Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May - July 2007) Topic: "Unencyclopedic" (2003) Topic: Trivia (July 2007 - ongoing; partially archived)

Plot issues

Plot rewrite

I have no problem with the main gist of Randoman's rewrite, it still captures the intent of NOT#PLOT: Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A plot summary is appropriate as part of that coverage, but should never become the dominate aspect of an article. My only concern is the last few words: PLOT before has always been about the work's coverage, which does not explicitly limit it to a single article, which is why I changed the end to dominate aspect of a topic. Then DGG changed this to be sole aspect of a topic, and then Randoman changed it to sole aspect of an article. This last change, personally, is just a bit too strict in that one could use that to rule out the allowance that currently exists but otherwise unstated for lists of episodes and characters, if one considers "lists" to be the same as articles. Before we wheelwar on two terms, I'm tossing this for discussion. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Hiding was actually the first person to make the edit, and I thought his was pretyy close to accurate. I wasn't crazy about your edit, but I could live with it too: "should not be the dominant aspect of a topic". I could also live with DGG's, "should not be the sole aspect of an article". But taken together, it seems pretty loose to me. I know I'm on the stricter side of this discussion, but I don't want to see plot summaries stamped down to tiny teasers either. I'm hoping we can find some common ground as to what a sensible summary is. Maybe we won't agree on how strict or how loose, but we can get down to a range. Randomran (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to see Hiding's wording ("dominant aspect of an article") restored, as all the other alternatives seem problematic:

1. "Dominant aspect of a topic" is unclear. Is the combination of all articles in Category:The Simpsons one topic? Would it be alright for 10% of articles in that category to consist of pure plot summary and the 90% to cover plot summary and real-world significance?
2. "Sole aspect of an article" is clearer, but it sets a very low bar for content. It suggests that even a single sentence of non-plot information in the article makes it appropriate (i.e. as long as 1% of the coverage is not plot summary).
3. "Sole aspect of a topic" essentially combines the problems of the first two variants.

–Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But when there are sufficient secondary literature discussing the plot, an article on it is justified wby WP:N, and I cannot see any reason why it is unacceptable. Black Falcon, why should we not have such articles. and why should plot not be the principal part of our coverage of a fictional topic? I think it usually ought to be, in fact. Explain why not--and not in terms of other policy of the same standing as this, because this iis a policy page and could control that. In terms of the basic principals of Wikipedia. The reason people read or watch fiction in the first place is primarily the plot. Its the main interest,and should have the most coverage. DGG (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If a particular plot element in a work of fiction, or the actual plot of a particular work of fiction, is independently notable, I have no objection to having a separate article on it (unless it makes more sense from an organization perspective to cover the topic in another article, but that's a question of merging and not deletion). As for why plot should not be the principal part of our coverage of fictional works, I can offer two reasons. The first is copyright: overly detailed plot summaries (such as scene-by-scene description) can violate the copyright of the work, since they potentially "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" (quoted from WP:NFCC). The second reason is one of the five pillars: Wikipedia is a general-reference encyclopedia and, as such, covers topics of real-world significance; it is not a guide or walkthrough for video games, books and comics, or films and television series.

I understand your reasoning behind the "main interest" argument, but I do not find it to be convincing. Yes, most people read or watch fiction for the plot, and I would go so far as to say that most people searching a work of fiction online are interested in its plot, but that does not mean that the plot should therefore be the main focus of an encyclopedia article about the work of fiction. Consider this example: most people who search for "sex" online are looking for pornography, yet that is hardly reason enough for us to make pornography the main focus of the article Sex.

For what it's worth, I am not a supporter of reducing plot summaries to one- or two-sentence teasers (to borrow Randomran's words), and I think a healthy plot summary should be about two to four paragraphs long. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to applaud both of you for being civil and trying to understand each other. Even though you have different views, I think there are a few points where you both agree. Would both of you agree to compromise on wording that specifies a range? Namely, instead of talking about what's dominant in an article, we could simply say "a concise plot is less than a scene-by-scene synopsis, but more than a two or three sentence teaser?" Randomran (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with BlackFalcon about the appropriate length, assuming he is referring to episodes and the like, not major literature or films. Most of the prior discussion has been about episodes, but the text here is completely general, and has to accommodate everything from a short sketch to a novel. If we do have agreement on what we want, now perhaps someone can find out how to say it. I certainly would accept a range-- it's absurd to force people to write more than is needed, or less. I agree there are some shows where a sentence may well be quite enough (it will also sometimes happen that if we're working from secondary sources & don't have the work available to us, that it may not be possible to write more.) On the other hand, i can think of some really major works where scene by scene might be the way to go--though if possible i think it better to follow the plot lines than the strict order of the show). I can even think of some works where we might need two version: a summary, and a detail. I would hate having to tell the plot of Moby Dick in detail without first giving a sketch. What I want to do tonight is to look at some of the numbers from the discussions Masem started. Before we get there, though, can we agree it depends on a/the importance of the work b/the length of the work c/the complexity of the work d/the available reliable information about the work, and e/the amount of secondary discussion about the plot. But how much detail we can do here is another matter, though. (Perhaps a footnote?)DGG (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're amenable to a range. It sounds like Black Falcon would be willing to concede that a plot summary is more than a teaser. But then, do you honestly think there are some times when every single scene needs to be summarized? If so, then is it rare? If so, then is there another standard we can use to say "most reasonable people would say this is excessive"? Randomran (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, thank you, but I don't think I've ever seen DGG be anything other than civil and willing to consider alternate or opposing viewpoints. :)

Getting back to the question of plot, I think DGG highlights an important point: it is inherently problematic to impose a uniform quantitive restriction on the amount of plot that is appropriate in articles about works of fiction. All things being equal, a 30-minute television episode will likely require significantly less plot description than War and Peace... So, I support the idea of focusing on the depth of coverage rather than on the length of coverage (I gave the suggestion of 2–4 paragraphs of plot just to support my argument and was definitely not suggesting that it be codified in this policy). One final thought: perhaps we could all agree on the use of the word "dominant" if it was defined more previsely. Dominance need not necessarily be defined in quantitative terms (e.g. >50% of article's length). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There are too many factors on either side of the debate. Most of the WP:FICT rewrites (dating back to my original in mid-2007) emphasized real-world content in each article; since each proposal failed, I think we should word it as "dominant aspect of a topic" (instead of "sole...article") to avoid controversy. Personally, I think the current version helps support a theory I was nearly able to implement with WP:FICT two years ago (key word being "nearly"):

An ideal plot summary is subjective; for instance, I've always preached that most Final Fantasy games can be summarized in roughly 750-1,200 words. However, there are many reviews, interviews, and strategy guides for these games, most of which provide enough real-world content and analysis to justify sub-articles, which allow for greater in-universe detail and thus a shortening of the main synopsis. The theory regarding WP:FICT was that sub-articles should be treated as their own entities, chiefly because a storyline can be summarized succinctly without the need for spin-off articles. It requires talented writers with sharp eyes for redundancies and useless information, but it's possible. Sub-articles could be justified if enough real-world content was presented along with the in-universe information. For instance, a sub-article on the setting of Final Fantasy VIII should not only contain the fantasy locations, but also reliably sourced information on the development and critical reception of the setting. — Deckiller 07:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing to consider here is to point to concerns that Pixelface and others have stated about plot implicitly bringing in notability, and the aspect of Hiding's initial change seems to help towards that. If we recognize that notability will decide about the appropriate of an article that's strictly plot, and that PLOT here is specifically meant to not judge articles but topics in general (thus removing PLOT for being a possible deletion reason). "dominate aspect of a topic", in conjunction with notability, would then allow appropriate summary-style approaches to fiction. Mind you, this still could mean that if I added up all the words on plot aspects, say, for the Simpsons and compared that to every other word, you may find there's more words in the plot side, but clearly looking through the episodes, the articles do not make to have the plot dominate each. If someone attempts to justify a plot-only article as part of a topic's coverage, we point to WP:N and ask about secondary sources to demonstrate that an article is needed. Thus, PLOT and WP:N are two distinct aspects that work together but are not comingled here. This also justifies that, at times, there are articles that are fully plot summaries but that are part of supporting coverage (eg the lists of characters, etc.) --MASEM (t) 17:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

as usual, I am very willing to endorse Masem's view, even though it does not exactly correspond with my own. I know this is not the place, but i want to IAR and express my appreciation for the great amount of careful and patient work Masem has devoted to attempting to resolve issues about Fiction, and the ingenious and appropriate solutions he has found. DGG (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we'd get a consensus that we don't do *something* about an article that is entirely a plot summary, even if that's just a merge to an article with more verifiable information about reception/impact. In practice, this is pretty consistent with our requirement for third-party sources. NOT#PLOT and third-party sources are complementary, rather than redundant. Most people expect some real world context for a fictional article, beyond "it's part of this book" or "it's from the imagination of this author". We're back to the problem of determining how much plot summary is appropriate, and we're not going to get a strict agreement there. Obviously some people do like pure plot summaries, and some people want a few sentences that sum it up with a lot of information on development and reception. But certainly we can define some kind of reasonable range. Even if that's just "we know we don't want to freeze, and we know we don't want to boil". That would be better than nothing. On the exclusionary side, Black Falcon seems willing to make some concessions, if those who prefer more detail are willing to look for common ground. Randomran (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that the recounting of a plot is not encyclopedic is false. Counter-examples can be seen in the Encyclopedia Britannica which presents articles of this sort, such as its coverage of Macbeth. And we have numerous other types of article which are presented in far greater detail here than you will find in a general reference encyclopedia - mathematics, sports, popular songs and so on. I have seen no objective reason or evidence for the exclusion of plot in particular - it just seems to be personal prejudice. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at Britannica's article on Macbeth the fictional character, and it is in keeping with WP:PLOT, because it talks about Macbeth's internal development and the impact on the audience of the character's actions. That's what we're looking for with WP:PLOT, to say, yes, summarise plot, but also summarise opinion that analyses the plot. That's how Brittanica treats fictive subjects, that's how we should too. Now if you go look at their article on Superman, the fictional character, and contrast it with ours, I'd say we win hands down. Oh, and no-one here is looking to exclude plot. Everyone is on the same page with regards including plot. What we're looking for is agreement that plot needs to balanced with analysis, because that better informs readers. I have seen no objective reason or evidence as to why we should not balance plot with sourced analysis. Hiding T 09:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Colonel Warden, plot summary on its own is not encyclopedic, because it does not contain any real-world commentary, criticisim, context or analysis. In answer to Hiding, don't forget that Britannica is writen by an editorial team, so from the perspective of Wikipedia, their contribution would be classed as original research, because the articles are based on their own research and expert opinions about a particular topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was leaning towards that when I said we needed to summarise opinion that analyses the plot, but was wary of opening up the full can of beans. Hiding T 12:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, could you please explain your closure of this AFD and how WP:NOT#PLOT related to that article when the AFD was closed? --Pixelface (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I don't think I've ever said anything about WP:NOT#PLOT "implicitly bringing in notability." You have. Please don't put words into my mouth. Hamlet is notable. If the Hamlet article was just a plot summary, Wikipedia should still have an article about Hamlet. Period. AFD is about topics anyway, not the current state of the article. And like I explained to you at my user RFC, before I removed WP:NOT#PLOT for the very first time last March, there had been multiple AFDs about plot-only articles where there was no consensus to delete the articles. The only relation between WP:NOT#PLOT and the GNG is the editor currently named "Hiding" — in that Hiding proposed WP:NOT#PLOT and Hiding was the first editor to summarize the SNGs. --Pixelface (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You did state your concerns about making WP:N policy through PLOT at least once before (see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 18) and it's still a very good thing to keep in mind, since NOT is a content policy, not inclusion (which is why I don't want PLOT to be able the article content, but the content of the coverage of a topic) And regardless of that, PLOT, NOTE, and pretty much every other quality-control policy/guideline on WP is meant to be used to judge the article's potential, not the current state of the article. Of course Hamlet's notable, because I know there are sources out there for it, even if the article at the present time was plot summary. There's probably plenty of plot-only fiction articles that are kept, usually because they represent significant elements of significant works with potential for sourcing to move away from being plot-only in the future (this is what Phil tried to write in his version of FICT). And for a more practical example, we're now working under the assumption that every episode article on South Park can be expanded past plot only thanks to the work of a few individuals to establish that four random SP episodes can be expanded past plot per my suggestion. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 18, May 2008, nearly a year ago:

You said "Instantaneous evaluation of a plot-only article right now should not be means for deletion, but instead, such articles need to be given a fair amount of time (about a month) to show good faith efforts to improve and include the real-world context, after the article is tagged for lacking these through {{notability}}. Plot-only articles that, given this time, fail to still show why the fictional element is important, should be deleted -- but only after considering if there are merge targets that the information can be transferred to." and I replied "Again, you mention notability — which is not a policy and will never be a policy. So is WP:NOT#PLOT some attempt to make WP:N policy?" You're the one who brought up notability. That's why I asked you that question. I am opposed to every effort to shoehorn the concept of "notability" into policy, since whether something is "worthy of notice" is merely personal preference.

Later I replied to NeoChaosX saying "And "notability" has nothing to do with what Wikipedia is not, except for the fact that Wikipedia is not The Notability Project that anyone can edit. Questions of "notability" are completely separate from What Wikipedia is not."

Later I asked you "What if an article is just a plot summary written entirely from secondary sources and yet contains no analysis? Should the article be deleted?" You said no, you said it was a matter of cleanup, and said "Again, we are looking at the ultimate state of the article and if there is the likelihood of an article showing notability, than the instantaneous state." Again, you're the one who brought up notability, and Wikipedia has no notability policy. WP:NOT is not for cleanup issues. It is for things not allowed on Wikipedia.

If WP:NOT#PLOT is meant to judge the article's potential, then people citing it in AFD nominations are clearly using it wrong. And what if people think a plot-only article has no potential to be more than plot-only, yet it's kept anyway? I don't think many plot-only articles are kept because they show potential to have more than just a plot summary. Read the comments in this AFD (which should have been closed as no consensus, but again, the admin was just following orders, doing something blindly because some text existed on a page with a {{policy}} template at the top, ignoring the actual discussion they were supposed to be evaluating, ignoring text on another policy that several participants cited).

Hamlet is not notable due to outside sources. It's still performed to this day. It's a well-known play. People go and see it. Millions of people living today are familiar with it. That is why it's notable. An encyclopedia would be expected to tell readers what the play is about — that requires a plot summary. Some "professional" critic's opinion of the play, while perhaps interesting to read, is not actually necessary to tell readers what the play is (and mostly serves to promote the critic's name, by riding the coattails of a notable fictional work).

And your suggestion for people to expand four random South Park episode articles was unnecessary anyway. There is no consensus to delete those articles.[1] Every episode is notable regardless of your little experiment to get other people to jump through your imaginary hoops. You seem to think that the only way something can be notable is for people to write about it, but that's simply untrue. Discussions about "notability" are off topic on this policy talkpage anyway. --Pixelface (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, back then I talked about it, and you expressed your concerns about mixing WP:N into policy. And guess what, I now agree with that and thus agree that we should not be trying to imply notability concerns in WP:NOT. I'm trying to compromise and listen to everyone else to find a median position and my beliefs on what we should be doing have changed to match. And while discussing notability here on WP:NOT is out of context, I still will argue that we need to be discussing an appropriate threshold of notability for having an article - yes, per a normal dictionary every episode of most major TV shows are notable, but they don't meet the threshold we ask for standalone topics. The work done by people at the South PArk page helps to demonstrate that likely most SP episodes will pass that threshold and thus need to merge. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The wording there was way too far onto the side of demanding plot summaries on every article and suggesting that any length ios fine as long as it's not the "sole" part of the article -- so 95% plot summary and then 5% "in popular culture" trivia would be fine? No. And we need to make that clear. Plot summaries have always been described as "brief" or "concise" -- the person who removed that was doing the exact opposite of what WP:NOT is all about by suggesting it needs to be deatiled. It also does not need to be in every article. Hell, that's not what most encyclopedias even are for. I think some people are wanting a WikiCliffNotesSubstitute.org kind of place. Summaries of classic works are fine, because knowing that info is part of cultural heritage. Summaries of modern works are not significant in that way.DreamGuy (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It currently reads "brief plot summary" and that is should not be a "dominant aspect of our coverage". I think this easily covers the 95/5 case you describe. However, I see absolutely no reason that if a work or element of fiction is determined to be notable to have an article to then include a plot summary to establish context. A brief plot summary is not a replacement for reading/viewing the work, nor attempts to create analysis as cliffs notes will do. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The wording neither suggests nor endorses the 95/5 case. Plot summaries should be handled on a case by case basis, with this rule being used as a general indicator of what we're trying to avoid (dominant plot summaries without real-world content). I think the only issue is whether we want to say "dominant aspect of a topic" or "dominant aspect of an article"; as I said above, I think the former is more of a compromise. — Deckiller 15:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

While "not the sole aspect" implies 95% plot is okay, using the wording "not the dominant aspect" implies that anything more than 50% plot is not okay. I'm just being matter of fact here. I think there are people who actually like 95% plot articles, just as there are some people who would never expect every fiction article to have more than 50% of its information be about reception/development. We need to find a workable range. Part of that will come from an appropriate comparison word (e.g.: something other than "sole" or "dominant"), but part of that may come from a word that describes the level of detail itself (e.g.: "not scene-by-scene"). Randomran (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't read "dominate" as necessarily implying majority, nor is that what is meant. For example, a notable TV show that's still on with 20+ years of episodes that are otherwise non-notable is going to have a main page about the show which is well covered on the real-world aspects to merit a good-sized article, possibly a character page, and reasonably a page for each season with episode summaries (I think most responding here agree this is reasonable). If I did a word count of plot vs non-plot, likely the plot will be more than 50%, but this is certainly not "dominating" the coverage of the show; those other lists are necessary parts per convention. It's a very case-by-case word, but clearly establishes an almost undue weight aspect specific for fiction that the article's focus should not be on the in-universe treatment of the work or topic. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is just semantics, then. Because "not dominant" suggests < 50% to a lot of people. Is there another wording that would allow more than 50% plot in many cases, but never anything even close to "plot only"? Randomran (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries don't need to be described as brief or concise, that's implicit in the word summary. The use of the word concise was a mistake by the initial proposer, for which I'm happy to hold my hands up and say mea culpa. But I'll let you guys move it on from here. Hiding T 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, "impact" and "significance" mean the same thing; we should change one of those words to "development". Thus: "Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, development, and significance of notable works. A plot summary is appropriate as part of that coverage, but should never become the dominant aspect of a topic." — Deckiller 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on changing "significance" to "development". The other words are kind of redundant. Randomran (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I swapped impact for significance. I prefer that. Hiding T 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I think this is a less controversial/tricky part of the section, and I think it will basically stick. Let's get back to focusing on the (1) proportion of plot summary and (2) detail of plot summary. Those are the real issue. Randomran (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I point out that we had previous talked about "brief" vs "concise" and other words as to describe the depth of plot summary, and "concise" was the better word, because it still implies brief but not omitting key factors. We use just as many words as needed to describe the plot to make it understandable and support the rest of the article. As to proportions - I don't think we want to spell out any numbers, and that's why "dominating" is good, because it's not so much the numbers but how the article is written that comes into effect. The only 'special' case here is when an article is all plot and nothing else, but that 1) clearly dominates (by a ratio of infinity) and 2) fails WP:N, so we don't have to call it out as being special. The only thing that I would prefer is to avoid the word "article" because, due to accepted existence of lists of characters and episodes, it's the topic or the coverage of the topic that we consider how plot applies, and not any specific article. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I just think that "not dominant" might be abused to cut down articles that are more than half plot. And for what it's worth, lists of episodes and characters are :sometimes: accepted (and for a group of editors, they're begrudgingly tolerated), and :sometimes: deleted or merged. Trying to settle that issue here and now is only going to disrupt any chance of reaching consensus. Instead, we should come up with a wording that allows some and not others. I actually think these are a question of detail, rather than proportion. Take a look at the kinds of character lists that we delete (indeed, you nominated a few of them): [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] ... Randomran (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I don't want to have PLOT being what justifies the acceptable LoC/LoE, but to simply make sure they aren't rejected by it either, which is why basing our judgment of the amount of content by per-article level is not the best approach - we have notability to deal with the problem of overwhelming primary-sourced plot-only type articles at the article level.

So basically we're trying to look for a word or phrase to replace "dominate". I'm tossing out words here like "primary", "focused", "concentrated", "directed towards", "highlighted"... I sorta like "concentrate" , as this implies both a possible ratio and a possible tone aspect but does not limit by any specific numbers. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are good ideas. Just brainstorming. But what about "... may sometimes be the majority of an article but should not dominate it". Or perhaps, "... should not be presented without major coverage of reception or impact." The idea being that we often have 50+% plot, but you get into trouble as you get closer to 100%. Randomran (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the back-and-forth changes in wording today, I think it might be best to avoid using the word "article", and I thought that Hiding's suggestion to use "coverage" instead of "article" or "topic" could be a better option. How about: "A plot summary is appropriate as part of that coverage, but should not become the main aspect of our coverage." I've made three changes from the established version: "never" → "not", "dominant" → "main", and "an article" → "our coverage". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are extending this to lists? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that possible side-effect. Then again, I didn't think that using "an article" excluded lists. Perhaps Masem is correct that we should for now focus on a replacement for "dominate" (or determine whether a replacement is needed)... –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is probably semantics, but I don't think we get there by swapping "dominate" with "main". Rather than saying "plot should not dominate", how about saying "plot summary should not be presented without slight/some/significant/proportional/large (take your pick) coverage of development or reception"? Randomran (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Much of this discussion is concerning details of just how much to write and what depth to write it--all good questions, where we need reasonable guidelines, because the quality of what's here needs a lot of improvement. Much of what's been suggested here is good advice towards this. But details certainly don't belong in this very general policy page. We're each trying to adjust the different wording is to orient it towards preferred more detailed interpretation, but that can go in circles indefinitely, just like the last few years. Rather, we want something neutral that is not restrictive or prescriptive, one way or another, and that can be interpreted flexibly, as we may decide to for different situations and different media. "Wikipedia coverage of fiction should not consist only of plot summary. " I think we all agree on this. How much more we want to say, we can say elsewhere, but this very basic policy should be something no reasonable person is likely to dispute. DGG (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. WP:NOT#PLOT can't proscribe what is appropriate, it can only say what is not. I have amended the wording to

A summary of the plot may be appropriate as part of that coverage, but plot summary alone is not encyclopedic.

I hope this version meets everyone's requirements. . --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with DGG, but there may be a consensus for more than that. I think virtually everyone would agree that an article should not solely be a summary of a plot. But I think most people would agree that an article should not be "dominated" by plot summary -- not in the 50%+1 sense, but in the "where's everything else?" sense. I'm hoping we can find an agreeable wording, because obviously "dominant" is too vague, and open to WP:WIKILAWYERing. Randomran (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see my version has been reverted again, but I don't think the issue of proscription is being taken seriously, so I will make my view more explicit. WP:NOT describes what is not allowable in Wikipedia, and I think we are all agreed that plot summary alone is not. However, I don't think we will ever agree on a proportion, as this is a matter of opinion, not fact. Whether plot summary is the dominant or subserviant is not really our concern - the proportion (99.9% or 50.1%) can only be agreed upon by consensus. WP:NOT#PLOT can't proscribe what proportion of plot is appropriate, since this is something that needs to be worked out on the article talk page or in peer review in Good Article or Deletion discusions. Even if we follow Deckill suggestion, how is he going to enforce it? Tag every article which he feels plot is too dominant? Sounds like a bit kinky to me. Lets get back to the more simple, less subjective wording[23]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A plot summary "may" be appropriate?

A plot summary "may" be appropriate? Could someone provide examples where a plot summary is inappropriate in an article covering fiction? — Deckiller 22:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In aspects of a fictional work that don't have to do with plot, like Corrupted Blood incident. Or works of fiction without a plot, such as Geometry Wars. In these cases, though, they'd simply be irrelevant. I'd be okay with changing the wording "a concise plot summary is appropriate, where relevant" -- or something to that effect. Randomran (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it's simply redundant. If there is no plot, then there it is impossible to have a plot summary in the first place. "May" implies that we are being subjective regarding works with plots. It's like saying "a shade of green should be featured in green objects, if appropriate". If the article is about a nonfiction aspect of the work, then it's nonfiction in the first place and not coverage of fiction. Intentionally or not, it strikes me as a phrase included by the minority that disapproves the idea of covering fiction on Wikipedia. — Deckiller 22:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd try to assume good faith that the word "may" was there for a good reason. I've seen people add information for the sake of pushing as much of their favorite topic as possible. I've seen someone go into a sophisticated discussion of greek myths in an article about video game units, to try to prove it wasn't a game guide. I've seen people adding short plot summaries to articles about political figures and countries, with extensive links to television episodes and characters. If that kind of absurdity means we have to throw in a "... where relevant" statement as common sense, then we should. In my experience, there is no common sense, and we should be clear in our policies without being paranoid or complex. "May" is probably too vague, but I would be reluctant to give a complete and total pass. Randomran (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you went ahead and changed it. Care to add some kind of brief qualifier, to address some of those good faith concerns? Randomran (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My length of time away from Wikipedia shows that I've been out of touch with the newcomers; you're right in that there is no common sense when it comes to the constant influx of new editors. My problem is that "where relevant" is a bit too vague, as some may interpret it to believe that five paragraphs on McCain's cameo character on 24 is "relevant and appropriate". My problems with "may" still hold, so I think another option may be best. Perhaps we can spell it out flatly:

"Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. A plot summary is appropriate in articles about fiction, but should never become the dominant/main/etc aspect of an article/topic/etc."

"Articles about fiction" makes it clear that we can't have an entire synopsis of the role of Mythological Reference 38694 in the latest Star Ocean spinoff. I think it also covers DreamGuy's universal concern about trivia being given undue weight in articles on real-world subjects. — Deckiller 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly my concern. We only really need two or three words to tackle that kind of thing, and I'm not picky about what they are. Randomran (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone can think of a tighter compromise WRT wording, please be bold. — Deckiller 23:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• A plot summary may not be appropriate when it breaches copyright, is confusing and so on and so forth. Are you suggesting we mandate the use of plot summary on all articles concerning fiction, or should it be editor choice? Is it something we allow or something we mandate? "May" is used repeatedly on this page and in almost all Wikipedia policies and guidance, from WP:V to Wikipedia:Words to avoid. It simply means there is "permission or the opportunity" or "the possibility is open" for plot summaries to be used. The other useful word in this situation is "can", but that has just as many issues, because it leads to wiki-lawyering of the, but this page says "I can". Since Wikipedia is governed by consensus, everything may be possible. It doesn't mean you can do everything possible, or that everything can be possible. But once again, we're reduced to arguing over a word. I love Wikipedia. Proposals can fail over a comma, policies get bogged down in disputes over shortcuts, and 30 000 unsourced articles about living people are allowed to merrily inform or misinform people in the meantime. Hiding T 11:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• How about "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work, but plot summary alone is not encyclopedic." There just might be exceptions (I can't think of one), but if we use the phase "may be appropriate", then I think there would have be a list of exceptions where plot summary may not be appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, Gavin. We're discussing word use now because we're trying to prevent Wikilawyering later, which could be far more widespread than a single talkpage. The problem is that "may", in this case, implies that some articles about fictional works with plots simply don't "deserve" summaries. — Deckiller 13:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we please keep the status quo until a consensus develops for how and whether to change the section on plots? Regarding this proposed change[24] I think that whereas "may" was too wishy-washy, "is" is too definite. I would consider a qualifier like "generally", "usually", etc. I also don't like pre-judging appropriateness. How do we know in advance what is appropriate to every article? Better to sidestep the issue and say that a plot summary may be included if appropriate to the broader scope of an article about a work. I don't like the current version's use of "never" - never say never. I could envision editors agreeing as an organizational matter that a particular child article should consist primarily of one or more plot summaries. "Plot summary alone is not encyclopedic" raises that too, but also misses the point I think. Wikidemon (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to state this is "Plot summaries or synopses are acceptable parts in the coverage of a topic about a narrative work (this may include both fiction and non-fiction!) along with reception, development, influence, and legacy, but plot summarizes should be the dominating/primary/concentrated/(whatever word) aspect of that coverage." Plot summaries through this are not considered "bad" and in fact encouraged, but at the same time, they're not the sole aspect we want in such articles. (And note this also applies to non-fiction, e.g. our coverage of reality TV shows or shows like Mythbusters should fall in the same lines) --MASEM (t) 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to stand in the way of removing may as it seems like you're all leaning towards agreement. Hiding T 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'm okay with Masem's wording: "they are acceptable". I'm also okay with what Wikidemon has proposed, with "usually" or "generally". If people don't like those, I'm even okay with the vagueness of "may", which isn't vague so much as it means "it's allowed". The only thing I'm not comfortable with is a definitive "is". Most of this policy uses may: "may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive", or "less well-known people may be mentioned". All this means is that we determine this by consensus and common sense, and it's never a guarantee. Randomran (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• When are they not acceptable? Surely it is this policy to say "What is not". Instead of listing all of the instances of when plot is or is not acceptable, why not make it simple and say "Plot summary alone is not encyclopedic" or ""Plot summary by itself is not encyclopedic"?
  Anthing less definite is probably best left to discussion elsewhere, as proscribing what may and may not acceptable levels of plot summary is too subjective, and there too many formulas for expressing this for us even to embark of trying to list them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd shudder to try and shut the "subjectivity" out of just WP:NOT, let alone every policy. There's a difference between subjectivity and just allowing for common sense discussion about how to meet our standards. Under WP:NOTDICTIONARY, when *may* a word or phrase be encyclopedic? Under WP:NOTDIR, when *may* a lesser known person be included as part of an article? Under WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, when *may* an example be used for informative purposes? We don't say exactly when these are acceptable, and for good reason. Same thing with plot. We allow editors to use common sense and build a consensus that "you know what, plot summary just isn't appropriate here". There's nothing terrible about "may", but there's far more risks associated with absolutes. Randomran (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a work of fiction where a plot summary is not acceptable, though I can imagine that editors on a particular page or range of articles may decide to omit them where they add nothing. With nonfiction there are probably cases - for example, an article of a biography of George Washington should not recount the events of his life. Should an article about a travelogue include a comprehensive summary of the itinerary? Maybe some computer game articles should not describe the plot if the plot is unimportant, e.g. a first person shooter. You go to a big cave, then you go through the tunnel with the trolls... On the other hand, role playing games present an occasion where the plot may be the dominant part of the article. Kingdom Hearts, a featured article, has two excellent sub-articles: Universe of Kingdom Hearts and Characters of Kingdom Hearts (also a featured article). While not exactly plot summaries they are summaries of things in the world of a body of fiction. I'm not sure that proves my point though. Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's nice to point out that the Category:Final Fantasy VIII concept is being followed throughout role playing topics. ;) — Deckiller 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about judging everything in advance, except where we know for sure. I've seen people add plot summaries from comedy shows that parody a public figure to an article about that public figure. I don't know what else people might do in the future. That's kind of the point. I'd be okay with what you proposed, with a word like "generally" or "usually". I'm pretty much okay with anything that can't be interpreted as "plot summaries are always okay everywhere". Randomran (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I could live with "usually", to be honest. It seems a bit more reasonable than "may". — Deckiller 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So, something like: Plot summaries. Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. A plot summary is usually appropriate within that coverage, but should never become the sole aspect of an article. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)? Hiding T 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. — Deckiller 01:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is good. Although I think we also might want to keep something in there about the appropriate level of detail. (Previously, we said "concise", but we could say something like "not a scene by scene description".) Still, this is an improvement on what we have now, and what we had a week or so ago. Randomran (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Randomran, I agree that everything about WP:NOT is subjective, but I think you will agree that the prohibitions it need to be clear and definite - the use of the term "may", "could" or "might" should be left out if possible, because ambiguity will encourage yet more revisions and won't last a week. My advise is not to beat around the bush, just state the prohibition in a straightforward fashion:

Plot summaries. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of balanced coverage of a fictional work that includes commentary about its real-world reception, impact, and significance, but plot summary on its own is not.

