This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Long plot template. |
|
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for merging with Template:All plot on 23 October 2009. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
The template currently states "this plot summary", however, if it is placed at the top of an article, it implies that the entire article is plot summary. I propose that it be reworded to "this article's plot summary" instead - then it would make sense anywhere in the article in which is placed.-- ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Admin, please change "This plot summary" to "This article's plot summary" in the template's opening first sentence. Thanks. -
kollision (
talk)
04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm noting and summarizing my protest here over what I consider part of a shameful and shamefully successful coup d'état against an important and basic aspect of Wikipedia's self-concept as an encyclopedia; namely, that we generally do not regard pages which consist entirely or almost entirely of a plot summary as proper stand-alone articles.
What went down here is that the wording of the wide-spread template Plot was switched to a distinct wording and meaning (the current one) which, as a matter of course, should instead have been put into a new template rather than pushing the issue of far greater, core importance to Wikipedia to a rather obscure, little-used template and thereby (this is the part that's literally offensive to me) "stealing" all the transclusions away from the more important issue in an effort to de-legitimize our long-standing standards even further.
Almost needless to say, the argument of "more transclusions" has actually been employed to stave off my attempts at righting this wrong.
Seriously, guys, this is just ridiculous and sad, letting Wikipedia be gamed and dominated like this by a bunch of people who want to turn Wikipedia into an indiscriminate info dump. -- 78.34.207.232 ( talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Please sync with the sandbox to correct the use of bold to cover only the verb phrase regarding the error, as with the rest of the general cleanup templates. No semantic changes, just style cleanup. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I'd like this template to be modified to allow article/section/paragraph to be specified as the first argument, instead of just article. The code below maintains article as the default and is compatible with the date template parameter. I've tested it in the
sandbox with the
standard testcases.
Can an admin please replace the template source:
with
Thanks! twilsonb ( talk) 09:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This should be reverted. The point of {{ plot}} is that it refers to the whole article, as the length of the plot is supposed to be relative to the rest of the coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please replace the current link to
Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Length in
with a link to the parent section Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#What to cut:
Although the piped link name "too long" may imply the "Length" subsection as the closest related target, I believe the parent section's content applies just as much, and by addressing the main challenge in writing succinct plot summaries it provides the more useful bookmark for interested editors. -- 78.35.214.158 ( talk) 17:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that {{ nonfiction}} redirects here. That is fine for narrative nonfiction, which has a "plot" to summarise -- but not for non-narrative nonfiction, for which the correct term would be "précis" not "plot summary". May I suggest that either (i) we expand the wording of this template to state "This article's plot summary or précis..." or (ii) recreate {{ nonfiction}} to cover that eventuality. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can ascertain, the redirect was a undiscussed, unilateral WP:BOLD edit back in 2007. This would appear to indicate that I would not be violating any WP:CONSENSUS by recreating {{ nonfiction}} to deal with [what is the plural of précis?]. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Template Not Moved Per previous discussion consensus is against the move. Alpha Quadrant talk 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to Template talk:Plot/Archive 1#Requested move. I am reinstating the request since the reasoning I provided has not been refuted at all, it was simply ignored and the request subsequently shut down based on simple I-don't-like-it opposition votes without any counter argument whatsoever. More importantly, my original reasoning still applies.
Template:Plot → Template:Plot too long — In order to finalize the changes initiated by the 2009 rewording and the accompanying change of focus of the template, the template should be moved from its current name to something which more specifically reflects the current wording and specific meaning, e.g. Template:Plot-too long, similarly to the nongeneric naming of Template:Lead too long and the other intro-related template tags. The current name is too general, considering Template:All plot. Both templates are equally policy-based (All plot refers to WP:NOT#PLOT) resp. guideline/essay-based (this template refers to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary) and address distinct but both widespread, not to say rampant issues. -- 87.78.120.37 ( talk) 16:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
The word "overly" is a modern Americanism that sucks and should be changed. It's one of those
disputed
portmanteau
adverbs, like "fastly", that there are certainly more sophisticated alternatives for. "Excessively" is usually better in place of any instance of "overly". "Too" works too, although that's already used for the other parameter, and we don't want to overly use it.
