Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Some changes to address a few points above

I'd like to propose two changes that are a result of the previous discussion(s) to remove some of the confusion:

1) In the paragraph under MOS:PLOT that starts "Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works...", I want to add language to make it clear that

• By virtue of a plot summary being under a "Plot" or "Synopsis" heading, we can presume that that helps to establish that we are talking about the fiction, meaning it should already be taken out-of-universe, and that some of the conventions on this page (like "The fictional character..." language) can be dropped for conciseness purposes.
• That a straight-forward narrative with no tricks is unlikely to need the "location marking" that this leading sentence describes, as long as we're still talking about a "Plot" section.

2) A new section following the Plot Summaries one would be for "Characters and other fictional elements" to describe how plot summaries related to these elements should be treated in standalone pages, character lists, or other articles. Here, as a strong differentiator from a Plot/Synopsis section, out-of-universe approach is more explicitly required. ("In Season One, this character.." type language).

We're still talking keeping everything out-of-universe, just avoiding the need to include explicit OOU language when it's clear we're talking about the fiction itself. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm fine with that in principle. I still consider it to be in-universe, but I don't really care as the clarification would resolve my issue as to the conflicting instructions in the guideline as to how we actually write the content. However, this would be with the proviso that we either:

• Update MOS:INUNIVERSE, before the do's and don'ts, to clearly state that plot narratives have different requirements and a reference is provided to the relevant section.
• Update the structure. I'm struggling to think of something in an article that would applicable to what we're talking about wouldn't be covered by either Plot Narrative or a Characters and other Fictional Elements. So, I suggest that we merge all the relevant content from MOS:INUNIVERSE into the two sections Masem suggested.

I'd prefer the second option for usability reasons. Instead of having to understand a complex definition of what has proved to be a difficult to interpret concept and understand what if any exceptions might apply later in the guideline, I just look at MOS:PLOT if I'm writing a plot which tells me everything that's relevant. If I'm writing a setting/character list/other fictional content section I look at MOS:OTHERFICTIONALCONTENTTHATNEEDSTOBEDESCRIBEDINAWAYTHATISNTFANCRUFT. We'd still maintain the tags (or whatever they're called, the MOS bits) for INUNIVERSE. Scribolt (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A way to do this would be to recognize that INUNIVERSE is (or should be written as) a list of "don't"s. Then we can have advice for "Plot" summaries as "Do"s, which are the minimum elements to make sure that the summary is written OOU (eg historical present tense); and then a separate section for character and any other article that would include fictional aspects alongside real-world ones that represent a different set of "Do"s for that (where they may be some overlap but there are more exacting things to watch for). This would allow use to be key on the fact that you don't always need "At the start of the film"-type language in Plot Summaries. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess we won't be going through with the aforementioned RfC, LOL. Anyway, even though I also don't fully agree with Masem on this topic, I would be okay with his suggestions for changing the page. It would resolve the issues we've discussed. Thanks, Masem, for continuing this and compromising. Now we just have to work out the wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you Masem for your initial changes to the guideline. I've pruned a little more, please feel free to discuss or revert anything you think really should stay in. One comment I'd like to make regarding this. I personally feel that 'minor' tidying of mixed narratives/storylines don't need to be always explicitly identified as such. Books that switch between different characters each chapter are not uncommon and I don't think anyone should be forced to explain the narrative structure every time they take an editorial decision to simplify things. In the event where the structure is significant, such as Memnto etc, this should be pointed out. Scribolt (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I agree the shifting viewpoint is generally very common, and as we are writing out of universe, we act as the pervasive observer that can see everything everywhere as the present occurs -- that is, we just usually use things like "Meanwhile" or "Elsewhere" to explain away the narrative shift. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Even though I'm not keen on the "Plot summaries and similar recaps of fictional works" paragraph, per my and Scribolt's arguments above, I'm mostly okay with the new setup of the page. I made this edit to the paragraph to help readers get the point since I fear that readers will take that paragraph to think we need things such as "The scene ends with" or "A flashback [take us to so and so]." "Flashback" type of language is sometimes needed in our plot sections, but it usually isn't. I also don't see much difference between stating "It is 2003" and "In 2003" for our plot sections; I'm not seeing how one is in-universe and the other isn't.

Per what we've argued above, I do think that consistency should also be noted in the guideline. By that, I mean the objection to having a plot section end with explicit out-of-universe language when the rest of the plot section does not use that language. Such inconsistency should only be done when necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"It is 2003." is immersive language, as if the plot summary was written from within the work. "In 2003" doesn't necessarily make it OOU, but it does avoid the bad in-universe language. And that's the goal of plot summaries, is simply to avoid in-universe language. That's the consistency spoken to. A thing to keep in mind that both in-universe and OOU writing is not so much an element of the whole, but aspects of how the summary is written. Some summary sentences can't be qualified either way, but it is then specific wording choices and presentation that switch those from neutral to in-universe or OOU. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are stating about the "2003" aspect (the immersive argument), but I'm still not seeing much of a difference. That stated, I don't usually see people use language like "It is 2003" for our plot summaries. They usually simply use "In [so and so year]."

As for consistency, what do you think about adding a sentence to the "Plot summaries of individual works" section about, for consistency's sake, not switching between explicit out-of-universe language unless necessary? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I would state the sentence is not needed since you included "For purposes for conciseness, it is thus not necessary to explicitly incorporate out-of-universe language, particularly if the work is presented in a linear, direct presentation," but the switch is sometimes an annoying issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes, you need only one or two sentences or phrases to establish the right OOU placement that is otherwise not necessary for the rest of the film (for example, if an episode ends up flashbacking to events leading up to a crime that was solved during a film to show how a suspect was involved). It's not really "switching", but using it only when absolutely necessary in a plot summary. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Using it only when necessary is my argument. And it is at times switching, and it's usually jarring and unnecessary. Unless explicit out-of-universe language is necessary, it should not be there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think adding it would be a good idea, as long as a brief example or explanation is also provided as to when it might be considered necessary. Scribolt (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's not really a switching. I do agree that if one starts with a very heavy OOU presentation through most of a plot summary and then drops it, that's a problem: for example if when describing a 5-act play and the first four acts have "In Act I"-type language, not including that to delineate Act V is a problem. But for most plots in Plot summary sections, where the bulk of the plot can be given without explicit OOU mention, the introduction of one or two OOU statements is in no way a "switch", but simply using OOU where it is necessary to establish how the narrative is given to the viewer or reader. And we should absolutely not scare people away from adding OOU language if they are not sure; it is better to stay OOU than to avoid it, since it really does help to structure the plot relative to the reader/viewer's experience rather than the narrative. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I clearly disagree with your definition of "switch" in this case. As as for such a change being used when necessary, it's not always or even mostly used when necessary. I stated, "Unless explicit out-of-universe language is necessary, it should not be there." And I stand by that statement. If I see explicit out-of-universe material in a plot section, I will change it unless it needs to be there. It didn't need to be there in the aforementioned Titanic case, and it was inconsistent with the rest of the plot section's tone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. The general tone there seems to agree with Flyer's addition. If not further. Scribolt (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

To go back to the Titanic case, this problem demonstrate a disconnect between what is and isn't out-of-universe or in-universe. The last para of the summary is as follows, (broken out)

1. Back in the present, Lovett decides to abandon his search after hearing Rose's story. Alone on the stern of Keldysh, Rose takes out the Heart of the Ocean — in her possession all along — and drops it into the sea over the wreck site.

   "Back in the present" asserts the end of a flashback, this is out-of-universe language since the characters do not experience the flashback. This is appropriate writing, and introduces the OOU terms without being over the top about it (eg it could have been "The film returns to the present, where Lovett...").

2. While she is seemingly asleep or has died in her bed, photos on her dresser depict a life of freedom and adventure inspired by the life she wanted to live with Jack.

   Ignoring the "seemingly asleep or died" language, this is an out of universe statement, it is telling the viewer what the camera is showing, all the photos. No character actually experiences this scene. As for the asleep or died part, I'm aware the film is vague, and this is at least taking an out-of-universe approach (since again, no character is experiencing this and we can't tell from the audience's view), but its awkward enough that revising it to avoid the awkward ambiguity "While Rose lays in her bed, photos..."

3. A young Rose reunites with Jack at the Titanic's Grand Staircase, applauded by those who died.

   And then suddenly we're in an in-universe statement. Given everything we as the audience knows, how did Rose become young, and join everyone that died on the sunken ship? (I am aware what the film metaphorically is going for, but that's still in-universe). This is where it is necessary to establish what the camera is doing on that final scene, panning through the sunken Titanic which slowly fades back into its unsunken splendor and where Rose, young again, rejoins with Jack and the others. It establishes that this scene is very much likely outside of any "reality" due to the camera's actions, and meant to be taken in a spiritual/metaphysical manner. This is where in-universe writing is a problem. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Your definition of what is and isn't in-universe language is not completely the same as every TV and/or film editor, and not all of them agree with your viewpoint on how these sections should be set up. Either way, the latest issue I've brought up is explicit out-of-universe text being used when not needed, such as when it contrasts the rest of the text in a jarring way because it is suddenly and unnecessarily used at the end of the plot summary.

"Back in the present" is fine and it's needed. It's not as explicit as "out of flashback." Nor is it as explicit as the IP's addition of "The final scenes are of traveling across Titanic's sunken deck to a set of doors, as it changes to when it was new again. Going through the doors, Jack is seen on the Grand Staircase and a young Rose reunites with him, applauded by those who died." And, like I stated on the article talk page, who is going through the doors? We know from watching the film that it's Rose, but the IP's text doesn't tell us that. On top of that, it's unnecessary plot bloat.

The "While she is seemingly asleep or has died in her bed" language is fine and needed; it is not explicit out-of-universe text.

