Essays Top‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This is good, but it's too much for the MOS page. This seems to work better if it was an essay that the MOS page linked to - as sort of an explaination for why it says to write a specific way. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the description of the plot *does* need to follow the order in which events takes place; that's precisely what a plot is, as opposed to story. Kbrewer36 ( talk) 16:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)kbrewer36
In other words, Wikipedia has confused "plot" and "story." What's being called for here is a story summary, not a plot summary. The story of *Memento* is that a guy's wife was (possibly) raped and killed, and he tries to get revenge etc. etc." That's not the plot, which, as it name suggests, is how the events occur in the story 99.37.200.255 ( talk) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)kbrewer36
In the revision history, it's clear how she gets eaten and then saved, but as written it's darn confusing. It really does need to be cleaned up... Hobit ( talk) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What projects need to be consulted on this, in your mind? Phil Sandifer ( talk) 02:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The more projects you notify, the less likely the chance that someone will come along and say, "I didn't know about this...I challenge the consensus that this should be a guideline". This way, you can go, "Wait, I left a message here, here, here, here, here, etc" and leave it at that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:VG, WP:COMIC, and WP:ANIME are some pretty big general Fiction-related WikiProjects. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This is very well written, and I'd probably support it being a guideline, but I do have to comment on how much space you devote to explaining why you shouldn't have too many spoilers versus why you shouldn't have too few. I don't know about other projects or editors, but in my experience working at the animanga project, editors not well-versed in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies tend to avoid spoilers to whatever extent possible, rather than trying to cover everything. Therefore, I think you should probably spend a bit more space explaining why spoilers aren't to be avoided, referring to WP:SPOILER as appropriate. — Dino guy 1000 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like good progress is being made with this. I have to concur to Bignole that I do not quite see this as a guideline. It seems to qualify better as an essay, considering the amount of content addressing this topic. I would expect a guideline to be more to the point. The writing is casual, and while I don't mind reading it like that, I would expect more formal writing in a guideline.
I think that this should directly reference WP:NOT#PLOT: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Indicate this in the lead section and use it a springboard into writing exactly how we can ensure that plot summaries are concise. Another reference to make is WP:OR, specifically, WP:PSTS. Fictional works are primary sources, so we can only make descriptive claims about them when we write a summary. Definitely factor in all the information from the paragraph starting with "Primary sources that have been published..." and to the end of the section.
When it comes to certain detail in a fictional work, I would encourage ambiguous terms. Particular in film articles, there tends to be specialist knowledge about details such as locations, weapons, or vehicles. If these details are not explicitly identified in the fictional work, this may lead to disagreements about what it actually is. It would be best to make the issue as ambiguous as possible (calling it a building, a gun, or an automobile) since if it is not explicitly identified, it is probably not pertinent to the plot summary.
Lastly, I would express caution about describing plots that are out of order. Memento is easy enough to sort out, but there are experimental films (like David Lynch's work) in which it is not possible to identify what is relevant and what is irrelevant. It may be best to fall back to secondary sources that describe the film more succinctly, and if there is any critical commentary on any particular element of a purposely disorganized story, then it can be addressed elsewhere in the article. Just a few preliminary thoughts. I'll put this on my watchlist to see how it progresses and to engage in further discussion. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This guideline says nothing about citations for plot summaries. How do we know that a plot summary isn't just made up by someone? Wouldn't it have to be referenced? I have seen some plot summaries tagged as original research which I can sort of understand. What's to stop vandals making stuff up for their own amusement? Shouldn't we at least be trying to reference pages or chapters of a book for fiction that point out where events take place? -- bodnotbod ( talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A request was made at Wikipedia talk:Plot summaries to merge that page, this page and/or Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works. Accordingly, I am boldly merging much of the specific "how to" content to this page and cross-linking to the "why" content on the other. My intent is not to change the content or meaning on either page in any significant way, merely to reorganize and then rewrite for consistent flow and tone. Rossami (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't have three pages for the same topic, as it's WP:CREEPY in general, and, the farther down you go on the list, the less consensus is actually behind was written there. The pages describing how to do plot summaries have frequently violated multiple Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE. We find that problem over and over, with people basically writing up their own POV fork of policy without getting proper community consensus or abiding by founding principles and then demanding people do what they say. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have been unable to find any guidance on the subject. Since I see no technical reason for either, I'd suggest exercising common sense and naming them by the name by which they are mostly referred to in the film, but in any case I think it should be explicitly stated. -- uKER ( talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The argument that this should be listed as having consensus instead of merely being an essay included the claim: "this page forms the heart of a widely used template". This is a completely spurious argument, as the template in question was created long before this page was created and originally referred to WP:NOT#PLOT. The policy itself has consensus, but the subpages are not watched as strongly, and I know much of the content of this page directly contradicts statements made during discussion of the consensus for the policy. If someone changed the template for POV problems to include a link to a page saying pushing POV is fine as long as the POV was morally superior all the pages using that template could not be used to claim consensus for the new page. Consensus must always be able to be demonstrated once it is challenged or else it isn't consensus at all. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Featured articles almost always go against this essay. They regularly have far more than 500 words:
Plot summaries in Featured articles on literary fiction
This is basically everything in the FA section "Literature and theatre" that A. was on some sort of literary work (as opposed to an author, etc), B. had a plot section, and C. that I spotted as a literary work on a very quick look-over.
