Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction

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?

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)

Well "the guideline in question is quoted verbatim" is a flat out false statement. You added the top part, and everything other than the six bullet points, of the Discussion after I, and others, had commented. To claim otherwise is not just deceptive is is flat out lying which uses up all the AGF I have. (RfC as originally posted) Jbh ^Talk 16:18, 11 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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)