"A young Rose reunites with Jack at the Titanic's Grand Staircase, applauded by those who died." is fine. This is how the vast majority of our plot summaries are written. We do not use out-of-universe text, and especially not explicit out-of-universe text, unless needed. There is no need for any type of out-of-universe text for that last line. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

While what the IP added is extra lengthy, it is necessary to switch from an older Rose, laying in bed (asleep or dead?), to suddenly this scene of Young Rose on the seemingly unsunk Titanic with Jack and everyone else who died. This can't happen in real life What happened? Time travel? Heaven? Obviously, OR doesn't let us answer that but we need the OOU transition to give the idea that this is a metaphysical scene rather than any real event. Yes, talking about all the other "dead" people implies that but that's not sufficient for OOU writing. It's not the statement on it's own, its the fact it is this awkward scene ends the film that it needs to be explained as such. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"Back in the present" and other detail after that lets us know that we are talking about Old Rose. The mention that she is either sleep or dead can lead the reader to assume that the "A young Rose" part is referring to Rose in the dream or in the afterlife. Yes, the ending can confuse people, but that ending confuses people when they watch the film (although, as I noted at the article's talk page, it seems that most people assume that Rose died in the end, and I think of it as her dreaming and then dying...since I don't believe in an afterlife). We can also leave a Template:Note for that part, which would clarify per Cameron's quote on the matter (although, this is addressed lower in the article). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the ending is unclear, and per Cameron, purposely vague, gives all the more reason to be explicit as what is seen by the viewer so that they can understand this vagueness. First, because there's nothing presented in this narrative that the normal rules of physics don't apply, the sudden jump to talking about "Young Rose" needs explaining to avoid being in-universe; you can't just assume this happens. As it is written right now, it strongly points the reader to assume the "Rose died, and this is her heaven" interpretation, which is why is it in-universe and a problem. Writing that the final scene involves a camera pan through the ship as it seems to be restored before young Rose is greeted by Jack and the others that died at the Grand Staircase gives more room for the varied potential interpretations without forcing the reader into any specific one, only so that they understand how the rest of the world saw that scene. (Remember, we assume that the reader of an article may never have ever seen the work in question). --MASEM (t) 13:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You stated, "As it is written right now, it strongly points the reader to assume the 'Rose died, and this is her heaven' interpretation, which is why is it in-universe and a problem." I don't agree. Like I stated above, I think it leads readers to assume that she is either dreaming or has died. This is because, right before that line, we let readers know that she is sleeping or has died. That stated, I understand where you are coming from on using explicit out-of-universe language or similar for that last piece. I'm going to ponder some other way to present it without explicit out-of-universe language, but will consider what you've stated as well.

On a side note: Believing that Rose died is the conclusion in screenwriting books; they note Cameron's use of foreshadowing by having Jack state that she is going to die an old woman, warm in her bed. They consider this a huge narrative payoff for the viewer. For years, I've been meaning to add something about that to the article. In fact, in the Plot section, this aspect is the only reason that we mention Jack saying this. It seems as important to mention it in the Plot section as it does to hear it when viewing the film. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to capture some of this discussion in the guideline. The key word is can be used. I think we all agree that Titanic could be written satisfactorily either with or without explicit out-of-universe language and that neither the original text or the IP addition are perfect examples of either. However, I think it's worth highlighting this issue as a possible case in which OOU language can assist in a plot summary. Obviously, feel free to undo it if you think its incorrect or inappropriate. Scribolt (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that if a scene is subject to interpretation, the plot summary should write it very flatly and use OOU as much as reasonably possible, or barring that, make sure no in-universe language is used. For example, the summary for the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) does this well, it describes what the film is showing flatly, importantly following how Bowman is transformed. This type of transition is what is missing in the Titanic summary. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at MOS: Novels

I've made a proposal here that people might be interested in. Any comments would be welcomed. Scribolt (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Establishing time, place and ages in plot summaries

I'd like to add a passage about the need to firmly establish when and where a work of fiction is set while writing plot summaries. I feel like this is one of the more common flaws in Wikipedia summaries. Often I don't realize that a film is set in a specific time and place and then it gets either mentioned randomly later in the summary, or not mentioned at all. I think it's crucial information for an encyclopedia, and I often try and retrieve such information to better understand the work, only to find Wikipedia doesn't have it. Similarly, character ages are crucial in specific situations. I happen to read summaries that merely mention the character's actions, not letting you understand if these characters are children, teenagers or adults. I remember a case where you would assume the character was an adult until it's randomly mentioned his school homework two thirds into the summary.
What I have in mind is something like this:
– Establish the time the work is set in, unless it's concurrent with the time the work was published or released, or if you don't have a way to establish it with a reasonable degree of certainty. Try to work the information into the first sentence of the summary using forms like "During the Victorian era" or "At the end of World War II" or "In the Seventies" or "In 1951". Finding a specific year is not always needed (although it might prove crucial for the plot if historical events are depicted), but establishing a general frame of reference is important to better understand the story and the characters' actions. Reporting the specific year becomes a requirement in cases where the work itself established it clearly, either through dialogue or displayed on screen.
– Establish the place the work is set in. Is the country where the action takes place known? Is a specific city being mentioned or portrayed? If you are not sure what city does a film's depicted skyline belongs to, don't try and guess; search for information from a reliable source, but make sure not to assume the filming locations are meant to represent the actual place where a film is set unless explicitly stated by a reliable source or by the film itself. Sometimes the work's in-universe location is purposely indefinite or meaningless (whereas filming locations always make for valuable information, albeit one that doesn't belong in the plot summary), but sometimes it provides critical setup for the story. "Mike works as a bartender in a small Yorkshire town" puts the reader of the summary in an entirely different mindset than "Mike works as a bartender in Central London."
– Establish the age of the characters when relevant. If you just write "Mike and his son", we can't tell if it's about a young father and his child or an old man and his adult son. In a film, the approximate age of the characters is immediately evident by looking at the actors portraying them, but in a summary, we have to state it explicitly. The age of a character becomes relevant if it informs their actions. If at a later point while writing the summary, you find that a previously unimportant character's age suddenly incorporated into the story (for instance, if a character is now said to be preparing for school, or doing homework, or receiving a pension check), then you should go back and introduce the age element as soon as the character is introduced. While doing so, try and use concise forms and don't worry about the exact age: it's not necessary to write "Mike is 19-year-old and works as a bartender", as "Mike is a teenager who works as a bartender" is perfectly acceptable.
Kumagoro-42 18:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Location is useful, as that's one of the things that's not always assured based on the nationality of the film.

Timing is different, I do think that there is the implicit idea that if a period is not set, then one can assume the work is taking place within the timeframe the work was made, so unless the period is critical (eg the film/work explicitly references events that occurred in the real world at that time), it would seem to be okay to leave it out.

Age is a lot more concern as I think this might encourage some OR to put an actual number. Implicitly, unless you tell me differently, I will a character in a work is somewhere between 18 and 55-60ish, and unless that age is key, it really doesn't matter exactly where they fall in that. Pointing out children, teenagers, elder, etc. all is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with your caveats, and thought they were addressed in my tentative text, but I guess I should emphasize them more. So:

a) How would you change the text to reflect this emphasis on not trying to establish time and character ages at any cost if it's not critical to the plot?

And:

b) I'm seeking permission to add a reworked version of the text making it guidelines. How can I get that?

Thanks. Kumagoro-42 19:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's an example of a summary where the character ages aren't specified; it's from an old version (which has later been improved by myself and others) for the film The Gate.

Glen returns home to find his house abandoned. Nobody answers his calls, but there is a half-eaten dinner in the kitchen and the eerie sound of laughter from somewhere nearby. He goes into the backyard and climbs into the treehouse, where he finds a lit lantern and a doll. The tree is abruptly struck by lightning and collapses. Glen awakens to the sound of men at work; it was only a nightmare. Through his window, he sees that the workers have cut down the tree in his backyard and a fragment of a geode has been unearthed. Glen returns with his friend Terry to dig for more. Though the workers have attempted to fill the hole left by the tree, Glen and Terry breach the surface and uncover a large geode. In the process, Glen catches a splinter and leaves a small bit of blood behind.

By reading this, one wouldn't realize the characters are children; in fact, the way their actions are described makes you think they're adults (the current version specifies they're young boys already in the intro, something that was also omitted in the old version). I think it's important to create guidelines that discourage this kind of extremely ambiguous summary. Kumagoro-42 19:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That's why I do agree that if the character is a child or very elderly, it should be noted, but we want that to be exceptional otherwise, and only when it is critical to the plot. (eg American Beauty (1999 film) is a good example of making sure "middle-aged" is called out for good reason). --MASEM (t) 19:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS:FICT, WP:PSTS, and reviews of fictional works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE. This is a request for comments in the general sense, but not a WP:RFC at this stage, being an initial discussion draft (broadened to cover writing about fiction generally), building on a lengthy discussion/dispute at the same page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft guideline material on how to write (and not write) "Production" sections

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#List of points to cover, a draft list of advice on the writing of "Production" sections. This is part of an RfC on MOS:FILM, but the material is written broadly enough (on purpose) it might actually live at MOS:FICT and apply to other media (TV, video games, comics, novel series, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Character descriptions in cast section and character names in end credits

I like to address two issues: One about character descriptions in cast sections and characters whose names appeared in the end credits, but not mentioned in film.

I feel character descriptions in cast section in film articles are deemed necessary because a lot of readers want to know who they are since some are never mentioned in plot summaries, but the actors who portrayed the characters not mentioned in the plot summaries in the beginning credits. We got a lot of articles that have character's info which is necessary for film articles and so we should only allow short and brief character descriptions in cast sections, except when a source comes up about it like what you see in The Martian and such, make it like what you see in those articles. I want to settle some compromise about this issue while maintaining some brief character descriptions.

For the character names mentioned in the end credits, but not mentioned in film. They should count as in-universe since it should count as in-universe, even though we see some naming errors in some characters in some films. You see character names who are listed in the end credits by certain actors like in Die Hard, Die Hard 2, Home Alone, The Rock, Air Force One, Con Air, Olympus Has Fallen, Pete's Dragon and such, but you don't hear them mentioned in film. The end credits should count in the end credits, but Masem feels that it is unnecessary because of in-universe reasons, which it shouldn't be an issue.

Anybody wants to discuss this, please discuss it politely and be reasonable & not one-sided. Thank you. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is where secondary sources are instructive. If a character is important, a secondary source about the film will have covered it, and will let you write a basic description of their role. Character lists are only needed when it's too unwieldy to put basic character details in context in a plot section, but remember that original analytical claims—such as the "name" of a character not from straightforward plot summary—require secondary sourcing (i.e., can't be sourced to the film itself). As for cast lists being useful, they are, but we are a general encyclopedia and not a specialist database like IMDB. Basic cast credits are within reason, as the connections are mentioned in almost every review, but anything more than that is outside the scope of a general interest encyclopedia and better suited for another reference work. czar 17:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

sourcing

This is coming up in a few venues, so I think we may need to address it. Right now we implicitly allow the work of fiction to serve as a primary source, not only for plot but other production details (such as credits). This is fine but it lead to laziness in other areas.

Currently the key language says The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible.

I suggest we need to make a stronger emphasis that editors should seek out independent, secondary sourcing to support plot summaries and other details, with the allowance that the work itself as a primary source can be used as a fallback when this doesn't exist, or doesn't cover the work completely. (For example, many movie reviews provide a setup for the film but do not go into detail - that makes these relatively useless as a source since only a few early parts of a summary would be sourced).