Featured article | Approximate word count | Notes |
---|---|---|
Candide | 1370 | |
The Country Wife | 1049 | Laid out over two sections |
Creatures of Impulse | 886 | |
The General in his Labyrinth | 881 | |
Hamlet | 1092 | |
La Cousine Bette | 858 | |
Mary: A Fiction | 340 | |
Night (book) | 2863 | This is actually nonfiction |
Original Stories from Real Life | 462 | This book doesn't actually have a plot |
Proserpine_(play) | 419 | |
The Raven | 327 (see note) | Also includes the entire 1235 word complete text of the poem (!) |
Romeo and Juliet | 565 | |
Roy of the Rovers | 1584 | Comic strip |
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight | 532 | |
To Kill a Mockingbird | 541 |
About 1/3rd of this sample (admittedly, not a systematic one) has over 1000 characters in the plot summary. In one case, the entire 1235 word original work is quoted in full (albeit, you have to click "more" to see it)
They quote or paraphrase dialogue as it suits them, and regularly describe scenes in detail.
If we're going to treat this as pseudo-policy, can we at least make some attempt to keep this in line with featured article requirements? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 23:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This is (allegedly) an essay. Whhy remove the tag about how it would be nice if people followed it? Feel free to go write another essay and tag it how you want. But this is an essay. That means, by definition, it doesn't represent the views of everyone or even have to. Unless we start removing humor tags and all that from essays, I can't see what harm the tag does. But I'm fed up with tag warring. In fact, I'm fed up with people who think any of this matters and who constantly have to battle until they get their own way instead of simply trying to rub along nicely. If everyone stopoped playing policitics on Wikipedia it would be a much better place. Hiding T 14:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, debate about the length of the plot section in an article is on-going at Talk:The Lost Symbol#Length of plot section. Any interested editors are invited to participate. -- El on ka 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the essay would benefit by having a list of a few plot summaries on Wikipedia, and explaining why they are particularly good or bad. It would be helpful for editors to study how real summaries follow or ignore the advice in the essay. Something like this:
I would like some feedback before adding this to the article. What and how many examples to have, in how much detail should they be analyzed, etc.-- LaukkuTheGreit ( Talk• Contribs) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
We should also probably have some summaries that don't closely follow the essay, but which are still good summaries. If there are any, that is. The point is to give more insight in what is a good summary.-- LaukkuTheGreit ( Talk• Contribs) 10:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Thief and the Cobbler's summuary is excessive, but what to do would depend on circumstances, for example if there were sufficient sources it might be OK to split the article into 3 - if we're very lucky.
The first few sections of the page are extremely disorganized. The reader is warned three or four times in as many sections that (a) the purpose of a plot summary is to explain the story, not to entertain the reader; (b) the summary should be as short as possible; and (c) it's okay to reorder events to make the plot clearer. So why not organize the sections that way and delete the unnecessary repetition? — Codrdan ( talk) 10:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Has it ever actually been proposed? This seems like guideline material. Would anyone else be in agreement with proposing a promotion to guideline status? Swarm( Talk) 06:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
While it is hard to quantify a strict word limit, since no two articles are equal, for films, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines offers guidance that "plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words"; Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines recommends "100–200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines" for television episodes in episode lists, or "200-500" in standalone episode articles; and for novels Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines says that plot summaries "should aim to be no more than three or four paragraphs".