If a lasting amendment can be written, I think it has to say (a) when plot summary is appropriate and (b) when it is not. Saying anything in between is unnecessary.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You've introduced subjectivity back with "concise". A plot summary, by definition is concise, because it is a summary. We've got guidance on writing a plot summary at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. How about we include a link to that instead of using a word that isn't clear or definite? Hiding T 09:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The word consise could be dropped, but that is the word used in Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. It could also be dropped to make the sentence shorter (not a bad thing). Using a link could be useful too, so I am with you on this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that "plot summary" is a subjective word - for some, this is "concise" while others see it as being a shorter retelling of the work. Some people feel it necessary that a plot summary cover every major point in a work even if this extends the work by 3 or 4 times over the core story when it is possible to skip over these and approach the plot from a different angle to simplify matters. (see, for example, Chrono Trigger, where the current plot summary is a significant trim of a very valid plot summary that covered every major detail, and it took a bit of discussion to make editors accept this). "Concise" implies that we're looking for short summaries, and this can be further exemplified in WAF. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

But like I say, concise is implicit in the word summary, and it is already guided at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and WP:WAF. I don;t think having the word concise in this brief statement is going to help, because it causes arguments over what concise actually means. Far better if we rely on the guidance at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and WP:WAF to determine how to write a plot summary, and let WP:NOT tell people they can't just write a plot summary. Hiding T 14:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure I can understand that, I think as long as it's clear that WAF provides that guidance for what is a plot summary. eg, if the language here was "A plot summary, as guided by Writing about Fiction, is appropriate as..." then it would be clear what we're expected from plot summary without spelling it out here. Just leaving "plot summary" in the text without further description of what we mean will cause confusion. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My thought was to make plot summary a link to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, so something like "Wikipedia's coverage of a fictional work includes commentary about its real-world reception, impact, and significance. A plot summary is typically appropriate as part of that coverage, but should never become the sole basis of an article. For further guidance see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)". Are we getting any closer? Hiding T 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, it's never possible to eliminate the need for interpretation. It's not like we can have a bot that rolls around applying these policies. But if it really means that much to you, I can live with your revisions. I prefer Deckiller's above, though. Randomran (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where Deckiller's is. Can you point me to it? Hiding T 16:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I missed your sig. So the one I prefer is yours. Randomran (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I missed it too, but it still doesn't let me know which one. There's about five suggested versions here. Can you narrow it down? :) Hiding T 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this one, that you wrote:

"Plot summaries. Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. A plot summary is usually appropriate within that coverage, but should never become the sole aspect of an article. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)"

Although I do think we might want to say something about the level of detail, too. But we can work that out after. We have a consensus on this much, so we should move forward where we agree and take care of the rest later. Randomran (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to turn plot summary in "A plot summary is usually..." into a link to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary? As to detail, personally I think that's adequately covered in both Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), but it's certainly an area for discussion. Hiding T 18:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a separate discussion, and I don't have strong feelings either way. (But I do like some of the language there, such as "not a full recap", and "not scene by scene", which I think represent a consensus view of what an article about fiction is not.) Randomran (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this version is too vague. The term "sole aspect" is just to obtuse - it sounds like a matter of perspective or style rather than content. WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits articles that are comprised entirely of plot summary. To refer to this prohibition in terms of aspect, perspective or focus is too indirect. Lets not beat around the bush - can't simply we agree on wording that means exactly what it says? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Too detailed. This is not the page for notability requirements for fiction, nor is it the page for the contents of articles about fiction. its the page for ruling out some types of articles that might otherwise be thought acceptable. The only thing that need here is that "the coverage of a fictional work can not be a mere plot summary." Everything else goes elsewhere when we eventually agree on it. The other reason for a minimal statement here is that the less is said, the more like we are all to agree on saying it. DGG (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, this is exactly the right page to detail what content we expect in an article, as can be seen in other entries on the page. Hiding T 21:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No its not. We can't proscribe in detail what we expect, we have to say what we don't want and keep it to a minimum so we don't overstep the mark. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, you're talking past me. It is exactly the right page to detail what content we expect in an article, per WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:SPECULATION, WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:NOT#STATS. All of those both make clear what we do not want and what we do want, and that's the basis for the original proposal for WP:PLOT and later proposals, including one of your own, Gavin. I don't think it is enough to say "the coverage of a fictional work can not be a mere plot summary." I think we also need to add, to borrow from the section on lyrics, something like "has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc." which would leave us with:

Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work can not be a mere plot summary but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc.

How many versions does that make? Can we not just pick one? This works for lyrics, can we make it work for us? Hiding T 11:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

While I'm still processing what I just read (so perhaps I'm misunderstanding something), what Hiding just said (about using the existing text/guidelines) sounds rather great to me. - jc37 11:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Hiding, I think you are on the right track, which is to be more direct. Modifying your version to incorporate the original text results in:

Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work cannot be a mere plot summary but has to include real-world content about its reception, impact, and significance.

Is this what you are driving towards? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think these two are some of the best yet. Just that "reception", "impact", and "significance" all mean the same thing, and we should probably replace one with "development". And we might want to say "substantial real-world content", so people are clear that we don't just mean "it's a book in the real world written by a real author". Randomran (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the weakness of the word "include". It could lend itself to people putting in just a line or two as justification. What about something like "focus on". Or rewording the whole thing slightly to read:

Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate coverage of real-world content about the work's reception, impact, and significance.

Locke9k (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that looks even better. The word "facilitate" is a bit too open, when something simpler like "provide" might is clearer. How about

Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should be used to provide context for substantial real-world coverage of the work's development, reception, and significance.

--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of being pretty open when it comes to the question of how the plot summary should help coverage of the work's development, reception, and significance. Its not clear to me that providing context is the only way; it seems to me that we should just make the purpose of plot summaries clear and then leave it up to editors to decide how exactly the summary should be used to help; whether for context, clarification, or something else that we haven't thought of here. As long as it is being used to further the overall coverage and not just for the sole purpose of having a summary. I am therefore in favor of keeping the word "facilitate" or something else similarly broad on this point. On the other hand, I think the other changes you have made are really great. Locke9k (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How about "A summary should facilitate coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance"? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. Locke9k (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So is everyone comfortable with

Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance.

If there are no objections, I'll make the edit as it seems like we have reached a reasonable consensus. Locke9k (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My only real concern is that I don't want people to think they can just add "the fiction comes from author_x on date_y" and assume that's real-world coverage. I'd like to throw in "substantial coverage", but I'd be open to any other wording that accomplishes the same thing. Randomran (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.

Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance.

Locke9k (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Great work. That said, can we wikify one instance of plot summary to link to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary? I'd like to give that prominence to show that we do want plot summary, and offer advice on how to write it. Also, Masem has a point below, what do people think about changing "fictional" in "coverage of a fictional work" to "narrative"? Would that address concerns that this doesn't touch on reality tv, or does it muddy the water? Another way is to amend it to "coverage of a fictional or narrative driven work", or something. Hiding T 09:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I like this version. Let's put it up for now, because I think it has consensus. Then let's discuss the other issues. (For the record, I agree with Hiding on both issues.) Randomran (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, I have implemented this version, with the wikified plot summary link as Hiding suggested. We can deal with the 'non-fictional works' issue separately now that this is implemented at least. Locke9k (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanding past fictional works

I would like to urge that if we are rewriting this that we consider that this is more than just fictional works that this is geared towards but any type of work that's a narrative - with the best examples being shows like "Mythbusters" or any reality TV show. It's still possible for these shows to create plot summaries even if they aren't scripted, and while I know what our coverage of shows like Survivor and the like are maybe a tad heavy, we don't want coverage of a reality show being simply about what happened and not describing how the show or season or whatever was recieved or details behind it. This also would be the same for works like The Bible or any other religious text, narrative tales of fact with some possible fiction thrown in, and so forth. It's the same idea: we're not here to cover what happened in these narrative but instead to establish the context of that narrative with the common reader, with a summary of the narrative being an acceptable part of that coverage. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We've made some progress. We finally have something well-worded that says plot summary alone isn't okay. I think the next step is to deal with this other stuff. Perhaps we only need to change "fictional work" to "fiction and narrative", or "fiction and entertainment"? Randomran (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the Bible either "fiction" or "entertainment" (that's a very very very very bad problem waiting to happen), but it does need to be covered under this idea. That's why I like the word "narrative". And I would list it as "narrative work, both fiction and non-fiction" as a replacement of "fictional work". And change "plot summary" to "narrative summary". --MASEM (t) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with the use of the word 'narrative'. Suppose there is a very reliable source on WWII that is structured as a narrative of the war. Is the only acceptable use of a summary of this content then to "facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance"? I don't think so. The narrative now has actual content value that is not simply an aid in establishing real world fact about that specific work. A summary of the 'WWII narrative' is something of value in and of itself (although it would likely draw from multiple sources. So we may need to think more carefully about what sorts of non-fiction works we wish to really address, and also try to think of a better word than 'narrative' in my opinion. Locke9k (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if someone could link to an article which they feel has a problem with excessive 'non-fiction plot summary'. Right now its not clear to me that there is an actual problem that the suggested change would address. Locke9k (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Survivor: Tocantins? Hiding T 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Which was the example I was going to offer up even though I'm semi-invested in the article. That is, this is fine for a start, but we know that we can write an article on a Survivor season better.

The other factor that I consider is that when those like Pixelface that assert Plot shouldn't be here, it is that part of their argument is that it does discriminate against fictional works. In reality, any TV show, any book, etc., we don't fully detail its contents (WP's not a replacement for reading the real thing), whether it's fiction or not. Thus, expanding it (IMO naturally) to go to any narrative work just helps to make this less an issue about fiction, and more about how we cover any narrative work. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you are talking about now. It would be good to expand the wording to cover this sort of thing. However, I am still concerned with accidentally covering informative non-fiction, such as my example of a non-fictional WWII narrative above. I can't think of a succinct wording to parse the difference right now, so maybe someone else can. Locke9k (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The content of a non-fiction narrative like the WWII is good for using as sources in other articles, but on the article about that work, it is not necessary to go into detail about the contents of the narrative. Or, as a different example, Call of Duty: World at War describes the war as "realistically" as the video game can, and there's fictional characters in it, but the plot in the WP article does not dwell on the historical aspects in any depth and relies on wikilinks to help the reader fill in the blanks. So I don't think expanding past fiction is going to impact what you are looking to do. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My objection is not to expanding past fiction, but to simply replacing the word "fiction" in the present version with "narrative". I think we need a bit more thought out change than just that, in order to make clear that this is only meant to apply to articles about the work of fiction/nonfiction. Locke9k (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The other problem is that there could conceivably be non-narrative fiction, and I wouldn't want to create a loophole for that.Locke9k (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this wording:

Plot summaries. Articles about narrative works, whether fictional or nonfictional and regardless of medium, should not consist of mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance.

Locke9k (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that this proposal to extend WP:NOT#PLOT is misguided and not needed. In terms of non-ficitonal topics, any commentary is going to be real-world based, and strictly speaking is not the same as plot summary, which is written from an in universe perspective. It is perfectly acceptable to have an coverage that contains only real-world commentary; the only prohibitions are that it can't be product placement. We can't expand WP:NOT#PLOT in this way, because real-world commentary must contain the context, criticism, and analysis which is required to write an encyclopedic article. I think we need to work this proposal through a few more times using example articles to illustrate its application before continuing this discussion further. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Real-world commentary is not what this is about, nor an attempt to limit it. We're talking about the actual content of non-fiction works - what's printed in The Bible, what's shown during Survivor, what the meerkats do in Meerkat Manor. Just like with the content of fiction works, we shouldn't be focused on just reiterating the content - WP is not a replacement for the work in question, but instead want commentary and analysis of the work, with the summary of the content as part of the WP article. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, and then someone linked this article, which is on a non-fictional topic:Survivor: Tocantins.Locke9k (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the difference between real-world and fantasy-world narrative is an important cut-off. Real-world coverage is the stuff encyclopedic articles are made of, so we can't prohbit it. The real problem with the article Survivor: Tocantins is that the subject matter of the article is not notable, as all of the source cited are either TV listings or the show itself, and if a topic fails WP:N then it is almost sure to fail one or more of Wikipedia's content policies as well (Masem: note bene).
For example, a topic that is sourced soley from the primary sources is always at risk failing WP:NPOV because it is over reliant on one source. This is not so obvious in this example, but is important for non-fiction works like Mein Kampf. Going back to the example of the article Survivor: Tocantins, it is fairly neutral in tone, but since the topic fails WP:N, then this is probably indicates that it fails WP:NPOV by virtue of the fact that it is a content fork from the over-arching topic Survivor (U.S. TV series).
The points I am making here are quite subtle, but if I spell out my reservations more clearly, then it will become more obvious. WP:NNC states that notability does not give guidance on the content of articles; but if an article fails WP:N then it is like to fail one or more of the content polices, which ever one is the most obvious. Topics that fail WP:N are almost always content forks, which is almost always a reason why articles without reliable secondary sources are merged into article that do in deletion discussions.
If you really want to prohibit the excessive narrative of the type in the article Survivor: Tocantins, then I would suggest you read my proposal Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide which covers this issue in full, but without straying over the boundry with real-world content that involves entangling this proposal with WP:NNC. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're still missing the point; it is not about notability (PLOT is never about notability). Take The Bible. We don't have to worry about talking about its legacy , its importance to Christianity, etc. That's fine. But, what we don't do, just as with fiction, is to go into details about what is stated within The Bible on the coverage of the Bible, and leave it at that. Even a concept that comes from the Bible, like Noah's Ark, does not simply consist of the coverage of the Bible's narrative of the story, but is more about its legacy and the like. Yes, most non-fiction works can be notable because they're talking about real-world events, and the additional information about its impact and the like will usually be easy to find, but the key is that coverage of the non-fiction work should not focus on the narrative - the narrative summary should be short and sweet just like we encourage with plot summaries for fiction works and part of the larger coverage of the work. That's it. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Should plot summary be the subject of this policy?

[Unindent] I disagree: A plot summary is one of the basic details about a fictional work, and almost every encyclopedic article on fiction should have one. In order to make our point that it shouldn't be the only thing covered, we need to avoid making it appear that plot summaries are disfavoured.

Frankly, if I had my way, I'd just yank the whole plot summary thing from this page: Why should a stub with a plot summary be deleted, but one that has some other basic content not be? If anything, a stub on a book that briefly detailed the plot is more useful and encyclopedic than one that concentrated on other coverage. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, every article on WP should be helping to put into context of why that topic may be of interest to the average reader in its goal of being an encyclopedia; a work that just presents facts without analysis is doing little good for anyone that is unaware of the topic to start with. A article that is plot summary alone or dominated by one will be of use to the reader that is aware of the work (eg a Star Trek fan looking up an episode) but not the someone who had never read the work before. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? I've occasionally gone around Wikipedia reading about film plots, because I know that as rarely as I watch films, I'll never actually get a chance to see them, but would like to know more. Just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean others don't. Another example: Many, many people like to read a plot summary of an opera before eeing it, so that they don't need to be too distracted by the subtitles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Masem, I don't think he is saying that plot summary is not useful nor interesting to read. However, just because a plot summary is useful or interesting does not make it encyclopedic, which is why 'What Wikipedia is not' exists.
Plot summary appears as flap copy on the back of books and DVDs, and is a very common form of product description common to virtually every sort of product you can imagine that comes in packaging (from AA batteries to Xbox). You will find these product descriptions are broadcast everywhere, reproduced in newspapers, websites, advertising and press releases, but whether we choose to read them or not is a matter of personal preference. In Wikipedia, we are not allowed to express personal preference about partiular topics that we would like to read (see WP:ILIKEIT), so we use inclusion criteria to identify those topics that provide sufficient coverage for an encyclopedic article (such as WP:NOT).
I think what Masem is saying is that plot summary alone does not provide sufficient context outside of the product description itself to indicate that a topic is encyclopedic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(de-dent) If inclusion of plot summaries are (as suggested above) something to follow spcific rules for inclusion, and are to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, I strongly suspect that they probably should therefore not be listed at WP:NOT. - jc37 09:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOT#NEWS, but that doesn't mean that articles cannot contain dictionary definitions and news coverage. The point that comes up more often than not is that articles shouldn't consist exclusively of a dictdef, news or plot, and it gets particularly hard to justify the existance of articles from an encyclopedic point of view when they cannot be improved/expanded beyond those NOT points. Therefore, the inclusion of PLOT in NOT seems quite right here. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think most editors agree that Wikipedia articles should not merely be dictionary definitions, plot summaries, or the like. This isn't to say that they're not part of a balanced, well-written article. Randomran (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried a few tweaks to make things clearer. See what everyone thinks. For the record, I've included my version below. The changes are mainly:

• Separating out the FAQ discussion, so we don't start with a "Should never include", when everything else is a "should not solely include" - very different things!
• Bolding "solely"
• Clarified some wording so we say more precisely what what we mean, and do not unintentionally give the impression that things are forbidden which are not.

“

See also: Wikipedia:Notability

As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles should not consist solely of:

1. Plot summaries. Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. A plot summary should only be part of that coverage. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
2. Lyrics databases. Most song lyrics published after 1923 are protected by copyright. The lyrics of traditional songs may be in the public domain. However, even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source texts generally belong on Wikisource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary upon them, or to illustrate some aspect of the style.
3. Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.
4. News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).

”

Thoughts? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to sound overly conservative... but I think we should try to sort out one thing at a time. This is going to spark a much larger debate that will be nearly impossible to pin down. Trust me that it hasn't been easy to get this far, and we shouldn't push our luck. Randomran (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's reverted, that's fine, though I hope it isn't =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem here is that historically, plot summaries was listed here specifically because they were NOT what Wikipedia is about. Now we've had people weaken that, and then flip it around to go from saying we don't do plot summaries to insisting that any encyclopedia has to have them -- in which case I guess some people haven't looked at a lot of real world encyclopedias.

I'm certainly willing to agree that there should be no total ban on plot summaries, but they certainly do not need to be there at all (if they did they'd be listed on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia needs to have instead), and they should be concise. Saying they shouldn't be the "sole" part of an article implies that they should be the major part of the article, which, again, is NOT what Wikipedia is for and not why it was ever brought up on this page in the first place. I would agree with language saying that a concise plot summary can be helpful, but if we mention length compared to rest of the article we need to suggest either "not the major part of the article" or "a minor aspect of the overall encyclopedic coverage" or something along those lines. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why linking to WAF and WP:How to write a plot summary is critical as those spell out length and the like. However, I do agree that people will infer a article can be mostly plot summary as long as it is not "sole", which is why I'd rather see a word like "dominating" or "focused" or whatever in regards to the plot summary vs the rest of the article. It's not a numbers game, it's basically how the article is written; if the plot section is more glorified than the real-world aspects, its a problem per NOT. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

May I remind everyone that my proposed text reads. "Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. A plot summary should only be part of that coverage." Because I rather thought that dealt with the mentioned objections, and you're referring to language that doesn't appear. If you're referring to the lead in to the discussion, that has to cover plot summaries, statistics, news reports, and lyrics. Too strong there, and we start discriminating against statistics way too much. (The old version read "Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:") Perhaps the simplest way is just to change the order: Put statistics first, then plot summaries, news reports, and then lyrics, and they're more-or-less in decreasing order of value. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is, however, one other aspect that worries me a little: It's all well and good to say that plot summaries should not be the focus of a developed article, but we shouldn't be coming down too hard on stubs and start class articles. (Though lyrics are evil in any circumstance) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

Why are we using the word "encyclopedic" like it's some badge of honor? That word is subjective to whomever uses it. An encylopedia is a compendium of knowledge and information; why is a plot summary not encyclopedic? Because it gives information on a book or film? Please stop using the word to justify your own feelings on plot summary. Angryapathy (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary on its own is not encyclopedic because it does not contain any real-world context, commentary, criticisim or analysis that you would expect from balanced coverage of a fictional topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That who would expect? --Pixelface (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic means is relies on secondary sources, which these works of fiction themselves are not. They are primary sources. Resurr Section (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

...for three days. Please work out the issue on the talk page before edit warring. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

amazing. I just saw this. Two wordings which essentially mean the same thing, and we edit war over them. The actual effect of this policy will, just as always, be the way its interpreted. I could perfectly well argue from either wording to either conclusion on any particular article--and for that matter, so could those arguing about them. Julian did absolutely right to protect. We had a reasonable discussion converging on two reasonable alternatives, until people trying to prematurely judge the result. I'd tend to wonder if the intent were to block any consensus, except that all of the edit warriors were being very helpful on the talk page. Let's treat it as an aberration, encouraged, IMHO, by the possibility of rapid reverting inherent to our editing mechanism. It's wildly inappropriate on a key policy page. DGG (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what the rush is. It's needed clarification for a while. Why not discuss first? The discussion is going well. Randomran (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Presently, and for some time, this policy has contained a statement to the effect that articles should not consist purely of plot summary. The inclusion of such a statement is presently under debate. Below are summarized major assertions and arguments for and against inclusion.

Arguments in favor of inclusion:

1. The current policy has long-standing consensus.
2. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should cover real-world content. Thus plot summaries should generally exist to facilitate coverage of real world aspects of fictional works and not simply for their own sake.
3. This policy does not impose substantial burden on young articles. WP:EP states that articles are a work in progress and thus this policy; taken in context of overall WP policy, does not support the deletion of young articles containing only plot summary, provided that the subject has inherent potential to eventually include discussion of real-world aspects of the work, such as (but not limited to) development, reception, impact, and notability.
4. It is impossible to assess what aspects of fiction are important or unimportant without a verifiable, independent, real-world perspective.
5. Articles often creep from concise plot summaries into detailed scene-by-scene recaps and analysis. It is helpful to be able to point to a long-standing consensus about plot summaries to protect article quality.
6. This policy is the appropriate place to describe what Wikipedia articles are not.

Arguments against inclusion:

1. By including plot summaries in this policy, we are making a stronger-than-intended statement against plot summaries: we are suggesting that plot summaries are inherently something Wikipedia is not when perhaps we simply intend to somewhat restrain them.
2. This policy is not an appropriate place for such discussion. It would be better handled in the manual of style or other, more appropriate places, where the subtleties will not be lost.
3. There is no need to focus on plot summaries. If we are truly serious that all encyclopedia articles should center on discussion and analysis, we should just make a general statement to that effect that does not 'single out' plot summaries.
4. In the early stages of development of articles on some fictional subject, a plot summary may naturally be the first stage of development towards more comprehensive discussion; inclusion of 'plot summaries' in this policy encourages premature deletion of these articles.
5. In some fields, such as theatre, a great deal of the encyclopedic discussion and analysis requires a plot summary in order to make sense of it. By strongly coming out against plot summaries without discussion, we're interrupting the natural development of the article.
6. The present inclusion in this policy lacks consensus.

Several version of the relevant wording are as follows.

The present wording:

“ As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles should not consist solely of:

Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

”

Wording for the last several months:

“ As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:

... Plot summaries. Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. A plot summary may be appropriate as part of that coverage, but should never become the dominant aspect of an article. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

”

The long-standing version from early March:

“ As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:

... Plot summaries. 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. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

”

Below are a straw poll section and a discussion section. Input from the community would be much appreciated. Locke9k (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

• In principle, do you think that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries?

Yes, it should

1. MASEM (t) 19:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. I don't think articles should consist of only plot summaries. Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Concur with Karanacs - we are an encyclopedia - an article in an encyclopedia should not be a 3rd grade book report. (this happened andthen this happened andthen this happened andthen andthen andthen ) -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Concur with Karanacs - we are an encyclopedia, not Wookieepedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Uh. Yes? Protonk (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
6. If an article can never be expanded beyond a plot summary, wikipedia shouldn't have that article. All current plot-only articles eventually have to show evidence of their potential upon request (merge proposal, AfD) and then either fullfil NOT#PLOT for inclusion or don't, a win-win in either case. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Yes. Wikipedia should, in my opinion, cover topics from a real world perspective. If there is little or no "real world" information in the article, or available in reliable sources to put into the article, then this is not possible. I already think plot summaries should not go beyond what is covered in reviews i.e. usually a brief description necessary to understand what the subject matter is, without going into twists-and-turns, the ending, etc. but at the very least the plot synopsis should not exceed the other sections in length. bridies (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes, definitely, that's what makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia rather than a guide, directory, etc. If all that is possible is a plot summary, there should be no article, and I agree also with Bridies' comments just above. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. Although I'm flexible on what it says. It needs to be here, but it shouldn't be worded in a way that lets people turn a good plot summary into a mere teaser. Randomran (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support per The Red Pen of Doom—Wikipedia is not the CliffsNotes to the novelization to something we watched on TV. Articles should not consist of only plot summaries, nor should they be formulated primarily to support a plot summary. A plot summary is at most a component of an encyclopedia article—without other content, there is no reason to add such an article to Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support per all of the above. Wikipedia is not a TV guide, it is not EPGuides, and it should not be the place for people to come "read" a film, book, or TV series. Its an encyclopedia, not just a place to dump plots. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Of course it should be there. It always has, and the watered down language currently there suggesting that plot summaries are good doesn't belong there. People who totally miss the entire concept of WP:NOT changed the wording to support inclusion of something that doesn't belong. Plot summaries should be SUMMARIES, not point by point. If they exist at all they need to be brief. Plot summaries are also unsourced and unencyclopedic in general, it's WP:SYNTHESIS unless they cite reliable sources making the summaries, which I've never seen on any article. DreamGuy (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong Support — the disruptive attempts to remove this need to end. This has been talked to death. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

    That's a nice assumption of good faith there. Hiding T 13:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

14. Yes, as an appropriate delineation of our project scope as an encyclopedia.  Sandstein  15:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - because a strong and clear statement on this issue in the NOT listings would help editors rationally and cooperatively refine heavily plot-focused articles, such as Michael Kelso. Townlake (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
16. The clause is necessary to stay in line with policy: WP:NFCC forbids items that are only plot, as they are infringing on copyrighted material and commercial uses therein. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

    If you really think so, I suggest you email Mike Godwin. And if every fictional work is copyrighted then WikiSource is in a lot of trouble.[25] [26] --Pixelface (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    ...really? Copyright has expired on those works. If Wikisource posted the full text of the latest Harry Potter book or whatever, they could expect a takedown request. Protonk (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    But we have articles on Les Miserables and War and Peace, not just copyrighted books. WP:NFCC only applies to things that are actually in copyright, blanket statements about plot summaries apply to everything, in or out of copyright. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    Of course. What david is saying is that an article which is simply plot recapitulation skirts the boundaries of fair use. I don't want to get into anything but the most rudimentary legal issues (because I'm not a lawyer and it isn't fair to justify policy changes based on perceived legal hazards) but I have to imagine that the distressing and confusing verdict in Warner Bros. and J. K. Rowling vs. RDR Books might give us some upper limit on what can be allowed in plot articles. There are a dozen things that differentiate us from the Harry Potter Lexicon, but the basic idea is that recapitulation eventually becomes infringement. I'm prepared to avoid that line of argument because I don't think we have to go that far to justify avoiding plot only articles. We are, at the core of it, an online encyclopedia. We have a general idea of what that encompasses and I feel that there is widespread agreement around the notion that we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. An article which only (or significantly) revisits the plot of a work in the absence of third party coverage of the same probably doesn't fit our mission. Our coverage of books or plays or films shouldn't be limited to regurgitating the plot. this doesn't mean (necessarily) editing and deletion. It may mean expansion, merging, splitting, etc. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    That was my point Protonk. A plot-only article does not necessarily violate any copyrights. Plot summaries of public domain texts certainly do not, and unless plagiarism is involved, neither do plot summaries of copyrighted works. WP:NFCC does not forbid plot-only articles. NFCC also does not forbid summaries of other copyrighted works (for example, newspaper articles). --Pixelface (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

    A plot summary of a copyrighted work may violate copyright even if all quotations are properly sourced and even if there is none of the original language from the source, if it incorporates enough of the total feel and concept of the piece to represent a substantial taking and otherwise fails fair use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    And a plot summary of a non-copyrighted work could never violate copyright. We already have Wikipedia:Copyrights. I suggest you email MGodwin. Are you suggesting that WP:NOT#PLOT be rewritten to say "Summaries of copyrighted works"? Do you think most citations on Wikipedia are to copyrighted works or non-copyrighted works (and I'm not just talking about fiction)? --Pixelface (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for the suggestion, but I prefer only to bother Mike when necessary. He hears from me quite too much as it is. As to the rest, I've amply covered my position below. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