Equazcion
(talk) 02:47, 22 Feb 2011 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. Would someone please be so kind as to change
per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes).— DocWatson42 ( talk) 05:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit Request: Adding a second default parameter to determine a plural status - i.e. exclusion displays the normal:
- whereas inclusion displays:
Changes are displayed in bold. Especially necessary for television series episode tables where multiple summaries are too long, if not all, and a single tag can notify for most/all episodes. Alex| The| Whovian 07:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus to move to Template:Long plot. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:Plot →
Template:Long plot – Or another similar title. In line with {{
More plot}}. The current template name is ambiguous as it doesn't say what's wrong with the plot.
nyuszika7h (
talk) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
JudgeRM
(talk to me)
03:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@ JudgeRM: Don't you think this closure is a bit too soon? I understand that 7 days have passed, but the appropriate WikiProjects were notified only 15 hours before you closed the move request, and there was fairly little discussion before the notifications. Daß Wölf 00:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Alcatraz Versus the Evil Librarians #Free Kingdomers?
§ Plot summary says
So, who or what are the "Free Kingdomers"? One might suppose after reading further that they are the freedom fighters mentioned in the next section, but why leave the reader to wait and be unsure? I'd fix it if I know the series at all.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 04:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'd like to request the addition of a |reason=
parameter, so that editors might detail the specific problem and relevant guideline. For example:
|reason=Per
WP:TVPLOT, this section should not exceed 500 words. Current length is 1260 words.
or
|reason=Per
WP:FILMPLOT, this section should be 400–700 words in length. Current version is 1320 words.
Generally speaking I think it's a good idea for templates to have reason parameters for greater clarity and tailoring to specific articles, and adding one will bring this template in line with many others. Thanks in advance, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
|reason=
should not be mandatory. The default phrasing should remain the same with some alternative phrasing to introduce the rationale. "The specific concerns are:" or similar. I thought about the hard-coding, but there are variables like in the example above where it might be important to note the word count or other info.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
17:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
|type=film
or |type=season summary
, producing links to the appropriate WP:xPLOT page? I'm in support of |reason=
, but there isn't a whole lot of reasons why one would put up this template.
Daß
Wölf
23:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
|reason=
than create multiple parameters hardwired for specific needs. I generally feel flexibility is a better approach. Regards,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
02:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Oops! I just started this and I can tell my capabilities are temporally limited. I may have the precise template wrong. Also, the following removed template might have some bearing on this issue: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_14#Template:Nonfiction
My real life limitations, as seen on my user page, might not let me make it back here. Also I have to use a dictation utility at the moment to data-dump without much correction, so there may be weird errors in this post.
What I intended to do was:
Ideas include:
Sorry this is all I can do now and possibly ever on this issue! Sorry that I left the time and wherewithal to make this post shorter (with apologies to Pascal). Thanks in advance to anyone who might pick it up. Don't wait for me, go ahead! You might want to restructure this discussion in a new section or a subsection to encourage better participation. — Geekdiva ( talk) 13:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "issue", change [[Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#What to cut|too long]] or [[WP:How to write a plot summary|excessively detailed]] to [[Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary|too long or excessively detailed]]. It's stupid I reckon to have two separate links next to each other to the exact same page, why not make it one link? 86.170.13.28 ( talk) 17:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This template is too-frequently used mechanically. If a plot summary is even one word over the limit (often 200) some zealous editor immediately slaps this sucker onto the article, where it will stay forever or until somebody cuts off something to make the summary come under the limit.
If this is the intended encouraged usage, we need to say so (in template help). As it is, this is a favourite template to use by wikinazis who doesn't listen to reason, since nobody can say they're wrong - if the script says we're over the limit even by one word, this template SHALL be applied no matter what.
