Jump to content

Template talk:More plot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:More plot/doc)

Proposing a change to the template and its documentation

[edit]

What to do with this template? After discussion in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 21#Template:More plot, there are issues:

  • The template name is "More plot". The word "improve" is confusing. Does it imply "expand"?
  • The template {{tone}} links one essay, as well as this template. Should there be substitutes, either policy or guideline, for an essay?
  • Possibly this template may have been misused. 26 articles are currently transcluding this template.
  • If misused, potentially unnecessary details and excessive amount of plot would lead to being tagged with {{all plot}} or {{plot}}. For example, currently Maxie Jones and Ross Gellar.
  • This template must be renamed. However, {{requested move}} can be used after above issues are resolved.

Are there any issues that I missed? --George Ho (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I think you summed it up well -
  • {{more plot}} is the wrong name - it is used to tag articles for improvement of plot summary, not "more" necessarily. The word "more" could encourage people to add more irrelevant plot trivia, where what is required is a better quality summary.
  • About 60% of current usage is possible misuse.
  • The documentation is wrong, doesn't explain usage clearly, links to essays, needs rewriting.
I guess the only thing to mention is to check if "sister" templates like {{no plot}} need the docs updating at the same time. They both contain a seemingly bizarre assertion that "All works of fiction and non-fiction should have a plot summary." (my bold), for example. Begoon talk 08:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This template is meant for articles that need more plot, which is why it is called "more plot". So statements like "This template must be renamed" or "more plot is the wrong name" are out of place. What your point seems to be is that there should be another template "Improve plot", or "Plot improve". That would solve, I think, all serious issues mentioned above. Including that the text of this template should use "expand" instead of "improve". Although, strictly speaking the word "improve" includes expansion, where such expansion would lead to improvement. After we have such a template, we should check all uses of this template, and decide which template should be used in each article. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are already templates for "no" plot etc. This certainly does not need to be an "expand" template, as that is the concern expressed in those discussions - encouragement to add too much trivia to a plot summary. This template certainly seems intended to improve plot, or else why does it say "This article needs an improved plot summary. Please edit this article to provide one." when applied?
Please read the linked xFD and the linked discussion. We are trying to clarify the purpose of this template as "what it says" not what it appears to have been erroneously named.
I certainly agree with "After we have such a template, we should check all uses of this template, and decide which template should be used in each article.", but removing the obvious errors in the documentation, renaming the template so that it is called what it does, and clarifying the purpose more in the docs are all steps to minimise the subjective vetting of other author's tags that this entails, by encouraging correct tagging to begin with.Begoon talk 00:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He, Begoon, think big. The discussion mentioned that there are articles with minimal plots that need expansion, and that that is the purpose of this template, as its name states. If the text of this template says otherwise, we just change the text. Then for plots that need to be improved, we make a new template (just copy this one). On the other hand, I am not sure we really need such another template for plots that need to be improved. After all, most improvements to plots are because they are too long/detailed, and that is already covered by {{Plot}}. Debresser (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but reasonable people may disagree, and on this occasion I do. I am very conscious of the word "more" in this template name, and its possible potential to encourage "fancruft".
In my opinion, the only "special" tags needed for plot are "improve plot" "no plot" and "all plot". I think we can use general maintenance tags for other eventualities. I suspect, though, that this will be one of those discussions where everyone has their own opinion and / or solution, so I'll leave it there and let others contribute. Begoon talk 06:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all we need is "plot" (and perhaps ("all plot") and "more plot", and that there is no need for "improve plot". If somebody would make a plot too elaborate, it can always be trimmed or tagged again, until balance is reached. That is no reason not to have a template which is otherwise useful and even necessary. Okay, let's see what others say. Debresser (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering copyright violations of soap opera articles, I'm totally unsure about resolving these issues of this template. However, Storm in a Teacup (film) doesn't need more plot, does it? Do I need to tag its plot section with this template?