Even when we do default to the work itself as the source, we should be including citations for these. For standalone articles on a work, this should be a general citation leading the reflist using a formatted citation, whereas for things like episode lists, filmographies, etc. these should be inline citations. I know it may seem obvious that for a standalone that the original work can be verified just reading the article, but providing that general cite makes it easy to then propagate that detail to the other lists like episode lists or filmographies - we shouldn't just rely on blue-links here. And where appropriate, we can include the work unique ID, like ISBN numbers for books, to help with verification.

This should be taken as a grandfathering approach (the change doesn't disrupt anything but suggests going forward to be better in these areas), and resolves several issues of late with the sourcing of plot summaries and other details. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a huge proponent of sourcing, but my first thought about this is the uselessness of an inline citation to a primary source for a novel's plot summary in the article about that novel, when the infobox contains everything, including the ISBN. When working on an article, we shouldn't be worrying about how its contents may be repurposed in potential derivative articles. I'm not sure if I see where the current guidline is creating issues. Is anyone using this guideline to defend a lack of citations for filmographies in an actor's bio article?— TAnthony^Talk 16:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

On the plot source, for example, there's an issue over at 12 Monkeys on sourcing the plot, and at WT:FLC there's discussion about this. In terms of filmographies, coming from ITN, this is an area that is frequently uncited and we do not post recently-deceased actors if their filmographies are unsourced (even if the movies are all blue-linked).

Now, in terms of inlines, if one cannot use secondary sourcing for the plot summary, then I agree its pointless to add in primary sources just to make it look like its sourced, barring key quotes or other guidance. But I would still urge that we include, just before the reflist, a general reference to the work that would then be implied to cover all statement that have been made without inline citations (which would include the plot summary and the infobox details). --MASEM (t) 16:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the suggestion for reasons I recently made clear. I do not think that we should be telling editors, or making editors think, that they need to source plot summaries....when they really don't. We usually don't source film plot sections, and I don't think we should start doing so. As I've pointed out times before, there have been problems with editors adding "citation needed" tags to plot summaries and/or blanking plot summaries for being unsourced and making a mess of things; I do not support catering to these editors by making the "editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible" wording even stronger. The "editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible" wording is strong enough as it is. As you know, MOS:TV currently doesn't make it clear that inline citations are not needed (a change I still disagree with), while MOS:FILM is still clear that inline citations are not needed...unless interpretation is gong on. We don't need inconsistency on this matter across guidelines. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

As one that edits heavily in fiction myself, I agree with you, but I also recognize there is a huge pushback by editors that have no interest in fiction going "why is fiction exempt". I still think everyone agrees that the work itself can serve as a source, no issue there, but its the laziness that extends from that assumption, which is fine for the plot summary and cast on a standalone article, but doesn't extend elsewhere. We need editors in fiction to be more proactive at sourcing to meet that pushback. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

In 12 Monkeys it seems to me the first sentence of the article is a fully satisfactory citation to the work described. Do some people think it falls short in some way leaving readers to doubt which plot is going to be described? Or is it merely being suggested that it should be repeated in in some more formal way in the references (as it seems to be at present[1]}? And, if an article is about a book, should the information about which firm published it not be sourced to what is printed in the book? Is a movie supposed to be different?Thincat (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Masem, I don't see this "huge pushback." I occasionally see a pushback on the matter, but it is always settled in favor of not needing inline citations, including when it comes up at the WP:Original research talk page. If we are to start using inline citations to source our plot summaries, I think a big discussion needs to be had on this first (and that means including the affected WikiProjects). This discussion (which you alluded to above) is the type of discussion I dread, and it shows an editor interpreting this guideline as support for unnecessarily retaining inline citations. And in that case, only very little of the plot section is currently sourced. So, given what I see there, I am even more against this guideline being stronger with its encouragement of inline citations. I will go ahead and leave a brief comment there about the dispute I see there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've seen more of it, but it's hard to remember where else. But all these trend towards the fact that there's an unease from other aspects of WP of the implicit sourcing aspect. I do think it can encourage laziness in sourcing on other articles outside standalone works, and hence why the practice should start there to improve this. That said, I have also seen editors remove RS sources from plot summaries because "we don't source plot summaries" which is not what this guideline says. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've seen the "we don't source plot summaries" rationale more so in the case of film articles. And, really, like I stated above, we usually don't source film plot summaries, which is what anyone would take from reading WP:FILM PLOT. In the case of Wikipedia as a whole, it's also true that we usually don't source plot summaries unless it's important to do so. Television articles (including character articles) have been changing in this regard in some cases, but not enough to cause a massive change. Outside of television and film articles, play articles may or may not have their plot summaries sourced; for example, the Synopsis section of the Romeo and Juliet article is somewhat sourced. Comic book articles may or may not have their plot summaries sourced; and if they do, the television aspect of the plot summaries, in the case that the stories have been adapted to television, may not use inline citations; see the current state of the Rick Grimes article for an example. The sourcing for the television series in that case is clearly in-text references to what episodes those parts of the story take place. Similar is the case for other types of book characters. I think that video game characters are the ones I see with sourced plot sections the most, which is understandable since it's the case that many people will not be playing the game and that it can be several or more hours of gameplay if they do decide to play the game; Cloud Strife is an example. But the inline citations in plot summaries like Cloud Strife aren't really telling me where to find those story parts/quotes in the game; they are simply quotes from the game. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think this suggestion is a push in the right direction. Plot is a cruft magnet in every article with a dedicated section because no references means free-for-all. It also leads to statements like "primary sources are better than secondary sources for plot detail". If that's true, then editors are right to remove all secondary sources from descriptive claims in plot sections, but how does that make articles better? The content becomes less easily verifiable and we lose our meter for what plot detail warrants mention in the first place. The fiction recommendations are toothless: secondary sources are merely "encouraged". The easier fix is to simply change "encourage" to "prefer" secondary sourcing over primary sourcing (read: none) whenever available. czar 16:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Per what I stated above, I don't see that there is a problem to fix. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Not very helpful... I just described the problem—if you need more specific instances to "see" it, that's on you to express. czar 02:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The other fact that secondary sources need to help, just being plot summary, is to keep "associated" articles like character lists focused on only the principle basics of the fiction. Czar may be commenting here in light of a discussion that happened over at List of Mass Effect characters this diff that cut out everything sourced only to primary works, or not sourced at all. Does it pass WAF as it stands? Arguably yes - the information is all legit to the material, but it fails several encyclopedic guidelines because it doesn't use secondary sources to keep the list focused. We need to have editors thinking about using secondary sources more with any plot-related element , if they can. Again, we can still fall back that "the work itself is a source", but encouraging editors to work from the secondary sources towards primary avoids this type of cruft that is not appropriate for here. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I can dig up plenty of examples because it's endemic but today's is Wikipedia:Peer review/Jill Valentine/archive2#'In_video_games' in which other editors have said that the primary source itself is the best possible source for descriptive plot detail about a fictional character. czar 18:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You described what you perceive as a problem. I see don't see such a serious problem that we should go with your suggestion. For plot sections, you are asking us to provide inline citations and that they all be secondary, including for film plot sections? This contradicts WP:FILM PLOT? Inline citations and secondary sources usually are not needed for plot material; this is per reasons I and others have given in the past. Such a major change would require a widely-publicized RfC, given all of the editors who would disagree with it. Currently, editors can't even agree on layout and sourcing issues at MOS:FILM. I very much doubt that they will agree that we need to source film plot sections. Editors there are clear that guidelines are meant to guide, not to be overly strict.

Masem, as noted, the guideline already encourages editors to "add sourcing if possible" (not to, as stated by Czar above, use secondary sources). That is enough. There is no need to be strict in the language by stating that we prefer secondary sourcing over primary sourcing for plot sections. Secondary sources for plot sections are only needed in certain cases, and not for the entire plot. For example, there is no reason for the WP:GA article Clark Kent (Smallville) to use secondary sources for its "Role in Smallville" section instead of the primary sources it uses. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My only suggestion was to change "encourage" to "prefer", as I've shown that the "encouragement" amounts to nothing and leads to endless primary source plot expansion—it might as well be removed. Such a change wouldn't "require" anything, nevertheless changes in existing, unsourced film plots, but at least avoids the situation mentioned above in which secondary sources are added for verifiability but removed because primary sources (read: unsourced plot) are sufficient. I fail to see any contradiction with the film plot guidelines, or how you could simultaneously claim that one exists but that there isn't a discrepancy between "encouragement" and what actually happens that needs to be addressed. czar 20:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I have had editors remove secondary plot sourcing because they think it's not necessary. That's the problem. I don't expect a starting article to have it, and only if I can reasonably expect to find such in the media (for example, recaps of every The Walking Dead episode), I would demand a more thorough attempt to add, otherwise, a bare unsourced concise plot is fine. the aversion to adding sources is what worries me. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Judging by past discussions and the discussion you linked to, where editors (such as Niwi3 and SlimVirgin/SarahSV) are disagreeing with you, a big discussion would be required. We should not be changing "encourage" to "prefer," which would make it so that the "Sourcing and quotations" section states, "However, it is preferred that editors provide sourcing if possible." No, it is not preferred. The current wording of the guideline does not state that "secondary sources are encouraged." It states, "However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible." And this has already caused one issue, where an editor insisted on adding an inline citation for part of a plot section that needed no inline citation. As you can see there, the majority of editors agree that references are not needed in that case. So using "preferred" wording would be even worse. No, per WP:FILM PLOT, inline citations (whether primary or secondary) are not preferred for film plot sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

An arts-and-media MoS proposal

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal: Adopt WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines into MoS, it's been suggested to merge that WP:PROJPAGE into MoS, as one of the last remaining genre/medium-specific style guide kinds of pages that isn't in MoS, especially since someone's already put a guideline tag on it, and given it a misleading MOS:VG shortcut.

Strangely, several people from the WP:VG wikiproject have shown up to make what appear to be WP:OWN-based arguments against the idea. I hope that people from other media and arts projects, all of which have MoS pages (largely authored and maintained by people from those projects, but without a claim of absolute control by them) can participate in this discussion and assuage the unreasonable fears of people in that particular project. Promotion of topical style advice pages into MoS has not proven any kind of problem for WP:VISUALARTS, WP:ARTS, WP:FILM, WP:TV, WP:COMICS, WP:ANIME, WP:NOVELS, WP:MUSIC, etc. Meanwhile, the continued fragmentation of such a page to an "un-MoS" page (while simultaneously claiming to be an MoS page, somehow), is misleading and a recipe for conflict.