If some friendly soul takes it upon himself to contribute to the project by reducing a massive 540 word summary to something like 225 words... getting this template slapped back immediately as if that work meant nothing is like a slap in the face. Is that what this template is here for? To slap people in the face?
If, on the other hand, the template is meant for egregious cases where article balance is truly disturbed, we need to say that. I'm hoping we can have a sensible discussion ending up in "don't just mindlessly slap this template onto each and every case where limits are exceeded by trivial amounts, that wasn't the intended usage when created".
In other words, this template can be abused too. CapnZapp ( talk) 21:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If a plot summary is even one word over the limit (often 200) some zealous editor immediately slaps this sucker onto the article- The script used to check episode summary lengths doesn't enforce a strict limit. At Lost in Space (2018 TV series) 6 episodes are overlength but the script only identified 3 as needing identification. Episode summaries are supposed to be 200 words or less so, whether you like it or not, 225 words is still over the limit and use of the tag is appropriate. When you have 10-25 episodes in a season, 25 words for each episode adds up to a significant amount. Season articles are generally transcluded to a "List of episodes" page. Transcluding copies the entire article, but only displays what is inside the transclusion tags making some editors unaware that huge amounts of data are being transcluded. Transcluding too much information can break the "post-expand include size" which breaks the article. This is why List of The Simpsons episodes and other articles have had to be split into multiple pages. Enforcing a limit through the use of this tag prevents this problem at most articles and stops editors from creating ridiculous size summaries, some of which can be longer than the episode itself. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 22:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Where the tag is used where we know there is advice to give word cout (such as with film plots and TV plots) would a additional parameter be helpful ?
For example, let's say we add a "type" parameter. "Type" can then be "filmplot" which should produce something like "Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries of feature films should be between 400 and 700 words.", or for "tveplist" "Per MOS:TVPLOT, individual episode summaries in a list of episodes should be under 500 words per episode if there are no individual episode articles, or under 200 words otherwise." I'm not sure how many cases we'd have but this would help when the plot template is added so that people know actually what word count to shoot for. -- Masem ( t) 16:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Long plot template. |
|
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for merging with Template:All plot on 23 October 2009. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
The template currently states "this plot summary", however, if it is placed at the top of an article, it implies that the entire article is plot summary. I propose that it be reworded to "this article's plot summary" instead - then it would make sense anywhere in the article in which is placed.-- ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Admin, please change "This plot summary" to "This article's plot summary" in the template's opening first sentence. Thanks. -
kollision (
talk)
04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm noting and summarizing my protest here over what I consider part of a shameful and shamefully successful coup d'état against an important and basic aspect of Wikipedia's self-concept as an encyclopedia; namely, that we generally do not regard pages which consist entirely or almost entirely of a plot summary as proper stand-alone articles.
What went down here is that the wording of the wide-spread template Plot was switched to a distinct wording and meaning (the current one) which, as a matter of course, should instead have been put into a new template rather than pushing the issue of far greater, core importance to Wikipedia to a rather obscure, little-used template and thereby (this is the part that's literally offensive to me) "stealing" all the transclusions away from the more important issue in an effort to de-legitimize our long-standing standards even further.
Almost needless to say, the argument of "more transclusions" has actually been employed to stave off my attempts at righting this wrong.
Seriously, guys, this is just ridiculous and sad, letting Wikipedia be gamed and dominated like this by a bunch of people who want to turn Wikipedia into an indiscriminate info dump. -- 78.34.207.232 ( talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Please sync with the sandbox to correct the use of bold to cover only the verb phrase regarding the error, as with the rest of the general cleanup templates. No semantic changes, just style cleanup. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I'd like this template to be modified to allow article/section/paragraph to be specified as the first argument, instead of just article. The code below maintains article as the default and is compatible with the date template parameter. I've tested it in the
sandbox with the
standard testcases.