17. Support because we are first and foremost an encyclopedia. Reiterating the events in a fictional work does not equate covering the topic of that fictional work. The threshold of real-world context is imperative to avoid inflating the in-universe importance of a fictional work (or one of its elements). Having a biographical article about a fictional character written like a real biographical article (even with proper wording) is inflated importance of that fictional character, where no inherent significance exists. Removing WP:PLOT will be highly detrimental to Wikipedia because it permits inflated importance in letting in-universe details be on equal footing as out-of-universe detail. While I'm sure that those who oppose its inclusion are trying to have Wikipedia's best interest at heart, I cannot foresee the removal as a good thing. I have seen enough plot summary articles of the poorest quality to recognize that this is a Pandora's Box that must be kept closed. Consider this: If articles that contain solely plot summaries are permitted, would they qualify as Featured Articles? Not at all. So removing WP:PLOT is permitting articles of substandard quality that can be defended in general quarters, just not in any serious review. Writing plot summaries and in-universe information is easy; removing WP:PLOT also makes me believe that requests for actual research, as difficult as it may be for some topics, can be shrugged off. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support per TRPOD. It is a fact that long plot summaries tend to go "this happened then this happened then this happened". That said, you'd be hard pressed to find a plot-only article that does pass WP:N as it stands: that "the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Some television shows, like Doctor Who and Simpsons, actually have reliable sources that include plot summaries (I have one on my desk, which has summaries about the size recommended by our MOS, but it also consists of production information and analyses, so the odds are that someone who cites that will also cite the other parts). I think the first set of opposes misrepresent the policy: no one will seriously use NOT#PLOT to override N when it verifiably passes N. And no-one is seriously saying this is a ban on plot summaries: this is saying that we shouldn't have three thousand word plot summaries for an episode of Scrubs (because of copyright concerns) or plot-only summaries (because of notability concerns). Basically: keep the current version. It does more good than harm. And if this RfC turns out to have a keep consensus, please stop campaigning for its removal, at least for a little while. It's becoming disruptive. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support This should be a given that we do not want articles that are entirely plot summaries. Wikipedia is not a replacement for actually reading or watching the work. The fact that there are readers who come to Wikipedia for such purposes detract from Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia. --Farix (Talk) 12:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support per the salient arguments above. Wikipedia is not a substitute for reading or watching the actual material. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Certainly. Articles should not consist exclusively, or primarily, of plot summaries, although there is a place for them. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Existing policy is laid out exactly how it should be. Plot summary is only useful to the extent that it helps give a general understanding of the work, not an exhaustive understanding. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support WP:NOT#PLOT is an important guiding rule of Wikipedia: plot summaries should be included only to the level required to understand the material derived from secondary sources, and should never be the primary focus of an article.—Kww(talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support per above over and over. Not much more to add. It's not healthy to see barrels of scrollable text through out an article. Plot should precise and to the point. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - Wiki isn't TV Guide. Articles, whether film, book, tv, etc. should all be encyclopedic and an article that does nothing but rehash a plot is not encyclopedic. Plots should be there to provide context to the real world information about the topic. If someone wants to know what happened, and nothing else, they they can read, watch, or listen to the subject. Wikipedia should not be a substitute for reading, watching, or listening to fiction (or non-fiction if the case is such).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support The point of any fiction article should not be to simply tell us the plot and cast and leave it at that. Likewise plots should not be massive and should only be there to help explain the context of production and development. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Strong Support To keep us a discriminate encyclopedia and as a complement to and necessary outcome of WP:WAF. There's certainly a place for plot summary, but only as background information for the real encyclopedic content. Wikipedia documents how elements of fiction are notable in the real world, not in their own fantasy universes. ThemFromSpace 02:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support, I have no objections to a plot summary being a part of an article on an otherwise notable piece of fiction, however I do not think that articles which are entirely plot summary are appropriate for an encyclopædia. There are plenty of wikis like The TV IV where that sort of content is more appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC).
29. Support per excellent arguments above, Erik's in particular. Jakew (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support --EEMIV (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Strong support - I'd want to see it stronger than it courrently is. This is a reference work of general knowledge, not a goldmine for fan trivia. Summary-only articles do nothing to enlighten the reader about what the subject (book, TV episode, film, game, whatever) is, and why it matters in the universe. In-universe blow-by-blow recaps of entire works of fiction are not reference material in any generally-accepted sense of the term.
32. Support Karanacs and Dougweller said it best. Articles shouldn't be only plot summaries, and this is what makes WP an encyclopedia, and not a directory, guide, etc. hmwithτ 12:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support. Notability of a topic doesn't justify notability of every minor event in a topic. To omit this from WP:NOT would contradict our notability policies; all information on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced and have real-world context, and plot details shouldn't be omitted from policy just to make coverage of a subject more "complete". Wikipedia is based on notability, not completeness. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support. Per Stifle. — Σxplicit 16:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support and expand. Not only should an article not consist solely of a plot summary, an article should not contain a plot summary at all, no matter how brief. We are an encyclopedia of the real world, not of fictional universes. —Angr 16:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support as articles that are purely plot summaries do nothing to assert or prove notability, a key test in whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite or an episode guide, so while a plot summary (sometimes, even a very detailed one) can be an important part of a larger article it should never be the entire article. - Dravecky (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Yes, it needs to be there. Personally, I prefer the second of the three versions listed above to the current version, though. Deor (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Yes, because NOT inherently consists of examples which are reflective of actual cases/problems on Wikipedia. NOT#PLOT exists because of longstanding (and continuing) problems where articles get bloated with plot summaries that outweigh their real-world content. Community consensus has long been that this is not the direction we want Wikipedia to head. Ergo NOT#PLOT serves to put into simple, declarative words the community consensus that Wikipedia is not a place for expansive plot summaries. By comparison, we wouldn't need WP:NOTMYSPACE if people didn't treat Wikipedia like Myspace. We wouldn't need WP:PLOT if bloated, overly detailed plot summaries weren't a problem. But they often are. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    That's not why WP:NOT#PLOT exists. And regarding the supposed community consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT, please read User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT. --Pixelface (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

39. Yes because "articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics," (WP:N) and an article consisting of nothing but a plot summary falls short of that bar. (I failed to notice that WP:NOT is policy whereas WP:N is a guideline, so the previous line of reasoning may not be valid.) Yes, because a plot summary without context could serve as "in universe" history -- something at odd's with Wikipedia's effectiveness as a real-world encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not present fictional narrative without proper context. That distinction seems to me worth the weight of policy. -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Yes, the very fact that we keep discussing this demonstrates it's needed. Plot cruft remains a serious problem and must be discouraged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    #9. You seriously think all the threads with people saying WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed demonstrates it's needed? We keep discussing this because of eleven editors who keep re-adding WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy (and you're one of them)[27]. --Pixelface (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

41. Yes. I was almost neutral in agreement with Goodraise, but went support because I think it should be mentioned somewhere and retaining it here seems as good as any. I agree that plot summaries are not encyclopedic. Also, I am concerned with the copyright infringement elements of plot summary, which if not applying to all fictional works certainly apply to many. (We just didn't have serialized fiction in the same quantity in the days before television and comic books, 19th century magazines notwithstanding. And Little Dorrit doesn't inspire the same devotion as some more trendy fiction. :)) Plot-summary only articles don't supply anything by nature of transformation, and transformative purpose is one of the core elements in fair use. The US courts made explicit in Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. vs. Carol Publishing Group that the "facts" in a work of fiction are not treated like "the facts in a phone book", but are part of the creative expression of the original ("Unlike the facts in a phone book, which “do not owe their origin to an act of authorship,” id. at 347, each “fact” tested by The SAT is in reality fictitious expression created by Seinfeld’s authors.") Such "facts" include the sequence of events; these, obviously, are the creators' invention. They also noted that the critical inquiry in determining fair use is "whether the allegedly infringing work “merely supersedes” the original work “or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new … meaning or message,” in other words “whether and to what extent the new work is transformative.”" A plot summary within the context of critical analysis offers some defense as transformative (particularly if it remains succinct). A plot summary standing alone does not. (In that landmark case, the publishers of a trivia book about Seinfeld were found to infringe on the original, as it was judged insufficiently transformative.) Given the serious potential for plot-only copyright problems in articles that do reference copyrighted works and the good point that even in public domain works "plot only" articles don't provide encyclopedic value, I support continuing the exclusion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    Do you have a Juris Doctor? Know who does? Mike Godwin. And please explain to me how Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group applies to Wikipedia content and not Wikia content. And Wikipedia isn't even trying to profit off plot summaries. --Pixelface (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    Wikia's content is not the matter of concern here. Wikipedia's is. US law applies equally to all US-based web content. Non-profit is not a defense on Wikipedia, which is why even though we are a non-profit organization we do not accept material licensed for non-commercial use only. As to my credentials, I'm quite happy to discuss the content of my arguments with you; my professional credentials—beyond what I've chosen to disclose on my userpage—have no bearing and are not your concern. Please feel free to present any evidence you may have to document that Wikipedia is safe from the concerns raised in Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    While I agree on principle that we should be avoiding putting WP in the target of a lawsuit due to its coverage of fictional works, we realistically should only be concerned when Mike Godwin says that WP's in trouble. Maybe 2 to 3 months ago someone asked Mike about this and he said WP's not gotten any lawsuits or C&Ds in regard to plot summaries, so we should not be chasing this issue presently nor should we guide our policies towards it. That said, there is WP's free content mission which still plays a role - not to prevent the inclusion of plot summaries but to limit them from becoming derivative works, and thus incompatible with the GFDL - the primary aspect from this is the length and depth that our coverage of copyrighted works should be about. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    I wouldn't argue against the inclusion of plot summaries (though I wish people would be generally more careful about pasting them from other sources). But the first principle of fair use is "Purpose and character" (those who aren't familiar might see also Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#What is fair use?), and it is for this reason that I believe plot-summary only articles of copyrighted works may represent a serious concern; they aren't transformative. They may also not be of sufficient length and depth to represent a legally actionable concern, but in such a case I'd imagine they're even less likely to have purpose as a stand-alone article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    Completely fair to be worried about the potential, but again, there's a reason Mike Godwin is in MediaWiki's hire. If copyright violation claims ensure, he will warn the community and we will take steps. Using copyright violation concerns to build policy outside of outright copyright violations should not be the concerns of general WP editors until we're told it is our concern. We will likely have long violated the free content mission in the first place before we have sufficient material that may create a copyright violation outside fair use. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'm a little perplexed by this direction so am unsure how to move forward with the conversation. :) So I'm going to back up. Whether or not usage of copyrighted material meets fair use and WP:NFC is already encoded in various policies and guidelines. The question of the transformative nature of the work is already in our copyright FAQ. I don't know when; it's been there as long as I've paid attention to it, anyway. Also already in our copyright FAQ is the question of detail in plot summary, under Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works. (Just did a quick check: both present since the day the document was first created in July 2004.) I don't see that trying to determine if our usage falls within existing policies and/or guidelines—that it be transformative and not overly detailed—is necessarily chasing issues or guiding policies towards it. It seems to me to be simply determining how policies & guidelines are applied and whether we are remaining within them. But lacking details in the "about this" in your note about Mike's communication, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying: are you saying that Mike said that plot descriptions that stand alone without other content are not be chased or to be used in building policies? I know how brief his communications can be, but do you know what he might have meant? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not sure which email Masem is referring to, as the only contacts I know with Mike on this issue are rather older that 2-3 months. I asked Mike about it on his talk page over a year ago, User talk:MGodwin#I apologise in advance but regarding coverage of fictional universes and FatherGoose asked him about the same time, sharing the response here. What these replies actually mean is highly debatable, and the email quotation is worrying since we lack context, which is why I prefer to keep things on wiki. From my perspective, I feel Mike has quite clearly said we have to respect the relevant laws. Hiding T 15:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

42. Per Moonriddengirl. Hiding T 13:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. The plot summaries I read on Wikipedia are not only inapproriate for an encyclopedia, but they are invariably wrong. It's shocking, really, but every single TV show or movie that I have recently watched and then looked up in Wikipedia is incorrectly described. This I can only attribute to child editors. Resurr Section (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you provide an example or two? Hobit (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure, in the article on The Oblongs it says that Milo Oblong has a $1,000,000 in his pocket at all times. I have watched all the episodes, and if there is a scene where Milo flosses some cash, I didn't see it. There is also no evidence of the amount, nor of his always carrying it. I could be wrong, but the info is unverifiable. Resurr Section (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Here is another one, which is embarassing since it shows you what I watch. In the description of Principal Franklin in iCarly, he is described as "He is the only adult character (regular or recurring) who is not portrayed in a comically inept or negative light." Although his character is sympathetic, he is shown to be oblivious and/or inept several times. Please note that these examples are from very short blurbs on these characters; the problem is lack of reliable sources typical of the fan writing here on Wikipedia. Resurr Section (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. Per the many reasons give above, eg copyright issues, often inaccurate, deadly to read, not encyclopedic, can comprise too large a percentage of the article, etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. The concerns of some, that plot summary daughter articles (eg on characters, individual episodes of TV shows) are excluded by this can be addressed by referencing the policy: "Plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary." Exclusion depends on the interpretation of "fictional work", which is a detail to be clarified elsewhere and through practice (i.e. is an episode a fictional work on its own, or part of a TV show fictional work, etc). The principle is sound. Rd232 ^talk 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Of course. Eusebeus (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. Plot summaries are the single biggest problem of the genre "indiscriminate collection of information" on Wikipedia. Setting out a clear qualification of their use is vital, and it seems pathetically anecdotal to imagine somebody being put off by that policy from writing a plot summary that a WP article was severely lacking. Suitable plot summaries are very easy to write. It's the cruft that drains people's time. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support per just about everyone who !voted before I did; I see no need to remove this section.--Aervanath (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Strong Support Plot summaries are common among newcomers especially. I absolutely hate seeing them because it takes away from the article.--Unionhawk ^Talk 19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Strong support. This is a crucial policy element. It was not created rashly or thoughtlessly or punitively, but rather — as evident by its evolutionary adjustment over the last year or so, not seismic alteration — reflects longstanding consensus based on a great deal of experience with this provision in place. It is difficult to imagine how withdrawing it would facilitate edits that improve the project, but easy to imagine how doing so would encourage edits that degrade the project. This is the correct place for the provision, too, for if we abdicate our responsibility here it will cause innumerable squabbles over plot summaries in individual articles. That, in turn, will create a great deal of unnecessary work intervening in the resultant edit wars and quarrels. It seems to me not only is this provision crucial to the quality of the encyclopædia we're trying to build, but it is also self-regulating: If a work of fiction is sufficiently notable to merit an article, there will by definition be enough material to support even a bare starter of a stub without having to resort to a plot summary as a placeholder pending further development. Conversely, if all that can be said about a work of fiction is a plot summary, it's almost certainly not notable for our purposes. As others have commented, this is not the place to publish book reports or movie reviews. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Per Moonriddengirl. Awadewit (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Support per numerous explanations given. One of my personal problems is excessive plot information is that people use it as a substitute for actually reading or watching a story. We aren't Cliff Notes here. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    And some people probably read the Brazil article as a substitute to actually travelling to Brazil, or read the Swine influenza article as a substitute to actually contracting the virus. What's your point? --Pixelface (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

54. Do it!!! - Plot summaries violate copyright and make the items less valuable. No need to read a book or watch a movie or buy that episode of South Park on iTunes. Plot summaries are not "free" and have no place on a free encyclopedia. You can't take these "facts" because they belong to someone else. Invalid fair use, no thanks. I don't give a crap what Britannica does, we are a free encyclopedia. And per everything else above. Wikisource and Wikiquote and Wikia and whatever-the-hell-else have nothing to do with it, this is EN WP. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Plot summaries do not "violate copyright" (and certainly not if the work in question appears on Wikisource, which you think has "nothing to do with it.") And to say that plot summaries are not "free" and have no place on a free encyclopedia, that logic would also apply to any other summary of copyrighted works, like, for example, newspaper articles, or "analysis" of a fictional work. And you don't seem to understand fair use at all. How many citations on Wikipedia do you think are to copyrighted works? --Pixelface (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

55. Support, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge about subjects, while a short plot summary may be helpful, there should be far more information than just a summary of the plot. Real-world background information on the story, production, reception, all the who-what-where-when-and-why the story is significant enough be included in the encyclopeda, these are the truly important pieces of information we need to include. This needs to be made very clear; the coverage of a fictional work should not be entirely plot summary. Dreadstar † 07:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. Absolutely. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. The current provision (and other recent versions quoted above) have been very sensible. Chonak (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for real world information. When we cover topics of fiction we do so in the context of the real world. -- Ned Scott 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. --Kleinzach 00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support - The exact phrasing of the section is obviously open to question, but I cannot see how any article in wikipedis should just be recapping the plot of some other story. Having said this, I am myself far from sure that articles which are still at early stages of development need necessarily be deleted on this basis, any more that any other stubby articles need be deleted, unless there is no evidence that the subject does itself meet WP:NOTABILITY. But that is more about the application of policy than about the policy itself. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support - Per above. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Support - If the only information available or of value is a plot summary, the subject isn't notable enough for an article here. Wikipedia is not a plot summary service. There should be something else that can be written about a topic.--RadioFan (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Support - it is a matter of long-time consensus that pure plot summaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Fictional subjects must be covered from a real-world perspective, and a plot summary fails to do that. This is made clear by WP:WAF, and it should be included in WP:NOT as well. Robofish (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
2. If it meets WP:N, I don't see why we shouldn't have an article. Timeline of Starwars or some such seems fine for example. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
3. If anyone can sit down and see with their two eyes something that is readily available to everyone, I don't see why there is no problem to include it on wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
4. If an article meets WP:N or can be made to meets WP:N it should be allowed (see WP:DELETE's statement, which is often ignored, that deletion should be a last resort). WP has a habit of letting the best be the enemy of the good, and we should not follow it. If a plot summary is excessive, the right approach is to find some sources to support identifying the most important elements, plus some commentary. I expect most fiction / movie / TV articles start as plot summaries, because otherwise there's nothing to comment on. Excluding articles that start as plot summaries, most likely by newbies, is bitey.--Philcha (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
5. No, it shouldn't. Other respected encyclopedias such as Britannica contain plot summaries and so there is no reason in principle to forbid this. And, as a matter of practise, Wikipedia contains large amounts of plot summary and always will. This prescription therefore fails WP:NOTLAW. Relevant issues are best covered in our style guide. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   No. WP has a habit of letting the best be the enemy of the good, and we should not follow it. If a plot summary is excessive, the right approach is to find some sources to support identifying the most important elements, plus some commentary. I expect most fiction / movie / TV articles start as plot summaries, because otherwise there's nothing to comment on. Excluding articles that start as plot summaries, most likely by newbies, is bitey. --Philcha (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I accidentally voted twice. I've merged this comment into my previous one --Philcha (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

6. WP:NOT#PLOT absolutely should not be policy, and it cannot be policy. I've created User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT to explain why (since it's a little long to post here). And I have never created a plot-only article. I strongly believe that this RFC should go longer than two weeks, since the section of policy in question has been opposed for nearly three years now. And I would like to see as wide participation as possible. I would really appreciate input from editors who have never edited this talkpage before. --Pixelface (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
7. No. If something satisfies WP:N it should be allowed. Improvement is always better than kneejerk deletion, something forgotten by some editors all too often.Shemeska (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
8. WP:NOT#PLOT should lead to a sub-section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), or something in that line. Even a whole MoS page may not be as counter-productive as an inclusion in WP:NOT. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

   That Deserves to be a policy in it's own right :-Philcha (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose per the reasons outlined by Philcha, Hobit, and Shemeska. This should be in WP:WAF, not WP:NOT, and you need to look at what an article can be, not just what it is. I feel that deleting an article due to its mainly being plot summary is counterproductive to building an encyclopedia unless it has been determined that the topic fails other criteria. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Per the above; this is a content issue, not an inclusion issue. BOZ (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Drilnoth, and various others. While a plot summary does not make a whole article, is it part of a complete article. Just because the rest of the article needs to be written doesn't mean it's inappropriate -- if we didn't allow incomplete pages we'd vastly limit the ammount of articles we have that are 'acceptable'. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose as per my arguments in discussion. I think this is more appropriately a notability issue, not a content issue. Locke9k (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose. Plot summaries are valid content for an encyclopedia, and mentioning them here creates a too-strong bias against them. Requirements for their inclusion should be handled by a guideline, because the issue is too complex for a policy (which should have few, if any, exceptions). Suitable guidelines that should be used to rule out inappropriate plot-summary-only articles are WP:N and WP:WAF. JulesH (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose this is a general policy page, and must stay general to get consensus. This paragraph has much less consensus than anything else on the page, and that's because it's tried to get too specific, or the wording has been interpreted as too specifically prescriptive. All this needs to say is that the total coverage of fictional topics here must not be limited to plot. That plot summaries must be in proportion is part of the general practice for writing everything--all descriptions and everything else must be in reasonable proportion. DGG (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose per JulesH (talk · contribs) and DGG (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Fully developed articles should not be plot only. If editors had exhaustively searched for reliably sourced material to add, but failed to find it, the article should not be in an encyclopedia. But a large percentage of articles are not fully developed, and there is no deadline, so temporarily having an article be plot only is not a problem. I see no reason for this to be a policy, but it should be included in guidelines such as WP:BK and WP:NF. -Atmoz (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose because of the discussion below and the accusations levelled in teh section above. I'll take common decency and good faith efforts to build an encyclopedia over bullying any day of the week. Hiding T 13:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Not in my name should WIkipedia become a battleground. Hiding T 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose. I agree that articles should not consist purely of plot summary, but WP:NOT is not the most helpful place to deal with this, in a large part because it causes this to be mistakenly treated as the most important aspect of writing about fiction, when it is not. It would be preferable to consolidate our policy on this matter to one page rather than to spread it around excessively. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose the wording is problematic, and it shouldn't be a part of NOT anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose There's no question that articles should not consist entirely of plot summaries. It is a bad and lazy practice, though I confess to have been guilty of writing such articles myself in my earliest days. In many otherwise worthwhile articles there is a large "plot" section. Sometimes that is overkill, sometimes not. I am concerned about use of this policy to delete articles that otherwise are worth expanding. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose An article consisting of a plot summary may evolve into one that consists of more than that before the WP:DEADLINE. — PyTom (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose - This (fiction/plot summaries) should be a guideline not policy. And, as is clear from MANY discussions on this talk page and elsewhere, there really isn't a current consensus on what "common practice" is concerning this, nor what we all agree (consensually) what common practice should be. - jc37 05:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Strongly oppose - Plot summaries are integral to understanding a work of fiction. To inform readers about a book, TV show, movie, play, etc., it is completely necessary to describe the plot. What is a work of fiction without its content? I strongly oppose restricting Wikipedia's scope this way. Wikipedia has already expanded beyond a traditional encyclopedia, and I support this direction. Most of the issues with allowing plot summaries can be solved by putting them into separate articles, factoring them out of the main article if too many people feel they're detracting from "real world" content. It should be an organizational/style issue, not a matter of scope. In general, I believe Wikipedia gets better the more it is inclusive of (well-organized) information. - Scott Teresi (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose - While it is certainly better if an article contains more information just just a summary of the plot, an encyclopedic treatment of many subjects should include plot summary. If an article only has that, it may be an incomplete treatment of the subject, but that means the article just needs expanding. MOS can discuss the details of what sorts of additional content should be added. LadyofShalott 02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose - I do not think plot summaries should be singled out in this manner. Doing so implies they bad, which they are not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Too often I have seen this bit of quasi-policy used misused as the sole and inarguable justification to eviscerate a perfectly-workable article, or worse yet to AFD it. "Articles should not be ALL plot summary" is one thing; however, the mere mention of plot summaries leads some of our more-emphatic members to re-cast that statement as "There should be no articles which contain plot summary--look! A policy says so!" If an article is ONLY plot summary, it needs EXPANSION, not burial in the backyard at midnight in the dark of the moon. GJC 20:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Nope given the growing emphasis on RS and away from PS, this is essentially redundant and unnecessary. Leaving it in unbalances things. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose NOT#PLOT It should not be here. Plot summaries are an appropriate and integral part of complete encyclopedic coverage of fictional works. Articles consisting only of plot summaries should be expanded or merged, and excessively detailed plot summaries should be trimmed. We don't delete stubs for being too short, and we shouldn't delete plot summaries for not having enough "real-world" information. Furthermore, plots of works which are discussed and analyzed in third party sources should have articles which relay that discussion and analysis of plot, even if there is not one iota of information in third-party sources about the work's "development, reception, and significance". If we are going to have a policy on plot summaries, it should not be in "What Wikipedia is not". DHowell (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose Plot summaries are appropriate in encyclopedia articles. DHowell said it better above. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose Plot summaries are something interesting to read, and a reason for people to come to wikipedia. If you don't like it, just skip over it. Here are some interesting and informative plot summaries I like, and would hate to see destroyed. R.U.R._(Rossum's_Universal_Robots), War_with_the_Newts. Ender's Game Dream Focus 22:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose for many of the same reasons I see up in support. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia-type website, but wiki editors are not required to have the professional background or expertise required for writers of Britanica or Americana... as the "encyclopedia anyone can edit". We are something better and have a beter chance of bringing to readers what other encyclopedias cannot. What must be remembered... specially when espousing various interpretations of policy and guideline... is that this encyclopdeidia is not about us. Its about the hundreds of thosands who look in and expect or hope to gain understanding of a subject. PLOT as written acts to create a bias against plot articles, and that does not serve wiki nor its future. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose For notable subjects, having a plot summary only article is undesirable, but having no article at all is even less desirable. Unless plot summaries are banned, plot summary only articles should be allowed. Billebrooks (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose plot summary is very useful for readers and appropriate contents for building articles.--Caspian blue 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose Powergate92Talk 20:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose as per Drilnoth, Colonel Warden, JulesH. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose A reasonable amount of plot summary is necessary to understanding a fictional work. I do think we should encourage writers to write from a real-world perspective and avoid excessively detailed, blow-by-blow plot summaries. But such encouragements should come from a guideline page or an essay, rather than a policy page. It's often hard to draw the line between excessive and reasonable plot summary, so we need a looser, more flexible set of instructions than what could be found on a policy page. Zagalejo^^^ 07:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose. WP:What Wikipedia is not should be a tool to guide not a blunt instrument to beat up on fiction. Plot summaries should be encyclopedic and when they veer away then regular editing should be employed. This also opperates in the negative which can be helpful but on this issue is seems to cause more harm than fix anything. -- Banjeboi 09:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose. So long as the articles have reliable second sources, we should welcome plot summaries. Jimbo Wales has gone on record saying that every episode of Gilligan's Island should have its own article. – Quadell ^(talk) 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

    Hasn't Jimbo also gone on record as changing that view, or is that not quite worth mentioning in the same breath? [28], and see also "An encyclopedia is not an in-universe fan guide" in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_36#Fancruft_inquiry. Surely though, we should let Jimbo speak for himself rather than attempt to color the debate with choice quotations. Shall we strike this bit of the debate? Hiding T 12:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

37. Opppose. I agree that mature articles should not consist solely of plot, but that an article currently consists only of a plot summary should not be an excuse to delete it (and in AfDs, WP:NOT#PLOT is wielded as a club ALL THE TIME). The restriction/encouragement to create something more should be handled in some other, non-policy document (possibly in writing about fiction or some section of the MOS). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Opppose. At first glance, I had been inclined to support, because of course an article should not consist solely of plot summary. But looking at many of the support votes, it is apparent that this is about more than just that. Having such a statement in this policy gives it undue weight as a blunt instrument in the ongoing and seemingly interminable discussions/disagreements regarding the encyclopedic treatment of fictional elements. This guidance is better given as part of a more comprehensive guide to writing about fiction. older ≠ wiser 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Opppose. I also thought to support the wording, but then I looked at some hard-copy encyclopedia (Italian Enciclopedia Garzanti della letteratura and the French Petit Larousse Illustre both from 1974) and was surprised to find they had "only" plot-summaries for most works of literature. The impact and context of the works was left to the respective author entries. Before coming to this RFC I had just expanded Armance (novel) with just three lines of plot summary from what was a two-line stub. The fact that I could not find anything on its impact should not disallow what little there is, I feel. 84user (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Opppose It is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A likely notable article consisting of only of a plotsummary should be improved so that it does not only consist of a plot summary and not deleted. As a work of fiction there are also no BLP concerns. Agathoclea (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Oppose - One of the main things I (and several other people) use Wikipedia for is objective plot summaries without all the ads and spam you find on other "spoilers" sites. It may not be part of Wikipedia's original plan, but it certainly is an important use that has grown over time. Wikipedia contains a collection of some of the best plot summaries around, and it would be a shame to lose that resource, even if that is entirely what the article consists of. Otherwise, I'd suggest splitting the content off and transwikiing it into a Wikibooks Movie Guide (like was done with Cookbook) or something like that. Unfortunately, Wikibooks never gets the same level of participation that the main encyclopedia does, so it will still be a disservice to the readers. But it would still be preferable to outright deletion of all that accumulated knowledge. —Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 22:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Oppose I agree with others that this should be handled elsewhere. WP:NOT should only handle cases that are clear violations of what should and should not be in an encyclopedia. Plot summaries are often part of a perfectly encyclopedic article. Saying that articles must never consist solely of plot summaries unnecessarily constrains the construction of these articles. If it's a matter of notability, take it up at the notability page. If it's a matter of style, WP:MOS is the place you're looking for. This is unnecessary and is being misused.--Dycedarg ж 23:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Oppose I'm not in favour of all-inclusive bans, nor do we need a sledge-hammer to kill a fly - each page should be taken in the context in which it is presented. I also think we have to be aware that some articles will be built over time - a novel is included for a reason (prize-winner, major author's new work etc), a plot summary is produced, reviews are added, and, later, cultural significance is determined. I think it better to allow that build sequence to occur rather than deleting pages because they aren't perfect from Day One. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Oppose Drilnoth sums it up well WRT article potential. I do see the need for out-of-universe elements and value them highly, and if this were an ideal world and folks were not so hell-bent on the mass-removal of fictional material, I might be more favourably inclined. Like it or lump it, this has gotten political and I feel any upgrading of this not a plot meme will only embolden some editors to be even more aggressive in the removal of material - the proverbial throwing of the baby out with the bathwater. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    What do you mean upgrading? It's already there. bridies (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