Or, if you think there's is some kind of problem, feel free to give the opposite opinion. I'm not telling anyone how they should !vote. I'm pointing out that that all the arts-and-media projects and arts-and-media MoS pages share a common sort of history, as well as the same practicality of their advice being included in MoS or shunted to a wikiproject backwater where no one is apt to take "guideline" claims seriously; it's the same across all these projects and pages. So is the increased level to which they agree instead of conflict, by virtue of MoS maintainers ironing out WP:POLICYFORKs between them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

List of exemplary articles pruning

I still feel this section is too long, even after I pruned it last year. We should probably narrow down each category to 4 or 5 entries for the sake of succinctness. What do you guys think? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 10:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Deckiller, with this edit, you added, "Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective tend to cover fictional aspects in greater detail, inviting unverifiable original research such as fan theories and unsourced analysis." But articles on fictional topics tend to cover fictional aspects in great detail regardless, meaning whether the article is written from an in-universe or real-world perspective. And including fan theories is fine when the theories have received substantial media coverage and are presented in a real-world fashion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - I tweaked that sentence. That whole statement just seems a little vague to me still, even for an introduction. I'm not sure if there is an objective correlation between original research and the perspective of the article. (Not saying that an in-universe perspective is good). Now, one could argue that an article with in-universe perspective and undue weight looks more enticing to a passer-by who wants to hit the "edit button" and add some conjecture or theories. Hmm. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. Thank you. I don't think that this is needed, but I can live with it. I'm not seeing any issues with the section, but I'm open to changes being made to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about asking questions in plot summaries

So in the current version of Unsane (film), the plot synopsis reads, "A young woman is involuntarily committed to a mental institution where she is confronted by her greatest fear — but is it real or is it a product of her delusion?" I thought to myself, surely this cheesy language is unencyclopedic, but I've been noticing many more articles with plot summaries that ask similar questions. Any thoughts on this? Would this be considered an in-universe perspective? Sro23 (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sro23: When I see questions I usually jump to "is this a copyright violation of the book jacket?" or some other such conclusion. So check to see if that's the case first. Otherwise, it's not an expository tone to ask a question, i.e., it's not a question of in/out of universe but simply bad writing. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Also agreed. Questions like that are normally an editor's attempt to write something 'exciting', rather than something encyclopedic. A question in that form isn't a summary of the plot at all, and should not be presented as if it were. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections? Bright☀ 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Previous discussion; relevant guideline:

Sourcing and quotations

The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.

Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation

Bright☀ 15:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
This RfC follows (repeated) attempts to tell other editors that the current state of affairs where most articles about fiction don't have inline sources in the plot sections is not the desirable state of affairs:

• Sources in the plot section are not discouraged.
• The current MoS guidelines encourage sources for key or complex plot points, and to ward off original research.
• Removing sources (or reverting changes in general) because they are "unnecessary" or "not needed" is not a valid reason to revert edits, references should be removed only if they are detrimental. (For example, references should be removed if they cause visual or syntactic clutter. This argument was never raised in the given content dispute; it would be difficult to argue that two citations in a six-paragraph section are "clutter").

Attempting ward off the inevitable RfC arguments against the RfC itself:

• This is not an RfC about a content dispute, it's an RfC about plot section references across all Wikipedia articles. The content dispute was linked to illustrate the problem, which is Wikipedia editors who claim local consensus over this particular Wikipedia guideline. This RfC is meant to assess whether broad consensus exists for the guideline as it is currently written.
• This RfC is not malformed. It is neutral and brief. Everything after the first signature is meant to provide the relevant background to the neutral and brief request for comment, but does not have to be neutral and brief in itself.
• This is not instruction creep. The instructions already exist in the guideline, no change is proposed, this is only an attempt to gauge consensus for these instructions. Even if it was a proposal for new instructions, they would still be necessary as emphasis that inline citations are better than unspecified implicit citations, even in plot sections and even if most articles with plot sections do not have inline citations.

Bright☀ 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Additionally the wording of WP:PRIMARY support this guideline::

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Wikipedia · No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

If this guideline does not have consensus, then the policy will need to be changed too. Discussion prior to making the aforementioned quote a part of policy, discussion after the quote was made part of policy, the sentence being put into the policy in 2008, remains unchanged to this day. So people who like to say "it's only a guideline, not a policy", there you go: citing passages as primary sources in a plot sectioni is policy too. If there's no consensus for it then there's some serious failure in Wikipedia for allowing it to be part of policy for nine going ten years. Bright☀ 14:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you are seeking support for use of primary sourcing then you need to make that clear in the RfC question otherwise I would consider the RfC to be posed deceptively. Of course editors are going to support citation, it is the basis of WP:V but, from the discussion below, it is apparent you wish to use this RfC to change how primary sourcing and citation is used. That is not the question posed by this RfC and a Support close simply can not be used as a legitimate basis for such changes. Jbh ^Talk 15:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If you are seeking support for use of primary sourcing then you need to make that clear in the RfC question otherwise I would consider the RfC to be posed deceptively. I knew someone would claim the RfC is deceptive or malformed even though it asks a simple question and the guideline in question is quoted verbatim. Sigh... If you didn't know plot sections can be referenced to the primary source, then you didn't read the guideline and you're supporting or opposeing something you didn't even read, which I feel is common around here. it is apparent you wish to use this RfC to change how primary sourcing and citation is used. Would you look at that, two for two! No, this RfC wishes to change nothing. The guideline is quoted verbatim and people can read it a mere paragraph or two above. Either there's consensus for this guideline or there isn't. If there is, that includes primary sources. If there isn't, then it needs to change. Thank you for getting the obvious out of the way. Bright☀ 15:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You added the top part, and everything other than the six bullet points, of the Discussion after I, and others, had commented. That is correct. For reference, the original pre-discussion "discussion" section, with the guideline linked under "relevant guideline" in the very first line. I later added the guideline inline because people weren't reading the link. If anything, I am making concrete efforts for people to read the guideline in question. Bright☀ 16:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the guideline was linked in your opening 'discussion' statement but it was not "quoted verbatum" in the RfC as you originally posted it nor is it referenced in the question as posed. Nor does the RfC question or your initial 'discussion' address what it is you want to encourage or how the current guideline is not being followed. Your question is a restatement of the existing guideline. How do you expect things to change if this closes Support — the guideline is unchanged and current practice would therefore be unchanged. What do you think Oppose would mean — most of the opposes are saying current practice is proper.

My guess, is that you want this to be a referendum on the conflicts you linked but that is not the question you asked and you can not claim that supports for this RfC are supports for the position you take in those disputes. Jbh ^Talk 16:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

My guess, is that you want this to be a referendum on the conflicts you linked there we go, three for three... funny how that happens in every RfC. but it was not "quoted verbatum" in the RfC I didn't say it's quoted verbatim in the RfC, I said it's quoted verbatim. I quoted it verbatim because people didn't bother to read it when it was merely linked in the very first line of the original discussion section of the RfC. Do you regularly support/oppose RfCs without reading the discussion? That's very bad. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Nor does the RfC question or your initial 'discussion' address what it is you want to encourage Sheesh again... the question is literally Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections? I guess it doesn't address what's encouraged? Oh wait... "to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections". Whoa, it's like it's right there!!! How do you expect things to change if this closes Support — the guideline is unchanged and current practice would therefore be unchanged. What do you think Oppose would mean — most of the opposes are saying current practice is proper. It was a yes/no question but people were in such a hurry to WP:NOTVOTE that they, evidently, didn't bother reading neither the question nor the guideline it addresses. Again, thank you for bringing this extremely basic point to light. Bright☀ 16:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Now you are just ranting. Instead of doing that why not explain what it is that you think is not being done and how the guideline is not being followed. As it stands, applying basic knowledge of Wikipedia's sourcing policies and by not reading the Plot section in isolation, it is necessary to, per WP:PRIMARY not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source". This is mirrored, in the Plot section which says "… encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps to discourage original research".^{(emp mine)} The final section of plot, the one you are focused on, must be read with the same caveat of avoiding original research. As I mentioned in my !vote below, dealing with most 'complex' plot points involves some form of analysis or judgment therefore the situations where quoting the work is limited. There are cases where it may be appropriate and in those cases editors are, per the guideline, encouraged to cite the work. (An example might be an 'info dump' or exposition where the narrator or character addresses the point or a point where a director 'hangs a lantern' on it.) That, however, is a matter of editorial judgment. You may disagree with the current collective editorial judgment (aka WP:CONSENSUS) but that is, again, not something you address in the RfC question which would be worthwhile to address here. Jbh ^Talk 17:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC) last edited

Now you are just ranting What a lovely way not to address anything I said and pretend you weren't wrong about what I pointed out in specific detail. You may disagree with the current collective editorial judgment (aka WP:CONSENSUS) but that is, again, not something you address in the RfC question which would be worthwhile to address here. RfCs are specifically meant to address consensus. Again thank you for saying exactly the wrong thing so I can point out the obvious right thing. dealing with most 'complex' plot points involves some form of analysis or judgment And as I replied to Erik, key or complex plot points do not necessarily require analysis; in fact both the policy and the guideline say they can be cited to a passage from the primary source, without any analysis or synthesis or anything that requires a secondary or tertiary source. Bright☀ 17:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You simply are not listening — hell my !vote even partially supports your position. I gave an example, just above, of the type of complex point that may, in my opinion, be cited to the work. In what other cases would it be proper to cite the work? Either the work clearly states the point, as above, or it does not. I do not see anyone arguing against the former and the later is clearly an OR violation.