Can an admin please replace the template source:
with
Thanks! twilsonb ( talk) 09:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This should be reverted. The point of {{ plot}} is that it refers to the whole article, as the length of the plot is supposed to be relative to the rest of the coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please replace the current link to
Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Length in
with a link to the parent section Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#What to cut:
Although the piped link name "too long" may imply the "Length" subsection as the closest related target, I believe the parent section's content applies just as much, and by addressing the main challenge in writing succinct plot summaries it provides the more useful bookmark for interested editors. -- 78.35.214.158 ( talk) 17:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that {{ nonfiction}} redirects here. That is fine for narrative nonfiction, which has a "plot" to summarise -- but not for non-narrative nonfiction, for which the correct term would be "précis" not "plot summary". May I suggest that either (i) we expand the wording of this template to state "This article's plot summary or précis..." or (ii) recreate {{ nonfiction}} to cover that eventuality. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can ascertain, the redirect was a undiscussed, unilateral WP:BOLD edit back in 2007. This would appear to indicate that I would not be violating any WP:CONSENSUS by recreating {{ nonfiction}} to deal with [what is the plural of précis?]. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Template Not Moved Per previous discussion consensus is against the move. Alpha Quadrant talk 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to Template talk:Plot/Archive 1#Requested move. I am reinstating the request since the reasoning I provided has not been refuted at all, it was simply ignored and the request subsequently shut down based on simple I-don't-like-it opposition votes without any counter argument whatsoever. More importantly, my original reasoning still applies.
Template:Plot → Template:Plot too long — In order to finalize the changes initiated by the 2009 rewording and the accompanying change of focus of the template, the template should be moved from its current name to something which more specifically reflects the current wording and specific meaning, e.g. Template:Plot-too long, similarly to the nongeneric naming of Template:Lead too long and the other intro-related template tags. The current name is too general, considering Template:All plot. Both templates are equally policy-based (All plot refers to WP:NOT#PLOT) resp. guideline/essay-based (this template refers to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary) and address distinct but both widespread, not to say rampant issues. -- 87.78.120.37 ( talk) 16:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
The word "overly" is a modern Americanism that sucks and should be changed. It's one of those
disputed
portmanteau
adverbs, like "fastly", that there are certainly more sophisticated alternatives for. "Excessively" is usually better in place of any instance of "overly". "Too" works too, although that's already used for the other parameter, and we don't want to overly use it.
Equazcion
(talk) 02:47, 22 Feb 2011 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. Would someone please be so kind as to change
per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes).— DocWatson42 ( talk) 05:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit Request: Adding a second default parameter to determine a plural status - i.e. exclusion displays the normal:
- whereas inclusion displays:
Changes are displayed in bold. Especially necessary for television series episode tables where multiple summaries are too long, if not all, and a single tag can notify for most/all episodes. Alex| The| Whovian 07:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus to move to Template:Long plot. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:Plot →
Template:Long plot – Or another similar title. In line with {{
More plot}}. The current template name is ambiguous as it doesn't say what's wrong with the plot.
nyuszika7h (
talk) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
JudgeRM
(talk to me)
03:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@ JudgeRM: Don't you think this closure is a bit too soon? I understand that 7 days have passed, but the appropriate WikiProjects were notified only 15 hours before you closed the move request, and there was fairly little discussion before the notifications. Daß Wölf 00:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Alcatraz Versus the Evil Librarians #Free Kingdomers?
§ Plot summary says
So, who or what are the "Free Kingdomers"? One might suppose after reading further that they are the freedom fighters mentioned in the next section, but why leave the reader to wait and be unsure? I'd fix it if I know the series at all.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 04:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'd like to request the addition of a |reason=
parameter, so that editors might detail the specific problem and relevant guideline. For example:
|reason=Per
WP:TVPLOT, this section should not exceed 500 words. Current length is 1260 words.
or
|reason=Per
WP:FILMPLOT, this section should be 400–700 words in length. Current version is 1320 words.