While this is partially true, all of these then go on to state that particularly complicated works may require more space. Hence, an addition is needed:
However, as all three go on to note, particularly complex plots may need a more lengthy summary than the general guidance.
This is, indeed, explicitly stated in the Film and Novels guidelines, if you check the links, and is present, though vaguer in Television.
Secondly, the article claims:
Most importantly, plot summaries shouldn't swamp an article. This is policy.
That's not what WP:PLOT says. WP:PLOT says that summaries must not be the only part of an article, and that they must be put in context. While the sentiment is no doubt true - we shouldn't swamp the article with plot, it's not what the linked policy says, and we shouldn't lie to our readers in an essay about the content of policy. 86.** IP ( talk) 16:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to step back a moment, I trust the other edit (the one noting that the guidelines saay that particularly complex plots can be slightly longer) is fine? 86.** IP ( talk) 09:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
What is the point of the spoiler section of this essay when all it leads to is edit wars with pendantic editors who believe it is their duty to disclose every murderer, every solution to a detective story in a four line episode summary, citing Wikipedia spoiler as policy. REVUpminster ( talk) 14:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the following sentence because I found it confusing, or maybe it's just written in a confusing way. It's from the Ways of organizing a plot summary section. It's just not clear to me what purpose it serves, and it seems more likely than not to simply confuse the reader.
— Frungi ( talk) 05:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Are citations required in plot summaries where it’s clear that the work being summarized is the source? I’m currently having a disagreement with a fellow editor on this question and not sure if it’s definitively answered. More specifically, when summarizing a comic book series, is it necessary to cite each volume or issue being summarized? Or is this optional? — Frungi ( talk) 06:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
"obvious to the reader where the material is coming from"if the work in question is self-contained, not sprawling across dozens or hundreds of installments (and sometimes across various distinct titles), as is often the case with comic books… like I specifically asked about in my question here. In this particular case of The Walking Dead, the editor desiring citations (me) does not have immediate access to the works in question, and so can't add them himself. If someone would be willing to donate to me either the entire series or the funds to purchase it, then I absolutely would be willing to source the summary to any level of detail. But the best freely available source I'm aware of is the Walking Dead Wkia, and if that's considered reliable by WP standards, I'll happily cite that instead.
I quote from the page: "In works less vital to the foundations of academia and the founding of the Western literary tradition, even more detail could safely be left out as unimportant, including entire lengthy subplots". Why would we need to specify Western literary tradition? Does that mean we consider Eastern literary tradition less important? Let me understand, according to the page I Ching should have a less detailed plot summary than the Canterbury Tales simply because it's not part of the Western tradition? Or am I misreading that statement? I really can't wrap my head around the reason for such a phrasing, it seems to me that it simply promotes systemic bias. Zidanie5 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It says, "list the actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor)." Shouldn't it say something like: "This should not be done if there is a Cast list."? Otherwise, it's redundant and goes against WP:REPEATLINK. -- Musdan77 ( talk) 21:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't find this quote helpful. At first glance it seemed to be saying something, but then I thought about it some more and realised it's just a tautology and it doesn't even have much to do with summarising a plot; cutting away extraneous bits of marble (i.e. those not intended to form David) is different from boiling down a work of fiction to its highlights. It's not our job to decide what is and isn't part of the plot, which is what the quote seems to imply we're doing. ekips39 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the links to the guidelines in the Manual of Style for plot length are hidden away in a reference tag where most readers would miss them. Furthermore, the sentence with the ref tag is a bit misleading on its own, since while there is no set length, there are suggested lengths in the Manual of style, which is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". Is there any objection to moving the contents of the ref tag (reproduced below) into its own paragraph?
It is difficult to quantify a strict word limit since no two articles are equal, however the Wikipedia Manual of style offers some general recommendations to editors. The Film style guideline suggests that "plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words". The TV style guideline recommends "100–200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines" for television episodes in episode lists, or "200–500" in standalone episode articles. The Novels style guideline says that plot summaries "should aim to be no more than three or four paragraphs". However, as all three go on to note, particularly complex plots may need a more lengthy summary than the general guidance.
--
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
22:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)?
Right now this page is called, " Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary". At some point it might be nice to revise it and rename it to Wikipedia:How to write a summary.
Saying "plot" presumes that this policy only covers fiction. However, non-fiction media works including books, reports, and films may also be summarized, and most of what is here applies to both fiction and non-fiction.