You seem to be reading the Plot guideline pedantically and in isolation while completely missing what most everyone is saying — Yes you can and should cite the work on a complex plot point which is clearly and unambiguously addressed within the work otherwise you can not because it is OR. Is it not happening that way? Do you think that statement incorrect? Jbh ^Talk 19:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

completely missing what most everyone is saying — Yes you can and should cite the work on a complex plot point which is clearly and unambiguously addressed within the work Would be nice if most everyone were saying that, you'd see a nice long string of yeses below... but that isn't the case. Some people simply don't accept citing plot points to the primary source, which is the source of the content dispute and the reason this RfC is gauging consensus on the guideline. Bright☀ 06:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Malformed RfC

I'm of the opinion here that given how often BrightR has had to clarify what the RfC is actually about after everyone's !votes that the RfC probably is malformed in some way, specifically in that it isn't clear enough in what it's actually asking. I additionally suspect this because it just seems everyone is giving an opinion on a slightly different matter. It just feels to me like there's a lot of different conversations going on here and few people are on the same page with each other, let alone with BrightR. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I 100% support resubmitting this RfC in a way that people will actually read it and respond to it instead of arguing about things that aren't there. For example one editor opposees the "requirement for citations for plot summaries". Such a requirement was never part of the RfC, yet this editor (and others) for some reason argue against it. This isn't one or two editors; the overwhelming majority of editors support and oppose their own suggestions that simply aren't part of the RfC. What would be a short, neutral statement that people will actually read and respond to? Bright☀ 10:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest an RFC that seeks approval for the specific clarifying amendments to the guideline that I suggested in green text in the Survey section, below. There needs to be a proposal for a definite change to the guideline, if you think that one is needed, otherwise there will always be the suspicion that you're really seeking support in a content dispute. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that the overall consensus of the votes and comments is clear enough. An RFC is not something that is literally voted up or down - this is why we have comments and why we use the term "!vote". It is fine for each commenter to focus on a slightly different aspect of the topic - that is how a consensus develops. In this case, the very clear consensus is against tightening the language about sourcing in plot summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I know this. The reason I'm concerned about the divergences is that BrightR, in my understanding, is constantly concerned that rare anyone has actually addressed the specific issue at hand. I also am not exactly sure what the RfC is trying to accomplish. You suggested that it's seeking a change in language on the MOS, but that's very unclear to me. There hasn't been an actual proposal to change the language here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Bluntly, I believe BrightR's almost sole reason for having initiated this RfC is so that they can claim they have a consensus to support the edits they made at 12 Monkeys. The couldn't get a clear consensus at the Talk page when they tried, edit-warred on the article to the extent that I felt compelled to report them at 3RN when they ignored a direct request from me imploring them not to reinsert their edits without a clear consensus, and maintain that their edits are right and implicitly supported by policy even when it's become abundantly clear that while their edits may be supported by a reading of policy, there is far from a consensus that their edits should be supported by policy. Indeed, they are so convinced of their own self-righteousness that they couldn't even acknowledge they were violating edit-warring policy without claiming I'm right. DonIago (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It does seem that multiple editors' opposition to the citations BrightR added to 12 Monkeys prompted this RfC. That's fine, and the RfC can be made more specific, but I will say that exhaustively quoting a primary source on plot points that don't seem to require interpretation is the very definition of unnecessary, and I think most editors here agree. What BrightR shoud really do is open a discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys explaining why he believes quoting dialogue is important to understanding the plot summary. If consensus cannot be reached to restore the material, which is likely, everyone can move on with their lives.— TAnthony^Talk 14:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• It depends Anything which requires analysis, interpretation or insight should be cited to third party reliable sources or commentary of writer/director per WP:NOR. Jbh ^Talk 19:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 14:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  In the case of citing the work in the plot section I would say it is only necessary to highlight/demonstrate some point which will later be addressed, and supported by RS, in later or concurrent analysis. Arguably even saying a given plot point is key is an act of original research requiring judgment of significance. Jbh ^Talk 15:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose primary references, Support secondary references. If it requires analysis, interpretation or insight then we should start looking to sources other than the work itself. DonIago (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• The more complex the plot, the more important it is described out-of-universe. This will preclude referencing to the primary source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a long needed correction to an OR not expert problem all over these articles. Not sure how this has been like this for so long. It's a basic that information be sourced...let alone the bases for conflict resolution... how can people debate things without any sources. --Moxy (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not sure what is supposed to be meant by "key," and we don't add references to plot sections simply because the plot section is complex. We add them when needed. I see that this and this discussion has resulted in this RfC. Editors should especially look at the first discussion and see if you agree that the one reference was needed there. I know I didn't. The same goes for most others in that discussion. I'll go ahead and alert WP:Film, MOS:FILM and WP:TV and MOS:TV to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, it is encouraged No paragraph should be without in-line citation, including plots. (I make no judgement about the dispute at 12 Monkeys.) Chris Troutman (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose using primary sources for "complex plot points", which is what this RfC is really about. Moxy, Chris troutman, this RfC is really about 12 Monkeys at which BrightR wants to use primary source inline citations to "prove" certain "complex plot points". No one actually opposes using secondary sources for inline citations; WikiProject Film supports this with WP:FILMPLOT, "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section." It should be further noted that BrightR only launched this RfC because they were opposed by five or six editors in using the primary-source inline citations, and they have the audacity to declare that they are right and everyone else is wrong in regard to applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The fact that this RfC makes no distinction between primary and secondary sources is problematic in itself. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Erik: I agree with SmokeyJoe and Doniago: secondary sources are needed to verify the plot. I don't like the idea of citing the movie at x minutes because that screams OR. BrightR's question was about encouraging use of citations in plot summaries, which I affirm. If you think BrightR is being tendentious, then please take the issue to WP:ANI. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  Chris troutman, Doniago isn't saying that plot sections need to have inline citations. Doniago said, "If it requires analysis, interpretation or insight then we should start looking to sources other than the work itself." And this RfC is about sourcing for "key" and "complex" plot aspects, not the whole plot section. Why do you think we should source the whole plot section? WP:OR "means material for which no published, reliable source exists"; it doesn't mean "unsourced." And for films, for example, the film itself is the source. Where we get into problems is when people start interpreting character motivations and putting in things that are not in the television show, film, book or other form of media. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  BrightR only launched this RfC because they were opposed by five or six editors in using the primary-source inline citations, and they have the audacity to declare that they are right and everyone else is wrong in regard to applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines This RfC is about consensus for this guideline. If there isn't any, it shouldn't be a guideline. If there is, then people explicitly can't use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore it. I don't like the idea of citing the movie at x minutes because that screams OR Unfortunately that is also encouraged by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which means if they don't represent consensus, they shouldn't be policies and guidelines. Specifically WP:PRIMARY: For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot. So now we got the guideline MOS:PLOT and the policy WP:PRIMARY and the question is: do they represent consensus? If they don't, then they need to be changed. If they do, local consensus can't override them. Bright☀ 13:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  You're right that WP:PRIMARY says that, but you are omitting the entire sentence, "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." As seen on the talk page, you used secondary sources to validate the "complex plot points". Why not simply use these secondary sources? WP:PRIMARY says earlier, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." What does "with care" mean? It means to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" that everyone can agree with. If you have to resort to inline citations to support a passage that is not straightforward, then use secondary sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  Why not simply use these secondary sources? Because there is no analysis and the quotes make it far easier for the reader to understand the plot as it is presented in the movie, with no analysis. The secondary sources were provided because some of the talk-page editors argued that these are not key plot points. I told them that secondary sources identify these plot points as key plot points, not that I need to analyze these plot points with secondary sources in the plot section. Regardless, that does not invalidate the use of a primary source, which is explicitly encouraged by the guideline: using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. The RfC merely asks if there is consensus for this guideline, but people seem to not bother with reading it and immediately assume this is about analysis and usage of primary sources for analysis. Stop jumping to conclusions and just read the guideline! Bright☀ 15:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  "Analysis" is the extreme end of the spectrum, but obviously, we are not talking about "straightforward, basic descriptive statements of facts" here. We're exploring the space in between, right? Because if you think inline citations are necessary here, we've moved beyond being straightforward and basic, and that crosses a line. If you don't agree, try to think of it this way. We could easily have an inline citation at the end of the six paragraphs using the {{Cite AV media}} template that cites the film. We would technically have the whole plot summary verified as long as there is consensus for the basic description of the story. This is implicit in all plot summaries. Here, the two inline citations stand out and basically indicates that something needs more clarifying than what is basically written. But if these inline citations are self-referential, it begs the question, why are they more necessary than any other passage in the summary? Why not reference quotes inline throughout? If there is emphasis on clarifying a particular plot point for which a basic description is not enough, then we should be switching over to secondary sources. That imports outside weight and credibility to complete the clarification. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  We're exploring the space in between, right? Because if you think inline citations are necessary here, we've moved beyond being straightforward and basic, and that crosses a line. Just because something is key or complex doesn't mean explaining it is analysis or "the space in between". To use the 12 Monkeys example, the key plot point that time can't be changed requires no analysis, but it's still complex enough to merit being mentioned as complex (or "distinctive" as the secondary source puts it). But even if we throw away the "or complex" bit, both the policy and the guideline still encourage using references for plot points in general:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Wikipedia · No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

The policy talks about citing a passage to describe a plot. No requirement for analysis or "space in between". the two inline citations stand out and basically indicates that something needs more clarifying than what is basically written Not at all. They are there to tell the reader "this is a key or complex plot point and its description adheres almost word-for-word to the primary source". If there is emphasis on clarifying a particular plot point for which a basic description is not enough, then we should be switching over to secondary sources. That is not what the policy and the guideline say. A citation to a primary source is sufficient for "describing the plot", and "using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points." This is what the RfC is about: is the policy and guideline not the consensus (one of them for nine going ten years, mind), or are they the consensus? Because if you can't use passages from a primary source to cite key or complex plot, then the policy and guideline need to be changed. Bright☀ 17:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Encourage only in limited circumstances and make it clear what those are. It is long-established consensus, and already stated in the guideline, that plot summaries do not generally need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the summary. So the issue is under what circumstances - if at all - should editors be "encouraged" to cite the primary source explicitly? (Obviously, any secondary sources where used would need to be cited in any event).

The guideline is not well-written and does not properly distinguish cites to the work itself and to secondary sources. The sentence "However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps to discourage original research" might suggest that explicitly citing the primary source is always a good thing, even in straightforward cases where the stated assumption applies. But, the last sentence is much narrower and says that "using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points". The guideline would be improved by making it clearer that:

1. Plot summaries don't need inline citations if they are wholly based on the primary work

2. Citations to the work itself are encouraged only where it might be unclear that that is in fact the case.

Some wording along the following lines would be an improvement to the existing guideline:

The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not normally require in-line citations where the work itself provides the entire source for the summary. However, the use of in-line citations to specific brief quotations within the work is encouraged where it may be unclear to a reader that the summary is indeed wholly based on the work. For example, where a complex or key plot point could easily be misunderstood or overlooked, an in-line citation to a direct quotation may be helpful. If the summary itself includes a direct quotation from the work, this must in any event be cited using an inline citation per WP:QUOTE. If the summary relies on sources other than the work itself, they must be cited in the normal way.

