removal; since right now there's this RFC in place to try to get larger input, nothing should be done to remove it until the RFC closes (30 days after it started). NOTE has everything to do with NOT; it is one of the guidelines that the policy defers to for what indiscriminate information is, and in lack of any more applicable policy/guideline, NOTE applies to all topics. Now, I will argue that if you can write a plot from true secondary sources (per WP:PSTS), the likelihood you can add in other non-plot information is very very high (if not 100%), because secondary sources, by definition, do more than just reiterate the primary source. You can probably write an Iron Man article using only the plot info gained from previews and reviews from major outlets, but those reviews will easily provide critical feedback, details that satisfy both PLOT and NOTE. The article may not, at this moment, have that information, so it should be tagged with an appropriate cleanup tag, and likely should not be taken to AFD and defended in AFD if it is taken, if the secondary sources are clearly listed out per references. --MASEM 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Bloody Question Already Since when did RFC turn into a soapbox for one querulous user to promote their idiosyncratic views ? We should be focusing on making WP:NOT#PLOT stronger, not wasting time responding to tedious Pixelface's latest pointy attempts to mould Misplaced Pages in his own fan image. Enough already. Eusebeus (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Good afternoon, Pixelface. I think you're still drawing a false distinction. Advertising, original research and how-to guides are no more hard deletion candidates than plot pages. In all cases, if the page can be improved, it should be. Rossami (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• You've already got lots of comments above (including mine). Leave it alone. Rossami (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The RFC is to gain wider input from the community. You've already made your opinion known Rossami. --Pixelface (talk) 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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. - J Greb (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • J Greb, are you saying plot summaries are not acceptable content? And why are you ignoring that the Suggested change to PLOT section was also moved down "to allow for wider attention"? --Pixelface (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, PLOT should remain part of NOT. Bill 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

commentI 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.DGG (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• There has been some decidedly uncivil language throughout this thread and I think it is generating more heat than light. Assuming good faith, I consider that it is the goal of each and every editor that has commented here to improve the encyclopedia. However, I think moving this style concern to a guideline would be appropriate. This is not truly the content issue that some make it out to be. None would argue (I believe) that we should not have an article on Hamlet. Subsequently, none would argue (I believe) that we should re-tell Hamlet in an abridged form from an in-fiction perspective. Nevertheless, this is a style of writing issue and not an issue of whether or not we talk about the plot of fictional works. An encyclopedia includes plot summaries, but an encyclopedia is not just plot summaries. How do we say that? Ursasapien (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The existing (or proposed) wording says that fairly clearly. If PLOT is moved to a guideline I absolutely guarantee you that we will see another explosion of unencyclopedic articles like this. The correct way to do it is like this (a featured list). Black Kite 08:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything unencyclopedic about that article that could not be solved by editing. The real world context is clear from the lede but it does requires further sourcing and trimming. Making lists do not magically improve our coverage or encyclopedicness. Catchpole (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • First, I agree with Catchpole that your example just proves my point. This is a style issue that can be improved by editing, not a content issue per se. The cartoon Danny Phantom is certainly notable and should be covered in our ultimate encyclopedia. The depth of this coverage is an editing issue that can be handled by consensus. Secondly, we should not create or amend policy in an attempt to force editors to write excellent articles on the first try. As long as we have adolescent editors, I guarantee we will have articles on every video game, comic book, and cartoon in the universe. They totally ignore these pages. Policy should describe the core of who we are as an encyclopedia. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information because it is an encyclopedia. However, saying WP is not plot summary is not completely correct. WP is not just plot summary or a compilation of plot summaries, but WP certainly must contain plot summary as a part of their coverage of fiction. Ursasapien (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It doesn't say WP is not 'plot summary'. If you read it, it says "Misplaced Pages articles are not simply plot summaries". Or it did. I've changed it back, because it needs to be read in that grammatic context. Unless anyone is arguing that Misplaced Pages articles, being encyclopedic articles, are simply plot summaries. Hiding T 10:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Huh? Are you looking at the same article? That one I linked is 100% plot summary and original research, is completely unsourced and contains no real-world references whatsoever. It is a perfect example of WP:NOT. Black Kite 14:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The article is clearly about an episode of a television show, and the infobox contains "real-world" context. As for the rest "sofixit". Catchpole (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Seriously? That is clearly not sufficient real-world context. On that basis, every single piece of fiction, ever, would be worth an article. Where is the "impact and significance"? There isn't any. The only "sofixit" relevant to that article is a redirect to a list of episodes. (I'm not sure why it hasn't been - every other one in that series has). Black Kite 15:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Amendment

