Wikipedia talk:How to streamline a plot summary

Great work!

... is it a good idea to post feedback here?

Nice work. I think this is a really useful document. I have some suggestions already - I'll respond in more detail later.

Would you object to me editing the document directly? It's well written already, but it'd be nice to set an example and make this really clean, sharp prose - for example, you can delete "In order" from your first sentence... ;) Popcornduff (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Thank you for the kind words. Sure, you can edit it. I was initially going to write it more ironically, but I changed my mind. There may be a few ironic sentences left. Also, my first draft is usually quite messy, so it wouldn't be too surprising to find a few unintentional instances mixed in. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read this all properly now and I think it's great. There's lots of stuff I'd probably word differently, but I don't want to pick a fight over it.

Incidentally, here's a pet peeve I hate about plot summaries: when editors include things like "the film ends with..." and "in a post-credits scene..." apart from the fact that they're usually redundant anyway, I think they should be removed because they describe the film, not the plot. I think other editors might disagree, but I think this should even extend to saying things like "in a flashback", because flashbacks are narrative devices - they don't exist in the story. What do you think? Popcornduff (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: It's fine to reword my lazy prose if you can improve it. Or maybe you can come up with better examples. I included "the film ends as" and "in the opening scene", but I forgot about the pre- and post-credits sequences. I hadn't really thought about "in a flashback", and I don't know how I feel about that. It seems harmless enough, but you make a decent case against it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary when you can just write "years earlier" or whatever instead. Popcornduff (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Postmodern films can be difficult to describe completely in-universe, but I notice Pulp Fiction avoids explicitly labeling anything as a flashback. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Dude, this is awesome. You and I have so many of the same pet peeves and you've essentially written the essay I always meant to write. One you might want to consider adding that drives me batty... "The film begins with blah blah blah." In edits to clean this up I always say " avoid 'film does this' language, it rarely adds clarity, only length". Just tossing it out there for your consideration. If you are unfamiliar with this problem, check my edits yesterday and you should see a few edit summaries that pretty much say that and you'll see what I mean in my diff. Millahnna (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said in my comments above. :) Popcornduff (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha. OK, maybe I need to explicitly describe that. I thought "in the opening scene" was close enough, but I guess not. There's mountains of this poor writing on Wikipedia, and part of the reason why I wrote this was to purge the mounting frustration I felt while copy editing it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Heh. In my defense I worked in a hot kitchen all day. Totally missed that. And seriously, does that not just make you feel crazy? I'm always thinking "really? What made you think that was a good idea." I think I've seen one plot summary on here where that sort of thing worked because of abrupt scene changes that eventually lead to clues to a film's twist. Flashbacks are definitely trickier, though. Sometimes I'll write them as "Smith recalls a time when this one thing happened" and sometimes I just flat out have to call it a flashback because of story structure. They're easier to write in "film does this" language without overly bulking up the text, at least. Millahnna (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines tell people to use out-of-universe writing, so they probably get in the habit of doing so. Many people assume that more detail can only be better. I try to be flexible about this stuff, but you can tell when people are obsessed with certain topics. I still remember that gun spotter IP that you were tracking a while ago. "Bob arms himself with a .45 Colt M1911 pistol"... ugh. Maybe I should add that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've yet to find a plot summary where I've had to write "in a flashback" or even "Smith recalls...". I guess it could happen one day, but not yet - I've always found it simplest to write "years earlier", or whatever.

For me, though, it isn't just about simplicity and removing excess words (and believe me, those are my biggest priorities when it comes to Wikipedia editing). I don't think this is specified in any Wikipedia guidelines anywhere, and it's possible no one else will agree with me, but I think it's basically wrong, philosophically speaking, to include constructions like "In a flashback" or "The film begins" because those things are not in the film's plot. When you mention those things, you're describing the film's editing - technical details about the film and it structure, not its plot.

For example, I've been working on the Jurassic World article lately. The plot summary previously began: "Twenty-two years after the events of Jurassic Park, InGen has opened a fully-functional facility called "Jurassic World" on Isla Nublar." I think this is unhelpful for two reasons. The first is that it refers to a film that doesn't exist in the film's plot. The second is that it relies on the reader knowing what the film Jurassic Park is and what happened in it, when that information, if it's necessary, should (very briefly) be incorporated into the plot. Popcornduff (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's brief enough, I guess you could move out-of-universe background details to the lead. It seems more appropriate to describe the out-of-universe connecting details in a film series there rather than in the plot summary. Most people probably don't care, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly situational about the "two million years after the previous installment in this franchise" thing (and to be fair, I'm fairly situational about a lot of stuff so whatever). Most of the time when I see it, it's very brief and no big deal. In a plot that's prone to length, I try to avoid it and move it to the lead. I've seen other editors talk about it in production or writing, when that works better. Regarding the "in a flashback" stuff, the only film I personally have worked on where that type of notation was actually helpful was The Uninvited (one of those US remakes of an Asian thriller/horror film). There's a bit in the film with an extremely abrupt scene change (that's a critical clue to the plot twist) and when I was writing the plot a few years ago, there was just no way around "the scene abruptly changes to" that wasn't ridiculously wordy and/or confusing. And now that I think of it, I haven't checked that one for bloat in a rather long while. As with all films that gain cult nerd type followings, it's prone to it. SO I guess I know what I'm doing next. Millahnna (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I forget the article, but I found one that had a 3000+ word plot summary. I still don't know what to do about that. I'm tempted to revert back to a 100 word synopsis when that happens, but I think it would be too controversial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