This would help to ensure clarity if a reader might otherwise be confused or think that the summary is incorrect. Where there is a content dispute, of course, the issue for discussion on the talk page should firstly be whether the proposed content is or is not correct and appropriate for the summary. Secondary sources (with citations) might help. Only if there's consensus that the content should be included should editors then consider whether it would benefit from a specific in-line citation to the primary work to ensure that readers won't be misled or misunderstand. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This wording isn't very different from the existing wording and in either case I support both. Bright☀ 13:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Our policy is clear... Plot description can (if necessary) be cited to the work itself. Plot analysis requires a secondary source. That sounds simple, but it actually isn't... especially when the plot is complex. When writing a description of a complex point in a plot, it is very very easy to (inadvertently) slide over the line into plot analysis. So... When writing a plot description, it is important to summarize... and to keep the that summary very basic. We should especially avoid trying to describe nuances in the plot (that is where editors most frequently slide over the line into analysis). As a general "rule of thumb"... the more you say about a plot, the more you will end up needing to use a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong. It doesn't say if necessary. Citing plot sections is not necessary, but reverting an edit because it is "not necessary" is against Wikipedia policy. The guideline says editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible (not "if necessary"), which the RfC clearly states. Bright☀ 14:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I was not referring to the literal wording of the guideline... but to broader Policy. Specifically, I was thinking of WP:BURDEN... normally, we can “assume” that a basic plot summary is supported by an “unwritten” citation to the work itself... but if that plot summary is challenged, it becomes “necessary” to support it with a written citation. This written citation can be to the work itself, as long as we don’t slip into analysis. But as soon as we do slip into analysis we need a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This RfC was brought in bad faith after one previous discussion as well as the current discussion went against the editor who started this discussion. Simply quoting the film and pretending that these are references is rather silly, and that is what this entire debate comes down to. As I have said all along, if the film needs to be quoted, quote it directly in the plot section. Why package it as a reference? And, if secondary sources are needed to explain "complex plot points," that is why we have analysis sections in numerous film articles. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Why package it as a reference? Because Wikipedia policies and guidelines say so... That is the point of the RfC. Bright☀ 14:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Odd the film project doesn't follow our basic policy on verification.... it's why there are so many problems like to one outlined above. WP:BURDEN should apply to all projects especially in an area of analysis.--Moxy (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's funny everybody is talking about analysis when the guideline in question and the RfC have nothing to do with analysis... Bright☀ 14:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Citations are good. But we should assume that someone reading an article about a work of art, and reading the plot section in particular, will be able to check the plot against the actual work which is being described. So there is no reason to add numerous citations to the same original work of art throughout the plot section. If secondary references are needed, then they should certainly be added. This would be true, for example, if the plot section makes interpretive claims or if aspects of the plot are not clear from the original work of art. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

there is no reason to add numerous citations to the same original work of art throughout the plot section. Then why is this both a policy and a guideline? Quoting the primary source is helpful in verifying the plot summary is faithful to the primary source. Bright☀ 15:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

When you find that your interpretation of a guideline doesn't agree with other interpretations, one thing to ask is whether your own interpretation might be wrong, or whether you are reading the guideline more strictly than it is meant to be read. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's read them together, shall we?

Sourcing and quotations

The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.

Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Wikipedia · No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points and For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot. What, exactly, is the "strict" and "loose" interpretation here? There seems to be a single interpretation: it is helpful to source key or complex plot points to passages [that] describe the plot. Yes? No? Bright☀ 17:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Use secondary sources whenever possible if the whole work can be properly summarized with them, limit the work itself for either navigational aids or limited points Personally, if I can find one or two secondary sources that provide a sufficient level of recap of an entire work, as often the case for TV episodes, I feel we should use those to some degree. However, this type of secondary sourcing is not always there : most film reviews only cover the basic plot and not the resolution, for example, and half-assing only some references is not a good use of those. At that point, we should only use the work itself if we need to provide points of navigation (a recap of War & Peace needs placeholders to know where things happen, for example), or in the case of many video games, where the non-linear experience may mean people may miss content, supplying where that content is. I'm not thrilled much with the idea of using the work for "complex" plot points as that implies some OR in what is complex. The page where this came from, 12 Monkeys, is a "complicated" time travel plot but readily clear since it follows the experience of one person in their chronological view, and so the points that are being implied as complex are complex, but they're also readily obvious. --Masem (t) 16:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

that implies some OR in what is complex Editors are encouraged to provide secondary sources that mention key or complex plot points as references. If an editor can't show that secondary or tertiary sources talk about the plot point as key or complex, then it's original research. the points that are being implied as complex are complex, but they're also readily obvious. Apparently not, as several times the plot section was edited with original research that contradicts those plot points, so much so that one of the editors added hidden text asking editors not to add this original research. And since they are mentioned as key or complex plot points ("distinctive" is the exact word used) by secondary sources, then there is evidently justification to treat them as key or complex plot points. But the RfC is not about 12 Monkeys specifically, but about the use of references in plot sections in general, per the quoted policy and guideline in the discussion section above. Bright☀ 16:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• This all comes down to the fact that our WP:V policy requires information to be verifiable... but does not require us to actually verify it (with an in-line citation) unless “challenged or likely to be challenged”. Now, a very basic descriptive outline of a works plot is “assumed” to be verifiable by reading/viewing the work itself. Call it an “unwritten” citation, if you want. We don’t actually have to write that citation UNLESS the summary is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. However, IF challenged, we do need to cite it (per WP:BURDEN). Now... Part 2 of this is determining what to cite... IF the plot description is very basic, we can still cite the work itself (the primary source)... as that will verify what we wrote... but as our description gets more complex, the more we need to cite a secondary source (because there is a greater chance that we have gone beyond mere description, and inadvertently included analysis in what we wrote). Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• If it's a complicated plot point that isn't easy to parse with just viewing the film itself or is ambiguous, use a secondary source. Citing a quote from the film? I don't understand how quoting the film is going to help clear up a complicated or truly ambiguous plot point. If everything for a section titled plot summary is just going to be citing the film itself, I don't see why we'd need quote citations. It's strongly implied that a plot summary of an accessible film is sourced to the film. This is what this manual says and is the practice for plot summary sections across multiple forms. And, really, if this isn't an RfC about analysis and if it isn't an RfC about 12 Monkeys, I do not really understand why there's an RfC at all here. The RfC is basically so broad it's asking "should the MoS remain exactly as it is". ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m actually trying to figure out how this became an MOS discussion in the first place... where is the “style” issue? Instruction creep? Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, the issue here is not about citing sources but it is a user behavior issue. Plot summaries are exactly that: a summary. Not an interpretation or a review. No need to explain more than the outline of the plot, which can be verified by anyone who reads the book or watches the movie/tv show. Of course, there are exceptions to this (I wouldn't try to provide a summary of "what happens" in Koyaanisqatsi) & if there is ambiguity in the plot or a loss of text where experts disagree over "what happens", then a secondary source should be used to establish this. But to return to my point, anyone who passes or exceeds WP:COMPETENCE should be able to write an acceptable plot summary without need of citing secondary sources in 19 out of 20 cases. Since there is no grey area about including secondary sources, I have to suspect ulterior motives when someone who insists on including them. (And IIRC, there is no ambiguity or textual corruption in 12 Monkeys that demand using secondary sources to provide a plot summary. It's a time-travel story with a couple of unexpected plot twists.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Use Common Sense Plot summaries are transformative works created collaboratively by Wikipedia editors. Thus, they are technically OR, and the reason we don't cite them to the work itself is simplicity: everyone can see what we're summarizing, and adding the primary source references is of limited help at best. If good faith editors can't come to a consensus on a plot point suggested to be included in a summary, then it is obviously non-intuitive, non-straightforward, and is not suitable to be sourced to a primary source: thus, the controversial point should be left out if a secondary source is not available to comment upon it. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Jclemens, although I wouldn't call plot summaries OR, I agree with typically not needing to cite a plot summary to the work itself. As you may remember, and as seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 7#Where we stand now, I argued this before, but there were arguments that television character plot summaries, for example, should be sourced to primary sources because the summaries concern different episodes. Bignole stated, "I think what needs to be made clear is that plot sections when they exist in episode lists (tables) do not require references. They do require references when you put them in character articles or as more prose summaries. The reason is, the table acts as the reference in the LoE situation. It has all the information you need for citing, so there isn't a reason to cite it again. In the others, you need that, which is why we have the "cite episode" template for references. It seems like a quick sentence or so to clarify. [...] Pot information on another page cannot source itself. They only 'source themselves' on episode articles and episode tables because the information has everything you need to verify it. The whole idea of 'you can watch it to verify it' requires you to be able to determine when and where to watch it. [...] It is reasonable to expect that if someone challenges an event described for a character from season 4 episode 5 to just go watch it to verify it. It is unreasonable to expect them to watch all 3 seasons prior to that because we couldn't even give them the information of where it was." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support using sources, but the work itself is the best source so long as there's no interpretation. Any interpretation needs a secondary source. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• If memory serves one issue that was raised in the past about using references for plot summaries is that secondary sources often get the plot wrong and/or add their own interpretations that do not necessarily belong into a plot summary as opposed to a reception section (c.f Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Analysis and interpretation: "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work"). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Even if the secondary source gets the plot wrong (and I just saw that today, between recaps of the latest Walked Dead ep from RSes), there are still broad enough strokes that are impossible to get wrong that make sourcing a plot to secondary sources, if possible for the entire work, a reasonable step to do; in the case I just found, I'd include both.) --Masem (t) 20:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • If you're writing about Smith's novel, then "Smith (2018), p. 3" is the best source for "Susan bought another bottle of gin", so long as it's purely descriptive. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This is exactly why citing the plot to a primary source is the most reliable, and it's exactly what the policy says. Bright☀ 06:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hm. I'm of the opinion that if anything is complex or ambiguous enough to require secondary sourcing to explain it, it doesn't belong in the plot summary section but rather somewhere else (analysis, interpretations, themes etc). Plot summaries should be a recounting of the narrative as described, although I don't know whether this is captured in guidelines anywhere or this is just my personal preference. For this, the work as a primary source would be sufficient. However, if interpretation of events is being placed in a plot summary section (or elsewhere) then Support using secondary sources for it. Scribolt (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any requirement for citations for plot summaries beyond what is recommended by current guidelines. I have a tendency to "overcite" articles with multiple citations in cases where one will suffice, and even I think it is unnecessary, unhelpful overkill to cite basic plot. We already have the caveat that interpretive summary needs sourcing.— TAnthony^Talk 21:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You oppose a requirement for references for the plot, but the RfC is not about requiring references in the plot... Is it really that hard to read before you !vote? Bright☀ 17:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. It is important for citations and references in key plot summaries, and the references help prove the plot is accurate and true. Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 07:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Not sure what support or oppose actually means in this survey since it doesn't actually provide a direction at the top' - So, to be clear where I stand: I support the use of primary sources (the work itself) when simply describing the events (no interpretation needed) of the plot in basic facts. If there is a grey area that requires explanation then I support and would require the use of secondary sources to support such a claim (which may or may not need to be in the plot in the first place). I oppose the requirement of in-line citation (which, by the way, is not a requirement anywhere, simply a suggestion) when it comes to using the primary source as the reference (obviously, since the in-line citation would be redundant at that point). I would encourage in-line citations for anything that requires a secondary source. Lastly, I keep reading this notion that using primary sources "screams OR". We have a definition of original research, and using a primary source doesn't automatically make something OR when you discuss it in the plot. For those of you that keep using it this way, I'm inclined to think of a |Mr. Montoya. Now, I do agree that a single editor claiming something is "key" when others disagree is problematic, but let's be honest here... you're rarely going to find a secondary source identifying plot points as "key". You cannot even go by "we'll just use what they say" because they are either just quoting the marketing synopsis for a film or show, or they are going into great detail about the entire film in which case we cannot follow (word count and all). But that's a separate issue here than I think what people think they are voting for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

off-topic I'd like to point out that 12 Monkeys is actually significant enough to be discussed at length in what passes for the technical literature of pop culture, like Journal of Religion and Popular Culture and various semi-technical books such as Eating the Dinosaur. So in this particular case, yes, there are reliable sources that name these plot points as key plot points. In general, though, you're correct, because 90% of published creative work is trash that simply does not have any reliable sources that say which of their plot points are "key", but it is not the case for 12 Monkeys. This is, indeed, a separate issue that is not the issue raised in this RfC... this RfC is attempting to gauge consensus for the question posed in the RfC, and the guideline and policy it stems from. Bright☀ 18:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing the RfC