I've amended the wording to better reflect what I believe to be consensus. I would hope we all agree that as an encyclopedia, we treat subjects in an encyclopedic manner? Hiding T 07:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not keen on that, I'm afraid - far too easy to wikilawyer around, which as we have seen is a speciality of some editors in this arena. Needs to be strengthened a little - how about something along the lines of "Misplaced Pages treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; a concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the coverage of a notable fictional work, but such articles must contain real-world analysis such as the reception, impact and significance of such works." Black Kite 07:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Black Kite, tour proposal seems to contain the wikilawyering. I would support Masem's proposal. Something akin to "Misplaced Pages is not an abridgement of works of fiction or a form of CliffsNotes. Ursasapien (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• You'd have to explain how that proposal contains "wikilawyering". I believe it is quite clear. Black Kite 08:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilawyering and perhaps even wikilegislating in the sense that you want the policy "strengthened" beyond consensus. This whole process seems far from our ideals and headed toward bureacratic politics. Ursasapien (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Now I'm really confused. That proposed wording is no "stronger" than the existing policy, and as regards ideals, is completely consistent with the first of the five pillars ("Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia"). Because it's an encyclopedia, it shouldn't be hosting unduly detailed, unsourced content that is better suited to fansites. Black Kite 08:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused as well. Can you explain how your wording is better/stronger than Hiding's?

Hiding's version	Black Kite's version
Misplaced Pages treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.	Misplaced Pages treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; a concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the coverage of a notable fictional work, but such articles must contain real-world analysis such as the reception, impact and significance of such works.

Ursasapien (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the "but" and the "must", words which ensure that the reader always gets the basic idea behind the policy. As I said, I believe Hiding's is a little more open to interpretation. Black Kite 14:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

and so it should be. that's its merit. this is policy we're talking about, which only works if it's not too prescriptive. Hidings permits interpretation, and has the merit that it states a policy we can probably all more or less agree on. Yours interprets it in a particular direction, which should be kept to editing guidelines. His is relative neutral--yours is pointing to a particular result which not everyone desires. Be welcome to work towards such a result in the guidelines, but this is not the place. Do we want to ever finish this discussion? then we have to accept something general. DGG (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; general is fine, but if a policy is open to too much interpretation it becomes effectively unenforcable and therefore often ignored - just look at the problem we have with NFCC. Black Kite 08:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

we're not disagreeing in principle, of course policies should not be too vague. But the disagreement is about whether your version above is over-specific, and I think it is--at the least, it is too over-specific to have consensus. The policy has to represent a deeper consensus than a guideline--a guideline is just a working agreement. Saying the elements of what must be included is not a matter of fundamental policy. DGG (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are not simply plot summaries

That's what the policy says. Does anyone actually dispute that? Is the consensus that Misplaced Pages articles should simply be plot summaries? That's the only basis on which to remove WP:PLOT from WP:NOT. Every other argument is spurious. That's what the policy says. Is that the consensus? Hiding T 10:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A common tactic in debate is to declare all other arguments null and then invite the opposition to make said null argument. I believe it to be a valid point that Misplaced Pages articles should not simply be plot summaries. I believe it is equally valid that all Misplaced Pages articles on fiction should contain plot summaries. I also believe that a valid argument can be made that this is a manual of style issue. Regardless, the argument that every other argument is spurious is spurious. Ursasapien (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you using that tactic to tell people to disregard my question? As to the matter at hand, a lot of this argument focuses on what this page is for. This page, or rather, this section of the page, is for outlining what Misplaced Pages articles are not. Therefore, if the consensus is that Misplaced Pages articles are not simply plot summaries, it should go there. It can go in style guides and everything else as well, but it should go here too. The fatc that we aren't a dictionary is in about 3 policies and guidelines. The fact that we aren't a crystal ball is here there and everywhere. The fact that we aren't an indiscriminate collection of information is in three policies and two guidelines. Should we remove that. It's a spurious argument. The simple question, the one we're all debating is, whether Misplaced Pages articles are not simply plot summaries. If that is the case, I suggest it stays in our list which states what Misplaced Pages articles are not. I'm interested in everybody else's opinion on that, because that's the question under debate. Oh, and by the way, this is how an RFC works. We all present our view. Hope that helps. Hiding T 11:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to play devil's advocate here (though I'm in favor of the intent of PLOT).

There are two prongs that Pixelface and others have brought up before in terms not so much of what PLOT says, but what PLOT does. First is the fact that it can be read as a style guide: when writing articles on published works, you should include real-world context/analysis al. Because it can be read as a style guide, it can be pushed to WAF (a guideline). Now, my take is that that is also content: a plot summary cannot exist along without the additional information, so I'm not so sure on this one. However, in either case, as we're talking something as egregious as BLP violations, spelling out either specific style or content requirements in a policy instead of defering to guidelines as done elsewhere could be seen as a problem.