45. Oppose for the reasons summarized by Drilnoth, Philcha, Pixelface and others. This seems like instruction creep as well. I think it is better to assist people improve the article rather than deleting on sight. There are already plenty of guidelines and policies which cover this, and we don't need to add any more. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    Add? bridies (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

46. Detailed plot summaries are not inherently unencyclopedic. An article (although probably not the primary one on the work in question) could conceivably consist entirely of plot summary and be a good encyclopedic resource. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 14:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Oppose I think that plot summaries often are overly detailed, and frequently unencyclopedic, but I am opposing because only the most broad principles should be listed in WP:NOT. Highly detailed, nuanced positions are better stated by positive inclusion principles (i.e. "We allow X"). If we don't have consensus on how notability should apply to these types of articles, this is not a proper substitute. Attempts to use exclusion rather than inclsions for detailed propositions work poorly in practice. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Remove - Putting aside WP:BEANS concerns, WP:NOT is not the place for this proscription. I would support placing it in the manual of style with a more detailed statement of what is and is not considered acceptable. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Remove - Overspecifying a standard for special cases is not usually helpful, especially in cases like this where notability could be related to the plot. Why not just apply notability guidelines and be done with it? Luminifer (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Oppose its existence, so remove, because it lacks consensus in practice. Our community of volunteers and readers obviously find value in Wikipedia providing plot summaries as these summaries are integral to understanding works of fiction and even published general and especially specialized encyclopedia provide plot summaries. As a paperless encyclopedia, we can go beyond printed encyclopedias. So long as we are not say copying and pasting the entire text of a novel, these things are fine. We absolutely should not after this RfC keep it if there is sufficient consensus against it (as there clearly is). Unlike with articles, policies/guidelines should not exist if they have equal or strong enough opposition as they have support. The community should not have a viewpoint forced upon them that the community at large clearly overall does not decisively support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Oppose, however articles without references for the plot summary should be fixed and there should be "what" the work of fiction is, but deleting and prohibiting plot from articles won't work.--Rayc (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    Comment Not singling out yours, but just dropping here, that I'm wondering if there is some confusion as to what's being prohibited. :) Plot summaries are not under attack, as I understand it. The "NOT" under question seems to be that "articles should not consist purely of plot summary." I don't believe there's any question of deleting and prohibiting plot from articles, but simply prohibiting articles that contain nothing else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    Not singling you out either - but wouldn't an arbitrary page with a plot summary that has no real purpose fail to meet a lot of wikipedia guidelines anyway? Luminifer (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

    Likely, but I'm not sure how that's germaine at this particular point in the conversation. My note is in response to statements like "deleting and prohibiting plot from articles won't work", which seem to be basically misunderstanding the proposal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

52. Oppose the newest version, and prefer reversion to the oldest version. Once notability of a work of fiction is established, a plot summary is the most basic sort of information about it: and in fact, the first thing many readers will be looking for. They want, for whatever motive, to know what the story is without having to endure the entire work. And unless we're talking about something as opaque as Finnegans Wake, any plot summary is adequately referenced to the original work itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

    ----- This is very well put! Luminifer (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

    A real world example: I am researching sex and gender roles in television/movies. The Gender Bender (The X-Files) article was incredibly useful in an encyclopedic sense. Luminifer (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

    My larger concern is with the way WP:NOT is typically used. I don't want articles on fictions that otherwise merit an article to be nominated for deletion on the grounds that the most basic part - a plot summary - is the part that got written first. The only pages named here are those pages that cannot be encyclopedia subjects and as such do not belong on Wikipedia. This is not the place to put a style guide about how articles on fiction should be written. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

53. Oppose per several arguments already raised, though Smerdis' may be the most apropos. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Oppose, per above. This policy should stay general; other policy should dictate plot summaries. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Oppose plot summaries are encyclopaedic. If we need to moderate their breadth, WP:NOT is not the place. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Remove it, policy must have consensus and I fail to see that it does have consensus. Also I am inclined to agree with the argument that if an article meets the general notability guideline (regardless of whether the significant coverage is just of the plot) in this area I think the article should stay. A note can be included in a relevant guideline to give best practice on how fictional articles should be written - that should not be a policy issue just like the manual of style is not. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
57. We aim to provide wanted information on various subjects, plot is often times what readers come here for most, by removing it we do them a disservice. Icewedge (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
58. This point is adequetly covered by existing policies, guidelines and essays, namely the WP:MOS, WP:V, WP:N and perhaps most pertinently WP:DEADLINE. Skomorokh 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
59. What, do you think I'm stupid? I have to deal with enough editors removing almost everything from a fictional article, calling it cruft. If these people had their own way, we'd have articles about nothing else but plants and dead things. And you think I'm gonna support giving them another weapon? I'm not an idiot. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 01:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Oppose Half of Wikipedians are looking to build an encyclopedia. The other half are looking to impose rules. While articles about works of fiction should not consist exclusively of plot summaries, they are an integral part of any such article. We have more than enough policies, guidelines and procedures to address such articles that we don't need a custom-made bludgeon asd an excuse to delete any article that contains a plot summary. Alansohn (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Oppose. While I think articles about fiction should include things other than just a plot summary, I think the plot summary in itself is important encyclopedic information and thus is entitled to exist in wikipedia. In the interests of organising information, where the overall large size of a topic dictates, it may be appropriate that one article basically be devoted to the plot summary and ltttle else. Sandpiper (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Oppose. If I am searching Wikipedia for a notable work of fiction about which I am not familiar, the quality of my experience will have been dimished if the article I was searching for was deleted merely because it is composed primarily of plot summary. Notice I do say 'notable' work, if an article fails on notability alone then it should be subject to deletion on those grounds alone. Notable works which need improvement should be improved upon rather than removed. Ngaskill (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Oppose I think one of Wikipedia's strengths has always been its excellent treatment of fiction and games. Plot summaries plus basic facts are an excellent way to cover most TV shows, comic book series, etc... I'd love it if every episode of every show had an encyclopedic quality article on it. Moreover, fiction and music have been areas that have brought new editors into wikipedia traditionally. I think it is really important to bring in new blood. Further covering every episode quickly creates a stub for which additional information can grow, like appearances of various actors or complex articles on plot lines for the series. jbolden1517^Talk 03:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Oppose. My opinion was well expressed by Scott Teresi above. Heavy handed policy like this would make WP worse and, at worst, would encourage people to develop bots who hunt down articles where "Plot" section takes significant part of the text. (There was precedent with a bot which calculated lines in "Trivia" section and flagged articles when the number got over a limit.) Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Oppose From the pro rationale: "As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should cover real-world content." What arrant nonsense! Fiction is an important part of human culture and all general purpose encyclopedias cover it. --agr (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Oppose. A plot summary is a vital aspect of information for any work of fiction, even in an encyclopedical format. Also, excluding plot summaries makes no sense while under en.WP's current guidelines wholly seperate articles for fictional characters are allowed and even encouraged, providing even more details of fiction. -- 790 ♫ 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

:#For now. I've probably done enough damage. ;) Hiding T 09:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. ditto: Normally I'd be inclined to support, but that whole Fiction proposal and WP:CREEP kind of nag at me not to. — Ched :  ?  05:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
2. I just don't like the wording of the question; it seems like a roundabout way to say, "Should Wikipedia ban plot-only articles?" which is pretty much the debate going on, but with more ambiguous wording in the original question. Angryapathy (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
3. At the moment I'm in agreement with Angryapathy. The current wording, and the variations provided, are pretty clear: "Summarizing the plot is OK, but it should not be the majority aspect of an article." Not "Absolutely no plot.".
   Keeping the plot as the non-primary aspect of an article seems preferable for a general use encyclopedia. It also seems more in line with the fair use policy and guidelines. If a user wants a more in-depth summary, link to a sister article in a Wikia. If an editor wants to expand the plot to the primary focus and fight to keep it, I hate to say it, but the editor can go contribute to the sister article on a Wikia. - J Greb (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

   Shunting copyright violations to other wikis is the opposite of complying with fair use and non-free content guidelines. If it violates NFCC, it should be deleted or made to meet it, not shoved off somewhere else. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

   Small point: Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not necessarily apply to other Wikia. While there are crystal clear examples of when the use of non-free material is or is not in violation of copyright, the exact point where it changes is very grey. Wikipedia has, through decisions by the foundation, policy, and guidelines, a specific stand on just about where that change frm fair use to violation is. Yes, it is a relatively conservative one, but "better safe than sorry" is not a bad thing. Other Wikia may have a more liberal, or more draconian, stance on what can be done under fair use. So, while an article which is, say, 75% detailed plot summary of a TV show episode would not be acceptable here, it may be OKed by a Wikia centering on that show.
   In that light, while the article here are brought in line with our stance on fair use, it is not unreasonable to point to other resources that fall into that grey area that a reader may find useful. - J Greb (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

   I agree w/ J Greb here. While I support NFCC completely for this project, the limits of the NFCC are not directly written from copyright law nor are they written as a rough, conservative approximation of copyright law. They are mostly written to allow non-free content to be used on wiki without pushing out free content. This means that "Fair use" on wikipedia is much more stringent than "fair use" in the us copyright code. Protonk (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

4. It's not bad to include it perse, but it needs nuance. Some articles are primarily about plot points, but can because they're notable (Deathly Hallows for example). It becomes a problem when they're plot summaries or fail to be summarizing in nature. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
5. (Moved from support) Though I clearly support a strong statement against plot-only articles (in any stage of developement), I don't think that such a statement necessarily has to be made here. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
6. (Moved from oppose) While I have concerns that an excessively strong statement against plot could be a problem, I oppose the straw-poll-dominated path this RFC has taken. I believe that it may be possible to find a consensus wording by discussing the subject in more depth rather than by just battling it out in a poll. As MacGyverMagic pointed out, we may just need a more nuanced wording.Locke9k (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
7. The form of the RfC is confusing. FWIW, I think the current wording is fine: "The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance.". Dlabtot (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
8. While i feel too much plot as EVIL, i also feel that this RFC is somewhat an extension of WP:FICT conflict. This RFC result is Near-Forgone as some people want a WEAPON FOR AFD & MERGE DISCUSSION while the some others don't want to have that new shiny toy to play with. --KrebMarkt 19:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
9. I tend to think that NOT#PLOT tends to be an overly focused statement, though the basic principle is solid. Wikipedia articles should not be solely (or even close to heavily) reliant on root (primary, original, <insert your favorite synonym here>) sources. The most obvious danger is the pit of original research. Slightly less obvious, but no less important, is the fact that an article based mostly or entirely on such sources can in no way be said to be balanced according to the available sources. Our rules are based on the idea that we cover what reliable sources cover. If the sources are so few and far between (or constitute such incomplete coverage) that heavy reliance on root sources seems necessary to craft a complete article, then we shouldn't have an article on that topic. --Vassyana (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

   Doubleplus Support. Your sources must be this tall to ride this wiki. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

All versions of the statement strongly discriminate against plot summaries, and actively forbid articles from containing plot summaries alone.

Given the nature of WP:NOT, this seems inappropriate: A plot summary is a basic type of encyclopedic information, and yet, we're including it here, implying (or, in the second version quoted above, outright stating) that plot summaries are bad, and should be discouraged. Why are plot summaries suddenly so unecyclopedic that they must be included here?

One might argue that the text is saying that articles should include discussion as well. But why single out plot summaries? You could just as well say "Wikipedia is not dates and events. Dates and events should be used to facilitate discussion." - or any of a thousand other things. Saying that Wikipedia articles should discuss and analyse information does not require us to single out a basic and important type of encyclopedic information as Unwiki.

Secondly, What Wikipedia is not applies to all articles, not just featured articles and well-developed articles. Being "What Wikipedia is not" is grounds for deletion, and is used as such at WP:AFD. So, if someone provides a plot summary for, say, an opera - perhaps the most useful information (since many readers will not speak the language used in the opera), and information highly encouraged to be included by the Opera Wikiproject". Also, a great part of opera criticism centres on the plot, so the plot would be a good thing to have at an early stage in the article, but according to this patently absurd policy, including a plot summary is Unwiki.

Thirdly, according to the above discussion, the section on plot summaries was added without any consensus being built for such a policy.

Hence, this RfC. If it is agreed that some discussion should remain in this section, we will then discuss wording. At this time, let us vote on whether the statement should be in this policy at all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on RFC rework and move of above section to discussion section' I don't know who wrote this section originally. While a good start, it didn't really represent a balanced view of the issue and was clearly biased in one direction. Accordingly, I have rewritten the lead for the RFC in a way that simply states the overall issue and gives an overview of the main points in each direction. I have moved the original RFC intro to the discussion section, above, as it seems to be more of an argument against inclusion than a neutral RFC intro. If whoever wrote it would sign it that would probably be best. Sorry for the confusion, but I don't really see any other quick way to help get the best community help possible. For the record, I am presently undecided on this issue and appreciate the arguments in both directions. Also note that while I helped come up with the present wording, note that it is softened from the position before; furthermore, I was simply helping to improve the clarity of what I perceived as the present consensus rather than necessarily asserting that I absolutely agreed with that consensus. Nevertheless, if anyone feels I have missed any major points in either direction or unfairly characterized them, feel free to let me know and I will change it, or make (concise and neutral) edits yourself.Locke9k (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a loaded question, still. I can't honestly answer "yes", because I agree that a plot-only stub or start-class article shouldn't be deleted, but I can't answer "no" because I think as long as the wording is taken as a means to clean up (being part of a content policy and not part of inclusion guidelines), there's no issue at hand; that is, we're talking about the long-term development and potential of the article, not the present state. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• What is this RfC about? I am confused, please rewrite so it is clearer. Ikip (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Whether any rules related to plot summaries should appear in this policy, as opposed to other policies and guidelines which allow more subtle discussion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not the question you're asking. You should consider rewording it if that's what you feel it should be about. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Point. Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
        • You should probably choose the actual long-standing version of WP:NOT#PLOT, rather than the ones that started to occur from the revisions just over the past few weeks. Go back to early March. Randomran (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Adding... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks. That's a lot more accurate. But isn't the RFC now a little confusing / long? Do we really need the one from early April *and* the long-standing one? Randomran (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Presumably a number of people thought the April one was an improvement, since it was arrived at by consensus of a number of editors working together on this discussion page. I see no reason to favor an old version over a presumably improved on; why throw out the hard work of lots of editors in improving the material? Locke9k (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure we need three versions, is all. I'm not even sure we need one. We're having a debate in principle, not wording. Randomran (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see this as RFC trying to construct an exemption from policy for stubs. To be frank, I don't see the point. You may a well say "Plot only articles are not allowed, except when they are written by people under 5 foot tall. Because short stubby people are not tall, they are allowed to write plot only articles". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There's more than just that: This is What Wikipedia is not: anything listed on here is going to be seen as unwanted on Wikipedia. If we include plot summaries, we are saying we don't want plot summaries. I don't think that is true. Why are we choosing one type of encyclopedic information to hold up for scorn and dismissal? Unless there's a very good reason why we shouldn't include plot summaries, then we shouldn't say they are What Wikipedia is not. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good faith legitimate question. Obviously, I disagree with your answer. I think we can safely say that Wikipedia is not a place for recaps. And with less enthusiasm, I'd say it's not a place for plot-only articles either. Randomran (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of other non-encyclopic information on its own that we discourgae - see both the WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY; reduced versions as part of larger coverage, yes. By themselves, no. But at the same time recognizing that WP:IMPERFECT applies to all. (Actually, would not that be a good thing to include on WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not perfect", and pointed to WP:EP? ) That's my disagreement with this RFC - plot summaries are not be singled out here and it assumes we're talking about the state of the article at any time instead of the most likely result of the article. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are fairly characterizing the present policy. It does not say that 'plot summaries are always what wikipedia is not'. In fact, it says that plot summaries that don't serve to further real-world coverage of the material is not acceptable. That is a big difference. In fact, the present policy would seem to endorse plot summaries for many articles, where they facilitate coverage of real world material. Again, I am not necessarily fixed on having this included in the article, but I would like to have an honest discussion about the options rather than setting up an extreme straw man version of the present policy. Locke9k (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, while I agree that excessive plot articles do not belong on Wikipedia this has always struck me as the wrong place for it. First of all, it's definitely more of a guideline than a bright-line policy. There's wiggle room, depending on the kind of sourcing we have, the nature of the subject, etc. Ideally, a plot summary would be a minor part of an article. Circumstances, however, may dictate that a plot summary dominate an article (even if it's a few brief sentences) when that's the only information on a notable work. But, then, I think that a lot of what's here really shouldn't be. WP:NOT is one of the most misapplied pieces of policy that we have. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• The RFC lead seems to misframe the issue. It states "according to this patently absurd policy, including a plot summary is Unwiki." Thats just not true. The current version of this page says that including a plot summary is acceptable. In fact, in the 'opera example' in the lead of this RFC, the present policy would endorse the inclusion of a plot summary, since it states that "A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance." If, as you say, most criticism of operas revolves around their plot, then the present wording would expressly allow or even encourage inclusion of a plot summary under this policy. I am perfectly willing to have a debate over this and to consider the other side. I'm not fixed in one direction or the other. Nevertheless, lets be more clear about what the policy presently is. Also, could whoever put the RFC up please sign the intro? It should be clear whose statement that is, and presently it is not. Locke9k (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Technically, the opening statement isn't supposed to be signed. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• It should be a neutral tone, then. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, while the RFC page does suggest not using a signature for the RFC statement, it also says that the statement should be neutral. Rather than just outlining the two positions, this RFC statement promotes on of them. Either the promotional material in the RFC statement should be removed and it should just be turned into a brief overview of the debate positions, or it should be signed. Locke9k (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, since its presently not signed and is supposedly not 'attributed' to one author, can we ourselves edit it to neutrality since it doesn't seem to legitimately fall under the rationale for the usual rules for not editing other peoples' discussion posts? Locke9k (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not disagreeing that it's problematic. Sure, take a swing at it. Frankly, I don't think that anything productive will result, which I why I didn't even bother voting and just wrote an opinion for the discussion section. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded the RFC intro, above. However, I also have a huge problem with the intro for the voting section. It presently reads, in one line, "This poll will run for two weeks, until the 28th of April. If "Yes" wins out, it will be followed by a discussion on what those limits should be." Sorry, thats just not how Wikipedia works. We work by consensus, not by voting. A straw poll is by definition not definitive, and it polarizes the discussion to falsely state that the straw poll will decide things. Lets let a full discussion happen and see if we can move towards consensus. Also, a statement against canvassing fails to assume good faith and acts to polarize the discussion. Again, this section is unsigned, so I don't think it falls under the usual rules for editing other peoples' discussion posts. I will treat it as an attempt to establish a consensus RFC framework. With the above issues in mind, I am removing these statements from the lead in to the straw poll. They are inappropriate, explicitly against the role of a straw poll in discussion, and they should not be in this RFC. Locke9k (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In particular, regarding the straw poll note the following guideline. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussionLocke9k (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I still think the Arguments against inclusion are too contentious to be inlcuded - . For instance, making the statements such as "The present inclusion in this policy lacks consensus" without supporting evidence goes against the grain of Wikipeida. Far better to get rid of all the arguments, both for or against, than allow this nonsense to go unchallenged. Either they are withdrawn, or someone bold enough will remove the lot. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps I didn't adequately make clear the way that is framed. As I tried to say, the arguments for and against are contentions of each side. I'm not actually trying to assert that any of them are objectively correct. I'll try to do a slight rewording to clarify that. Locke9k (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Episodes comment Just for discussion, does everyone realize that the present policy makes it almost impossible to have articles on individual episodes of telivision programs? There are large sections of Wikipedia content in which there is an extensive real life discussion of a TV program which links to the summary of multiple episodes. Under the present policy, all those hundreds, thousands, or maybe many more articles would stand to be deleted. Is that a good thing? Locke9k (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • A lot of those have information about reception, or could with a little bit of work. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Individual episode articles would (or more specifically, have always needed to have work to meet both PLOT and NOTE). Lists of episodes, however, and IMO, are part of the coverage of a TV show, and thus as long as the TV show itself is meeting PLOT, the lists themselves are part of the coverage and not affecting the TV show's ability to meet PLOT. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • So, to clarify, your position is that, provided the show itself meets notability, you can have a list of list of episodes but not necessarily have a separate article on each? Locke9k (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Another incorrect statement Masem. Episode articles that are mostly plot summary are frequently not deleted at AFD. And articles for individual episodes of TV shows have over seven years of precedent and are explicitly allowed by WP:NOT#PAPER (on Wikipedia and meta).
        
        The premise that Hiding had consensus to add WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy and the premise that Radiant! had consensus to tag WP:N guideline are both false. WP:NOTE is not a policy. And like I said during E&C2 (an arbitration case I know you're familiar with since you edited the case pages), it is common practice for articles about episodes and fictional characters of notable works to not contain evidence of notability.
        