I do not want to touch this right now but I thought I would raise the idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the para that says to do literally the opposite of WP:DISCLAIM and WP:SPOILER - "reader enjoyment" is at no point whatsoever an encyclopedic consideration - David Gerard ( talk) 22:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
In the section "What summaries are not", there's this passage: "Try to create a vivid summary, like the summary for a midsummer's night's dream. In it, there are sensory details that we will explain later." Is "try to create a vivid summary" a suggestion? Why is in this section? Is "like the summary for a midsummer's night's dream" meant as an example? Then it should a) link to that page and b) capitalize the title. And "sensory details that we will explain later." Later when? There's not such explanation in the page. And as an advice it also seems to go against the general idea of being concise and not emotional. Kumagoro-42 16:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
After copy-editing the first few sections, I stopped for lack of time. One statement in the section "Ways of organizing a plot summary" seems to me to need rethinking. This is the statement: "Where a specific plot point has been commented upon by academics or the media, it is necessary to describe that plot point." How is this possible? It requires that editors know everything that academics and the media have said about the work. Following the instruction will surely not happen for plot summaries of current films and new novels. Cognita ( talk) 05:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
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.
In a plot summary for a movie or television show, once a character has been introduced by their full character name, 1) Should the characters then referred to exclusively by their last name (if known) thereafter? 2) Or, should the character be referred to what they are commonly called in the movie/television show? This could be the character's first name, last name, or nickname? Jauerback dude?/ dude. 18:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section Length, the phrase "real work perspective" is obviously an error for "real-world perspective". Please fix. 76.69.116.4 ( talk) 06:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
This page could probably use one. Anyone want to write it? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 09:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:PLOTSUMNOT says If the original is nonlinear or experimental in its structure, then the article should state that fact in prose, not through regurgitation of the plot.
, which could be read as saying that it is okay to ignore narrative complexities. I believe that brief mention of flashbacks, etc., should be explicitly encouraged. How about something like If the original is nonlinear or experimental in its structure, then the article should state that fact. It should do so in prose, not through regurgitation of the plot or describing events out of chronological order.
?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
14:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Essays Top‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This is good, but it's too much for the MOS page. This seems to work better if it was an essay that the MOS page linked to - as sort of an explaination for why it says to write a specific way. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the description of the plot *does* need to follow the order in which events takes place; that's precisely what a plot is, as opposed to story. Kbrewer36 ( talk) 16:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)kbrewer36
In other words, Wikipedia has confused "plot" and "story." What's being called for here is a story summary, not a plot summary. The story of *Memento* is that a guy's wife was (possibly) raped and killed, and he tries to get revenge etc. etc." That's not the plot, which, as it name suggests, is how the events occur in the story 99.37.200.255 ( talk) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)kbrewer36
In the revision history, it's clear how she gets eaten and then saved, but as written it's darn confusing. It really does need to be cleaned up... Hobit ( talk) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What projects need to be consulted on this, in your mind? Phil Sandifer ( talk) 02:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The more projects you notify, the less likely the chance that someone will come along and say, "I didn't know about this...I challenge the consensus that this should be a guideline". This way, you can go, "Wait, I left a message here, here, here, here, here, etc" and leave it at that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:VG, WP:COMIC, and WP:ANIME are some pretty big general Fiction-related WikiProjects. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This is very well written, and I'd probably support it being a guideline, but I do have to comment on how much space you devote to explaining why you shouldn't have too many spoilers versus why you shouldn't have too few. I don't know about other projects or editors, but in my experience working at the animanga project, editors not well-versed in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies tend to avoid spoilers to whatever extent possible, rather than trying to cover everything. Therefore, I think you should probably spend a bit more space explaining why spoilers aren't to be avoided, referring to WP:SPOILER as appropriate. — Dino guy 1000 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like good progress is being made with this. I have to concur to Bignole that I do not quite see this as a guideline. It seems to qualify better as an essay, considering the amount of content addressing this topic. I would expect a guideline to be more to the point. The writing is casual, and while I don't mind reading it like that, I would expect more formal writing in a guideline.
I think that this should directly reference WP:NOT#PLOT: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Indicate this in the lead section and use it a springboard into writing exactly how we can ensure that plot summaries are concise. Another reference to make is WP:OR, specifically, WP:PSTS. Fictional works are primary sources, so we can only make descriptive claims about them when we write a summary. Definitely factor in all the information from the paragraph starting with "Primary sources that have been published..." and to the end of the section.