@Doniago:: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. The RfC has been open for 30 days and no new comments have been made in over two weeks. I can close this RfC with "no consensus" and your ignorance of when and how to close an RfC (5) is again making you come to the wrong conclusion. Quoting an Article for Deletion closure procedure for an RfC closure is wrong. Bright☀ 07:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@BrightR: Someone deeply involved in an RFC should rarely be the one to close it. That discussion is ended is a fact. That you are the person to provide a conclusion is an incorrect belief. --Izno (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That is not the reason you gave. The reason you gave (how to close a deletion discussion) was wrong. Bright☀ 08:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Actors in plot summaries

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections

Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Published order vs Story order

I feel it would be more helpful to list things in story order rather then published order is list phantom menance first rather then fourth. LordFluffington454 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Information is organized not by in-universe (WP:INUNIVERSE) considerations but by real-world considerations. Story order is in-universe, release order is real-world. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I would think so. The plot summary is where to get stuff into in-universe chron. order. See, for example, Foundation series.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed style for rhyme schemes

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

A proposal has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Rhyme scheme patterns, that Wikipedia adopt a consistent style for rhyme scheme notation. Scansion is also mentioned.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Character infobox

Regarding Danny Torrance, there is a discussion about changing the character infobox. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Linking to Essays

It is not appropriate to include links to essays in a policy or guideline document. Essays are not policy, they have not been approved by the community, and many essays are in fact failed policy proposals. Linking to essays, especially inside the text of the guideline, creates a false and misleading impression of authority. If it hasn't been approved by the community, it is not WP. 172.97.180.39 (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Bart to the Future

I am interested in adding an additional remark regarding a bullet point from WP:INUNIVERSE, but need the go-ahead to do so. The specific bullet point currently reads:

Making connections to real-world people, places, or events that are not clearly established by the work. Editors can include material about historical events and figures when writing about historical fiction (e.g., how the fiction diverges from recorded history), but they should not assume connections for speculative fiction. For example, the 1988 film Akira takes place in Neo-Tokyo on the eve of the 2020 Olympics. By happenstance, the real-world Tokyo will host the 2020 Summer Olympics; do not conflate or compare the fictional event of the film with the actual event.

The remark I would add is:

However, when a prediction has received coverage in reliable sources or entered the popular culture, it may be discussed in a separate Reception or Legacy section. For example, the reference to a future presidency of Donald Trump in The Simpsons episode "Bart to the Future" can be discussed in an appropriate section.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm down with that. Seems perfectly reasonable. (even with Back to the Future part II, we have the cubs appearance in the post season in 2015 which is mentioned --Masem (t) 03:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it time to update WP:PLOTSOURCE?

Is it time to update MOS:PLOTSOURCE in light of what happened at the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood page (where an incorrect plot summary persisted in the article for quite some time before the movie was released, as documented in the numerous articles listed on the talk page)?

WP:SOURCE says that reliable sources must be published, which it interprets as made available to the public in some form, and WP:FILMPLOT has been updated to exclude those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals. In light of that, I propose changing the first sentence to read:

The plot summary for a published work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. For the purposes of this section, advance copies, galley proofs, screeners, test screenings, film festival screenings, and other releases that are limited to a small number of people are not considered to be publication.

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I would also add illegitimate leaks to that list but otherwise yes. --Masem (t) 17:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the change for the general case. If FILMPLOT wants to be restrictive because it's a particular issue for films, that doesn't bother me. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This issue applies to TV shows as well. But unlike movies, screeners etc. for TV episodes get released a few days before the broadcast instead of sometimes months (and TV is usually not as high-profile), so the damage is just not as big. The point remains that fiction that has not widely been been released yet, cannot be its own source (because of inaccessability). The second paragraph of WP:V applies here. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This. And I can expect it will happen some point for video games. The other side this addresses is the case where a show is released on a limited PAYWALL service but otherwise publicly accessible, at which point a plot summary can be had without violating this MOS or somethng like SPOILERS. (Maybe that's another thing to address, that PAYWALL-based availability is not such a factor here). --Masem (t) 15:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem I see both with the suggested change and the FILM guideline is that WP:V is satisfied by "pre-showings" of whatever form. (Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".) Now, maybe you want to argue that the preceding sentence (Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.) is not satisfied, but in the case of just about every plot and article on Wikipedia, these are not satisfied. So, stop having it both ways, IMO. :) If we really want to go down this path, then perhaps the correction to make is that all plots must be sourced to items other than the article's topic itself. I have a separate opinion on that, but if we're going to allow plots generally to be unsourced, then plots of limited availability to the public (but not zero-availability to the public) should also be allowed on Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

In the sense of WP:V, a "published" work means that any person outside of reasonable cost and travel should be able to validate the information in a work. A film with a wide release has that (even if it is hard to find a local showing or have to wait for home media/streaming) A Pre-screening specifically disallows that since the film isn't available anywhere else until it has its wider opening and only a limited number of people have the capability to confirm. That was effectively the issue with the Hollywood film: someone claimed to have gone to a film festival and wrote the plot on that but it was completely wrong (something no one could check due to no wide publication) and WP was called out for that by people attached to the film. --Masem (t) 15:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I literally quoted the line which defines "published". You don't get to make up a definition. Where is there support in WP:V for the notion of source accessibility? --Izno (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you're simply wrong. You need to review WP:SOURCEACCESS. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange). --Izno (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point I'm saying. A film shown at a film festival to a limited audience is not published, because afterwards, and until release, there is no way for a member of the public to access that film with any reasonable expectation. Whether you can through a wad of cash at a studio to let you have a private screening is no way an assured means of seeing the film, failing this part of V. The public does not have access to a film that has only been pre-screened. --Masem (t) 20:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Izno, you may come to different conclusions because you seem to define "public" differently. IMO, anything that restricts how many people can see a film/TV episode, cannot be considered public (pre-releases, screeners). This is relevant for wikipedia, because every(!) latecomer will be excluded from checking the primary source itself (except for illegal downloads), and they would need to rely on secondary sources. The usual ways of release (theaters, TV, home-media), paywalls and library archives are not restrictive in numbers and can be checked by anyone at any time (barring expenses), so they can be considered public. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Screeners for TV shows are often sent out before the first episode airs, but they often contain the first three or four episodes. Therefore, a screener could easily come out over a month before the episode airs. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent addition to "‎Analysis and interpretation" section

Regarding this recent addition (followup edit here) by Masem to the "‎Analysis and interpretation" section, which probably should have been discussed before it was added (seeing as this is a guideline that widely affects articles), I made this edit (followup edit here) so that "should" is now "may." Like I stated, if the film clearly shows a character at a Circle K, for example, and someone adds "Circle K" to the film plot, editors are not likely to see this as interpretation/OR. It's just unnecessary detail. This is why I think "should" is too strong of a word. What we want is to keep editors from adding unnecessary detail, such as what store a character visited, what brand of soda a character drank, what model of car or gun a character used. Editors have, for example, interpreted a gun model differently, disagreeing over what model it is. And so this falls under the OR category. But when the gun model is without a doubt that model, I wouldn't state that it's OR that an editor has included that detail. I would simply state that it's unnecessary detail. And, indeed, there are likely to be reliable sources that take the time to mention the gun model, while Wikipedia does not because mentioning it is not necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

True, but at the same time, even if the work specifically names the brand/model, it may not be that important to the film's plot or real-world importance. Trying to keep in mind a global perspective. So let's take the case of Bill & Ted's where Circle K is specifically named and shown, so there's no OR. Is it the fact it is a Circle K important, understanding that probably most of the rest of the world outside the US won't know what that is, or that it is a convenience store, which I would consider to be sufficiently universally known globally? I'd argue we'd want editor to be as generic as possible as a starting point, and then argue when a brand or model has to be included. --Masem (t) 16:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that "even if the work specifically names the brand/model, it may not be that important to the film's plot or real-world importance" is why I noted that "what we want is to keep editors from adding unnecessary detail" and I agree with the rest of what you added to the section. I only took issue with one use of "should." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"Legendary" causes lack of clarity

The more that is written on Wikipedia about mythical, fictional characters from ancient sagas & tales, more and more due to TV shows where they are portrayed as real people of history, and many excited TV viewers think they were (and want them to be), the more confusion the word "legendary" is causing. Legendary, as we know, is also often used about famous stars in many fields in our own time, actual persons who have existed. Does anyone think there might be a need for a guideline recommendation to avoid the word when describing people from old Viking stories etc. Ragnar Lothbroc was a man of legend, yes, but I think many people misunderstand it if we say about him and such persons that they are "legendary". It is then safe to assume thet he was (1) a real person and (2) greatly renowned and thus called "legendary". Mae West is a legendary movie star, but not a Viking princess. Thoughts? Couldn't "mythical" or "storied" be better to recommend than "legendary"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This MOS makes no recommendations in regards to this word, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch lists "legendary" as its first word to watch. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Perhaps it would a good idea to especially address the matter of "legendary" also as causing confusion when used more and more often re: mythological characters mentioned in legends? Or specifically that we should avoid the word even in such articles? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox character and WAF

Editors of this page may be interested in Template talk:Infobox character § Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. Izno (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I was about to post a pointer to that myself. It's important to review this for guideline compliance. Just because random editors have added a number of in-universe infobox parameters doesn't mean they're all a good idea or have consensus to be there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Quotations

In the section about quotes there is a sentence "If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE." WP:QUOTE is an essay. Guidelines do not derive from essays. Essays do not have community consensus. DrKay (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Easy fix. --Izno (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY.