        Explain again how WP:NOT#PLOT applies to individual episode articles and not articles that contain a list of episodes? Explain to me how a list of episodes counts as coverage of a TV show, but individual episode articles do not count as coverage of a TV show. --Pixelface (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
        • It is common for those articles to be kept, but not because they ignore either PLOT or NOTE, but because they have the likelihood of meeting them as deemed at AFD. There are articles that are still deleted because they fail NOTE, and are deemed to be needed cleanup or merging because they fail PLOT, just as there are those that you keep pointing out are kept, and when those are kept, they general point to the ability to add sources or being part of a larger coverage, so that's in line with the above. (See why I think we need to be clear that we can't apply PLOT or other policies/guidelines to the immediate state of the article and have to consider potential.)
        • As for why episode lists are ok and not individual episodes? Because I would expect that the coverage of the average TV show on WP to include a list of episodes (or something equivalent if its like a soap opera summarizing season by season), regardless if there is an episode that is expanded upon further as you would still have that episode in the list, period, for completeness. If one wants to discuss an episode at more depth beyond what would be in the core TV show coverage, then that needs to merit its own article - that is, the episode is now a separate topic from the show itself. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
          • The premise that Hiding had consensus to add WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy is not false. The premise that Pixelface does not believe there was a consensus is true. You can link to the discussion and you can make your own assumptions, and pother people can do so too, but don't present your opinion as fact. Consensus is subjective, like everything else on Wikipedia, and is what causes half these disputes. I discussed the issue and I believed I gained a consensus, persuading those that stayed to discuss. Now in retrospect, I probably should have garnered more discussion and things could definitely have been handled differently, but Wikipedia was a very different place back then, and I firmly believe that at the time I added it there was a consensus to add and that I was acting within the framework of that consensus. You may well have your own opinion, Pixelfaxce, but as far as I am aware, you do not have the luxury of having been there at the time. I tried to do my best, and I tried to do what is right. Ultimately, Pixelface, this isn't about me, this isn't about Radiant!, this is about what we should do now. Hiding T 11:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes, lets try to stick to the situation now. Until recently, I was in favor of inclusion of the statement in this policy. In fact, I helped to word and ultimately implemented the present version. However, based on this discussion, I am beginning to lean against it. In particular, note that according to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, Wikipedia's rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. Thus when setting this kind of broad policy, we have the responsibility to represent the consensus of not only the small fraction of editors actively participating in this debate, but of all the other editors who are out working on articles and never think to come to a page like this. In line with the above discussion about episode articles, there are numerous television shows for which there is an article on every single episode, most consisting almost entirely of plot. There is no way that every episode of these shows has independent notability and real world impact; they glean their notability from the notability and impact of the overall show. Thus for most of these articles they could never have much other than plot summary; they could not possibly have survived AFD on the basis that they would likely 'eventually' be able to contain real world analysis. The point is, if the article on the overall show demonstrates notability, then articles outlining the plot of each episode seem to be the norm on Wikipedia. I don't see how we can endorse a policy that would result in the deletion of thousands, or possibly many more, articles that have apparently stood the test of time and the consensus of the Wikipedia community. In other words, I don't see how, considering the large number of longstanding quality articles of this type, there can be a broad consensus in favor of this policy. Such a consensus is certainly not established with the present level of support demonstrated on this page. Given the massive breadth and impact of this issue across Wikipedia, it seems to me that we aught to be discussing what the Wikipedia editing community at large feels about this policy based on their edits, rather than trying to claim that a consensus exists based on our own feelings, when we represent only a few dozen editors out of tens of thousands or more. Based on this approach, it seems to me that a policy reflecting the actual present consensus of Wikipedia editors at large would state that the notability of the television show or fictional work must be established on the main article page about the work, but that once that notability is established, articles on individual episodes or characters consisting largely of plot should be allowed. This, however, would be a notability guideline, not a What Wikipedia is not statement of policy. This therefore seems to weight against having such a policy statement in this page. Any thoughts? Locke9k (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
              • If we focus on why this is in NOT and not in something NOTE, FICT, WAF, or the like, the reasoning being this is not notability. The reasoning for something along the language of PLOT is that we are not hear simply to reiterate what is in the primary source - fiction, non-fiction, whatever. "Plot Summaries" is loaded against fiction, but we don't treat non-fiction special like that either. Maybe a better way to call this section is "WP is not simply a collection of narrative summaries, but instead includes summaries, as necessary, to aid in the coverage of the narrative work to provide context to the general reader." Now, as to whether this implies that individual TV episodes are part of a TV shows coverage? I don't think we're trying to make that decision here, though it does suggest that if you have a TV show, every character, and every episode without anything else but a plot summary save for a couple lines on one page, you're probably violating this version of PLOT, whether that TV show is a crime drama or something like Mythbusters. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
                • The problem is that although I don't necessarily disagree with you in principle (I'm not sure), that doesn't appear to me to be the present consensus on Wikipedia. The point is that in this discussion we should strive to describe the consensus, not to try to set it. A few dozen people don't 'control' or 'decide' the consensus on Wikipedia, all of the thousands of people editing do. And it appears as though Wikipedia does contain extensive episodic plot content of the type you argue for banning. In fact, it contains so much that I would argue it constitutes a consensus in favor of having that sort of content in Wikipedia. With respect to your proposed wording above, this argument seems to suggest that there is a broad operational consensus on Wikipedia that the purpose of narrative summaries is not just to provide context or anything of the sort. On the contrary, it would appear by their work that many Wikipedia editors feel that narrative summaries have intrinsic value of their own, provided that the notability of the work is otherwise established. To put it another way, those of us in this discussion do not have the power to decide to ban some sort of content from Wikipedia; all we can do is decide whether there is already a broad consensus that such material should not be allowed. From that perspective, regardless of what we think personally, I don't see how we can include the 'Not Plot' statement in this policy. Locke9k (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
                  • PLOT has never been meant as a way to "ban" plot summaries from WP. If a topic fails PLOT it either is all plot summary, meaning that either sourced context has to be added or the summary should be described in the context of a larger topic (eg merging a TV episode article into a list of episodes for that show), or the topic has too much plot summary relative to the sourced context, then either the summary needs to be trimmed or more source content added to balance it out. If the current wording suggests that plot summaries are discouraged that needs to be fixed, but I don't read that in the current version. Plot summaries are useful and the like when in context of other information. When they sit by themselves, they are not useful to the general reader of WP, which is who are target is. And while I would agree that if you just did the numbers game on this page on support and dissent against PLOT, it's in the teens, low twenties in number of activity participants, which is why you have to look at related pages and discussions. For example, the WP:N RFC clearly showed that a majority of editors are not tolerant towards lots of fiction stubs, the types of articles that fail PLOT. Our article quality process for GA and FA will not let a plot-only article get through. That's not to say that today every topic that fails PLOT or every article that is plot-only should be deleted or merged. But we should be trying to figure out how to reduce that number, either by expansion of those articles (see what the South Park project is doing) or by considering rational merges that maintain the information as part of a larger topic. Plot summaries are still there, information is not lost or deleted, and the overall quality of the work improves. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                    • My basic point is that, from my perspective, if the notability of a television show is strongly established in the main article, it aught to be acceptable to have almost pure plot articles on its episodes provided that they prominently link back to the central show article. In this way they do supplement the coverage of the central television show article; my concern is that the present approach to this appears to address individual articles when it should address subjects. I don't think we aught to discourage article splits or to only allow 'lists of episodes'. If we are going to allow a list of episodes, I see no reason to discourage a summary of each; nor do I see a reason to require all of those summaries to be on one page such that the page becomes absurdly long. Finally, I don't think that the 'amount' of plot summary content should be required to be less than the amount of "real life" coverage. Rather than making some statement to the effect that 'Plot summary should not "dominate" the article', we could perhaps say something like "plot summaries related to a fictional work should complement coverage of real life aspects of that work". The wording would need some work of course, but hopefully you see the difference in the meaning conveyed by the two statements. Locke9k (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                      • Given that a plot of a work is subject to copyright, how do you think your approach fits in with the policy on non-free content? Specifically numbers 2, 3, 5 and 8. Hiding T 18:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                        • People have brought up this assertion several times. Can someone point to any page that actually states that plot summaries constitute copyright infringement? I do not believe that they do. I'm not even sure what you mean when you say that the "plot of a work is subject to copyright". The page that you have linked deals with media, not with text. The more general page Wikipedia:Non-free_content doesn't seem to have any bearing on plot summaries, unless the summary is directly copied from some copyrighted source (which has no bearing on this discussion, as it applies to the copying of any copyrighted material). So, in a nutshell, if you can point me to a reliable source substantiating this claim I'll be happy to read it and discuss whether or how it interacts with my current position on this discussion. Locke9k (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                          • You're right, that page doesn't cover text. I'll have to query that to see if that's deliberate or accidental. As to what I mean, what concerns me is when we build a mass of articles on a given fictional universe to the point that we infringe upon published guides of the same nature. To my mind we're a derivative work if we aren't adding transformative material. I have no substantial issue with plot summaries, but I have concerns with an approach which allows us to build a work which, when published by a commercial reuser, would fall foul of the law. That's my angle. If I'm wrong on that score, I welcome that input. Hiding T 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
                        • It isn't necessarily true to say that the plot of a work is subject to copyright. As Judge Learned Hand said in Nicholls v. Universal Pictures: "Upon any work, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the work is about, and at times might consist only of its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the author could prevent the use of his 'ideas', to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended" (emphasis mine). The point is that a sufficiently brief summarization of the plot of a work is not subject to copyright. JulesH (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                          • Nobody is here saying a brief summary is a bad thing, well I'm not at any rate. But we also have to look at the acretion of a large number of plot summaries and how that impacts upon commercial reusers. Hiding T 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
                            • Commercial reusers such as Wikia? I'm unaware of any current copyright concerns regarding plot summaries at Wikia wikis. They're the ones profiting off of plot summaries. --Pixelface (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
                              • I don't have much to do with wikia, short of occasionally exporting deleted articles to the annex. I'm not a fan of tailoring our policy to suit commercial reusers to be honest, as I think I have made clear elsewhere, but that's the direction the board has taken us in, so... I'd like us to start using "no commercial" images in articles, and rely on fair use a lot more, but that's not acceptable for the board. Whether that has anything to do with donations and Wikia we can only speculate. Hiding T 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
                                • The Star Wars wiki (later renamed Wookieepedia) hosted on Wikicities (later renamed Wikia) was created upon the suggestion of the WMF Board of Trustees, which at the time included Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley (who earlier had co-founded Wikicities together). Wikia is licensed under the GFDL, and Wookieepedia content is licensed under the GFDL. I'm guessing that Wikia is the #1 commercial reuser of Wikipedia content (since many times it's the #2 search result in Google). Wikia doesn't seem to have any problem with plot summaries, or profiting off of plot summaries, or fair use images. Since Wikipedia is also licensed under the GFDL, it should have no problem with plot summaries or fair use images either. And it's not even trying to profit off of them (supposedly). --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
                        • If NFCC applied to plot summaries (and it doesn't), it would also apply to "third-party coverage" — summaries of copyrighted text. NFCC doesn't forbid summaries of copyrighted text. Is the NFCC based on the GFDL? --Pixelface (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
                          • I'm not following. Are you comparing summarising fiction with summarising non-fiction? The issue of summarising non-fiction is lessened by the fact that you can't copyright facts in the way you can copyright fiction. So you can copyright "creative expression", which means the way you describe something, but not the thing you describe. And if there are only a limited number of ways of describing something, your chance of winning a claim for copyright infringement is diminished, so no-one could ever copyright the phrase "the sky is blue". And we also get a stronger fair use claim because of teh educational purpose, and Wikipedia also gets a slightly stronger claim because we're non-profit. Which is why I'd like to see us severe commercial re-use ties. My stance there is that we're already given this stuff away free; I don't see why commercial reusers can't be made to work out what they can and can't do with this free stuff all by themselves if they're going to exploit that fact and profit off of us. It's also why I'm opposed to adopting the CC license, it seems like Wikipedia is just making it easier and easier for me not to get acknowledged for the work I have done, which isn't much to ask for and was all I wanted in the first place. But I've gone off at a tangent. The difference between fiction and fact is that you can protect a right to exploit a work of fiction better than you can a work of fact. So you can limit the extent to which other people can produce guides to your fictional universe through infringement laws, and here our fair use defence is weaker. That's why I'd like to see articles padded with real world detail, to improve both the reader's understanding and our fair use defence. I've got nothing against plot summaries, but I have against articles which bloat to fifty or sixty paragraphs summarising the events of a television episode or comic book. I dislike that on a couple of reasons, for style, legal concerns and personal morals. I don't think it looks or reads well, I don't think it is in keeping with the law and I don't think we are doing right by the author. In the same sense I want people to respect the fact that I ask for acknowledgement of my work here, I believe I have to respect the right of an author to be able to exploit hos creation, even though I don;t necessarily agree with that stance. That may be why "my side" tends to lose, because we're not ruthless enough, but there you go. It is what it is. I don't know what the NFCC is based on, you'd have to ask the board, that was a mandate from up high, and I recall speaking out against that at the time. Have a read of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FChronology_of_Star_Wars and see if that also helps in any sense. Hiding T 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Noting that per Pixelface's comment, I have placed notice of this at WP:VPP and WP:CENT and the Fiction Notice template that is on various other fiction-related policy/guideline pages. --MASEM (t) 12:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Let's draw the line here. VPP and CENT are good. Anything more than that starts to cherrypick audiences who have biases about certain kinds of content, and thus gets into the kind of advertising that can sway the !vote rather than obtain a better discussion. If anyone can think of any other neutral places to advertise that are not concerned with either adding *or* removing content -- perhaps the talk pages of other related guidelines and policies -- then I'd be okay with that. Randomran (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Someone might want to post it to the mailing list. Someone recently wrote up Wikipedia:Advertising discussions, that may offer options. My only worry is that we don't have an exit strategy, since this poll was framed on the fly. What's going to happen if there's a 60-40 split either way or a 50-50 down the middle? The usual descent into arguing over what consensus means? Just once maybe we could get all that sorted before we start. Hiding T 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You said "All versions of the statement strongly discriminate against plot summaries, and actively forbid articles from containing plot summaries alone." like it's a bad thing. That doesn't go far enough, as a matter of fact. WP:NOT is all about pointing those kinds of things out to people who don't get the basics of what an encyclopedia is even for. DreamGuy (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is a bad thing. Basic information on a subject should not be What Wikipedia is Not. We should cover unambiguous things here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't grasp your reasoning. Lyrics are basic information on a subject, but we don't allow them. Quite a lot of these clauses indicate basic levels of information we don't desire. I also have trouble working out where the ambiguity is. How would you write it so that we umambiguosly state that Wikipedia articles don't tell the story of a fictional work or element? Or is that what the debate boils down to; is Wikipedia the place to tell the story? If that's the debate, I say no because of copyright concerns, pure and simple, per Mike Godwin. "I see no reason for contributors to worry about coverage of fictional universes, so long as relevant provisions of copyright law, trademark law, etc., are followed." We have to respect the relevant laws, and the relevant laws here are copyright laws which prevent infringing the commercial reuse and exploitation of a copyright protected work. We don't get to give other people's work away for free. If the only way to get that recognised on Wikipedia is through WP:PLOT, then you'll leave me no choice but to support its retention. That's my main concern and over-riding motive. Our usage of non-free material relies upon a fair use defence, which means we have to make some critical commentary upon the work. Since WP:OR prevents us doing that ourselves, the only way we can do so is sourcing that from reliable sources. Hiding T 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any official pronouncement from Godwin or any other representative of the Foundation that states that bare plot summaries should be avoided because they're copyright infringements. And I think there's a reason for this: as long as they are reasonably brief, I don't believe they are. I won't go into a technical discussion of fair use here, because apart from anything else I'm not an expert on the matter so I don't see why anyone would trust what I have to say, but I will point you all towards some good articles written by people who are. First up, this one suggests that a use that does not involve copying of actual text, and which does not copy a large portion of the content of the source work is unlikely to be found infringing. This article discusses the notion that transformative uses are much more likely to be found non-infringing than non-transformative ones. A plot summary is quite clearly transformative of the original, non-summarized version of the plot. JulesH (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A fair use defence would rely upon a number of things. What we've got to separate out here is a couple of things. If we're talking about the plot of a film or novel, we're well in teh clear. What becomes a problem is when we start to aggregate a number of articles on a fictional universe. If they're all written from an in-universe perspective, we're in danger of not being transformative enough to satisfy a court, especially if someone chooses to publish those particular sections of the wiki. Now yes, there's an argument that re-users publish at their peril, and it is one I subscribe to, but unfortunately the board doesn't. That's my concern on the matter. I don't have a problem with plot summaries, but I have a problem when we aren't transforming, but deriving. That's why I tend to feel plot summary alone is not enough. I'll grant it is a grey area as to what constitutes teh difference between transformation and derivation, but I would hope we'd all agree the more "out-of-universe" facts we can cram into an article, the better. Hiding T 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• I generally agree with Shoemaker's Holiday here. The issue of when a plot summary should be written is, I think, too complex to deal with in a policy, which should have few or no exceptions. It is not the case that plot summaries are not encyclopedic content; it is hard to imagine how to cover fictional content without plot summaries. In many cases, it seems to me, that a plot summary may need to be dealt with separately from any "real world" considerations, for example it may be desirable to break out the plot summary of a particularly complex work of fiction into a separate article in order to limit article size. This policy currently prevents this, and I have seen perfectly reasonable articles deleted (e.g. the plot summary of Les Miserables) simply because this policy proscribes them for no good reason. Yes, it is quite clear that we shouldn't have a plot summary of a work of fiction if that is all there is to say about it, but this restriction can be addressed quite adequately in the relevant notability guidelines. JulesH (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think JulesH logic is flawed. On the one hand, be thinks that it is hard to imagine how to cover fictional content without plot summaries would be possible in order to provide balanced coverage within an article; but then he suggest that the plot summary should be seperate from balanced coverage within an article. It is a bit like saying that you can balance a see-saw with two people, but you can also balance a see-saw with just one, provided they are somewhere nearby. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What he said was a bit confusingly phrased, but I think it's clear enough: For some very complicated novels - War and Peace, Les Miserables, etc - where there's loads and loads of characters, and the plot is very complicated and highly interwoven, it may make sense to spin off the longer discussion of the plot, and the discussion of the more minor details. Heaven knows that enough has been written on them that there's not going to be a problem, say, discussing Fantine's fall (done over several chapters in the original) But the detail, while it can be encyclopedically described and discussed, could overwhelm the main article.

This does not generally apply to books that aren't classic Victorian doorstoppers, and the rest of his points apply to everything else. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to sum up the discussion and straw poll, it appears that:

1. There is no consensus for plot summaries to appear in WP:NOT (50% is surely not enough for inclusion in site policy)
2. There's widespread agreement that they should be discussed somewhere more appropriate, such as WP:FICT or another policy/guideline.

Does this seem a fair assessment? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I think that's a reasonable interpretation, but not the only one. There's definitely a consensus it should be put somewhere, so we probably shouldn't remove it until we can determine where it should go. Randomran (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Technically, there's also no consensus for removing it from PLOT, and we've let this run for less than a week so we shouldn't be jumping on any trains yet. That said, while I still feel it needs to be in here, the results suggest that it's just difficult to keep this section in NOT since it seems to bias against the use of plot summaries (it all depends how you read it) and thus should probably be moved to WAF assuming this remains. Note that this does not mean plot-only articles are suddenly ok; WAF and NOTE will still be guidelines on their acceptability. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is evidence that many editors like Shoemaker don't like the prohibition on plot only artlcles, but there is no compelling intellectual reason to remove WP:NOT#PLOT based on his proposal. Plot only articles could potentially provide evidence of notability, and the need for real-world coverage an inclusion criteria must be addressed in the rewrite of WP:FICT at some point. However, plot only articles are primarily a content issue because plot summary on its own does not provide balanced coverage of topic that is needed for an encyclopedic article. Trying to remove WP:NOT#PLOT is just an underhand way of trying to delete this section which has been redrafted on the basis of consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gavin collins, I'm not sure I understand your point. You say that the section has been "redrafted on the basis of consensus". However, I was one of the people who played a large role in that redrafting, and there were far far fewer people involved in that then there are in this RFC. I don't see how that redrafting created any kind of binding consensus. What do you mean by saying that "Trying to remove WP:NOT#PLOT is just an underhand way of trying to delete this section"? Trying to remove this from the policy isn't underhanded at all; people are being totally above-board and clear on the fact that they want to see it removed. Locke9k (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that coverage of fiction has to be balanced between the real-world and the fantasy-world perspective in order to provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding; to rely entirely on an in universe perspective is misleading, as it requires the reader to believe that fiction is some how real. We can't write encyclopedic articles from the persective of the fantasy-world, not because fiction is bad, but because a fantasy-world perspective ignore why fiction is written in the first place. Writing fiction is a process conducted by real-world people, who are subject to real-world influences, personal preference and ambition. Since fiction does not exist in a vacuum, encyclopedic articles have to address the real-world medium in which they exist. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is "plot" more important than other policies on fiction?

This is where I'm getting hung up, and why I support removal of PLOT from NOT - we have a fairly detailed set of standards on fiction articles at WP:WAF. Moving PLOT to this page suggests that PLOT is the fundamental policy of writing about fiction. This does not seem to me to be the case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that WP:WAF is about style, not content. It does not matter how nicely presented a sow's ear is, it is never going to be a silk purse. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

When you have lemons, you make lemonade. Hiding T 10:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I incorrect in my assumption that WP:PLOT predates the non-policy pages like WP:WAF? I always thought it did. I became aware of WP:PLOT early in my Wiki career (via reading NOT), but didn't discover the related guidelines/essays such as WAF until much later. If this is the case, then it follows that pages like WAF are descended from NOT, and designed to complement/clarify it, rather than (as Phil states) that PLOT was somehow "moved" to NOT from WAF. I always thought that NOT#PLOT came first, and WAF came later. Or is this a chicken/egg thing? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:WAF came first, and influenced WP:PLOT. So yes, you are incorrect in your assumption. Hope that clarifies. Hiding T 08:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, WP:NOT, including NOTPLOT, is an extension of the first pillar: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." There are books that consist of plot summaries of "the world's greatest novels" and such (presumably for people unwilling to read the actual books), but they are not encyclopedias, and Wikipedia is. WP ≠ WWW, no matter how many people would like it to. There is a place for everything, and the place for some of it isn't here. Deor (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A Notability issue

I'm concerned by the oppose voters commenting that PLOT is rightly a notability issue, so it doesn't belong in a content guideline. Some of you may remember that the community punted our best attempt (IMO) at a notability guideline for fiction, leaving us with just the GNG. Considering that even WP:FICT explicitly ducked the question of article content (as does WP:N, see WP:NNC), I don't know where that leaves us. We are concerned with the makeup of individual articles. Presumably we need to determine that wikipedia does have an interest in restricting the makeup of those articles from being plot summaries or that it does not. What we cannot do is decide first that we can't reach a consensus on notability for fictional subjects (arguably the crux of this issue, since the size of a plot summary in the main article is hardly the issue at stake) then when faced with the problem on a content guideline, punt the issue back to notability. that leaves us with no guidance save the GNG for article issues (a situation we are already in) and no guidance whatsoever on content issues.

I worry that we will see more cases where an article is sent to AfD, people decide that the primary subject meets our inclusion guideline and so we don't take action on the daughter article and later attempts to merge, edit or redirect content in the daughter article is stalled because the outcome of the AfD wasn't "delete". In fact, you could see this situation as analogous.

If we truly feel that PLOT is an inclusion issue and not a content issue, then we need to find some sort of compromise for inclusion of fictional subjects. If we feel (as some did on the FICT RfC) that PLOT is a content issue, then we need to reach some agreement here. If we feel that it is a mix of both, then we have to reach an agreement on both parts. We cannot prop ourselves up on WP:N when we know that there is no force of consensus to support this issue.

I see that Random has raised a variation on this point above, but I figured we should air it out thoroughly. Protonk (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Last time this came up I suggested we work something up at WP:PLOTS, but that stalled. There might be something of use there though? Hiding T 10:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • My suggestion is to ignore the venue. It doesn't serve us to debate location. Are we prepared to come to some sort of compromise that lives in WP:PLOTS that couldn't be possible at FICT or PLOT? If so, then I need a pretty compelling reason why. Because I suspect that folks engaged in this debate are as likely to compromise on the subject here as they were over at fict and mostly for the same reasons. We could even, were we so inclined, dig up that RfC and see which pro/con rationales matched up word for word as I'm sure some do. But that might not help things.  :)

• • I just don't think we should shy away from the real conflict here. there is a very core element of the encyclopedia that makes a number of people very unhappy and may not accurately describe current practice. Apart from the attempts to define away the consensus around plot, we can't ignore its centrality to the project. And defenders of plot can't ignore the split between policy and practice which is evident...well, to anyone with eyes. I don't think that stonewalling and defending the current revision of the page is a good idea, but I'm just as upset at the logs of this page which show months of agitating by a few editors to have the section removed more than they show anything else.

• • Just so I don't spend three paragraphs on "on the other hand...", here's a suggested solution. The first sentence in PLOT should remain. The second sentence (which I'm sure generates much of the controversy) should be reworked and a third sentence added attempting to work daughter articles in. Arguably you could make the case to rewrite the first sentence because it pretends to be an inclusion guideline. But that's it. I think attempts to outright remove the section will be non-starters. Protonk (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My view is WP:NOT#PLOT is the consensus, because plot summary on its own offers no encylopedic coverage. There is a lot opposition to this, but it boils down "I like plot summary" . I see no compelling intellectual reason to change. Plot summary articles are probably better covered in Wikia or Wookiepedia, where the inclusion criteria for articles on fictional topics are more relaxed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And my view is that reasonable minds can differ on this. Even among those of us arguing in good faith, there are those who don't think that your view of PLOT approximates their view. I don't want to rehash the debate in this section. I just wanted to offer a clear warning to people that we shouldn't be tempted by the prospect of dumping this debate off on a different kind of guideline/policy. Protonk (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think when you say "compromise", you really mean "water-down". The compromise position is that plot summary must form part of a 'balanced' coverage of a fictional topic. I agree that article inclusion criteria for fiction is closely related to this issue, and my impression is that those who wish to allow plot only articles do so on the basis that plot only articles inherit notability from the fictional work. Just because WP:FICT does not address the need for real-world coverage (yet), does not mean WP:NOT#PLOT is not a good policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a matter of semantics. By compromise I certainly don't mean my preferred revision or your preferred revision. And I don't mean Pixel's preferred revision. What we forgot about fict was that a good compromise should leave everyone unhappy (and it did). Here I suspect that any good outcome will leave you me and pixel upset about the final revision. I doubt that anything like that will gain consensus but there you go. Protonk (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to compromise anyway since policies and guidelines should describe current practice, norms. They should describe the consensus among the community. If no consensus exists, a policy page should not try to pretend one does, or attempt to manufacture one. You cannot get 158,000 editors to come to a compromise. And if a bunch of "rulemakers" are huddled in a corner trying to reach a compromise, they're already facing the wrong direction. --Pixelface (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the current version of WP:NOT#PLOT; in its way, its workding is a compromise, but on the other hand it is make sense from an encyclopedic viewpoint. I see no need for change. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Im happy with it as well, as I noted in the vote above. My only real concern is that PLOT bears little to no resemblance to practice in the wild. Consequently it (and WP:N) become adversarial guidelines toward a large bulk of editors. I don't think that outcome is reason alone to change them, but it is the core of a compelling reason to consider compromise. Protonk (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What goes on in the wild probably has more to do with the immersive aspect of fiction which provides the imputeus to act out or re-live fictional works - one of the reasons why fiction is the most popular form of narrative. However, the impulse to immerse probably does not benefit encyclopedic coverage unless plot summary can be balanced out by real-world coverage. I think that any article that fails WP:NOT#PLOT is when a topic reaches the boundry between real-world and fantasy-world coverage, between Wikipedia and Wookieepedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, please read User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT and feel free to respond on its talkpage or create your own rebuttal in your own userspace if you would like. By suggesting that plot-only articles are only acceptable when juxtaposed with banner ads on Wikia, you're only benefiting Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley, not the readers of Wikipedia. Could one say that your argument boils down to "I don't like popular culture" or "Jimbo will make more money if we remove it from Wikipedia and put it on Wikia"? --Pixelface (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Wikipedia is about the real world. Plot summaries are not. A work of fiction is only significant to Wikipedia inasmuch as it has impacted the real world as a cultural artifact. Plot summaries are those only valuable inasmuch as they provide context for that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Pixelface, I don't think you will ever understand why WP:NOT#PLOT is a sound policy unless you consider some of the reasons why it was introduced, and why it is being defended so soundly, not just why you don't like it. So let me put you straight.
  Unlike your longwinded talk page User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT, you should know that Wikipedia needs coverage of a topic to be balanced in accordance with WP:NPOV. Since a work of fiction is written from the point of view of the author, a plot summary will only reflect the author's perspective. There is no point in writing a plot only article that gives undue weight to only one source.
  The other aspect to consider is that a plot summary is wholly reliant on an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective as its point of reference. If an article is comprised only of plot, then basically it is ignoring the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its medium of transmission are embedded.
  Lastly, you should consider the issue of whether plot only articles comply with the requirement of WP:V, which says that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Since plot only articles are reliant on primary sources, or sources that are not independent of the primary source because they rely on an in universe perspective for their point of reference, it is difficult to agrue that plot only articles should be allowed at all.
  You might wish to add these points to your own analysis to help your understanding of these issues. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible suggestion: move PLOT to NPOV

Reading the input so far, I believe most people agree that a plot summary is part of the overall coverage of a work, but should not be the only part - and to the point that this is policy, not a guideline. The issue is primarily putting it into NOT that make it seem that we actively discourage it. Given that this is about distribution of content, I'm thinking that the best place to put this is at WP:NPOV, which includes WP:UNDUE, because really, at the end of the day, I believe most agree that coverage of fiction that weights a lot with plot-based information is unbalanced. Mind you, I would make sure we're not limiting this to just works of fiction but include any narrative-based work - we simply don't focus primarily on the content of the work when we discuss that work, but balance that.

I think this fits - there's a whole section on how to handle pseudoscience articles (I'm not claiming these to be fiction, just a special case called out) so it would seem that a section in NPOV is a possible addition to an already lengthy guideline. This also would allow us to frame the issue in more than two or three sentences. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a serious difficulty trying to claim that a plot summary is a point of view. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically it is: it is an in-universe view verses a real-world view. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Once plot summary gets moved to NPOV, it is more likely to be talked about in terms of an outright ban, rather than as part of the balanced coverage of a ficitonal topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this will fly, but it has intriguing possibilities for a compromise. If you could get away with defining "in-universe" and "out-of-universe" as opposing POVs that must be balanced in any article about fiction, you would avoid the situation where either side of the debate could be declared a winner or a loser. That, in and of itself, has some value.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think defining in-universe and out-of-universe as POVs has very, very bad ramifications, most notably in that it establishes things that are not real as equally important to things that are real. In-universe perspective is worthless, period, except inasmuch as it illuminates real-world perspective. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Truthfully, I don't even think that UNDUE should be at NPOV, because it's not just how we cover opinions. It's how we cover everything. I think burying WP:PLOT there would be a mistake. I think there's a consensus that WP:PLOT is good policy and should exist *somewhere*, but we need to discuss where, exactly. Randomran (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed plot tag added

Hello all, I've added a disputed tag to WP:PLOT as I believe the above RfC shows at the very least this is disputed. I'd argue it also shows the policy lacks consensus and should be removed, but I think there should be some more discussion before anyone takes that step. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that there's a dispute, but the PLOT statement is already marked under discussion via inlines, so there's no need to doubletag, particularly when then "dispute" tag suggests the entire IINFO section is disputed. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Humm.... #1 I'm shooting for something stronger than "discussion" here. I think this is disputed, which is different than a discussion (which I'd assume is about tweaking, not removing). #2 The tag clearly indicates which shortcut is in dispute. I'd be okay with changing the superscript text to "dispute" rather than discussion. Objections? Hobit (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems good, Hobit. Locke9k (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Switched to {{dubious}} inline tag. (apparently "disputed-inline" redirects there, so it's the best one) --MASEM (t) 15:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not happy with the "dubious" label, I think it has been put there in bad faith, as WP:NOT#PLOT is common sense from the perspective of writing encyclopedic articles, although I can understand why fans of Wookieepedia might want to label it as such. I would be grateful if this tag is removed. It seems to me "Wikipedia is not for plot only articles" is going to be continuously disputed for as long as editors invest in the creation of childish plot only articles, so I don't accept this tagging this section is ever appropriate, unless someone can explain how you can obtain context, commentary, criticism or anlaysis from an article which is only comprised of plot summary. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Start over?

I've been going over all the debates, and it seems that the initial intention was to block plot-only articles, but then the size of plot summaries got involved, and I'm not even sure where the issue stands now. There are three options in the intro to the vote, but the question itself asked in the vote is, "In principle, do you think that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries?" which is not asking, "Should WP:NOT have a policy banning plot only articles?" or, "Should WP:NOT have a policy banning plot only articles and limiting plot summaries?" I think these issues got mucked up in the discussion, so I don't think the question was direct enough to gain consensus. I believe we should start a new vote, with a very direct question, so we can definately say we have consensus on that specific subject. Angryapathy (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with having a straw poll in this RFC at all - I think it has short-circuited the conversation and basically just turned it into a vote-a-thon. If I had caught it before anyone commented there I would have removed it, but I got to it just too late for that to be reasonable. I certainly don't think adding another straw poll is going to help the situation. What we aught to do is have a much more extensive discussion to try to seek a consensus position rather than just having a battle between two fixed sides. Locke9k (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, straw polls have a way of turning debates into a false choice. There's always a middle option. A quick look at the last straw poll reveals a lot of people who like WP:PLOT but would be comfortable with revising and refocusing it, and people who don't like it here but can't outright disagree with it either. Only a few people at either extreme want to be hard-asses in favor or against plot. Randomran (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of the straw poll is that it can provide evidence that people are or aren't happy with the status quo. Otherwise we get arguments that "this has consensous" or "this doesn't" and we create an echo chamber of a small number of editors. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, whatever the muddling, it does seem that if about half the voters think that WP:NOT is not an appropriate place to discuss plot at all, that it should be removed, and another place found to discuss it. I'd suggest the manual of style, for now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem, though. We can somehow see half the voters saying "no" for some reason and then refashion it to meet our needs. I don't think that all of those 27 people would be happy w/ PLOT over at MOS w/ the same force of policy. Some don't want it to be policy at all. Some think it should be at N. Some think it should be rewritten. How does this poll give us the force to make any one of those decisions to the exclusion of the others? Protonk (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If WP:NOT#PLOT was in an article, it would have been moved to the talkpage long ago to be rewritten. This is a policy, so it should have been removed even longer ago. What you've just described is no consensus. We do not make text with no consensus policy. If there's no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be here, it should not be here. Period. If people want to propose to add it to some other policy or guideline, and think there would be consensus to add it to that policy or guideline, they're free to propose it on that policy or guideline's talkpage, just like any other proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's ever been a consensus that WP:PLOT be etched in stone. But the question is if there's a consensus to remove it outright. There isn't. The only consensus way forward is to revise it, not remove it. Otherwise, it's going to stay the same, and we're going to repeat the same debates. Randomran (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that a policy that doesn't have consensous should be removed. We don't need to show that consensous exists to remove it. We merely need to show that there isn't consensous to keep it. Is there a general president on things like this? How much inertia do we assign existent policy? Hobit (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If there's no consensus for altering a standing policy or guideline, it usually stays, but this is more than just altering. First, we still have 2+ weeks of an RFC to go through, so we shouldn't be rushing to do anything. Second, we need to look at more than the !votes and in this case, the general consensus is to move this out of NOT because of the negative connotations (that plot summaries are "banned" which they are not) but where to move is in question. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly fine with waiting. Do we have policy/guidelines/anything that tell us what to do when a policy or guideline loses consensus (say hits 50/50?) I don't think I buy that keeping something like that around is a good idea...Hobit (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember, this is a !vote - the numbers don't matter, only the relative strengths of arguments. And generally a "no consensus" to a question of change means you don't make the change. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The claim "numbers don't matter" is false. And I've given 33 reasons why WP:NOT#PLOT cannot be policy at User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT. Regarding your last statement, there was no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy when it was first proposed, so Hiding should never have added it to this page in the first place. Hiding should have never made the change. But he did, and we have almost 3 years of disputes to show for it. If there's no consensus to delete an article, we don't delete it (although some people would like to delete BLPs where the AFD ends in no consensus). But policies are supposed to describe standards that have community consensus. Policies are supposed to have wide acceptance among editors. Consensus for policies should be reasonably strong. Policies are supposed to state what most Wikipedians agree upon.

Like I said earlier, imagine two questions: 1) "Do you think WP:NOT#PLOT should be policy" 2) "Do you think WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed from policy." No consensus for question one and no consensus for question two are two drastically different outcomes. Things within policy must have consensus to be policy, not just lack of consensus to remove them. It has to have consensus to be here, and it doesn't. And consensus is not based on the "strength" of arguments (regardless of what Radiant! wrote on some policy or guideline). Finish this sentence: "If a section of text does not have consensus to be policy, then..." --Pixelface (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The question that is being asked is not "Should PLOT be policy?". The question being asked is "Should PLOT be in NOT?" Interpreting the results as open-mindedly as possible suggests that there's valid reasons to move it out of NOT because of the fact that it implicitly suggests "plot summaries are bad in of themselves", which is a valid concern. But several "no" voters as I read them still think the intent of PLOT - that coverage of a topic should be able to extend beyond just being a plot summary - is valid. (and yes, this means that plot-only articles can be allowable during the development of a topic or in circumstances where it make sense to summarize as such , such as list of characters or episodes) So, yes, there's likely cause to remove PLOT from NOT, but the concept behind it still needs to be put somewhere because that itself does not appear to be disputed. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Masem, WP:NOT is a policy, and this is its talkpage. That's the policy I'm talking about. I didn't think I needed to spell that out for you. There's no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be in WP:NOT. So it needs to be removed. I've said this countless times already. And I have removed WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT multiple times because it has no consensus to be in this policy. Was I wrong in doing so? If someone wants to put WP:NOT#PLOT somewhere else, they can always propose it on another talkpage. But it's painfully obvious that WP:NOT#PLOT does not belong here. We don't have to decide where to put things that we remove from policy before they can be removed. And one does not propose to add something to a page from some other page's talkpage. If it is proposed elsewhere, I just hope you won't stonewall for a year like you have here. --Pixelface (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But there isn't a consensus to remove it. At most, there's a consensus that it's too firm, or that having it here makes it too firm. (e.g.: it gives the confusing impression that plot summaries are banned) Randomran (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That certainly isn't the reading I'm getting. The question is really a strong one. "In principle, do you think that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries?" A yes leaves a lot of room for interpretation (should be here but too firm) a no says it doesn't belong here. I don't see consensus for keeping it here (but the RfC will run for a while and it might well spring into existance).