When it comes to certain detail in a fictional work, I would encourage ambiguous terms. Particular in film articles, there tends to be specialist knowledge about details such as locations, weapons, or vehicles. If these details are not explicitly identified in the fictional work, this may lead to disagreements about what it actually is. It would be best to make the issue as ambiguous as possible (calling it a building, a gun, or an automobile) since if it is not explicitly identified, it is probably not pertinent to the plot summary.
Lastly, I would express caution about describing plots that are out of order. Memento is easy enough to sort out, but there are experimental films (like David Lynch's work) in which it is not possible to identify what is relevant and what is irrelevant. It may be best to fall back to secondary sources that describe the film more succinctly, and if there is any critical commentary on any particular element of a purposely disorganized story, then it can be addressed elsewhere in the article. Just a few preliminary thoughts. I'll put this on my watchlist to see how it progresses and to engage in further discussion. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This guideline says nothing about citations for plot summaries. How do we know that a plot summary isn't just made up by someone? Wouldn't it have to be referenced? I have seen some plot summaries tagged as original research which I can sort of understand. What's to stop vandals making stuff up for their own amusement? Shouldn't we at least be trying to reference pages or chapters of a book for fiction that point out where events take place? -- bodnotbod ( talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A request was made at Wikipedia talk:Plot summaries to merge that page, this page and/or Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works. Accordingly, I am boldly merging much of the specific "how to" content to this page and cross-linking to the "why" content on the other. My intent is not to change the content or meaning on either page in any significant way, merely to reorganize and then rewrite for consistent flow and tone. Rossami (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't have three pages for the same topic, as it's WP:CREEPY in general, and, the farther down you go on the list, the less consensus is actually behind was written there. The pages describing how to do plot summaries have frequently violated multiple Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE. We find that problem over and over, with people basically writing up their own POV fork of policy without getting proper community consensus or abiding by founding principles and then demanding people do what they say. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have been unable to find any guidance on the subject. Since I see no technical reason for either, I'd suggest exercising common sense and naming them by the name by which they are mostly referred to in the film, but in any case I think it should be explicitly stated. -- uKER ( talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The argument that this should be listed as having consensus instead of merely being an essay included the claim: "this page forms the heart of a widely used template". This is a completely spurious argument, as the template in question was created long before this page was created and originally referred to WP:NOT#PLOT. The policy itself has consensus, but the subpages are not watched as strongly, and I know much of the content of this page directly contradicts statements made during discussion of the consensus for the policy. If someone changed the template for POV problems to include a link to a page saying pushing POV is fine as long as the POV was morally superior all the pages using that template could not be used to claim consensus for the new page. Consensus must always be able to be demonstrated once it is challenged or else it isn't consensus at all. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Featured articles almost always go against this essay. They regularly have far more than 500 words:
Plot summaries in Featured articles on literary fiction
This is basically everything in the FA section "Literature and theatre" that A. was on some sort of literary work (as opposed to an author, etc), B. had a plot section, and C. that I spotted as a literary work on a very quick look-over.
Featured article | Approximate word count | Notes |
---|---|---|
Candide | 1370 | |
The Country Wife | 1049 | Laid out over two sections |
Creatures of Impulse | 886 | |
The General in his Labyrinth | 881 | |
Hamlet | 1092 | |
La Cousine Bette | 858 | |
Mary: A Fiction | 340 | |
Night (book) | 2863 | This is actually nonfiction |
Original Stories from Real Life | 462 | This book doesn't actually have a plot |
Proserpine_(play) | 419 | |
The Raven | 327 (see note) | Also includes the entire 1235 word complete text of the poem (!) |
Romeo and Juliet | 565 | |
Roy of the Rovers | 1584 | Comic strip |
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight | 532 | |
To Kill a Mockingbird | 541 |
About 1/3rd of this sample (admittedly, not a systematic one) has over 1000 characters in the plot summary. In one case, the entire 1235 word original work is quoted in full (albeit, you have to click "more" to see it)
They quote or paraphrase dialogue as it suits them, and regularly describe scenes in detail.