Small is fine (Storm in a Teacup); big is fine (One for the Road (Cheers). Too much unnecessary stuff... disaster! (Ross Geller and Frasier Crane) Leaving this tag on a screen for a long time... I can't bear the thoughts of it. People not familiar with one work may be a reason for the necessity for this work. However, tagging a small, but sufficient plot for expansion needs is... <something I cannot describe how bad this template was used>. --George Ho (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbpole is not helpful. Obviously this template should move to {{Improve plot}} or something of the sort. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You and Debresser are substantial editors, yet each of you may disagree about renaming or splitting. In that TFD discussion, some editors may have different views, even when one voter voted "weak keep". I know you are solely and primarily dedicated to this template, so I may re-consider your proposals and views. By the way, isn't there a policy or guideline that forbids one bold action on one page that is under discussion? --George Ho (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, George. I'm not sure what bold action you are referring to. I think SMcCandlish was just agreeing with the move suggestion, and commenting that it doesn't help the discussion much if we all "go on" about how bad all the "fancruft" is. Everyone here seems to agree fancruft is a Bad Thing®, so we are "preaching to the converted" a bit, that's all. No big thing. Begoon talk 08:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'm not solely dedicated to anything, as my editing history shows. I'm also a very frequent and vocal critic of francruft (despite being a fan of various things, I don't write like one). But it doesn't help the debate to feign swooning over how bad the fancruft is. I'm not suggesting "move it right now before the discussion is complete", just that "this is going to have to be renamed" is at least one obvious outcome because "More plot" is a (my!) bad naming idea. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 15:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget there is {{Hook}} for entries written as listings magazines or blurbs.. (ysually ending ".. with surprising results." "...with unintended consequences." ".. will they find out n time?") Rich Farmbrough, 10:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

To Begoon: I'll rephrase: Everyone has different ideas about changing this template, yet there is no full consensus to go for only one thing at this time. By the way, about that "bold action", I was referring to something similar to immediately merging one article to another, while a discussion, such as an article for deletion discussion, is still undergoing. --George Ho (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I think I agree. When faced with a complex situation like this, it's better to attack the problems one at a time? Maybe you're right. This discussion is trying to discuss too many things. Do you therefore think it might be better to start with a single, straightforward proposal, like the move, which seems to have a bit of support, and then (whether the move happens or not) proceed to tidy up the documentation and check the tag usage? Begoon talk 13:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you want it kept; I initially want it deleted because... even though this template has good intentions, I don't imagine a demand for a plot expansion helps matters. However, with your help and the decision to keep this template by administrator, I'm torn. To me, renaming it won't help either, even with support. Perhaps replace this template with "Hook" or another suitable template in Lemonade Mouth? And then remove this template from other articles, as well? --George Ho (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Here's an idea, then. Let's leave this discussion open with no consensus for now (others may still comment, obviously). In the meantime, let's do 2 things: firstly, look at the current transclusions, and decide what to do with each one. Secondly, fix the documentation. We don't need any special consensus to do those things, and we can discuss them here, in new sections, so anyone can jump in if they object. Then see where we are up to? Begoon talk 13:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho, I agree with you on Lemonade Mouth. It needs a more suitable template. I'm the one who added the more plot template to that article, and I couldn't find a more suitable tag at the time. However, it contradicts the all plot tag on the page by saying that plot coverage needs to be improved in an article that is almost exclusively plot. I really don't have much of an opinion either way on what, if anything should be done about/to this template. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current transclusions

[edit]

Now what to do with transclusions? Since there are 25 articles that trasclude this template, let's analyze just five first:

None of their plot sections look likely to demand plot expansion. Shall I remove it from these article? --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You already have my opinion on these particular ones at this discussion. I agree with you on all except the last, Insurrection, which could stand a bit more, and may be worth the tag, imo. Begoon talk 07:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed this template from stroked articles, The Wolf Sea, and The White Raven (novel). --George Ho (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another five:

They all are likely tagged incorrectly. I wonder if plot abstract is sufficient enough. --George Ho (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion™:
Other opinions may differ, of course… Begoon talk 15:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given I appeared to have caused this debate (), in that all those mentioned novels bar one were created by me with the tag in place, I thought I'd comment here... I added that tag mainly as I've not read these novels, and what little plot I could find is from the reviews I've also added to the respective pages - I was adding this tag mainly as I had no idea if what I was supplying was the "full picture", for which it seemed appropriate! Nikthestoned 17:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I hadn't noticed that. That's interesting, though. I can fully understand that you would add as much as you could, then tag it so someone might come along and improve it. I'd possibly do the same. The debate is really about how the tag is used, and whether its name is appropriate, but in the process if we do some copyediting, that's a bonus. I don't think the overuse of this tag is a big problem right now, but if we can fix the documentation and the name if necessary, then that would be a Good Thing™ in my opinion.
Slightly off-topic: I think a lot of the issues with some of the maintenance templates in general could be solved by making it mandatory on some tags for the tagger to put a rationale for the tag on the talk page in a new section, and put a link to the diff in the displayed template. That way we wouldn't be wondering so often exactly what was in the mind of the tagger. Begoon talk 18:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about One Morning Like a Bird and Ingenious Pain? --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my opinion is above. They both need improvement. If you wanted to change them to {{hook}}, I wouldn't disagree. Begoon talk 18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there are seven remaining transclusions. I have removed this template from other articles without discussion, as general readers do not need to know more. Here are my contributions if anybody here objects. --George Ho (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little copyediting on some of the ones you untagged, and I put a {{hook}} tag on Carver (novel), because I didn't have time to edit that one, and it is very hookey. The others seem ok - a couple are short, but seem enough for the article size to not need the tag, imo. Begoon talk 05:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help / opinions on these guys. I've fixed up (or at least I believe I have!) Carver, One Morning Like a Bird & Ingenious Pain - I'd appreciate it if you could check to confirm that what I've done is sufficient. FWIW, that {{Hook}} template is pretty intrusive and that is probably why I didn't choose it when looking for something suitable... I'd also say that the only article I'd definitely agree on it being placed on was the Carver article, which was certainly overtly so! Not sure what I was thinking at the time... Nikthestoned 10:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I fixed a couple of typos/minor grammar things - revert anything I did which you don't like. I agree the {{hook}} template is a bit glaring and ugly - maybe we can get a 'mini' version designed. Something to look at later… The good thing, to me, is that we're improving the articles a bit while we discuss the template, so there's benefit whatever we decide in the end. Begoon talk 10:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, all looks good to me, cheers! And yea, is what we're here for after-all! Nikthestoned 10:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade Mouth

[edit]

This one is different. It's chock full of "character" sections, containing trivia and plot detail, while other sections on reception, impact and cultural influence seem lacking or missing. However, the "Plot summary" section, in my opinion, could use improvement.a copyedit. Maybe change the {{more plot}} to a copyedit section tag?

Off topic: The 'problem' with the {{all plot}} tag on that article is that it says: "should be expanded" which is not really a good thing to ask for there, given what is already there to expand. It does go on to say "Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. " - which is what is needed. But that's a discussion for another day. Begoon talk 09:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I remove the "More plot" tag? Or replace it with Template:Copyedit section? --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, on reflection, it's the right tag. That summary needs to be rewritten to be a better summary of the plot overall. It's not just a copyedit needed, the content itself needs to be improved. It tells us more about the characters than it does about the plot, and that's what the {{improve plot}} tag should be for, in my opinion, tagging plot summaries that need to be rewritten, or expanded, rather than just copyedited. I altered my comment above, now I've properly read that plot summary again, I was wrong above. Begoon talk 01:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Whale Road

[edit]

This article doesn't need plot expansion, does it? "Hook" may appear messy with the infobox, but should the tag be substituted? --George Ho (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited and removed the tag. It had a few typos and some unclear grammar, so I rewrote it a bit. I removed the tag, but it could still be improved if anyone wants to. Begoon talk 09:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording template

[edit]

Original version:

Proposed:

I wonder if the proposed template helps. --George Ho (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helps what? You started out wanting to delete this template because it might encourage adding fancruft to plot summaries. Now you think we should change it from wording that doesn't encourage adding content specifically - rather improvement, with wording that does encourage addition - expand. I'm afraid you've lost me now, George. Begoon talk 12:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Let's just keep this discussion open and scrap the proposed rewording. If the current template is good, then should we have a requested renaming right away? --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm neutral about this proposal, this template could be useful only if plot summaries need to be expanded. Nevertheless, I don't know how much effect the proposed rewording does, but it is a derived version of "expand section". --George Ho (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this rewording. It is in accordance with my proposal above. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premature The wording may depend on the outcome of the rename discussion, if we proceed with that. This is premature. It's impossible for me to opine on this until that point, other than the comment I made above. Begoon talk 02:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"and non-fiction"

[edit]

Despite my comments about premature changes above, I am reminded of the words "and non-fiction" in this and related templates. That's something I feel we could, and should, remove now, unless there's something I'm missing in the usage. Does anyone disagree? Begoon talk 03:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six articles that currently transclude this template are of fictional works. Right now, plot may imply fiction-related. Is plot also related to non-fiction? --George Ho (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when I said "usage" I didn't mean transclusions, but nice to confirm that anyway. If you know what the "plot" of a non-fiction work would refer to, then please enlighten me - I guess there's a tenuous case that something like an autobiography could have one, but it's a "summary" then, not a "plot summary", surely - and anyway, the template says all. What would a plot summary of Oxford English Dictionary look like? Begoon talk 03:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is more about the plot summary of historical works, biographies, and/or documentaries. - jc37 06:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It would make sence wouldnt it? or maybe i can just remember its "more plot" Anthony2106 (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:More_plot&oldid=1244859650"