There does not have to be consensus to remove a section of policy before it can be removed. A section of policy must have consensus to be policy before it can be policy. Imagine six scenarios: no consensus to add/consensus to add, no consensus to be/consensus to be, no consensus to remove/consensus to remove. Consensus to remove would be nice, but it's the far end of the scale. Look for my comment on this talkpage dated "20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)" where I explain how it's possible that a sentence which does not have consensus to be policy can remain in a policy if people keep insisting on a ridiculous "consensus to remove." There was no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be added to this policy, there's no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy, so it should be removed. This is a policy page and policies are supposed to have wide acceptance among editors. --Pixelface (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No Randomran. The question, as it always is concerning policy, is whether it has consensus to be policy. WP:NOT#PLOT does not. Revising it won't make it have consensus to be policy. Here's a novel idea: how about people wait until something has consensus to be policy before they add it to a policy page? --Pixelface (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think even if the straw poll is considered a failure (because people are asking the wrong questions), we have three pretty clear ideas of what people want:

1. Encyclopedia coverage of fiction ultimately should be more than just reiterating the plot
2. Articles are a work in progress and plot-only articles should not be outright deleted
3. Trying to state the above two points in WP:NOT leads to dispute because it implies plot summaries are not allowed at a first-glance reading.

So we're basically left with the question of where PLOT (or at least point 1 above) should be relocated. It seems most agree that 1 is universally true so that it is policy, but it doesn't fit in NOT and the only other place that seems to make sense is NPOV and that's a bit of fitting a square squishy peg into a round hole - it'll fit but take too much work. WAF would seem like the next best place for it but it makes it a guideline, which I'm reading as too weak for some.

So maybe the solution is to create a new guideline, combining several ideas on this page, on how any narrative or creative work should be handled - fiction, non-fiction, songs, movies, books, video games, etc - should be handled, specifically that while the content of the work should be described and summarized, this is part of the larger coverage that should include creation, development, reception, sales, influences, legacy, etc, as to put the work in context for the lay reader. This advice should not be describing how articles are to be treated, just the general coverage of any work as, as rightly pointed out, we do allow limited cases of narrative-only articles when they support the larger topic of the work itself. I can't think of any other policy this advice fits into so it may be necessary to create a new one. We have WP:PLOTS but that's geared towards fiction, so if we're going to create a new policy, it needs to account for all narrative works as to remove the apparent bias this has against them. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think creating a new policy on summarizing fiction is effectively "tabling" the discussion (for you Brits, I mean bury the topic). I do not feel that this discussion was focused enough to get any consensus from it. As Masem pointed out, there were three issues, as stated above, and none seem to be sorted out with any consensus. The votes seemed to be aimed at different topics, so a vote for "yes" didn't mean the same thing vote to vote. I say remove it for now, then focus the discussion so we aren't putting something into the policy just so we have something to show for our discussions. Angryapathy (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is it appropriate to alert the various fiction projects about this RfC? Hobit (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • See the comment in the discussion - alerting just the fiction projects will bias this. It has been tagged as an RFC, and noted in VPP and CENT. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you seriously think that notifying the village pump, and mentioning the RFC in Template:Cent, and mentioning the RFC in {{fiction notice}} didn't bring any bias here as well? Who are the editors most likely to notice any of those? --Pixelface (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with a more wide notification also, but I think in general we contact the projects that are related to the policy when we do an RfC. I'm sure baseball etc. are contacted about changes to WP:ATHLETE. Are you somehow claiming that people who work in a certain area bring bias to that area and shouldn't be notified? Hobit (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems like the plan is to notify all of the wikiprojects then? Sounds like a plan to me. Who wants to do it? Hiding T 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll get to it over the weekend if no one else does before that (in finals at the moment) Does there exist even a starting point for finding all the relevant wikiprojects? Hobit (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't want to bias the RFC by cherrypicking audiences who are enthusiastic about the material. To some degree, we need input from people who are dispassionate, and have a broader sense of Wikipedia's content goals. Otherwise the legitimacy of the RFC flies out the window. Randomran (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
          • At the risk of repeating myself: I think in general we contact the projects that are related to the policy when we do an RfC. I'm sure baseball etc. are contacted about changes to WP:ATHLETE. Are you somehow claiming that people who work in a certain area bring bias to that area and shouldn't be notified? Hobit (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I hit a handful, I'd ask that someone using an automatic tool hit some more... Hobit (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
              • There goes what credibility this RFC had left. Randomran (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
                • Responded at talk page. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of great discussion has come out fo this RfC, and I don't want to see it squandered. Also, I don't want it to arrive at a consensus that really isn't a consensus. I suggest we create a few subsections within this RfC on this various issues at hand. Here are a few I can think of:

• Should WP have a policy against plot-only articles?
• Should WP have a policy limiting plot summary sizes?
• Is this the proper venue for policies on PLOT?
• Should we cover all works (TV, books, fiction/nonfiction) in PLOT?

Add any more issues from this discussion if you'd like, and comment on whether or not we should refocus and add new subsections so we can gauge consensus and/or reach compromise. Angryapathy (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can PLOT and Notability be completed isolated?

I think a core issue on this debate that will make the final answer relatively simple is if PLOT is really notability aspect or if it is providing something that is above and beyond notability. From a 60,000 ft level, PLOT and WP:N pretty much read the same, but there's layers on layers of subtly (eg PLOT is generally about the overall coverage while WP:N is about individual articles; one is about real-world coverage, one is about secondary sourcing). But let's put this as easy as possible: is it possible to completely separate PLOT from WP:N from the average editor's POV?

If the answer is no, then the course of action is pretty obvious: as the recent RFC on WP:N shows, notability is only a guideline, and thus I would propose that PLOT goes to WAF (a guideline) or as the new FICT (a guideline).

If the answer is yes, we need to establish that wording that makes it clear that PLOT is very distance from what WP:N is, and then determine where that goes. If that is still policy or guideline, I'm not sure, though if it's as weak as a guideline, what is really separating it from WP:N?

I will add that in the "no" case, there's still a policy in place at WP:V that prevents articles sourced only to the primary work, though I know that's on shaky ground as well, but it would be more in line to a consist metric for all articles, no just fiction.

My gut tells me we can never full separate these two from a common editor's POV - they're just too closely mingled, but the language of PLOT can be used to set something for fictional notability that still is in line with WP:N , but treated as a guideline with heaps of common sense. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot-only main articles whose category is widely accepted (films and TV shows) rarely get deleted. Editors (usually fans) only get unhappy about NOT#PLOT when a plot-only subarticle is AfDed or proposed to get merged. But an AfD or merger is reasonable in such cases, since the plot is usually already (or will be) covered with due weight in a parent article (or grand-parent article or great-grandparent article). So I'd say PLOT and Notability can be completed isolated as long as DUEWEIGHT and SPINOUT is observed at any time, which fan editors usually didn't do at the point of subarticle creation - and that's the source of the ("their") problem. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Masem, you make everything too difficult for yourself. It's a simple question: Say the Hamlet article only contained the text "Prince Hamlet exacts revenge on his uncle Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father, the King, and then taken the throne and married Gertrude, Hamlet's mother." (or say the article only contained the text currently in the Synopsis section. Now, should Wikipedia have an article about Hamlet? Yes or no? I say yes. Now, say an 8th grader writes a story tomorrow and creates an article about it and it's just a plot summary. Should Wikipedia have an article about it? I say no. If someone asks why have an article about Hamlet and why not have an article about a story a junior high student made up, one could bring the concept of "notability" into it. Or one could say "because lots of people have heard about Hamlet but virtually nobody has heard of your story." Or one could simply say that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. --Pixelface (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving forwards

It's clear that PLOT has no consensus for its current place and phasing: I've removed it, and would suggest our efforts would better be spent working out a new phrasing and more appropriate location, then we can open an RfC there to add the agreed material.

So: Let's begin. I think the obvious place is WP:WAF - a highly respected guideline, where it could be dealt with with all the subtlety it deserves. I propose something like the following text:

“ Plot summaries can be a useful part of an article on a fictional work, but it should be remembered that an encyclopedia also deals with other aspects of the work. Criticism, discussion, reactions, and details about how the author came to write the work are also important, and a well-developed article should review the work from many such perspectives.

Plot summaries should be kept to a reasonable length, with the exact definition of "reasonable" depending on the complexity and length of the work being summarised. Particular care should be taken with works still in copyright: particularly detailed plot summaries may count as copyright infringement.

In some cases, such as some classic literary works, where whole books may well have been written discussing the plot, it may be appropriate to spin-off an article on the plot. However, these spin-off articles should include discussion of the plot, using the opportunity to go into more depth on both the plot itself, and the meaning that notable critics have seen in the various elements. For instance, a detailed discussion of Frankenstein's plot might also discuss the vagueness of the novel's description of how the monster is brought to life, and how later adaptations have substantially changed the plot.

”

I believe this covers the intent, but the format of WP:WAF allows for more subtlety and clarity about what precisely we mean and want, which is a big advantage.° Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if there is consensus to move it (but not to remove it) then we need to figure out where first before making changes, because the policy still applies since it has consensus. As to where, WAF is ok, if we agree it's only as strong as a guideline, but my judgement from the above discussion is that this is a policy-level guidance (that it is generally true that plot summaries should not be the sole coverage of a topic) so WAF would not work. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you say it has consensus when there's that much opposition to the very idea of it being here? When nearly half the voters are opposed to discussion of plot summaries here on principle, there is no consensus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The key word is "being here"; as many NO votes point out, the concept behind PLOT being on the NOT page can be read to imply that "plot summaries are never appropriate on WP", which is bitey and just not true. So NOT is probably not the right place for it. But it's still a working policy or guideline that "coverage of topics should not be solely plot summaries" based on both YES and NO and Neutral votes above. There are some that completely dismiss any guidance on plot summaries but they aren't the consensus view. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The way forward here is not to continue to insist with no consensus that the section needs to be removed -- or putting bizarre editorial comments on the page attacking our standards (there's already a ridiculous "dubious" tag there, that's already more than what is necessary) -- but to try to forge a REAL consensus. If you want a wording change, try to present something that fits in with our longstanding policies and that a substantial majority of people CAN agree to. That's it. Anything else is just wikilawyering and obstructionism. DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Analyze what you're saying. We're talking about a section of policy that has no consensus to be policy. If there is no consensus for something to be policy, it cannot be policy. Do you disagree with that? Once there is a real consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be in this policy, then it can be in this policy. It's as simple as that. --Pixelface (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What's next?

It occurs to me that if the straw poll results are anything but "keep on the page" (and that includes "no consensus"), then the section will need to be removed until a consensus is formed, per nornal Wikipedia editing practice. (The onus is on those who wish to include, not those who wish to remove.)

And this isn't a discussion between a couple experienced editors and a bunch of over-enthusiastic editors. I think most everyone commenting has been a part of these (and other such) discussions now for quite some time.

So if this results in no consensus to retain (as it seems to be starting to appear), the next steps would seem to be: a.) find a consensus where such information should be located and b.) figure out what text we can build consensus on. - jc37 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though we couldn't find a consensus on what to do, reading between the lines shows some consensus. The first is that people would probably support some kind of relocation, if we could find a place that wouldn't just be ignored. The second is that people would also support some kind of rephrase, using softer language that is also more clear. That's if we can get people to look passed the usual "keep it the same" vs "remove it outright" extremes. Randomran (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The next step is removal. And I'd be glad to do it myself (for the 14th time). But I'll let someone else do it. I'll let someone else be wrongly labeled a "vandal" and "disruptive" and have three ANI threads opened on them and a user RFC opened them — all because they removed something from policy that does not have consensus to be policy. Been there, done that. If someone want to propose adding it to another page, they're free to propose it on that page's talkpage. --Pixelface (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The concept (but not necessarily this wording) is a long standing policy and the RFC shows that the intent of what PLOT provides accepted. But we have these issues

• Is it appropriate to put on WP:NOT? - That answer seems to weigh on NO due to the fact that being on this page would seem to outlaw plot summaries even though that's not the intent. When taken outside of NOT, it will have room to expand to explain the concept more so that it is clear that it's an end goal for articles but should otherwise not be taken as a means for deletion at the immediate time.
• Is it still either a consensus-agreed policy or guideline? - That answer is clearly YES, so relocation is going to be necessary
• Is it a strong enough statement or be policy or should it be a guideline? - That's more difficult to assert. The !votes favor remaining policy with some of the "no"s seeming to suggest this too. If it is to stay policy, it needs a home outside of NOT. I've suggested NPOV but that's stretching it. Maybe it needs to be its own ? And then I've also asked above if there's the issue if we can truly separate PLOT from notability to the layperson because if we can't, then maybe this just needs to be a guideline , in which case we can easily toss it to WAF and be done.

Thus, before we delete it (as it is still appropriate) we need to find a home for it. And that's basically determining if it is policy-strength or guideline-strength. --MASEM (t) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is why I think voting works better than "trying to gain consensus." Right now we have two camps claiming that during the same discussions, there is consensus AND isn't consensus. "Consensus" is obviously subjective. This is why I wanted to maybe focus the argument, because I don't know how anyone could derive anything from the mess of a discussion this has been. I agree with Pixelface in that there isn't consensus for the wording here, so it should be removed. The claims that, "We should leave it there until we finish," is only coming from people who supported the idea anyway, and it's a sneaky way to put in policy that does not have consensus. What will it take for the editors to realize we need a better discussion before it gets added to the page? Angryapathy (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

!Voting is bad because you aggregrate a lot of thoughts. There are several different reasons for "no" votes, as there are several reasons for "yes", and aggregating to a binary decision isn't a useful solution. That's why we need to look at the reasons people are stating. And recognizing there are a few that disagree with it, there is consensus for some type of high-level guidance to the extent that "Plot summaries are part of the coverage of fictional works, but should not be solely be the coverage". Having it in NOT is the point of contention between the arguments. The statement shouldn't be removed from WP, but it needs to be located somewhere. And this is why it should stay until we've figured out where to put it. If some city decided they wanted to change the speed limit on various roads to a different number, but they weren't sure what number that want to change it to, they don't remove the existing speed limits until they've figured it out. Similarly, PLOT is still a strong piece of guidance and should not be eliminted temporarily while we figure out where it could go. --MASEM (t)

JC37 claimed: "It occurs to me that if the straw poll results are anything but "keep on the page" (and that includes "no consensus"), then the section will need to be removed until a consensus is formed, per nornal Wikipedia editing practice. (The onus is on those who wish to include, not those who wish to remove.)"

I'm sorry, but that's NOT the normal editing practice here. Items that have historically been in a policy or guideline for a long time already have consensus of longstanding editors. A clear consensus would be needed in order to remove it. This whole statement is just an attempt to wikilawyer into getting your way without any true consensus to do so, and that will not fly. That same logic would get pretty much everything removed from every policy or guideline page with enough wikilawyering. Major changes on these kind of pages need overwhelming support before they can be made, not lukewarm support from a couple of highly aggressive people who don't take no for an answer. DreamGuy (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy when it was first proposed.#1 So it's absolutely ridiculous that people are insisting on there being consensus to remove before it can be removed. And Wikipedia existed for over 5 1/2 years without WP:NOT#PLOT as policy.#7 Is that too short for you? And WP:NOT#PLOT wasn't on this page for very long at all until it was removed for the first time.#21 To claim that a line of text has been on a page for a long time and therefore it must have consensus is absolutely false. Sections of policy must have consensus in order to be policy, not merely a lack of consensus to remove them. Period. Consensus to remove would be nice, but it's not necessary. --Pixelface (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to stop peddling the myth that there was no consensus when it was first proposed. I've questioned your numbers on the talk page of your user page, but you haven't responded, so I'll question them quite openly here. You get six against six. I don't. Show me your maths. Hiding T 08:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a myth. In February 2007, in this thread, Matthew asked "was there ever an actual consensus to add this?" Badlydrawnjeff, who was there when you proposed WP:NOT#PLOT said "The only relevant discussion appeared to be here, and, I'll be honest, it didn't seem to have much in the way of consensus." Later Matthew said "Okay, so it appears there was never a consensus to add this in the first place." Are they peddling myths too?

These are the six people I count a supports in the proposal thread. You said "any objections to adding the following to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information?" JzG said "Strong support. It's almost impossible to do a plot summary without either original research or copyvio.." (which isn't true, but okay). Rossami said "I'll support it as well even if it will be difficult to apply." (which is definitely some foreshadowing). MartinRe said "Conditional support." Mwalcoff said "My views are along the lines of Hiding's. I don't think an article should be nothing but a plot summary. But if we're going to have a complete article on a work, I think a plot summary is an important thing to include." At first, Deckiller said "Disagree" and "WP:NOT's major weakness is that its policies leave AfD voters with a black and white view, when that clearly cannot be the case with so many branches of knowledge and styles of articles." (more foreshadowing) But then Deckiller said "Yeah, I like that wording a lot."

These are the six people I count as not supporting in the proposal thread. Leflyman used "Not going to happen" in his edit summary and said "I think this would be an extremely contentious issue, as the vast slew of articles dealing with television shows, film, books and comics go beyond merely "plot points" into full summaries. I would not be surprised if that's a major chunk of the many articles on fictional topics. For example, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes is specifically set up to create episode summaries. See, Category:Lists of television series episodes." (that's foreshadowing of E&C1 and E&C2) Leflyman also happened to mention Wikia (possibly since you mentioned WP:WAF in your proposal and WAF has mentioned Wikia ever since you marked it a guideline, or maybe he was just aware of it). Leflyman later said said "Saying it would be "difficult to apply" is a bit of an understatement. I suspect that if this were to be seriously promoted, a veritable rebellion would be fomented on Wikipedia." (more foreshadowing of E&C1 and E&C2) and "Nearly everything on Wikipedia is, in effect, a "summary" so why stop at "plots"?" Will Beback used "yes but no" in his edit summary and said "I agree with the intent of this proposal, but I'm afraid that Leflyman is correct in that there are huge numbers of plot summaries on Wikipedia (most dutifully marked with "spoiler alerts"). It will take more than a change to WP:NOT to make them go away. But I support the effort." I suppose that could possibly be interpreted as support by some people (I support the effort, I agree with the intent of the proposal), but the edit summary ("yes but no") is also telling. Badlydrawnjeff said "I don't mind it in theory, to be honest. But here's the bigger question - is it worth the drama, and does it really improve anything? I'm certainly aware of the OR issues here, but are we really improving the encyclopedia if we remove plot summaries?" I suppose that could also possibly be interpreted as support by some people ("I don't mind it in theory"), but the edit summary "improvement? drama?" and the statement "is it worth the drama, and does it really improve anything?" is telling. Badlydrawnjeff's comment in February 2007, "I've refrained from adding things to policy/guideline pages with less opposition." is also telling. JeffW said "I don't really see that plot summaries break any of the above policies. The article on IBM is a summary of all the information that could be written about IBM. Is it therefore necessarily original research or POV? As for copyright issues, IANAL but I would think plot summaries would fall under fair use." Williamborg said "Oppose — They are wonderfully useful for those who are trying to translate; they often provide the clues missing when you get mired in the original text. Instead of rooting plot summaries out, encourage them to grow into respectable analyses." Tomstar81 said "Oppose — I agree with Mwalcoff and Leflyman on this one. Plot summaries always play a part in character role and development. Striking them down puts a tremendous strain on those of us who try hard to write on fictional characters, which is hard enough as is." Now, Tomstar81 made that comment on August 26, 2006. By that time, you had already added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT on July 9, 2006. Like I've said elsewhere, if one defines consensus as "majority", I'm willing to believe you thought there was a majority of people who supported WP:NOT#PLOT being in WP:NOT (by one, if you include yourself the proposer), but it was split right down the middle as soon as Tomstar81 opposed — similar to the straw poll above.

In summary, in the proposal thread the editors I count as supporting are Hiding, JzG, Rossami, MartinRe, Mwalcoff, and Deckiller. The editors I count as not supporting are Leflyman, Will Beback, Bdj, JeffW, Williamborg, and Tomstar81. That's my math. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tomstar81 arrived after the event, so I can't see the validity in saying there was a 6 against 6 against before I added it. As to the rest, as I've detailed somewhere else that I've now lost track of, I only see two people outright opposing. There's actually no point in using later statements from Bdj to clarify what he meant at the time, since we didn't have that knowledge at the time, and his comments at the time to my mind aren't outright opposing. I'm not going to pronounce on old debates, because for me I don;t see how I can properly contextualise them, so I don;t really have any comments to make now as to the old debates. Did I make any comments at the time, those would reflect my thinking back then. The general consensus as I see it in that debate was try it and see, but as I've also said elsewhere, I'd agree I probably shouldn;t have made the call. I was bold is all I can say. The real thing that worries me is that you've tried to remove it, I've tried to remove it, others have tried to remove it, and it seems it can't be removed. It's quite clear up above that there is no consensus for it to stay in the policy, but how that consensus becomes respected, I don't know. But thank you for explaining your maths. Hiding T 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever said it was 6 against 6 before you added it. But if you don't count the proposer, it was 5 to 5 before you added it (in my interpretation). But I understand how one could interpret a few comments either way. I know there are only two people using the specific word "oppose." But how many people do you see outright supporting? One was a conditional support, and Rossami acknowledged it would be difficult to apply — not exactly something that can be said about a standard that has wide acceptance among the community. Bdj asked "is it worth the drama?" My current opinion is no, no it was not.

You were bold. That's encouraged. Perhaps editors back then were less likely to use policies as weapons. If you hadn't discussed it before adding it, you probably could point back and say "See? It stuck." But then it was removed for the first time from this policy less than 3 months after it was added, after it was cited in an AFD nomination for a plot-only article, which there was no consensus to delete at the time. Although I fully acknowledge that that article was eventually deleted. Many plot-only articles are deleted. But editors could always nominate them for deletion anyway, PLOT or no PLOT. I see 24 AFDs for articles that begin "Plot of"[29] and I think that articles with titles like that are, in general, a bad idea (I have no problem with Plot of Les Miserables though).

Personally I've added reception information to scores of articles about fictional subjects, partly due to reading WP:NOT#PLOT. But I wonder how many people in the Support section can the same be said about? You say "it seems it can't be removed." Well, we can see who's re-adding itNOTPLOT#24. I fully acknowledge that many editors support WP:NOT#PLOT, and the RFC has certainly shown more people supporting it than when it was first proposed. I respect where you're coming from. I respect your interpretation. My interpretation differs, but I wasn't there, and I can only view it in hindsight. Thank you for your explanation. And your civility makes me regret some of my comments of late. --Pixelface (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with an article titled "Plot of...", because I think at times there are possibilities for an article titled such. I'd imagine there's potential for a "Plot of Hamlet" article, for example, because there should be a depth of sourcing from which to work. I think we both agree that there is currently no consensus for it to be on this page, and I think you'd acknowledge that if I can find a way to improve an article rather than delete it, I likely will. So I think we've run this into the ground again. I can understand the idea that this might not be worth the drama, but that beggars a number of questions, doesn't it? For me, I tend to think that if the arb-com did what it was supposed to do and stood up for WP:CONSENSUS, WP:AGF and WP:CIV we wouldn't have half the drama we do, because you're unlikely to get drama when you abide by those three policies. I'll happily concede it was removed 3 months after, and I don't think I've ever reinstated it once I first added it, although you'll likely know that better than me, because my memory isn't what it should be. I don't see my name on your list, so I'm guessing I'm right. I'd rather debate the merits than get into an edit war, because all that seems to happen in an edit war is that the page gets protected and polarisation sets in. It'd be curious to see how often it's been protected without WP:PLOT in, but I'd only get pointed to the wrong version... I'd still like to discuss amendments to User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT, but I'd rather do that there. Hiding T 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So I am going to admit my idiocy here: for some reason I thought the debate was whether or not to add NOT#PLOT, but being new and dumb I did not know it was a longstanding policy. So I do agree it should not be outright deleted. Consensus has to exist for something to be deleted. So ignore my calls for removal completely. However, I still think the discussion should be better focused, since we are going all over the place with the discussions. Angryapathy (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, it's an innocent misunderstanding. And another thing, we shouldn't let a "split vote" lead us to conclude there isn't consensus. See WP:WHATISCONSENSUS##Not_a_majority_vote. If we split down "yes pizza" and "no pizza", maybe the consensus is "less pizza", or "pizza plus burgers" or "pizza without sauce". Similar, we don't have to keep bashing each other over the head with "remove WP:PLOT" and "don't remove WP:PLOT". A quick survey of the comments reveals there might be a consensus to move WP:PLOT somewhere else, or at least soften the language.
- We could start discussing locations. But I have an idea. What if we changed WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT#RECAP? Just as a gut reaction, people wouldn't think we have it out for plot summaries, just overly detailed ones. And we'd say "Although a plot summary is appropriate as part of coverage of a work, it should not be a scene-by-scene recap." I think this might provide a useful starting point. Randomran (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That essay you wrote, Wikipedia:What is consensus?, has to be one of the worst essays on Wikipedia. If there was a split vote to make that policy, do you think it would actually become policy? It's obvious you don't know what consensus is. If you want to learn, I suggest you work on the consensus article and actually look at sources about the topic. Maybe you might learn something after some research. If a vote is "split", chances are there is no consensus. If half the room wants pepperoni, and if half the room wants ham, and the pizza place only has pepperoni or ham and they do not do split toppings, then there is no consensus for what should be on the pizza. I suggested moving WP:NOT#PLOT over a year ago. If someone wants to add WP:NOT#PLOT to some other policy or guideline, they're free to propose it on the talkpage of that policy or guideline. WP:NOT#RECAP is another bad idea. --Pixelface (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There must be consensus to delete an article before it can be deleted, and no consensus to delete the article results in no action (although some people think no consensus to keep a BLP should result in deletion). But this is a policy, not an article. Policies do not work that way. Text within policies must have consensus to be policy. Text within policies must have wide acceptance among editors. The same cannot be said about articles. If there's no consensus for a particular text to be policy, it cannot be policy. Consensus to remove is not required in order to remove something from policy. If it were, someone could propose whatever they liked, see there was no consensus to add it, add it anyway (or just add whatever they wanted without prior discussion). If another editor removed the new addition to policy, saying more discussion was needed, the adder could just revert saying "you need consensus to remove this." Then the adder could just get a bunch of their friends to show up and say it should stay. There would then be no consensus to remove.

Policy must have consensus to be policy. Period. And WP:NOT#PLOT is not as "longstanding" as some people would have you think. WP:NOT#PLOT was removed from this policy less than 3 months after it was added, when editors began applying the policy at AFDs.#21 WP:NOT#PLOT has undergone scores of revisions as people argue over the wording.#12 WP:NOT#PLOT is one of the most controversial sections of this policy.#9 And this policy has been protected multiple times over arguments over WP:NOT#PLOT#13 Please look at On NOTPLOT, NOTPLOT threads, and NOTPLOT edits. --Pixelface (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on Dream guy's talk page, in order for this to be considered "long standing policy" it at least needs to have been recently stable. This section simply hasn't. I honestly think that the only thing that hasn't been repeatedly changed is the shortcut. It's a premise that's been fairly constantly been under discussion/revision (and not just here...) So WP:BOLD/WP:BRD applies. - jc37 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not only long standing policy, but it is also common sense as well. If you read WP:INUNIVERSE, you will see that it is supported by other guidelines as well as policies such WP:NPOV which says that a neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. For this reason, you can't provide balanced coverage of a fictional topic without a real-world viewpoint, and it is childish to assume that you can. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"It is not only long standing policy" why? User:Jc37 made a pretty good point, that it is not a stable portion of this page. You say it is long standing policy, but what is your reason? Ikip (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd give more credence to Jc's view after comparitive studies had been done with other sections. Contrasting the shape of the page when PLOT was added with teh shape of the page now, I'd argue it is as stable as anything else, and more stable than the bits which fell off in the meantime. [30] Hiding T 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, weren't you the person who added it to the page in the first place?Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, after gaining a consensus on the talk page. Although if you listen to Pixelface's interpretation, apparently I've just told a bare-faced lie. Luckily, the historical record is there for all to consult and make their own mind up. I have both the advantadge and disadvantadge of having been there. Pixelface has both the advantadge and disadvantadge of not having been there. Both my bias and Pixelface's biases are well known. Pixelface hates WP:PLOT. Me, I'm somewhat ambivalent, the thing I am most concerned about is the copyright concerns expressed by Moonriddengirl, in which I follow that user's lead. What's your bias? Hiding T 08:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't gain consensus on the talkpage.#1 I addressed this nearly a year ago today on this talkpage.[31] (at 12:50, 30 April 2008). Then you replied "Are you actually going to remove it from policy or not? I have the courage of my convictions. Do you?" After that I did remove it, multiple times, and you also removed it. And like I told you before, you have no courage. For a second I thought you might have courage, but later you said you only removed it because you were playing devil's advocate.

I'm willing to accept you thought there was a majority of people (by one) who supported WP:NOT#PLOT when you added it, but that majority went out the window as soon as TomStar81 commented. You're right, it's right here on this talkpage for all to see[32]. WP:NOT#PLOT never had consensus to be policy. Even with Deckiller changing his opinion (by the way, that was one person supporting that wording). It's like your eyeballs are selectively blind to what Leflyman, Will Beback, Badlydrawnjeff, JeffW, Williamborg, and TomStar81 said. It's like your ego will not let you remember it any other way — like Cartman in the episode Fishsticks.

I was on Wikipedia as of July 9, 2006 when you added WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy. I wasn't on this talkpage though, because I was actually working on articles, not dreaming up new rules for Wikipedia: The Gathering. I began editing Wikipedia before WP:NOT#PLOT was policy. Wikipedia existed for 5 1/2 years without WP:NOT#PLOT as policy, and it didn't blow up during that time. You're right, I wasn't in the proposal thread. You were. Know who else was there? Badlydrawnjeff. In the proposal thread, he [33] said "is it worth the drama, and does it really improve anything?" and "are we really improving the encyclopedia if we remove plot summaries?" In February 2007, Badlydrawnjeff said "The only relevant discussion appeared to be here, and, I'll be honest, it didn't seem to have much in the way of consensus."

