![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2012 February 21. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
What to do with this template? After discussion in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 21#Template:More plot, there are issues:
![]() | This article needs an improved
plot summary. Please
edit this article to provide one. |
Are there any issues that I missed? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
more plot}}
is the wrong name - it is used to tag articles for improvement of plot summary, not "more" necessarily. The word "more" could encourage people to add more irrelevant plot trivia, where what is required is a better quality summary.{{
no plot}}
need the docs updating at the same time. They both contain a seemingly bizarre assertion that "All works of fiction and non-fiction should have a plot summary." (my bold), for example.
Begoon
talk
08:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)This template is meant for articles that need more plot, which is why it is called "more plot". So statements like "This template must be renamed" or "more plot is the wrong name" are out of place. What your point seems to be is that there should be another template "Improve plot", or "Plot improve". That would solve, I think, all serious issues mentioned above. Including that the text of this template should use "expand" instead of "improve". Although, strictly speaking the word "improve" includes expansion, where such expansion would lead to improvement. After we have such a template, we should check all uses of this template, and decide which template should be used in each article. Debresser ( talk) 18:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Considering copyright violations of soap opera articles, I'm totally unsure about resolving these issues of this template. However, Storm in a Teacup (film) doesn't need more plot, does it? Do I need to tag its plot section with this template?
Small is fine (Storm in a Teacup); big is fine ( One for the Road (Cheers). Too much unnecessary stuff... disaster! ( Ross Geller and Frasier Crane) Leaving this tag on a screen for a long time... I can't bear the thoughts of it. People not familiar with one work may be a reason for the necessity for this work. However, tagging a small, but sufficient plot for expansion needs is... <something I cannot describe how bad this template was used>. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Hook}}
for entries written as listings magazines or blurbs.. (ysually ending ".. with surprising results." "...with unintended consequences." ".. will they find out n time?")
Rich
Farmbrough,
10:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC).To Begoon: I'll rephrase: Everyone has different ideas about changing this template, yet there is no full consensus to go for only one thing at this time. By the way, about that "bold action", I was referring to something similar to immediately merging one article to another, while a discussion, such as an article for deletion discussion, is still undergoing. -- George Ho ( talk) 13:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Now what to do with transclusions? Since there are 25 articles that trasclude this template, let's analyze just five first:
None of their plot sections look likely to demand plot expansion. Shall I remove it from these article? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Another five:
They all are likely tagged incorrectly. I wonder if plot abstract is sufficient enough. -- George Ho ( talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
hook}}
ey, but ok - I'd not disagree with removing tag{{hook}}
ey{{hook}}
, I wouldn't disagree.
Begoon
talk
18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Currently, there are seven remaining transclusions. I have removed this template from other articles without discussion, as general readers do not need to know more. Here are my contributions if anybody here objects. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
{{hook}}
tag on
Carver (novel), because I didn't have time to edit that one, and it is very hookey. The others seem ok - a couple are short, but seem enough for the article size to not need the tag, imo.
Begoon
talk
05:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
{{hook}}
template is a bit glaring and ugly - maybe we can get a 'mini' version designed. Something to look at later… The good thing, to me, is that we're improving the articles a bit while we discuss the template, so there's benefit whatever we decide in the end.
Begoon
talk
10:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This one is different. It's chock full of "character" sections, containing trivia and plot detail, while other sections on reception, impact and cultural influence seem lacking or missing. However, the "Plot summary" section, in my opinion, could use improvement.a copyedit. Maybe change the
{{more plot}}
to a copyedit section tag?
Off topic: The 'problem' with the {{
all plot}}
tag on that article is that it says: "should be expanded" which is not really a good thing to ask for there, given what is already there to expand. It does go on to say "Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. " - which is what is needed. But that's a discussion for another day.
Begoon
talk
09:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
improve plot}}
tag should be for, in my opinion, tagging plot summaries that need to be rewritten, or expanded, rather than just copyedited. I altered my comment above, now I've properly read that plot summary again, I was wrong above.
Begoon
talk
01:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)This article doesn't need plot expansion, does it? "Hook" may appear messy with the infobox, but should the tag be substituted? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Original version:
![]() | This article needs an improved
plot summary. Please
edit this article to provide one. |
Proposed:
![]() | The
plot summary needs expansion. Please
edit this article to improve it. |
I wonder if the proposed template helps. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Premature The wording may depend on the outcome of the rename discussion, if we proceed with that. This is premature. It's impossible for me to opine on this until that point, other than the comment I made above. Begoon talk 02:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Despite my comments about premature changes above, I am reminded of the words "and non-fiction" in this and related templates. That's something I feel we could, and should, remove now, unless there's something I'm missing in the usage. Does anyone disagree? Begoon talk 03:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2012 February 21. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
What to do with this template? After discussion in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 21#Template:More plot, there are issues:
![]() | This article needs an improved
plot summary. Please
edit this article to provide one. |
Are there any issues that I missed? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
more plot}}
is the wrong name - it is used to tag articles for improvement of plot summary, not "more" necessarily. The word "more" could encourage people to add more irrelevant plot trivia, where what is required is a better quality summary.{{
no plot}}
need the docs updating at the same time. They both contain a seemingly bizarre assertion that "All works of fiction and non-fiction should have a plot summary." (my bold), for example.