Generally speaking I think it's a good idea for templates to have reason parameters for greater clarity and tailoring to specific articles, and adding one will bring this template in line with many others. Thanks in advance, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
|reason=
should not be mandatory. The default phrasing should remain the same with some alternative phrasing to introduce the rationale. "The specific concerns are:" or similar. I thought about the hard-coding, but there are variables like in the example above where it might be important to note the word count or other info.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
17:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
|type=film
or |type=season summary
, producing links to the appropriate WP:xPLOT page? I'm in support of |reason=
, but there isn't a whole lot of reasons why one would put up this template.
Daß
Wölf
23:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
|reason=
than create multiple parameters hardwired for specific needs. I generally feel flexibility is a better approach. Regards,
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
02:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Oops! I just started this and I can tell my capabilities are temporally limited. I may have the precise template wrong. Also, the following removed template might have some bearing on this issue: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_14#Template:Nonfiction
My real life limitations, as seen on my user page, might not let me make it back here. Also I have to use a dictation utility at the moment to data-dump without much correction, so there may be weird errors in this post.
What I intended to do was:
Ideas include:
Sorry this is all I can do now and possibly ever on this issue! Sorry that I left the time and wherewithal to make this post shorter (with apologies to Pascal). Thanks in advance to anyone who might pick it up. Don't wait for me, go ahead! You might want to restructure this discussion in a new section or a subsection to encourage better participation. — Geekdiva ( talk) 13:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "issue", change [[Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#What to cut|too long]] or [[WP:How to write a plot summary|excessively detailed]] to [[Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary|too long or excessively detailed]]. It's stupid I reckon to have two separate links next to each other to the exact same page, why not make it one link? 86.170.13.28 ( talk) 17:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This template is too-frequently used mechanically. If a plot summary is even one word over the limit (often 200) some zealous editor immediately slaps this sucker onto the article, where it will stay forever or until somebody cuts off something to make the summary come under the limit.
If this is the intended encouraged usage, we need to say so (in template help). As it is, this is a favourite template to use by wikinazis who doesn't listen to reason, since nobody can say they're wrong - if the script says we're over the limit even by one word, this template SHALL be applied no matter what.
If some friendly soul takes it upon himself to contribute to the project by reducing a massive 540 word summary to something like 225 words... getting this template slapped back immediately as if that work meant nothing is like a slap in the face. Is that what this template is here for? To slap people in the face?
If, on the other hand, the template is meant for egregious cases where article balance is truly disturbed, we need to say that. I'm hoping we can have a sensible discussion ending up in "don't just mindlessly slap this template onto each and every case where limits are exceeded by trivial amounts, that wasn't the intended usage when created".
In other words, this template can be abused too. CapnZapp ( talk) 21:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If a plot summary is even one word over the limit (often 200) some zealous editor immediately slaps this sucker onto the article- The script used to check episode summary lengths doesn't enforce a strict limit. At Lost in Space (2018 TV series) 6 episodes are overlength but the script only identified 3 as needing identification. Episode summaries are supposed to be 200 words or less so, whether you like it or not, 225 words is still over the limit and use of the tag is appropriate. When you have 10-25 episodes in a season, 25 words for each episode adds up to a significant amount. Season articles are generally transcluded to a "List of episodes" page. Transcluding copies the entire article, but only displays what is inside the transclusion tags making some editors unaware that huge amounts of data are being transcluded. Transcluding too much information can break the "post-expand include size" which breaks the article. This is why List of The Simpsons episodes and other articles have had to be split into multiple pages. Enforcing a limit through the use of this tag prevents this problem at most articles and stops editors from creating ridiculous size summaries, some of which can be longer than the episode itself. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 22:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Where the tag is used where we know there is advice to give word cout (such as with film plots and TV plots) would a additional parameter be helpful ?
For example, let's say we add a "type" parameter. "Type" can then be "filmplot" which should produce something like "Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries of feature films should be between 400 and 700 words.", or for "tveplist" "Per MOS:TVPLOT, individual episode summaries in a list of episodes should be under 500 words per episode if there are no individual episode articles, or under 200 words otherwise." I'm not sure how many cases we'd have but this would help when the plot template is added so that people know actually what word count to shoot for. -- Masem ( t) 16:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)