I don't "hate" WP:NOT#PLOT. But it does not have consensus to be policy. It's obvious you're ambivalent.[34][35] There are no copyright concerns with an article that is just a plot summary. If there were, why no "Summaries of copyrighted works" section or "Summaries of newspaper aricles" section or a section with a link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright, etc in WP:NOT? And there are especially no copyright concerns if the work in question is not under copyright — something people continue to ignore. Not all fictional works are copyrighted. --Pixelface (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have the courage of my convictions. I removed it like I told you I would. The trouble is, you don't support or understand my convictions. My conviction is to live by consensus. Always has been, always will. Yes, in a sense I was playing devil's advocate, because I wanted to see what the consensus was. I don't think you really understand anything about my position or what I want Pixelface. What I want is an end to all this bickering, all this pointless energy expended on useless ideology. I'd much rather people actually put all their effort into the encyclopedia, because then we wouldn't have half the problems we have now. We'd have better articles. So I'd much rather we just made a decision, one way or the other, and then let it be. Not have to constantly second guess each decision made because someone at a later date might disagree, not have to constantly tighten our policies because someone might do x y or z. Just, you know, get on with it and treat WP:CONSENSUS and WP:AGF and WP:CIV as the bedrocks they are supposed to be. You know, if we had an arb-com which actually stood up for those principles, maybe we wouldn't be here. But that's beside the point.

I think you're eyeballs are selectively blind too. For instance, Badlydrawnjeff isn't opposing. I had a lot of time and respect for jeff, had a lot of dealings with jeff, and I think it's fair to say that if jeff opposed it, jeff would have said, I oppose this. He didn't. He said, and I'll quote his actual words: "I don't mind it in theory, to be honest." Now if you want to turn that into a position of outright opposition, then be my guest. I won't, I'll let jeff's words speak for themselves. I'd rather jeff was here to speak up about it, but my memory of jeff is certainly that jeff would have been more vocal in opposition than what was expressed at that debate. Leflyman thinks it's a bad idea but not to the point of saying don't do it, and Will BeBack, um, says "I support the effort". I'm not sure how you turn that into an oppose, but now I understand your maths, so now I understand we just simply disagree. And this isn't about my ego refusing to allow me to admit a mistake: if you wanted to say I was the wrong person to add the thing to not or decide the consensus, I'd damn well agree with you. But that I made that mistake has no relevance here. That's the point I don't think your truly understand. This isn't a mea culpa moment. This isn't a court where you can sit there and say, ah but because the defendant wasn't read his rights... Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The whole argument you have that PLOT doesn't have legitimacy is flawed by the fact that it doesn't need legitimacy, it needs consensus. Now this poll is doing a far better job of showing there is no consensus for PLOT to be in NOT than anything you or me could say one way or the other, wouldn't you agree? Look, take it from me, I've tried to delete a Wikipedia essay I created as author requested, only to be told I can't because other people like it. You get nowhere arguing that things should never be the way they are now.

If you want to make a point that I was dicking around in Wikipedia space, feel free. I'll let my contribution history stand for itself. I'd certainly agree I could contribute more to article space and less to the other spaces, but I'd reject the idea that I view Wikipedia as some sort of "Wikipedia: The Gathering" whatever that is. It's a cultural reference I'm missing, I guess.

If you want to argue that there are no copyright concerns with an article that is just a plot summary, let's just say we disagree, and so does the law. Where a work is in copyright, if you summarise to the point that you replace the need for someone to actually buy the work itself, you've breached copyright. That's a law, and you may disagree with that law, but it is a law none the less. Moonriddengirl does a better job of explaining it than I ever could, though, so read their posts up above. I've got no issue with out of copyright works, we've got WP:NOTREPOSITORY to cover that. There's no point summarising the work if that's all that's going to happen, because then you might as well dump the whole text here, and we don't do that. Hiding T 12:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I tell you what does annoy me though. We've made it too hard to edit the damn policy pages. You talk about predating WP:PLOT, I predate WP:V and a whole load of other stuff. I don't think I'd say Wikipedia didn't blow up before all those policy pages were added, because there's always been division on Wikipedia, but I agree with you that we probably don't need half the policy cruft we have right now. And I regret the fact that someone who opposed WP:PLOT didn't remove it after I added it, because we'll never know what would have happened next. You'd never get away with it now, and I don't know if that's better or worse. I don't think it's helpful for Badlydrawnjeff to turn around six months later and make the statement he did, because that's what he should have been doing at the time. See, at the end of the day, I can't help but ask myself why, if it was opposed as widely as you suggest, it wasn't removed immediately, rather than after what, 3 months? But there you go. Maybe it'll finally go from here now? Personally, I support the idea it espouses, just not the implementation. Leflyman was right and wrong after all. It was never supposed to be about deletion, it was supposed to be about setting a standard. If there's no consensus for that standard, that standard isn't worth espousing here, is it? Hiding T 12:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Search for consensus wording

It seems to me that this RFC has been plagued by a widespread assumption that it is not possible to find a consensus wording on the plot issue within this policy. I personally reject this assumption, and I think that we should use this space to try to find a wording that would achieve a consensus. This does not mean that it must be acceptable to the most extreme proponents of each position. Hopefully this is a place where people with moderate views on the issue can come together to form a central consensus. Let me propose a few principles that might be promogulated by a wording that could achieve such a consensus.

1. Coverage of fictional works must demonstrate real world notability.
2. It is preferable that coverage of fictional works contain extensive coverage of real world impact.
3. Overall coverage of fictional works rather than individual articles should be the issue here; in other words, if coverage of a work includes daughter articles (such as those for individual episodes of a tv show), they should not be considered separately by this policy. It should suffice if the real world coverage is concentrated in the parent article and the daughter articles contain mainly summary.
4. The present wording risks implying that Wikipedia is never plot summaries. The wording should be readjusted to make clear that while Wikipedia may include plot summaries, its purpose is not to become a raw collection of plot summaries. This should help clarify that this is a long range big-picture goal and not a basis for deletion of individual articles.
5. Remember, we need not satisfy those with the most absolute or extreme views; we simply need to find some statement that would achieve consensus majority support.

With these principles in mind, I'll being by proposing a new wording that I hope will form a starting point for finding a consensus wording. Its a bit long right now, but I think that given the debate over the topic its acceptable to go into a bit more depth if it means we can reach a consensus.

An archive of plot summaries. As part of the coverage of a fictional work, a summaries of the work's overall plot or of multiple elements of the plot often serve an important role in providing the reader with an extensive understanding of the work under discussion. However, such plot summaries must be supplemented by evidence of the work's real-world notability and should ultimately accompany and facilitate substantial discussion of real-world development, reception, and impact of the fictional work. The purpose of Wikipedia is ultimately not to simply summarize narrative works in an in-universe fashion but rather to give the reader a balanced and thorough overview of the work, its content, and real-world notability.

Locke9k (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggested something above... But maybe the language against plot summaries would be softened if we stated that "Wikipedia is not plot recaps"? A recap has a connotation of "scene-by-scene, detailed coverage". Most people agree that's too much, but have nothing against a solid summary. Randomran (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to minimize the contribution of other people who have made some wording suggestions. Its just that, given the massive length of this RFC, its presently very hard to find and consider suggestions that have already been made. It seemed worthwhile to create a new section explicitly for the purpose of seeing if a consensus wording could be found. Locke9k (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Locke is on to something. As he said, his suggestion is a little wordy, so here's my tweaking of the wording to remove redundancy but keep the same content:

As part of the coverage of a fictional work, summaries of the work's overall plot or of multiple elements of the plot often serve an important role. However, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to simply summarize narrative works in an in-universe fashion, so such plot summaries must be supplemented by evidence of the work's real-world notability and should ultimately accompany discussion of real-world development, reception, and impact of the fictional work.

That's my two cents. Angryapathy (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to bring up notability, it's going to make it hard to keep this in policy - notability is clearly only a guideline. If that's the way it should go, then that's one thing; on the other hand, I would suggest working along the lines of "addressing the real-world context of the work, including development, reception, and impact". --MASEM (t) 17:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully, if we're going to address the concerns of the group who think "NOT#PLOT" sounds too strong, we need to water it down. Hence my suggestion to focus more on "NOT#RECAP", to signify that we're not banning plot information. (Kind of the same way that NOT#FAQ doesn't mean we can't answer important questions.) Randomran (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: Policy doesn't have a magic status above guideline. No-one would think of ignoring RS because "it's just a guideline". Sceptre ^(talk) 12:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you raise that at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which disagrees. Hiding T 12:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between policies and guidelines. Wikipedia has over 50 policies and over 250 guidelines[36]. And WP:RS *is* just a guideline. WP:N is also just a guideline. There is a reason neither are policy. Oh, and WP:ATA is just an essay. --Pixelface (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. this RFC is "plagued" by the fact that discussants on either side of the issue don't all necessarily want to find a compromise wording. Some are interestested in keeping it as is, some want to move it to WP:N, some want to abolish it. I'm all for finding some compromise wording, but I don't think that you are going to get far by replacing what is in PLOT with hints toward "real world" elements and notability. And, honestly, unless we proceed from the premise that wikipedia isn't a repository of plot summaries, what is the point of this wording? Why should PLOT recapitulate and enshrine wording from N and the failed FICT if not to articulate the borders of the encyclopedia? How does this new wording quiet the protests about PLOT generally? Protonk (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. At least not this wording. If this is going to be solved by wording, it has to be more than a copy-edit or re-statement. It has to be a change that says "plot summaries are generally okay", which is what most people agree with. Rather, I think what we've meant all along is "Wikipedia is not a repository of scene-by-scene plot recaps. A concise summary is generally acceptable as part of the coverage of a fictional work's development, reception, and legacy." In other words, axe NOT#PLOT, but go with NOT#RECAP. It probably doesn't go as far as what many of the detractors want, but if they can agree that it's an improvement, then we'd have found a consensus on something. Randomran (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with refocusing this on 'recaps', as Randomran suggests (although perhaps some other more clear word could be found). In essence, what we are trying to say is similar to the prohibition against step-by-step game walkthroughs, but for movies. As he points out, the problem is not with summaries, but with something more like walkthroughs. Maybe we could use the phrase "plot walkthroughs"?Locke9k (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are going the "recap" I'm going to plug the fact that we can deburr the apparent bias this has against fiction by description the treatment of any narrative work:

Content reiteration: The coverage of narrative works, both fictional and non-fictional and in mediums such as books, films, and television shows, should not be solely a detailed reiteration of the content of the work. A concise summary of the work's content is appropriate to help establish the context of work to the general reader in addition to information such as the work's creation, influence, reception, and legacy. (This is the version for NOT, but take off the first sentence if it goes elsewhere).

This basically means that on articles about works, we (ultimately) need to talk about more than what is in the work. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "content reiteration" is kind of technical and unclear in general. Also, it's not a clear improvement on what we have now. People are worried that NOT#PLOT bans all plot, when really we just want to be able to point to something that takes a bite out undue detail. A good wording would ease that worry from the get go, right in the first few words. Drop "not plot" -- which suggests we hate plot, when we don't -- to something more uncontroversial like "not total and exhaustive scene-by-scene detailed plot recaps" -- which most people would agree with. Randomran (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the word "recap" works better than "summary." I think recap could be subjective; I personally think of the word to mean a, "short, concise overview of what happened," and wouldn't associate it with an exhasutive scene-by-scene summary. Angryapathy (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To me, recap has always meant something more detailed than a summary. But maybe that's too ambiguous. Whatever the word is for a detailed scene-by-scene breakdown, that's the word we want, so we can say "not that". Randomran (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be created that comprise only of plot summary that is over-reliant on a perspective that is in universe in which the level of significant real-world coverage contained in an article is trivial or insignificant. Balanced coverage of a fictional topic must include significant real-world coverage as well as information about the plot.

I think this might be the wording that you are looking for. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping to get the idea across in the bold text. "Not plot summaries" sets up an expectation that we don't have plot summaries, when we do. I wish I could find the right words. But I'd say "not plot directories", just as a statement of the kind of detail that's inappropriate. Randomran (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Gavin Collins, what you have written is specifically not the wording I am looking for. It is going back to a very-strong wording that even more than the previous wording would seem to serve as a basis for deletion, due to the use of the word "created" among other things. I am aware that you believe that such a consensus exists; however, this RFC seems to have demonstrated otherwise. The point is to find a more moderate wording that makes clear that inclusion of plot summaries is acceptable or even encouraged, but that we do not want Wikipedia as a whole to become just an archive or directory of plot summaries. Locke9k (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Any inclusion of advice about plot summaries here, at such a top-level policy, gives a strong discrimination against them. This is "What Wikipedia is not" not WP:WAF. Unless we really mean to say that something is NEVER appropriate, we should not include it here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since plot only articles are never apporpriate because they lack any coverage of the real-world in which a work or element of fiction is embedded, I think WP:NOT#PLOT is on the right track, and definely worth including. I don't think Shoemaker&'s Holiday has to worry about discrimination against plot as part of the balanced coverage of a ficitonal topic - there is just no evidence that such discrimination exists, so this issue can rest peacefully. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's holiday, we are aware that you oppose any inclusion of a statement about plot in this policy. You have made this clear in the debate above. The point of this section is to try to find some more moderate wording that could possible achieve consensus. If you'll take a look at the wording proposed above, it explicitly endorses certain individual uses of plot summary, while simply stating that Wikipedia as a whole should not become an archive of plot summaries. Saying that Wikipedia is not an archive of plot summaries is quite different than saying that it is just 'not plot summaries'. I feel that this has at least in part addressed your concern about making an excessively strong statement about individual plot summaries. If you'd like to propose a clarification of the wording to more effectively make that point, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, lets not derail this attempt to find a consensus wording with more debate of the style above.Locke9k (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, the "compromise" wording is just saying the same exact thing, with the same problems, the same lack of subtlety and clarifications - indeed, if anything, it's a far stronger statement than at least a couple of the ones listed at the start of the poll. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's say I start an article on, say, The Devil is an Ass, saying it's a play by Ben Johnson, perhaps giving the date of the premiere, then giving a plot summary. It's certainly better having this than having no article at all on a notable play, but according to you, despite it being a new article, it's inappropriate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If the topic is notable, as you assert, then it is possible to improve the coverage of this play that includes more than just plot summary. I am sure we are both agreed that articles should and can be improved; I am sure we both agree that articles that can be improved should not be deleted. I think you might agree that balanced coverage of fiction is better than plot only coverage, but if you don't, then I recomend you read an article that is comprised of both plot summary as well as commentary, context, criticism and analysis so you can understand why it is beneficial to improve articles so they are not comprised of plot summary alone. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is better, but "better" is a far cry from "one is fine for on Wikipedia, the other is What Wikipedia is not". "What Wikipedia is not", by definition, should only cover things are never acceptable. I don't think anyone thinks that plot-summary-only articles should not be expanded with more information, but that doesn't amount to a bright line policy against plot summaries. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In the same way that a sprinkling of salt on your dinner is acceptable, an all salt dinner is not. You have to remember that plot only articles don't contain any encyclopedic coverage, so why have them in the first place if they fall outside the scope of Wikipedia? It makes sense to have a prohibiiton against them so that they have to be improved, or merged into articles where the plot summary forms part of the balanced coverage of fictional topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out above, some encyclopedias DO have all-plot-summary articles. Hence, it would seem that plot summaries are encyclopedic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Its true. Wookieepedia does have a lot of plot-summary articles. Perhaps you should consider emigrating there :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And Gavin, I hear Britannica 2.0 is quite "encyclopedic." Perhaps you should go there. Or stop trolling. Either one would be nice. Have you always been a useful idiot or just since you started befriending trolls? --Pixelface (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article, Pixelface. Would you like more salt with your plot summary? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Small suggestion about wording

Would there be vociferous objection to changing the current wording from "The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary" to "The coverage of a fictional work should not solely be a plot summary" or "The coverage of a fictional work should not merely be a plot summary"? In the interim, I think this ever so slightly conveys that coverage shouldn't ONLY be plot summary -- whereas the current phrasing might be a bit ambiguous, i.e. mis-readable as suggesting the plot summary should not be "mere"/small/limited. I prefer the first suggestion, since it avoids the negative connotation "mere" has. (Yes, I know there's a huge RFC above me -- TLDR -- and if this question is either repetitive or ill-timed [I suspect the latter], just let me know.) --EEMIV (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's certainly an improvement and one I support. But I greatly dislike the notion we are addressing something in WP:NOT the majority think shouldn't be addressed here at all. So while I support that change, I still believe we have more than established the case that WP:PLOT doesn't belong here. Not that it should be fixed, but that it should be moved. I'd say to a style guideline (WAF I assume) but I'm certainly open on the destination. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• I support that. I think we're much more likely to make progress on WP:PLOT by proposing incremental changes like this, rather than trying to battle back and forth between keeping it exactly the same versus dropping it entirely. Randomran (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Consideration for addition: "Wikipedia is not perfect"

Given the above (but not meant to detract from further discussion on the above) I propose the following to either lead to be the tail to the content section of "Content", or possibly even just before "Finally..."

Wikipedia is not perfect: Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles are in a constant state of flux. Except for selected cases of copyright violations, unsourced material in biographies of living persons, and articles that meet our criteria for speedy deletion, articles should be given reasonable time to improve before considering any issues with other policies and guidelines.

Yes, WP:EP already says this, but I think this is a fair reiteration on this page to remind editors that we don't apply these at fresh young articles. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I support this in principle. But the wording will need a lot of work. Compliance isn't about time and deadlines, but potential X effort. The question is if there was (1) an effort to improve the article to meet our policies and guidelines, and (2) a failure that suggests no potential. Randomran (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main issues is not 'giving them time' to improve, but the simple question of whether they can improve. Basically an article should not be deleted if the two following conditions are met:

1. Sufficient verifiable and notable information from reliable sources exists that isn't something that Wikipedia is not, regardless of whether that content is presently in the article
2. The present article contains any material that should eventually be in an article on the subject, even if the majority of it will have to be removed or has major issues

In other words, an article should only be deleted based on this policy when no article on that subject could be written that isn't prohibited by this policy, or when the present article contains no content that would be used in that hypothetical future article. Time is not a factor; we don't have a time limit here. This should make clear exactly when this policy is justification for deletion, and when it is not. However, I am still not sure that this statement should be in this article. There are lots of policies and guidelines that seem to provide grounds for deletion; do we need this sort of disclaimer in every one?Locke9k (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• SUPPORT I like it Masem. Nice, really nice. Reinerates current rules. Ikip (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Yea, what Ikip said. I think sometimes folks tend to forget what we're here for, and how we got to this point. — Ched :  ?  07:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• support. WP's deletionist tendencies have attracted unfavourable press, with suggestions that deletionism may be driving away newbie editors. --Philcha (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Good. If newbies are incapable of adding content that won't be deleted, then they should go away. We're not a daycare, we're an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I can see where this proposal is leading - basically it is becoming an exemption for fictional topics being subject to peer review at WP:AFD. As such, I think it conflicts with existing policy: Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a topic meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Whether sufficient verifiable and notable information from reliable sources exists should not be based on speculation. It is a matter of objective evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as it stands - I don't have a problem with giving articles a chance, but what is "reasonable" time to improve? A week? A month? A year? I can see this being used as yet another non-vote at AfD. "Keep - hasn't had enough time to improve" even if the article is effectively unimproveable. Admins have a hard enough time wading through reams of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE comments without adding WP:HASNTEXISTEDLONGENOUGH as well. Black Kite 09:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As Black Kite said, what's "a reasonable time to improve"? Indefinitely, am I right? That's fine if an article's issues are fixable, but if it's not possible to write an article based on verifiable, reliable sources then they are not fixable. This just looks like something to point to in order to keep irredeemable crap indefinitely. Besides, there's loads of reasons why WP:SUCKS besides awful articles, so this seems to place undue weight on that aspect. IMO the sentiments of this proposal are amply covered in "Wikipedia is a work in progress". bridies (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as it stands As I see it, Masem's wording misses that article get improved because they violated one policy/guideline or another, and after the improvement they do no more. Saying that editors shouldn't apply policies/guidelines until young articles have improved by themselves gives all the power to people who don't want the articles to be improved (e.g. concerning the removal of trivia or excessive plot summaries). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think it really shows what Wikipedia is, striving for perfection. And it's not a bad idea to have people think about improvement instead of deletion. Someone may start something and not know how to finish. And the comments on "reasonable time" being too subjective...well, Wikipedia is full of subjective rules, including notability. I think editors are smart enough to know when an article is dead in the water or a work in progress. Angryapathy (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gavin and Black Kite. Another attempt to make an "out" for fictional topics and unnotable topics by claiming "just not enough time"; far too open ended and, as Bridies notes, leaves the door open for bad articles to hang around indefinitely. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. I'm especially irked by the last bit; linking a policy to an essay that's been hijacked with that "view two" again. Maaf, Jack Merridew 15:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Although this is a relatively succinct summary of what seems to be a widely held opinion, I do not agree that this should be in any way a guideline for wikipedia. The reason is that many articles are in a condition which is worse than failure. While we can be optimistic about the potential of an article, this doesn't involve ignoring the current state, when it contains not a single sentence which would make it into a featured article. Just browsing around a lot of new or single-author articles you'll find plenty which are populated entirely with misinformation, without a single sentence in grammatical English. Despite the consensus that these can be "improved", any improvement involves deleting all current material and doing a rewrite. While waiting for the rewrite, there are a bunch of articles which are pustules on the face of an otherwise above average encyclopaedia. Articles for creation is the correct method to get a new article started, not a single sentence substub. The humane killer is the only correct option for this type of article. AKAF (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- what next, a section called "Wikipedia is not here to state the obvious"? Or "Wikipedia can never be perfect so therefore we'll accept things that couldn't be farther from perfect even if other policies clearly say it shouldn't be here"? Yet more wastes of our time contemplating excuses to make Wikipedia worse because some people refuse to accept that we're an encyclopedia and not a blog or other free for all. DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with Randomran's caveat. BOZ (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose articles should be evaluated at the moment in time they're being evaluated. While editors are allowed to exercise judgement in keeping something that, by consensus, looks highly likely to be improved in the near future (and is clearly improvable) there is no strong argument to keep unsourced material (or material that otherwise fails the rather lax inclusion requirements). A good, well-sourced article that passes these inclusion requirements can always be written in userspace and made live when it's ready to stand on its own two feet. The whole concept of creating unsourced stubs in the hopes that some random will stop by and make a silk purse out of a sows ear waste lots of time and harms the project.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)q
• Support... kind of. I think that having "Wikipedia is not perfect" is a good thing to include, but I don't think that it should be worded at all like this proposal. It should be more of a way to tell Wikipedia's readers that it isn't perfect, not try to describe our inclusion criteria. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, sounds like another reason that can be thrown around to support keeping bad articles. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Too many articles are being attacked and deleted in their infancy, not given time to develop. Dream Focus 09:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Common sense support per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE, etc. Too much is deleted per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JNN as it is. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me It's distilled from the editing policy (is that still a policy?) and regardless of the particulars, it is an important reflection of our project. I'm probably the last person to justify an argument based on "JIMBOSEZ", but look at rule number 2 of the first set of "rules" on wikipedia (Also see rule 9). This has always been a tenet of the project. We can dispute what "eventually" means and even after this rule is put in place we can still have reasonable disagreements over effort, potential effort and lost causes. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Factopedia articles are quite often born from cruftopedia. Most editors first articles suck but if they get deleted quickly they never become regulars. jbolden1517^Talk 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I appreciate the thought and effort Masem has put into it, but the proposed text is a non-sequitur, as it seems. Yes, Wikipedia is imperfect. No, that does not make it okeh to facilitate damage to the project by protecting unencyclopædic-or-worse pseudo-articles and their creators from appropriate management and handling. Of course I agree with the principle that we need to train new editors and not drive them off, but it does us all — including newbies — a grave disservice to foment unacceptable contributions. Everyone starts out as a clueless new editor. Most of us learn the rules by trial and error, mentorship and guidance. It's been this way for the recorded past and there's no indication it's changing; fears of the new-editor talent pool drying up seem baseless. However, there is a small minority of editors who actively seek to damage the project. For various reasons of their own, they willfully refuse to contribute coöperatively. By definition they're all relative newbies, for persistently abusive or uncoöperative editing results in a block. But there are plenty of tactics successfully employed to prolong the duration and scope of their problematic editing. Simple refusal to register a username is highly effective, especially when combined with variable IP addresses. All the proposed text will do is strengthen the platform from which this small number of time-wasting, disruptive editors disingenuously complain of being bitten as newbies. I really don't think the small potential benefit of adding this duplicative text outweighs its large drawbacks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I wasn't trying to start a !vote here as I knew the language wasn't right. To clarify several points, the point is that there are only a few things that we judge on the present and immediate revision of any article: CSD, Copyvios, and BLP (and possibly a few more things). Any other attempts to deal with a article that fails something in NOT or elsewhere is generally based on it's potential which may take some time to fill out by editors. That potential may be judged early and appropriately ("List of phone numbers in Boise, Idaho" is never going to be appropriate) but usually this is something that needs time to be improved on. How much time? I don't think we can state anything, though if I were to offer a number it seems to be somewhere between a month and three months, but again, the point here is not to say "okay, articles need to be fixed up in X month from a point", but instead to consider article potential and not the current revision as the means if there's a problem. If there's any question of an article's potential, tagging with cleanup tags are better than sending it to deletion and waiting "a while" to allow for improvements.

This was to address the RFC issue that was brought up that suggests that the current wording of PLOT means it can be applied to an article at any time, even if it is in the midst of being developed and lacks anything but a plot in the few minutes between revisions. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it can be applied at any time. That's the whole point. If someone wants to work on something that's not ready for an article -- and most of this never will, but that's beside the point -- we have sandboxes and temp pages ready and waiting. DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dreamguy, as this proposal seems be attempting to subvert policy by delaying or frustrating the process of peer review at WP:AFD. An editor can invoke WP:NOT#PLOT in deletion debates, but it has never been a sure-fire way of getting an article deleted - this can only be achieved by a consensus of contributors to a deletion debate. Yet this proposal effectively is suggesting that you articles should not be be deleted or merged, even where there is consensus to do so.
If an editor feels very strongly that an article shoud not be deleted or merged, then they can always userfy it. However, trying to delay a deletion that has been agreed upon goes against the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the current proposal is that it undermines the WP:BURDEN clause. If someone believes in good faith that an article has no potential right from the start, he shouldn't have to fear being slapped on the wrist for ignoring NOT#PERFECT. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this somehow turned into a deletionist/inclusionist argument. Angryapathy (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire topic was framed that way from the start. DreamGuy (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec):What a surprise - not!

Gavin Collins's emphasis on deletion, besides being bitey, ignores WP:DELETE's statment that improvement is preferable to deletion, and that deletion should be a last resort.

DreamGuy's comment (previous section) that WP is an encyclopedia, not a nursery, overlooks an important point - most editors are around for only a few years. If experienced editors drive away newbies now, when the most experienced editors retire there will not be enough experienced people around to prevent WP from becoming a glorified blog. We need to build in some succession planning - firms that fail to do that go out of business. IMO that means we make it easy for newbies to find out what is expected and how to meet those standards - and I mean simple guidance and links to helpful tools, not vast screeds of "thou shalt nots". We also need to guide newbies in a friendly way, not remove their contributions either in ways that are invisible to them (what WP:AfD? what's a watchlist?) or in hostile language peppered with WP:acronyms. --Philcha (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that the kinds of newbies that'd be driven off in these situations are the ones who are trying to turn Wikipedia into a glorified blog, I think you've got your argument exactly backward. Good editors will respect edits that make Wikipedia more encyclopedic and stick around because the project does what it's supposed to. The more nonsense added and protected from being deleted because we don't want to dare offend people who can't be bothered to do what the site is here to do, the more we'll have exactly the WRONG sort of people encouraged to be here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And how do your "good editors" start? --Philcha (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Many start by creating articles that don't pass our notability guidelines. I know some of the articles that I worked on as a newbie have been deleted. It doesn't bother me - I can see that they weren't really tenable now. Unfortunately Wikipedia in recent years has gained a reputation not as an encyclopedia, but a place where you can create articles about anything. Since we have also gained a gorwing number of editors that are determined to keep practically all of that non-content, unfortunately some new editors are going to find themselves bitten when their articles are deleted. We can only hope that most of them will learn from the experience and go on to create useful content, but it isn't always going to be the case. Black Kite 14:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that is there a limited supply of potentially good editors, whom we need to keep and train up, not alienate. --Philcha (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, the fixed ways in which Wikipedia removes non-valuable content (you only need to look at the contents of Special:Newpages at any given time) means that some editors are going to be confused as to why their articles are deleted (and thus alienated) for reasons they don't understand. Black Kite 14:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sure we are just rehashing deletionist arguments by now, but I see that some people are afraid that a rule of "Wikipedia is not perfect" will allow really bad articles to stay on longer than they should, while others want the statement to help save badly written articles about good topics. But I guess this whole argument is covered by "Improvement is preferable to deletion" and on the flip side WP:NOTABILITY. I just see that some people want to delete badly written articles as a blight on the community without researching whether or not they meet the (highly subjective) notability guidelines. But I think this is going to be a battle that will rage on for years in WP. Angryapathy (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking this another way: The three cited exceptions - CSD, BLP, and Copyvios - are the only types of "violations" that should be removed on the spot and/or fast action taken against regardless of the rest of the article's history. Anything else should be considered in light of what the article history as been. A TV episode article that lacks notability but has been up for a day and with edits from one person is very different from similar article that has been up for 3 years with several editors but has not had any changes done in the last year or none to address the notability concerns. Beyond the listed exceptions, no policy or guideline should be ardently applied to the current specific revision of the article but instead should be considered with the article's history.