While MOS:PLOTSOURCE hedges a bit about allowing primary sourcing for plot summaries (it does obliquely discourage citing too much text this way when it says using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points), it still contradicts WP:PRIMARY, which says, of citing primary text, to be cautious about basing large passages on them, something that MOS:PLOTSOURCE has certainly contributed to being done without any real caution. I feel that MOS:PLOTSOURCE needs to reflect that caution more directly; it ought to be reworded to something like Any lengthy, in-depth plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, should ideally be cited to secondary sources. When secondary sources are unavailable, brief summaries can be cited to the work itself; however, per WP:PRIMARY, such citations should be done cautiously and with an eye towards avoiding too much text without secondary citations. Secondary sources are absolutely required for summaries that perform any sort of interpretation or analysis. Possibly even a specific length should be suggested for primary-only summaries (I would say a few sentences at most.) There are currently far too many articles with massive multi-paragraph sprawling sections that cite no sources at all outside the primary text; encouraging this on a large scale goes far beyond the caution WP:PRIMARY suggests and inevitably results in large amounts of original research or interpretation, even if inadvertently. It also risks placing WP:UNDUE weight on aspects of the text that have received no secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

+1 czar 22:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Such wording would cause problems since editors would go around hacking plot summaries that do not have inline citations, and "lengthy, in-depth plot summary" is already debated enough. One editor's "plot too long" is another's "length is just fine." We have guidelines such as MOS:Film and MOS:TV to guide on this, and having inline citations in the plot summaries is not standard. We just had a discussion about sourcing the plot section at the WP:Neutral noticeboard: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 81#Plot summaries. I will alert WP:Film, MOS:Film, WP:TV and MOS:TV to yet another discussion about this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem "too many articles with massive multi-paragraph sprawling sections" isn't a problem with WP:PRIMARY – the problem is editors not actually following what guidelines like WP:FILMPLOT and WP:TVPLOT actually say. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to make sure, can you provide example articles you're seeing this on? I have a feeling I know the general class of this... --Masem (t) 04:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any change of the use of the primary source in a plot summary. Using the primary source avoids plagiarism which would occur much more often if secondary sources were demanded. Also from my own experience reliable sources often get details completely wrong and contradict each other. Many plot summaries have been well written and refined over time so there is no need for this. There is already a limit on the length of plot summaries so this is WP:CREEP in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  "reliable sources often get details completely wrong and contradict each other" - uh, wouldn't that make them un-reliable? Its either a reliable source or its not, I don't think you can pick and choose which info from a reliable source is correct or not. On the plagiarism point, I'd rather plagiarism be cited to its source, so we can identify it, rather than now where plot summaries are sometimes copied to us without linking to their source. -- Netoholic @ 12:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. For example I wrote a plot summary based on secondary sources such as national newspapers then compared it to the actual film and it was significantly different. If we publish incorrect plot summaries editors are going to correct them and we shouldn't revert to an incorrect version. Regarding copyvio, the earwig tool identifies most copyvio, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I would not expect that one can write certain plot summaries of some works wholly from secondary sources. Most films, for example, in reviews, only have plot summaries to cover maybe the first and second act but not the third. Films are rarely documented to that level of detail that one can get the entire plot , unless the film is one of Hollywood's greats to be the subject of more intense film study. In contrast, popular TV shows like The Walking Dead have at least two to three regular reliable sources that recap to the level of almost scene-by-scene. What I would expect a policy that says to use secondary sources is to use them when possible. If I can use a film review to basically cover the first act of a film but I have use the film itsel for the last two acts, that's fine, that's better than having only the primary as the only source.

In context what I think is being asked, which is not in film or TV articles but like in character articles, we're dealing with walls of text that are just sourced to the primary, if sourced at all, and that's a problem. We should at least be trying to dip into secondary sources as mileposts to say while this facet is important. If writing an article about Superman the character, I'd probably want a secondary source to say "his alter ego is Clark Kent, a mild manner reporter at the Daily Planet." but if I need to I can vere into the primary to say "Clark changes into Superman by ducking into a nearby phone booth". We don't want a vast "wasteland" of material only sourced to the primary, as the reader is going to get lost as to what is relevant to the real world; touching on secondary sources when appropriate helps to show what is considered important and helps to focus the writing and structure. Of course, we still use common sense; if for some reason, no source mentioned Superman's weakness for kryptonite, despite it appearing all the time, we'd want to include it but this should be a consensus-based approach to hit the key points. --Masem (t) 21:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

We should have something similar to WP:FILMPLOT for sections on characters' articles. Let's say up to 500 words per section, if a character appears in many films. That is, if we don't have something like that already. Of course that would change if the sections included content sourced with secondary sources. El Millo (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Character articles are far more difficult because of medium and that some characters have arcs that wax and wane over a course of a work. But they are one of the worst offenses in terms of ratio of "content sourced to primary : content sourced to secondary" I've seen some with maybe 2-3 sources that have barely enough to give some reception of a character and then have volumes of primary sourced in-universe discussion. Plot size won't help much more here, this is were secondary sourcing aspects need more consideration but how, I'm nt sure yet. --Masem (t) 22:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• While it might have been better to say "normally-reliable sources often get details completely wrong and contradict each other", the point seems pretty clear. It's not, however, correct to say that "Its either a reliable source or its not": any source can be reliable or not depending on context. What we absolutely should not do is to first determine which sources fall within some "reliable" category, and then abandon all critical judgement and use information from those sources even when it is provably incorrect. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think that's the right standard. We should take sources, which have been considered reliable in the past, at face value. Where one reliable source is contradicted by multiple other reliable sources, we document what the majority of sources say, and then attribute minority statements to the outliers. What we shouldn't do is get in the business of "well, in this instance, <reliable source> is wrong and we should ignore it". Sources are reliable in large part to their willingness to issue corrections, and we shouldn't dismiss what they say based on editor opinion about what is "wrong". If we're finding that a certain source consistently gets facts objectively wrong and don't make corrections, then that source should instead be considered widely un-reliable and not used at all. -- Netoholic @ 03:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  This for the most part. Once in a while, I will see an RS recap make a mistake on an episode and not go back and fix that, but that's one mistake for every 20-or-so recaps, and presuming this is a small detail that we likely shouldn't be covering. If it is a source that routinely gets mistakes wrong, then point that out and eliminate that RS for the project, but this is so infrequent. from what I've seen. --Masem (t) 03:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Atlantic306 is quite right. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - While I think there is little problem with short (or even moderately long) plot summaries based on the primary material in the absence of anything else, I also feel like the spirit of Wikipedia WP:Verifiability should encourage us to use outside secondary sources where possible (stated explicitly in WP:RSPRIMARY). MOS:PLOTSOURCE should be written to encourage use of outside summaries as the basis for our own summarization, with citations, just like any other section of an article. -- Netoholic @ 12:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm still hoping to get specific examples of where the issues are but my guess typically falls on any fiction-based article that does not have a MOS with word-count limit (as MOS:FILM, TV, and VG has), which would include the area of comic books, and nearly all individually notable character articles as well as list articles. There absolutely needs to be limits to how much text can be present that are just associated with the primary source, though how much of that is going to be very context dependent in cases of character articles and word count limits can be hard to set but we can definitely have some type of guidance for this. What we definitely do not want is where an article is like all primary material and then just barely two or three references to support the standalone notability (keeping in mind these are articles in development and should be improved). So I have a general voice of support but I can't say to what because we need to be clear where the problem lies first. --Masem (t) 12:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any such change. I don't see WP:PRIMARY as necessarily geared toward plot summaries, and certainly coverage of fiction is not discussed there. Basic plot events without interpretive material are just as easily gleaned from primary sources as a list of characters/actors, a publisher, or a producer. I don't see how a "long" plot summary is any different from a short one in that regard. As others have said, you can't really source a complete plot summary, whatever the length, from secondary sources. I'd also like to see examples of unsourced plot summaries you find egregious, but I'm guessing you're talking about some of the unfortunate "bad" articles that get created by fanboys, contain mostly plot, have few or no citations at all, and are never improved (Bail Organa, Kid Quantum, Garry Hobbs). There are many Featured Articles for characters and episodes that include large plot sections without citations, or only cite episodes in their plot coverage (see Pilot (Smallville), Lisa the Skeptic, The Post-Modern Prometheus, Fresh Blood (Supernatural), Poppy Meadow, Khan Noonien Singh, Nikki and Paulo, Tasha Yar, etc. etc.). Articles with sourcing problems don't get promoted to FA.— TAnthony^Talk 17:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Character descriptions on list pages

I’ve been back and forth for months on List of My Hero Academia characters about 1 editor repeatedly removing character descriptions claiming it to be original research and unverifiable, despite other claims that most of the content being removed is explicitly mentioned in the source material and that the series itself verifies the descriptions as an unreferenced source. The RFC on whether they are acceptable can be found here. I was told it was a good idea to get input here about the scope of MOS:PLOT, and input from more than 3 other users would be appreciated, but if this is not the right venue to get more input, I apologize. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Exemptions for religious scripture

Is the exemption to in-universe perspective for religious scriptures justified? Why does, for example, the fiction at Moses#Biblical_narrative get special treatment over something like Lord of the Rings? - Khendon (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no exemption. We live in the same universe as Moses, and the Biblical account dovetails with the section right below it labelled "Historicity". The blurred lines between fact and fiction is true of a lot of mythical culture heroes, including Gilgamesh or King Arthur. I'm sure those lines will be blurred for us thousands of years from now, but if anyone reads this, I hope this proves I was a real person. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Plot timelines

This manual of style doesn't say much about timelines. I'm trying to formulate a short description of consensus best practices on timelines, but I think it would be pretty short and simple based on how consistently these are deleted or removed. Most of these fictional timelines were deleted in 2007-2008, and call back to a time where Wikipedia was still trying to manage the explosion of original research and content forks.

I pulled this list of AFDs from an older AFD I participated in, and organized it for a recent discussion where the related category was eventually deleted.

I found a 2007 discussion about this, which was was short but negative. My best description of our current practice is that plot information should be presented as prose instead of a bulleted list with dates. I'm interested to hear if anyone else has a better summary of our current practice. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, fictional timelines — either in an article or as an article — are not allowed. As per MOS:PLOT, "Plot summaries should be written as prose, not as lists or timelines." As such, I am uncertain what you are seeking to discuss. Can you please clarify? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)