Begoon
talk
08:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)This template is meant for articles that need more plot, which is why it is called "more plot". So statements like "This template must be renamed" or "more plot is the wrong name" are out of place. What your point seems to be is that there should be another template "Improve plot", or "Plot improve". That would solve, I think, all serious issues mentioned above. Including that the text of this template should use "expand" instead of "improve". Although, strictly speaking the word "improve" includes expansion, where such expansion would lead to improvement. After we have such a template, we should check all uses of this template, and decide which template should be used in each article. Debresser ( talk) 18:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Considering copyright violations of soap opera articles, I'm totally unsure about resolving these issues of this template. However, Storm in a Teacup (film) doesn't need more plot, does it? Do I need to tag its plot section with this template?
Small is fine (Storm in a Teacup); big is fine ( One for the Road (Cheers). Too much unnecessary stuff... disaster! ( Ross Geller and Frasier Crane) Leaving this tag on a screen for a long time... I can't bear the thoughts of it. People not familiar with one work may be a reason for the necessity for this work. However, tagging a small, but sufficient plot for expansion needs is... <something I cannot describe how bad this template was used>. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Hook}}
for entries written as listings magazines or blurbs.. (ysually ending ".. with surprising results." "...with unintended consequences." ".. will they find out n time?")
Rich
Farmbrough,
10:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC).To Begoon: I'll rephrase: Everyone has different ideas about changing this template, yet there is no full consensus to go for only one thing at this time. By the way, about that "bold action", I was referring to something similar to immediately merging one article to another, while a discussion, such as an article for deletion discussion, is still undergoing. -- George Ho ( talk) 13:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Now what to do with transclusions? Since there are 25 articles that trasclude this template, let's analyze just five first:
None of their plot sections look likely to demand plot expansion. Shall I remove it from these article? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Another five:
They all are likely tagged incorrectly. I wonder if plot abstract is sufficient enough. -- George Ho ( talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
hook}}
ey, but ok - I'd not disagree with removing tag{{hook}}
ey{{hook}}
, I wouldn't disagree.
Begoon
talk
18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Currently, there are seven remaining transclusions. I have removed this template from other articles without discussion, as general readers do not need to know more. Here are my contributions if anybody here objects. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
{{hook}}
tag on
Carver (novel), because I didn't have time to edit that one, and it is very hookey. The others seem ok - a couple are short, but seem enough for the article size to not need the tag, imo.
Begoon
talk
05:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
{{hook}}
template is a bit glaring and ugly - maybe we can get a 'mini' version designed. Something to look at later… The good thing, to me, is that we're improving the articles a bit while we discuss the template, so there's benefit whatever we decide in the end.
Begoon
talk
10:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This one is different. It's chock full of "character" sections, containing trivia and plot detail, while other sections on reception, impact and cultural influence seem lacking or missing. However, the "Plot summary" section, in my opinion, could use improvement.a copyedit. Maybe change the
{{more plot}}
to a copyedit section tag?
Off topic: The 'problem' with the {{
all plot}}
tag on that article is that it says: "should be expanded" which is not really a good thing to ask for there, given what is already there to expand. It does go on to say "Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. " - which is what is needed. But that's a discussion for another day.
Begoon
talk
09:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
improve plot}}
tag should be for, in my opinion, tagging plot summaries that need to be rewritten, or expanded, rather than just copyedited. I altered my comment above, now I've properly read that plot summary again, I was wrong above.
Begoon
talk
01:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)This article doesn't need plot expansion, does it? "Hook" may appear messy with the infobox, but should the tag be substituted? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Original version:
![]() | This article needs an improved
plot summary. Please
edit this article to provide one. |
Proposed:
![]() | The
plot summary needs expansion. Please
edit this article to improve it. |
I wonder if the proposed template helps. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Premature The wording may depend on the outcome of the rename discussion, if we proceed with that. This is premature. It's impossible for me to opine on this until that point, other than the comment I made above. Begoon talk 02:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Despite my comments about premature changes above, I am reminded of the words "and non-fiction" in this and related templates. That's something I feel we could, and should, remove now, unless there's something I'm missing in the usage. Does anyone disagree? Begoon talk 03:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)