| I know those feels. I ended up working on it for three days. I basically assumed everything in the summary was factually correct (because I haven't seen it since it was new and I'm old and crap) and then took my hatchet to it. I have the next two days off. What plot summary is it? Millahnna (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I found it: Aloha (film). It looks like someone already edited it down to around half the length, but it's still crazy long. There was a Slate article a while back about Wikipedia's longest plot summaries. I don't think any of them could compete with Aloha at its peak. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Goodness. Most of the plots I've worked on are actually for films I've never seen or that I've seen so long ago that I have to just assume that what's there is factually correct and then work on cutting. That one is such a mess I'm a little afraid to try. The opening paragraph makes practically no sense. To be fair, from what I've heard, the film itself makes practically no sense. SHame; good cast. I'll probably whack at it a bit anyway where I can. Millahnna (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This probably isn't the right place for this, but I'd appreciate both your input on the Jurassic World article. There's some disagreement on the Talk page about its plot summary. Popcornduff (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, I've got a request. Could someone streamline Cold in July (film)? I want to take this to GA, but the plot summary is stopping me. Problem is, I haven't seen the film, and I don't want to be spoiled. I heard it's good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Interpreting/explaining events

Here's something I keep seeing lately. Here's a fictional example, to avoid spoiling the plot of a film you guys might have seen: "Jenny pushes Smith off the cliff, presumably to his death." Imagine that's the last we ever see of Smith, and we don't get any more information about him later. In that case, I think this should just become: "Jenny pushes Smith off the cliff."

The film doesn't show us what happens to Smith, so why should our plot summary presume? Yes, he's probably dead, but the reader can figure that out - just like the viewer of the film can with the same information. I think including anything else is a violation of WP:FILMPLOT, which states: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."

Do you guys agree? And if so, should it be included? It might not be relevant, I can't decide. Popcornduff (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

When people say "presumably" or "apparently", I usually assume they mean that the film will later contradict the events ("apparently kills Jason Vorhees" for every scene before the last). That's how I use it. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point is to say that something presumably happened. So, makes sense to me. This comes up occasionally, but I never really thought to include it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your example case of "apparently" there makes sense to me. Do you think it's worth mentioning what I'm talking about too? Popcornduff (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. I should have said "your idea makes sense to me". I didn't realize until now that it could be ambiguous. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Aloha! (the greeting, not the film)

Only after/while doing a few CE's did I notice that this is still in NRJ's user space. I hope someone will tell me if my edits are not constructive (courtesy optional!). Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Nah, it's fine. I had my doubts that people would find it useful, so I never moved it out of userspace. But maybe it's time to think about that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Shortcut

Like any other guidelines/essays, shouldn't this have a shortcut to make this wonderful essay accessible to other editors? Perhaps WP:TRIMPLOT or something? Slightlymad 05:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I've seen people make shortcuts for userspace essays, but I'd think it'd be more useful if this were moved out of userspace. I wonder if it would need editing before that happened, though. I haphazardly added whatever was currently bothering me. Some of these things might just be my pet peeves and not a realistic problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The film begins

I see the essay already has a section about "Starting to do something". I see this far too often, "The film begins", "The story begins" and (less often "the film ends with", so I) had a good old grouse about it Talk:Antebellum_(film)#Plot because someone added it more than once. (In general I feel including anything but the plot breaks the flow, and it is better to stick to telling the story instead of including out of universe plot structure)
Could you please add "The film begins" and possibly also "the film ends as a specific examples? -- 109.79.78.214 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually I see now it is in effect already covered by the "two gunfighters" example. Instead I made some minor edits for brevity and removed doubles spaces which Wikipedia does not use MOS:DOUBLESPACE. -- 109.79.78.214 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on all counts here, btw. Popcornfud (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This fine essay reminds me of an article I read about Mister Rodgers. It isn't about brevity or concise writing but rather is is about talking clearly to children,[1] and how to rephrase things. He had a method for carefully phrasing things, which reduced ambiguity, and added layers of meaning. I think it applies to writing as well as speaking, and readers might find it interesting. -- 109.79.78.214 (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have any rule about how "double spaces are not used". Don't do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Well there is MOS:DOUBLESPACE. (I didn't remember the guidelines being so equivocal about it, I thought there was a guideline saying that said not to use double spaces.) -- 109.76.130.230 (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)