Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction

Spinout articles about a singular topic

I noticed a sentence that was italicized for no apparent reason. It turns out this was done 16 years ago. Is the statement in question even still true, let alone worthy of emphasis? 183.89.250.246 (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've rewritten that whole paragraph, as it seemed poorly worded. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Plot summary points

In regards to the edits reverted here:

[1] It seemed best to make this into one sentence, as multiple storylines in one work seems like the only conceivable case where a plot summary should not follow the order of events in the story. At first, I didn't even quite grasp the train of thought here, so condensing this into one sentence seems worthwhile.

[2] There is no benefit in trying to balance the length of a plot summary with the rest of the article. Rather, you should try to write the best plot summary you can, and the best exploration of real-world aspects that you can. As I explained in the edit summary, I also felt that some of that text contradicted itself. That text could be replaced, as a correlation between plot complexity and summary length is a worthwhile point. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

When your edits are reverted and you make a talk page post requesting feedback, it is best practice to wait more than a day before making the same or similar edits again. Please wait for input here before making anymore changes.

• I disagree with you that there is no relationship between the length of a plot section and the rest of the article. A notable stub with a 700 word summary of the plot and nothing apart from one other sentence places undue weight on the plot itself see WP:NOTPLOT. There are, should be no, magic numbers here. This is a subjective decision made by editors based on this guidance. Adding the reference to NOVELS is helpful and I will add it back.
• I disagree with you that the only time that there are no other benefits with tweaking the timeline in the summary vs the fiction (remember that this article applies to writing about all types of fiction in articles). For example, if a character has an ulterior motive for doing something, it might make more sense in mentioning earlier in the summary, rather than then having to dedicate additional text to a relatively unimportant sub-plot regarding the reveal later. The current text provides adequate guidance to editors about when and why they should do this, which is sufficient.
• The other minor tweaks did not seem to change or improve the guidance.

As a general point, based on what I observed during your 100+ edits to NOVELs, which I wasn't able to fully monitor, please ask yourself before you edit, "what problem am I trying to solve"? Some of your edits were helpful, some of them made no real difference and were basically cosmetic and some stemmed from your misunderstanding of existing consensus. I have no doubt you're trying to make improvements, but making so many edits that mix wording and content changes are going to get reverted. I would suggest that if you see something that could maybe be worded better without changing the meaning, make one change and leave it for several days. If no one reverts it, make another one. If you see some content in a guideline that you disagree with, either make one change and open a talkpage discussion, or better yet just open a talk page discussion. I'm not trying to put you off making improvements, but you're going much too fast.Scribolt (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I was going to wait longer, but another user edited the section in question, introducing awkward wording, and I thought a better alternative would be to borrow wording from MOS:NOVEL. Then while I was at it, I made other changes. Seeing the state of disrepair some of these pages were in has made me more bold in editing them.

In regards to balancing length of the plot summary with the rest of the article, the important thing is that we do our best to write a compact plot summary and also do our best with other topics. If the rest of the article consists of only one sentence, obviously it needs to be expanded, or if it can't be, the article shouldn't exist. Also, the current wording The length of the prose should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself; simple plots may require only short summaries seems self-contradictory. A story could be long, but have a simple plot.

In regards to chronological order, mentioning an ulterior motive before it is revealed in the story was the kind of thing I originally thought that was primarily referring to. Hence this edit.

As for "minor tweaks", I would say this added a significant missing word. are notable for their own standalone article technically means something very different. Likewise, a significant word was missing here, as I noted in the edit summary, though it seemed better just to remove that whole phrase, as it was redundant. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

For your first point, your version doesn't recommend against writing a 700 plot summary with a five word sourced sentence, the previous version does so in my view it's better. For your second, I guess it would be slightly better if it was slightly more consistent regarding story length re plot complexity, but again what problem are we trying to solve? This is cosmetic at best, how many people are getting confused because they have a long story with a simple plot vs a short one with a complex one? This is a tweak at best, probably positive, but by lumping it with other edits that genuinely change the meaning you're making it hard for people to follow you. We can maybe discuss this further, maybe others will chime in.

Your change re chronology is not an improvement. You removed the text that said why and when someone might do it. If doing it improves and condenses the summary, that's all an editor needs to know to do it. If it doesn't, they shouldn't.

Sufficiently maybe reads slightly better, but it doesn't seem important in terms of how editors should proceed, the subjects are either notable or not. Maybe I'm missing something? You're right about the obvious missing word, but I disagree about the redundancy, category spam needs explicity discouraging as well as simply defining what's correct.Scribolt (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

How about changing Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary to Strictly avoid creating pages which consist of a plot summary and little else. That pretty much tells you not to have a plot summary and then just one sentence of sourced commentary. The unhelpful and perhaps contradictory points about balancing length could then be removed. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not clear to me how what you propose is better than what is there already, and I'm not convinced yet that the current version is particularly unhelpful or contradictory. For the record, I think we should never have a plot only article. I think this guidance should also recommend that we don't have articles which have articles with minimal information apart from a full plot summary, so therefore I think the rest of the article should be considered when expanding a plot section. This isn't prescriptive and it doesn't need to be, but it's good practice for editors to consider which is what the guideline currently says. I think that the number of cases where you have a lengthy book with such a simple plot (or vice versa) that the current text provides serious issues to the editor are so vanishing rare that I don't see an issue to be solved, but if you have an elegant solution within the current text structure I'd be open to suggestions. Scribolt (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