If we're going to treat this as pseudo-policy, can we at least make some attempt to keep this in line with featured article requirements? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 23:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This is (allegedly) an essay. Whhy remove the tag about how it would be nice if people followed it? Feel free to go write another essay and tag it how you want. But this is an essay. That means, by definition, it doesn't represent the views of everyone or even have to. Unless we start removing humor tags and all that from essays, I can't see what harm the tag does. But I'm fed up with tag warring. In fact, I'm fed up with people who think any of this matters and who constantly have to battle until they get their own way instead of simply trying to rub along nicely. If everyone stopoped playing policitics on Wikipedia it would be a much better place. Hiding T 14:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, debate about the length of the plot section in an article is on-going at Talk:The Lost Symbol#Length of plot section. Any interested editors are invited to participate. -- El on ka 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the essay would benefit by having a list of a few plot summaries on Wikipedia, and explaining why they are particularly good or bad. It would be helpful for editors to study how real summaries follow or ignore the advice in the essay. Something like this:
I would like some feedback before adding this to the article. What and how many examples to have, in how much detail should they be analyzed, etc.-- LaukkuTheGreit ( Talk• Contribs) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
We should also probably have some summaries that don't closely follow the essay, but which are still good summaries. If there are any, that is. The point is to give more insight in what is a good summary.-- LaukkuTheGreit ( Talk• Contribs) 10:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Thief and the Cobbler's summuary is excessive, but what to do would depend on circumstances, for example if there were sufficient sources it might be OK to split the article into 3 - if we're very lucky.
The first few sections of the page are extremely disorganized. The reader is warned three or four times in as many sections that (a) the purpose of a plot summary is to explain the story, not to entertain the reader; (b) the summary should be as short as possible; and (c) it's okay to reorder events to make the plot clearer. So why not organize the sections that way and delete the unnecessary repetition? — Codrdan ( talk) 10:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Has it ever actually been proposed? This seems like guideline material. Would anyone else be in agreement with proposing a promotion to guideline status? Swarm( Talk) 06:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
While it is hard to quantify a strict word limit, since no two articles are equal, for films, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines offers guidance that "plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words"; Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines recommends "100–200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines" for television episodes in episode lists, or "200-500" in standalone episode articles; and for novels Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines says that plot summaries "should aim to be no more than three or four paragraphs".
While this is partially true, all of these then go on to state that particularly complicated works may require more space. Hence, an addition is needed:
However, as all three go on to note, particularly complex plots may need a more lengthy summary than the general guidance.
This is, indeed, explicitly stated in the Film and Novels guidelines, if you check the links, and is present, though vaguer in Television.
Secondly, the article claims:
Most importantly, plot summaries shouldn't swamp an article. This is policy.
That's not what WP:PLOT says. WP:PLOT says that summaries must not be the only part of an article, and that they must be put in context. While the sentiment is no doubt true - we shouldn't swamp the article with plot, it's not what the linked policy says, and we shouldn't lie to our readers in an essay about the content of policy. 86.** IP ( talk) 16:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to step back a moment, I trust the other edit (the one noting that the guidelines saay that particularly complex plots can be slightly longer) is fine? 86.** IP ( talk) 09:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
What is the point of the spoiler section of this essay when all it leads to is edit wars with pendantic editors who believe it is their duty to disclose every murderer, every solution to a detective story in a four line episode summary, citing Wikipedia spoiler as policy. REVUpminster ( talk) 14:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the following sentence because I found it confusing, or maybe it's just written in a confusing way. It's from the Ways of organizing a plot summary section. It's just not clear to me what purpose it serves, and it seems more likely than not to simply confuse the reader.
— Frungi ( talk) 05:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Are citations required in plot summaries where it’s clear that the work being summarized is the source? I’m currently having a disagreement with a fellow editor on this question and not sure if it’s definitively answered. More specifically, when summarizing a comic book series, is it necessary to cite each volume or issue being summarized? Or is this optional? — Frungi ( talk) 06:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
"obvious to the reader where the material is coming from"if the work in question is self-contained, not sprawling across dozens or hundreds of installments (and sometimes across various distinct titles), as is often the case with comic books… like I specifically asked about in my question here. In this particular case of The Walking Dead, the editor desiring citations (me) does not have immediate access to the works in question, and so can't add them himself. If someone would be willing to donate to me either the entire series or the funds to purchase it, then I absolutely would be willing to source the summary to any level of detail. But the best freely available source I'm aware of is the Walking Dead Wkia, and if that's considered reliable by WP standards, I'll happily cite that instead.