The second point I think Pixelface et al are making is that because this is NOT, such articles are then treated as deletion candidates because that we are basically stating notability for these topics, which clearly can only be shown through real-world context/analysis, within a policy. (Mind you, we are talking the ultimate state of such articles, not their instanteous state) Now, I'd argue that exactly what context/analysis should be included is left to a guideline (similar to how V depends on RS to define reliable sources, but still requires them)... but...I think it is very clear that the intent most of the rest of seem to have points to the fact that for published works only, we are basically making notability a policy.

Now, this could be seen as dangerous, but I think this may be the only point where we have to actually codify notibility as a policy if there is general agreement that PLOT is meant to do this. Published works are the only area that WP covers where there is two disparate ways to talk about the work: the content of the work (plot, characters, etc.) and the work as it exists in the real world. Towns, chemical elements, species of birds, etc. all have only one facet: the real world. If we admit to ourselves that the encyclopedic coverage of published works cannot only cover the content of the work, then we have basically made notability, and more specifically FICT, policy (though again, as with V/RS, specific details on how content can be shown notable are in a guideline). Are we sure enough on this point to make this the case? --MASEM 14:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But the whole reason that WP:NOT exists is to guard against types of content which are not encyclopedic and do not demonstrate notability, but of course cannot be deleted purely because of that, as NOTE is only a guideline. Black Kite 14:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll quibble over the claim that PLOT is unique. Pages about words, for example, also exist in two disparate ways - as pages about the word (the definition, origins, etc) and as pages about the concept behind the word. Pages about the concept can have some discussion about the word but must have more than merely lexical content or they end up tranwiki'd to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's not quite the case--if there is sufficient discussion about the use and significance of the word, the articles are usually kept. there is considerable overlap between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Same., in my opinion, with all the stringently worded but never-literally-applied parts of this policy. Personally, we should think of a way of expressing things in a positive way. DGG (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the kept pages have sufficient discussion of the social implications and significance to the real world - again, content that goes well beyond the mere definition. Just like PLOT. It's okay to have a short plot summary that enhances the encyclopedia article but plot alone, like definition alone, is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's good that this is a co-example, in that how we deal with definitions should show us how we should be dealing with PLOT. I haven't seen anyone lately insist that WP is a dictionary, and general consensus seems perfectly fine with Wiktionary. We need to push that concept with using off-site wikis (up to the point of not necessarily endorsing Wikia) to provide the same duality for details of published works. --MASEM 14:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the two examples is that they're inverse--the dictionary problem is that the content if just a definition is too short to be meaningful in an encyclopedia; the plot on the other hand can run away with the article altogether. Here's the true parallel--an article on a word would not be only a definition; an article or group of articles on a work should not be entirely plot. Nor do they ever need to be--if there is not some evidence for real world importance of a work, there wont be an article on it. The childish book-report articles sometimes submitted otherwise need to be supplemented or eliminated. DGG (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Earliest example

The earliest example I could find along these lines is back in 2002, Larry Sanger, co-founder, added that Misplaced Pages articles are Neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. That's in up until a rewrite in Jan 2005 where the consensus seems to be that nothing has changed, which kind of doesn't make sense, but there you go. Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive 3#Please discuss the rewritten version. So I guess the question is whether or not plot summaries are encyclopedic articles? Hiding T 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We're concentrating too much on "articles" -- the total coverage of a work of fiction should not be entirely the plot. (nor will it ever be except for the fan junk that Larry had in mind--at the least it will give the authorship and publication information.) How it is divided up into articles in a style guideline, not a policy. Even the current policy refers to how "Misplaced Pages treats fiction" not to individual articles. DGG (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Which, if applied to a work of fiction, would mean that one paragraph of non-plot in the main article would justify an unlimited amount of subarticles on each chapter of a book, each character, each television episode. So the next best thing is concentrating on articles while not going into specifics about the needed non-plot to balance the amount of plot. (edit: I still had one of the older PLOT wording in mind when I wrote this. Nevertheless, an only-plot article should be the exception rather than the rule.) – sgeureka 16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely I've never meant anything of the sort; but when an article needs to be divided, the plot part of it would contain the plot. I agree we should not divide beyond necessity, but that goes in the article guidelines. For a really major work, it would usually be possible to find a real-world source discussing the plot, and I think that meets everyone's requirements? There are many factors to balance--importance of work, amount of secondary material, complexity and length of plot, people here with the ability and interest to write good concise plot summaries. The point here is thatthis is policy, and should not restrict detail. DGG (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The box at the top.

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. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They're topic-specific, rather than date-specific, archives. They aren't more important, per se, but they are focused on one subject and hence can be given a name other than "threads from the second half of the month of October 2006". --erachima talk 03:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this lot will end up in a "plot" archive. Hiding T 08:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)