See [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I think we have solved this. It may be true that the points about balancing length would rarely cause a problem, but on the other hand they are not helpful either, as long as we make clear that a plot summary plus one or two sentences is not adequate for an article. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

[9] How about Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if presenting details in a different sequence improves and condenses the summary. That preserves "improves and condenses" while removing "do not need to stay true to" and "going out of order". 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what benefit there is in changing out of order to strictly follows beyond the fact that you said you didn't like it, but ok I guess. No to the other suggestion, we do not "present details" when writing a summary. Scribolt (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What about Summaries may deviate from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity? MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't like "may deviate from". While you might technically deviate from the chronological order, that characterization doesn't seem right. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

How about Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if that would not make for a good summary. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, we want it to say that if a more concise or easier-to-understand plot summary can be made by presenting plot points out of order, do that. We want to encourage editors to make a better summary if they have to deviate, that negative form is not really capturing that. Masem (t) 13:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Masem. IP, could you articulate what your problem actually is with the as-is text? Scribolt (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The way it's stated just sounds wrong to me. But if no one else sees a problem, I guess that's that. Sorry to have wasted your time with this. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a waste of time, language improvements help, just that here let's try to spin it positive, that going out of plot order can some times be a benefit. — Masem (t) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

'246, you have now changed it to read "Summaries do not need to strictly follow the fiction's chronological order if going out of order improves and condenses the summary". Unless I have misunderstood this discussion, that not what other editors are expecting. Can we please finalise the wording here and not keep making partial changes to that sentence? For me, "going out of order" sounds highly colloquial, bordering on weird. Perhaps it would be suitably formal in US English, I don't know. I'm perfectly happy with "deviate from", but we could instead have Summaries may depart from the fiction's chronological order if doing so enhances clarity or brevity. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one to see a problem with "going out of order". I like your proposed wording, and would prefer "depart" rather than "deviate". 183.89.250.246 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with Michael's suggestion. Scribolt (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"Primary information" and "secondary information"

In the Sources of information section, is it even helpful to talk about "primary information" and "secondary information"? I realize information comes from sources, but it would be more straightforward just to talk about primary and secondary sources, and what information can be found in each. Also, the example of another episode of the same TV series may be problematic, as using one episode as a source regarding a different episode is likely to be original research. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Real-world perspective

This section is far too long, and concentrates too much on persuading editors what is bad about in-universe view, rather than just telling them not to use it. Probably it was written decades ago when there were still active arguments about how fiction articles should be presented. Now, all that's needed is to tell editors to use a real-world perspective, and to give some examples of what to avoid. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't sure what to remove. Do we even need the bullet-point lists? 183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe just a few consolidated examples. It would also be less confusing not to mix up what's expected in the Plot section and what's expected elsewhere. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm now thinking that it would be best to remove the entire bullet-point list from MOS:INUNIVERSE, as those examples are almost all either redundant or not very helpful. If anyone thinks that a particular item from that list is helpful, and it is not redundant to something else on this page, please point it out. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can remove the list entirely as I have seen all of those cases in misuse of plot summaries and the list. Trimming is fair but should stick to a few key cases. — Masem (t) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This could almost replace that entire section. It would remove a lot, but much of that is redundant to things that appear elsewhere on the page.

All Wikipedia articles should use the real world as their primary frame of reference. As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world. With fiction, this means not writing from the perspective of the fictional world. Many fan wikis and websites treat fictional worlds as if they were real, but this should not be done in Wikipedia. An in-universe perspective can mislead the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article.

Keeping a real-world perspective also means limiting the amount of detail regarding the fiction itself. An article about a fictional character should not necessarily include the kinds of details that would appear in a biographical article of a real person. Backstory should be kept to a minimum, not treated as actual history might be. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Will need to get back to this after Christmas. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Mass edits by blocked IP editor

I've been trying my best to follow all the recent IP edits, to make sure they have been constructive. They seem to be in good faith, as far as I can tell, even if editors (including myself) have disagreed / modified some of them. I'm slightly suspicious that many of the recent edits have come from an IP coming from a blocked proxy server. I don't think it's inherently disqualifying, but it is suspicious enough to deserve review from longtime editors with a more transparent history. Creating an account helps other editors to evaluate our history of engaging in good faith. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The editor has been doing excellent and well-supported work overhauling a collection of guidelines that have, to my knowledge, never been systematically reviewed. I hope they will return. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I was considering stepping aside, but your comment has persuaded me that I should help to finish the cleanup, though I may restrict my activity to talk page comments for a while. I am the person who was using the IP. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back! MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back. Like I said, I've found your work constructive on first review, so thanks for contributing. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)