I quote from the page: "In works less vital to the foundations of academia and the founding of the Western literary tradition, even more detail could safely be left out as unimportant, including entire lengthy subplots". Why would we need to specify Western literary tradition? Does that mean we consider Eastern literary tradition less important? Let me understand, according to the page I Ching should have a less detailed plot summary than the Canterbury Tales simply because it's not part of the Western tradition? Or am I misreading that statement? I really can't wrap my head around the reason for such a phrasing, it seems to me that it simply promotes systemic bias. Zidanie5 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It says, "list the actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor)." Shouldn't it say something like: "This should not be done if there is a Cast list."? Otherwise, it's redundant and goes against WP:REPEATLINK. -- Musdan77 ( talk) 21:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't find this quote helpful. At first glance it seemed to be saying something, but then I thought about it some more and realised it's just a tautology and it doesn't even have much to do with summarising a plot; cutting away extraneous bits of marble (i.e. those not intended to form David) is different from boiling down a work of fiction to its highlights. It's not our job to decide what is and isn't part of the plot, which is what the quote seems to imply we're doing. ekips39 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the links to the guidelines in the Manual of Style for plot length are hidden away in a reference tag where most readers would miss them. Furthermore, the sentence with the ref tag is a bit misleading on its own, since while there is no set length, there are suggested lengths in the Manual of style, which is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". Is there any objection to moving the contents of the ref tag (reproduced below) into its own paragraph?
It is difficult to quantify a strict word limit since no two articles are equal, however the Wikipedia Manual of style offers some general recommendations to editors. The Film style guideline suggests that "plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words". The TV style guideline recommends "100–200 words; upwards of 350 words for complex storylines" for television episodes in episode lists, or "200–500" in standalone episode articles. The Novels style guideline says that plot summaries "should aim to be no more than three or four paragraphs". However, as all three go on to note, particularly complex plots may need a more lengthy summary than the general guidance.
--
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
22:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)?
Right now this page is called, " Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary". At some point it might be nice to revise it and rename it to Wikipedia:How to write a summary.
Saying "plot" presumes that this policy only covers fiction. However, non-fiction media works including books, reports, and films may also be summarized, and most of what is here applies to both fiction and non-fiction.
I do not want to touch this right now but I thought I would raise the idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the para that says to do literally the opposite of WP:DISCLAIM and WP:SPOILER - "reader enjoyment" is at no point whatsoever an encyclopedic consideration - David Gerard ( talk) 22:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
In the section "What summaries are not", there's this passage: "Try to create a vivid summary, like the summary for a midsummer's night's dream. In it, there are sensory details that we will explain later." Is "try to create a vivid summary" a suggestion? Why is in this section? Is "like the summary for a midsummer's night's dream" meant as an example? Then it should a) link to that page and b) capitalize the title. And "sensory details that we will explain later." Later when? There's not such explanation in the page. And as an advice it also seems to go against the general idea of being concise and not emotional. Kumagoro-42 16:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
After copy-editing the first few sections, I stopped for lack of time. One statement in the section "Ways of organizing a plot summary" seems to me to need rethinking. This is the statement: "Where a specific plot point has been commented upon by academics or the media, it is necessary to describe that plot point." How is this possible? It requires that editors know everything that academics and the media have said about the work. Following the instruction will surely not happen for plot summaries of current films and new novels. Cognita ( talk) 05:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
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.
In a plot summary for a movie or television show, once a character has been introduced by their full character name, 1) Should the characters then referred to exclusively by their last name (if known) thereafter? 2) Or, should the character be referred to what they are commonly called in the movie/television show? This could be the character's first name, last name, or nickname? Jauerback dude?/ dude. 18:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section Length, the phrase "real work perspective" is obviously an error for "real-world perspective". Please fix. 76.69.116.4 ( talk) 06:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
This page could probably use one. Anyone want to write it? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 09:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:PLOTSUMNOT says If the original is nonlinear or experimental in its structure, then the article should state that fact in prose, not through regurgitation of the plot.
, which could be read as saying that it is okay to ignore narrative complexities. I believe that brief mention of flashbacks, etc., should be explicitly encouraged. How about something like If the original is nonlinear or experimental in its structure, then the article should state that fact. It should do so in prose, not through regurgitation of the plot or describing events out of chronological order.
?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
14:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)