Personally, if I had my way, I'd implement the "wait and lurk" approach that we used to have on the Internet before the Endless September before editors could create new articles, but clearly that's not the present goal of WP. Thus we have to be intentionally aware that there will be articles created by new editors that will fail policy and guideline to a great degree, and we have to be aware that being too aggressive on articles that are new but do not otherwise fail the CSD will turn away editors. That's not to say that can't ever challenge a new article that's not under CSD - that's what PROD is for, but we should at least notify the editor via cleanup templates what needs to be improved. Of course, a month later, if nothing's changed, then bold cleanup, merging or deletion is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

MASEM's nailed it - if it's not obscene, a hate page, an unsourced or potentially libellous BLP or a clear copyvio, there's no need to delete in a hurry. And, as MASEM says, the article history makes a huge difference in other cases - but is seldom considered at WP:AfD. --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You know I support this. But if you want to know why other people don't, it's because they see it as a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through. More than that, they're worried that it's supporters *knowingly* see it as a massive loophole, and that's why they're supporting it. If garbage articles with zero potential are going to be kept around indefinitely because they're WP:NOT#PERFECT, then there will never be a consensus to add something like that to WP:NOT. But we might get consensus if it were a tight allowance, with a safety valve to prevent abuse. Randomran (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there's going to be abuse either way. The fan-boys, POV-pushers and hate-mongers won't go away. Nor will the intellectual snobs who don't like any popular culture subjects, nor those who use AfD as a form of harassment. We already have sanctions that can be used against fan-boys, POV-pushers and hate-mongers and perhaps should be more willing to use them. At present there are no effective controls on militant deletionists, despite the fact that many AfDs violate WP:DELETE's "deletion should be a last resort" and there has been at least 1 been publicised cases of an article on a genuinely notable subject being deleted within a few hours. --Philcha (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I will say that I think the fait accompli finding from Ep&Char2 ArbCom case actually is a good deterrent for large scale deletion, though as best as I'm aware no one (including TTN) has been found to have engaged in it. It's still a good guiding principle, and I think one that was employed to some degree on the recent kerfuffle to avoid a large scale merge of South Park episodes when it was shown a sufficient enough sample were to be notable. It is unfortunately a balance and one that is pretty much unenforceable unless we assign a timeframe before BOLD could be introduced or that WP:DEADLINE can be claimed. That's at least why I think having some clear statement that we're not perfect is useful to remind both sides. (and this applies to both content and policy as well). --MASEM (t) 19:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia isn't perfect; no one supposes it is. Imagine the proposal's capacity for misuse at an article like this: a paragraph of information followed by a long tail of BLP violations. Read the talk page; for two years various editors tried to remove the BLP violations but they kept getting added back in and converted into WP:SYNTH violations because they were most of the content. The only way to stabilize the page on policy-compliant terms was to undertake a major revision.[37] But it took six years and eleven months before anybody bothered. There's good talent at this discussion. After each of the supporters post evidence of a similar improvement drive, I will join you. Durova^Charge! 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're driving teh debate down to this level, then I'll stand on my edit record to support it. Every edit I've made has been in the hope of improving the encyclopedia. That's my similar improvement drive. Hiding T 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also saved a lot of imperfect articles that looked deletion worthy. I even got one of them to FA, much to the chagrin of the original critic. But I also don't want my efforts to be given a bad name by people who look at an article with zero potential to meet our guidelines and say "it's not perfect, but so what?" Randomran (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Other people will do what they will regardless. I won't second guess anyone in stating my opinion, for me that's the only way to keep things moving forwards. As soon as we start second guessing... Hiding T 18:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that indicate we don't need to add policies that remind people to "do what they will", because they'll do it "regardless" of whether or not we have such a reminder? Me personally, I think it helps to cement common sense and broad agreements among Wikipedians, so that they can be used as reminders in smaller discussions. Randomran (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear what we are discussing now. You seemed to be stating that you didn't want your edit history used by someone to justify a position you didn't support. I was stating that there was no way I could prevent that, and I'd rather tell people what I think and believe rather than second guess what other people will do with what I think and do. Now the discussion seems to be about whether WP:IAR should be a policy. I think. I'm not sure we are talking to each other, at least in the sense that we are participating in the same conversation. Where am I going wrong? I am trying to suggest that it is wrong to think of this debate in terms of the worst outcome or having to stand on our record. The policy on BLP is supposed to prevent other policies being misused to defend BLP violations. If that isn't working, that needs looking at, not other policies. Part of the problem is that we try to make all our policies apply with equal weight to all articles, when it is non-sensical to think that is the case. So if that means I'm advocating for people to do what they will, or WP:IAR, then sobeit. How we get there from here, I don't know, but I'm happy to support WP:IAR. Hiding T 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't sure what you were talking about either. I think we agree on a few things. The idea of reminding people that articles aren't perfect is a good one in principle. And sometimes we should ignore all rules, especially when there's legitimate potential that an article can be improved to the point that it meets our basic rules (if not our highest standards). Right now WP:NOT doesn't remind people of that. Should we? We might gain some support for it, but then we'd have to phrase it in such a way that it's not an excuse to keep around static with no potential. Otherwise, we'll just have to resort to other reminders like WP:IMPERFECT or WP:IAR, which I guess are helpful enough. Randomran (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What time is "reasonable" depends on the circumstances of the article, the editor, and the problem. I don't see how it can be specified exactly. Having even an imprecise rule helps channel discuss and influence what people do. It doesn't prevent people from doing things in an unhelpful. None of our policies actually manage to do that. Burt they do assist people who want to point out what's helpful and what's not. DGG (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the nub of it. We need to kind of back away from specificity and work together. What needs to happen realistically, is that we turn our deletion debates away from confrontations and actually discuss the article and how it could be improved. Too many times deletion debates simply turn into a binary poll, wit no-one actually looking at the article or even editing it. It would be interesting to look at a sample of deletion debates and see how the articles changed while they were nominated for deletion. We've got to find a way of moving people on from seeing their own view as the end-point and more towards seeing a compromise as the end point. People have at some point got to move away from "don't do that" to "if you really are going to do that, do it this way". Hiding T 10:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether you agree or disagree with the outcome of deletion debates, we cannot seek to limit the process (or "improve" the process, as Hiding suggests) otherwise there would be no point in process of peer review. We have to accept WP:AFD as it is, as it is the only defence against bad articles that have potential from being deleted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm always astounded at your ability to make the same points as me while arguing against me Gavin. Hiding T 09:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tweak needed for IINFO

The section "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" needs to be tweaked, as it comes to my attention that people are looking to the examples of "indiscriminate information" given under this section as an exhaustive list of disallowed types of "indiscriminate information". We need a little more in the introduction to make it a more broadly construed guideline. The problem is that there are lots of stuff which is "indiscriminate" and we need to make it clear that information must not merely be added to Wikipedia merely because it can be. The current way it is written makes it almost useless as a means of guidance for people knowing what should or shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. Any ideas of how to expand or reword this section to make it more useful? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to know what kinds of information you're talking about. I think I know what you're talking about. But I don't want to be overly broad either, so maybe it would help to think of a recent discussion you had. Randomran (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It has come up a few times, but one that springs to mind recently is the "international relations stubs" which have been a source of contention. People have been creating articles like "Gabon-Canada relations" and "Vietnam-Brazil relations" under the idea that, since articles like "Canada – United States relations" exist, we must have a complete set of relations articles for all nations in the world. Of course, the problem with creating that set of articles is that it is indiscriminate, that is the articles are created without regard for whether or not any relevent information can be added to them. That seems to me to be the exact definition of indiscriminate in the context of WP:IINFO; the idea that relevence and potential can be ignored in creating things. "Trivia" sections in articles are a different kind of problem, but still related to IINFO. They represent a lack of "discrimination" in deciding when some nugget of information needs to be added to an article or not. By definition, these sections are places to indiscriminately collect random information about the subject of the article. I agree we don't want to be too broad, but we also want to avoid giving the illusion that enumerating examples of indiscriminate information excludes all others from consideration. It seems to me to be more important to clearly explain the principle rather than to list a few places where it can be applied. To me, that would provide better guidance than the way it does now. The problem is that as long as we only consider this a "list of bad ideas" and don't actually provide guidance in how to recognize "indiscriminate information" in a more broad way, we will always miss a situation. Its impossible to predict all the ways this guideline could be violated in the future, so it is best to come up with a useful guideline in the present. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a good point. I'm not sure how to phrase it. If you could throw out a straw man, we could refine it, poke holes in it... a concern is that while we want to show IINFO is broad, we don't want it to be an excuse to remove anything that a few people don't like -- let alone start an argument over it. Randomran (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The WP:IINFO section has pretty much become the "Trivia" section of this policy. People couldn't find another place for various sections so they threw them into the drawer labeled miscellaneous. Personally, I think the word "indiscriminate" is thrown around too much. It's better to explain why you think something shouldn't be added to Wikipedia than to use the word "indiscriminate" in your reason. And since evaluating specific articles requires human judgement, I don't think making the section broader will really help anyone.

Regarding -relations articles, has there been consensus to delete many of them? Category:Bilateral relations has 81,234 articles in it. That's more than I expected, since there are 203 sovereign states (which, I think, makes 40,803 combinations of two unique countries). I see 955 AFDs with the word "relations" in it.[38] 140 of those have "relations" in the title of the article. And about 118 of them appear to be about countries. 46 of those articles (39%) are currently redlinks and 72 of them are currently bluelinks (61%). Without checking for redirects, it appears that 3 out of 5 times such articles are kept at AFD. The category may warrant further discussion, but I don't think WT:NOT is the right venue. It looks like there are already discussions about the topic at the village pump and also a centralized discussion (as well as an ANI thread from last month). --Pixelface (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• It already says at the top of the Content section that "the examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive; see WP:BEANS. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewording VERY ROUGH DRAFT

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. When deciding when to add information to Wikipedia, either as a new article, or as an addition to an existing article, one should carefully consider how the new information fits. While it is hard to define every possible way an addition can be an indiscriminate addition, the following general guidelines should help. Please note that the existance of these guidelines does not automatically preclude the existance of other ways in which indiscriminate information can be added, and care should be taken when applying these. Still, consensus has determined that these sorts of additions may be fit the definition of indiscriminate:

• The creation of a complete set of articles based on the existance of some articles from the set.
  • Example 1) The Rolling Stones are a notable band. There are articles on some of their songs, like (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction and Start Me Up. However, one should not create new articles for every single song the Rolling Stones have ever recorded. There are reasons why some songs have their own articles, and others don't, and creating articles about every song the Rolling Stones ever sung without regard for why an article should exist about that song is indiscriminate.
  • Example 2) Canada – United States relations are notable in the fact that there are large amounts of reliable sources that report on, discuss, and analyze these relations. So also are France–United Kingdom relations and a large number of other articles discussing international relationships. There are likely hundreds of these articles for which large amounts of reliable information can be found. However, the complete set of all possible articles about bilateral relations between two nations would be indiscriminate insofar as it is done without regard for whether or not there exists source material to build an article from.
• The addition of a verifiable fact to an article without regard for whether or not the fact is relevent to the article in question.
  • Example 1) The article on Jack Dempsey makes note of his height. However the article on Barack Obama does not. That is because the height of a boxer, like Dempsey, is considered a relevent fact about him, as he is an athlete, and his physical statistics provide a means by which to place him into context with his peers. Such information has no relevence for a politician, however, and so its inclusion in the Barack Obama article would be indiscriminate because it does not attempt to be relevent to the article into which the fact is added.
  • Example 2) Many articles have sections titled "Trivia" or "Miscellaneous" or some such. These often provide a place to collect random facts which have no other place to go in the article. However, if they have no other place to go in the article then they probably aren't really relevent facts to begin with. If Peter Griffin sings a line from the B-52s song Rock Lobster in an episode of Family Guy, its not really all that relevent to understanding the song itself, and such esoteric stand alone facts, while verifiable and true, probably do not belong in the article. Such facts are indiscriminate because they add little to no value to the understanding of the subject matter of the article.

*The addition of long passages from public domain texts to articles merely because they are public domain.

• • Example 1) Amazing Grace, whose lyrics were written in 1779, is a song whose lyrics are in the public domain, so there are no problems with including the entire song in the article from a legal standpoint; the actual words are no longer covered by copyright law. However, for stylistic reasons, one does not necessarily need to add the lyrics to the article just because one can. If parts of the lyrics are discussed in the article, it may be appropriate to quote certain passages. However, doing something because one can do it legally, but without regard for whether or not it should be done for improvement of the article is indiscriminate.
• The addition of exhaustive plot summaries to articles about works of fiction.
  • Example 1) A brief overview of the plot of a work of fiction, giving the general story arc and highlighting key plot points which are discussed elsewhere in the article is useful, but giving a complete, scene-by-scene retelling of every point of the story, including every action of every character from the entire work is indiscriminate because it does not give regard for the relevence of every minutae of the plot to the quality of the article.
• The creation of a new article about a person or event that is in the news right now.
  • Example 1) John Doe commits a murder. The trial is covered on Nancy Grace. So we create an article about it. However, three years after the trial, no books have been written about John Doe. No follow up stories are done. No analysis of the case is ever completed. Once the trial ends, the entire situation only exists in the archives of the news reports which were filed at the time of the trial. Such additions are indiscriminate because they give no regard for the significance of the event outside of the news cycle.

Well, this is a start. Go ahead and tear it apart, I don't intend for this to be ANYTHING like a final version, but I think it does a better job of capturing the idea I was going for than the current version does. The important thing I think is that it emphasizes the the general sorts of actions that qualify as indiscriminate without focusing so much on specific examples, except for illustrative puposes only. Also, I think explaining why each illustrative example is indiscriminate is more helpful than even the example itself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's actually halfway specific, which is a decent place to start. That said, I think you could add the last one to Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS, and the third last one to WP:NOT#LYRICS. The first two are the ones we should work with, IMO. Namely: keeping irrelevant information off, and keeping people from aiming for a complete directory of all X's when we really just cover the X's that have had some kind of impact or significance. Randomran (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There's way too much here for a policy page, and even to that extent, there's a lot of duplication of other policies. This is potentially a good start for a guideline on IINFO, but these really are already covered:

• The creation of a complete set of articles based on the existance of some articles from the set. comes from "Notability is not inherited" and advice from WP:SS and WP:SPINOUT.
• The addition of a verifiable fact to an article without regard for whether or not the fact is relevent to the article in question. is mostly WP:TRIVIA and WP:UNDUE.
• The addition of long passages from public domain texts to articles merely because they are public domain. is probably the only one not really covered from others that I know of, but makes sense.
• The creation of a new article about a person or event that is in the news right now. Already in WP:NOT#NEWS.

I think the subtly missed here is that "indiscriminate information" is information that is added to WP that is not given appropriate content/reduction/resolution to the general reader or otherwise cannot be resolved to that. Trivia fits this well, but also includes the NOTDIR and NOTGUIDE advices. (Let's ignore PLOT for the moment). This doesn't mean directories or guides are forbidden, but they have to be presented in a way to make them discriminate, uually reducing the amount of material given in these. -MASEM (t) 03:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I struck through the redundancies and left this as the two that seem to have the most relevence to the idea of indiscriminate. I think that these two capture the spirit of IINFO best anyways, but that is just my opinion. Any other ideas out there? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the first two are worth focusing on. One at a time? I dunno, whatever makes the discussion easier, and makes it easier to work towards a consensus. I think the idea that articles should stay on topic is relatively uncontroversial, and it would be useful to have a residual statement. Maybe not its own clause, but as part of the introduction to IINFO, right after the part that "being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Something to the effect of, "Beyond describing the main topic, articles should not degenerate into loosely related details." Really, just "not off topic" would be nice. Randomran (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any of it as an improvement. You've claimed a consensus exists ("consensus has determined...") and provided zero evidence. Articles frequently are created to complete a "set." Wikipedia may not need articles about every song by The Rolling Stones, but I bet Wikipedia has articles about nearly all of their singles. And you're trying to make a policy about Bilateral relations when the consensus about the topic is not yet apparent. I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations instead. And you're trying to make a policy about "relevance", which is totally subjective. Putting Barack Obama's height in the article about him would be "indiscriminate?" No, it wouldn't. And there is no policy against "trivia" since it's also entirely subjective. Is the DYK section on the Main Page trivia? Is Barack Obama's date of birth trivia? The word "indiscriminate" is a horrible word to be using in policy, and people should really stop using it. The public domain paragraph you struck out applies to all articles that transclude {{1911}}, the plot summary paragraph you struck out is again an attempt to sneak in "relevance", and the news paragraph is also poor. The AFD and DRV of Susan Boyle is a strong indication that WP:BLP1E needs to be rewritten (or moved back to WP:BIO1E). --Pixelface (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be fair, given that the phrase "indiscriminate collection of information" is in the Five pillars, it should be reflected in policy. That's not to say that what Jayron's put in would qualify under what that implies (WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#GUIDE are better examples), but the word is appropriate in policy. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate" has a real definition. Sometimes people just use it to describe "too much information", but that's not what it means. It's really when you start getting into a topic that has no clear scope, that can easily get dragged off topic, or eventually be cluttered with so many details or examples that it loses all informative value. An example from video games might be "list of comedic games". What's a comedic game? How funny does it have to be to be considered comedic? How many of the thousands of games would qualify? Most people think these kinds of categories are virtually useless (despite their good intent) because they're WP:OR magnets and even some level of verification still doesn't change the vague scope of the article. I think we should clarify what we mean by indiscriminate. Not just so we can do a better job of dealing with indiscriminate information, but so people don't abuse it to simply say "enh, I don't really care about this information, so it's indiscriminate to me". That's not what it means. Randomran (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• It already says at the top of the Content section that "the examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive; see WP:BEANS". Stifle (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree to the proposed rewite. Just because an editor thinks a topic "fits" does not mean that it passes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This proposal is similar to WP:NOTINHERITED - the same argument is being applied: if a topic is related to another, then it passes. I don't believe this argument is defensible unless it is supportedwith verifiable evidence, such as evidence that the topic is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is, are enough other people totally sure about this to make it a fundamental policy--in essence, your're promoting WP:N from a guideline to a policy, and that approach has been just as much rejected as making it an essay. The only hope of agreement here is to keep this from being obver-specific and capable of multiple interpretations DGG (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Excessive detail for a policy. Examples belong elsewhere. I see one of the key example (bilateral relations) is one where we are still trying to develop a guideline. Putting it into policy first, while well meant as providing something of current interest, and while I have no objections to what wa said, probably is not the best idea. This should be kept as general as possible. DGG (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I concur with DGG on this one. Trying to insert too many specifics leads to instruction creep. You run the risk of one policy or guideline conflicting with another, and that's going to lead to more debate, and less article building.
  • +rules >> disagreements = less article building. — Ched :  ?  16:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Ahhh. I'm not so sure. We have to be convinced that editor actions are zero-sum or at least that editors left with no burning WP space issues to argue over will sally forth and copyedit the biography of a late 18th century French poet. I'm of the mind that there is some substitution, but that preferences and ease of contribution tend to dictate outcomes. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

question

WHY should not Wikipedia coverage of a fictional topic not be mainly on the plot and characters? Not based on other rules, but based on what we want to accomplish. Agreed, it should not be on only them, but the rule the ought to be --as for anything else--that the overall coverage of a topic covers all aspects. In the case of most fiction, I would normally expect it be mainly the plot as being the most important and interesting aspects, and that in demand by the users. DGG (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To whoever said this, I don't think anyone is against covering plot, or even covering mainly the plot. Really, the rule is supposed to avoid only them, exactly as you said. Obviously, we need some kind of real-world context, and we need to be able to have an independent statement about their significance and impact. I think a lot of people are just worried that WP:PLOT might be abused to go after any and all plot. Randomran (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, historically that's not what the rule was for... it was to point out that only very brief plot summaries were ever acceptable and even then only as a small part of overall coverage. The whole "only" thing (aka "it can be 99% plot, I swear") is something somebody thought up later to try to justify crap content that the rules explicitly forbid. DreamGuy (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Any article that is primarily plot has difficulty with WP:RS, which states Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An article that is 99% plot and 1% analysis can't claim to rely on third-party sourcing, as the article would be essentially unchanged if all the material derived from third-party sourcing was removed. I'm not a fan of counting words to make that determination, and can see arguments for an occasional article that has a bit more plot than analysis, but never "mainly the plot."—Kww(talk) 12:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to sign, sorry. I hope you are right that people don't object to covering mainly the plot. If so, we could rewrite WP:PLOT to make it clear it applies to WP coverage as a whole, not each article taken individually.

The total Wikipedia coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary, but include substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance.
OK? DGG (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NO, not OK. It does apply to each article individually. Plot summaries in and of themselves are not encyclopedic. Articles should be be why things are important, what they mean, their impact and so forth, not just a long list of what happened here and there and then later. The whole concept is generally opposed to the entire concept of an encyclopedia. For extremely influential works, some sort of plot summary could be appropriate, but, like anything else, it should come about because there are reliable third party sources discussing it that we can cite, not just have our people think up a way to explain what they think happened based upon watching it (synthesis/original research). Wikipedia is not Cliffs Notes and was never intended to be anything like it. DreamGuy (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on general approaches: I think that's just a surrogate for notability when nothing else applies. But that's isn't the question here. What I said does not imply we must or should have a separate article about anything. It just says there can be a separate article about fiction. But i don;t think you've thought out the implications. If you take the current wording as applicable to separate articles there can never be regardless of sources or regardless of what the work is, because WP:NOT is policy and policy controls the notability guidelines and all other guidelines . Are you then prepared to accept an article entirely about plot if the plot is discussed in two books or academic articles or book reviews about the fiction, no matter how unimportant the fiction? DGG (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Long standing guidance on fiction is Articles about fictional topics should not read like book reports; instead, they should explain the topic's significance to the work. After reading the article, the reader should be able to understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work. Is that enough for everyone? If it is, we don't need to be here. That's been the standard near enough since 2003. Hiding T 08:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a good start. And the problem is that many of the articles, especially on children's fiction, do read like book reports, because that's what children are taught to write first, DGG (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability of short stories (for those interested in PLOT)

I've asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Short story?, about whether a guideline for short story articles should be created. There are many short story articles that have only a synopsis. Any opinions and suggestions are appreciated. NJGW (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC) (edit: I should have specified the discussion can be found at the link above)

"There are many short story articles that have only a synopsis." And there's nothing wrong with that. --Pixelface (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than they violate WP:NOT, WP:SYNTHESIS and the all-important WP:ENC, of course... you can go tilting at windmills all you like, but your idea of what's wrong or right in these situations doesn't match Wikipedia's longstanding principles. DreamGuy (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, your ruleslawyring does not impress me. The Wikipedia: namespace is a wiki too you know. Have you happened to read the RFC thread above? Can you care to explain how summarizing a source qualifies as "synthesis"? And can you find me a definition of "encyclopedia" anywhere that says plot summaries are forbidden? I know plenty about Wikipedia's longstanding principles, and I also know plenty about longstanding practice. And speaking of Cervantes, go look at the article The Siege of Numantia. Maybe you could also tell me how long that article's been on Wikipedia (that is, if you can find the history tab). --Pixelface (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, these probably need to meet the general notability guideline, though I can see merging of stories of notable authors into a "list of short stories by X" if they are otherwise not part of a notable anthology (say A Medicine for Melancholy). --MASEM (t) 03:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, the GNG is but one indicator of notability. --Pixelface (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately best practise may be to merge them though. Or it may not. That's about the size of it, it pretty much comes down to consensus as to the best method of organising and presenting. Hiding T 12:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do with poor quality short stories is to fold them into collections or anthologies, if that's what they were/are published together as. Shunting them to the author doesn't seem like it's feasible, given we don't throw plot details into biographies. For example The Myst Reader is the anthology, but it also covers the plot and production of all three books. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is no anthology to merge to, delete the plot details and merge anything salvageable to the biography page. If someone really insists on saving the plot details, they are free to start up a new wikia project for plot summaries and move such unencyclopedic content there. DreamGuy (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Any time someone says other Wikipedia editors are "free" to put content on Wikia or insist on calling something "unencyclopedic", I always think that the person suggesting as much is free to go to Britannica 2.0 and see if their idea of what's "encyclopedic" matches an actual encyclopedia. That means you. --Pixelface (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you just link to that every time everyone disagrees with you and hope that people will blindly accept that the page in somehow backs up what you say? You're not even a good bluffer. There's nothing there that supports your claims. Now, do you want to talk about encyclopedia content, or do you want to continue to fail at pulling mind games on people who aren't as gullible as you hope they'd be? DreamGuy (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make this personal; this should not be a battleground. Comment on content, not the editor. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Why tell someone they're "free to start up a new wikia project for plot summaries" and then get all offended when someone tells you that you're free to go to another encylopedia project? I linked to a newspaper article about Britannica 2.0. I don't know the actual URL and I don't care. You're free to go there and see if your idea of an encyclopedia matches a real encyclopedia that's been around for more than a decade. Then put your money where your mouth is. The article doesn't "back up" what I say and I made no bluff and I didn't say it "supported my claims." Where do you get off saying that plot summaries are "unencyclopedic content"? You can talk about "encyclopedia content" to your heart's content at Britannica 2.0. How many encyclopedias have you ever worked for? You seriously think that encyclopedias don't contain plot summaries? Have you even read any part of any encyclopedia? Frankly, you have me wondering if that account's been compromised. --Pixelface (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on NOTGUIDE

I am looking for clarification on including safer sex guidelines as outlined by reliable sources in articles. Please see the quote box in Men who have sex with men, which is under scrutiny on the talk page. The initial commenter pointed the conversation to the WP:NOTGUIDE section. I do not feel this is a matter for article consensus, but policy clarification in the policy page. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not very familiar with this particular subject matter, I did have a go at the NOTHOWTO thing back in my early days. I was trying to introduce information on how to remove and avoid viruses and malware in computer related articles. The understanding that I came away with was that we are not supposed to explain "how to" or "how not to" do things. Rather it's best to describe events and studies, as well as the outcomes of following particular practices. Then, it's up to the reader to derive from the facts what should and should not be done. That's just my take on the whole guide thing, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand and that makes sense. The point arose on the MSM talk page, however, that there is an article on safe sex that says basically the same thing as the quote box in the MSM article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmm .. good research Moni3. Without venturing into the "wp:otherstuffexists" area, can you use the references and wording from safe sex in some way to add the same type of information to the MSM article? I know there's a vast difference, but there are some clearly connectible threads in both articles. I would look at it as going from a general topic (safe sex) to a more specific topic (MSM). As far as I know, and I'm not a GFDL expert, there's no rule that says we can't use the same information, references, and wording from other articles. I know I've been able to expand various articles by pulling from the main topic in sub-sections before. — Ched :  ?  20:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC) (or...you could block the other editors, write the article the way it should be, and then protect the page .. lol, just kidding of course)

We've tweaked the title on the box Men_who_have_sex_with_men#Sexually_transmitted_infections to state more clearly that Wikipedia is not instructing but who is. We certainly could convert this information but it would expand this content exponentially and likely be a magnet on the article when we can just plop a concise version attributed to someone else and be done with it. Moni3 do you think this starts to address the issues? Also we're still discussing if a handy footnote expanding any of it would make sense. -- Banjeboi 03:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the citations to reliable medical sources should take care of the "experts who have stated the following" issue. The bolded intro in the quote box is overkill. And I read it as "public health officials who have had sex with men", which is funny (but irrelevant). --Moni3 (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over the dubious tag

There is a discussion going on on that previous line with a reasonable number of editors involved. Even if I feel that PLOT should stay, at this point there's enough editors involve to make sure that readers can be aware there is discussion. {{disputed}} only can be used at a section level, but the inline dubious tag is appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I don't think you can call it disputed, unless you say what aspect is disputed. Please remove the tag.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for new category: Wikipedia is not a publicist's tool

There is an ongoing discussion in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons about using the names of private, living individuals who have received wide media coverage, which raised this question: "Is it feasible to argue that someone is not notable despite wide media coverage." The answer we came up with was this: "Yes. For example, the child of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes is not notable despite wide media coverage." This has been the subject of some ongoing edit wars, and part of the problem is that the standard talks about private individual, but people argue that, since they're well known, they're not private. This misses the point, but that's because the word "private" is a bit ambiguous here.

The problem seems to come from the fact that friends and relatives of celebrities will find their names in print in both tabloids and somewhat more respectable magazines like People. I'd like to illustrate why this doesn't make them notable. However, the primary criterion for notability is "significant coverage." The definition of notability instructs people to check out What Wikipedia is not for exceptions to this criterion, and I'd like to outline a clear exception here. None of this is new. It's all contained in other policy statements, but I think it would be clearer with a new entry. So here's what I propose:

Wikipedia is not a publicist's tool.

Publicists and the Public Relations industry often generate a great deal of news coverage of people who are not notable, in order to improve the image of their clients, who usually are notable. Consequently, we learn the names and details of the private lives of the children, parents, spouses and lovers (current and former), and friends of notable people. But people aren't notable just because they get media coverage through their relationship with someone who is notable. Publicists may work to inform the public about the lives of friends and relatives of some celebrity, but Wikipedia does not assist them in their work by further disseminating these personal details.

—MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I find this to be an interesting post; well thought out and very well explained. First I know that our WP:COI guideline does cover the bulk of what you're addressing in the "Publicists" area. That's not to say that it couldn't be reiterated here as long as caution was taken in regards to possible conflicting principles between the policy and the guideline. On the second note, well actually the first chronologically, I can imagine that the BLP discussion is quite enlightening, I'll have to pop over and read it. I'm sure that the phrases "Notability is not inherited" and things like "Famous does not mean notable" have been bandied about quite a bit. I think some of the wording in your suggestion is quite good, and I hope there's some good feedback on it. ;) — Ched :  ?  01:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Per the proposed NOT guideline, there's always the possibility that some people would come here and post a spitload of praise about some not notable person or object then try to post some refs that don't quite hold. Editors masquerading as some person's spokesman or spokeswoman fall into this category.--Eaglestorm (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You raise a good point that the Conflict of Interest guidelines cover much of what I'm addressing, but what I'm raising here is a parallel issue. The problem doesn't just arise when a publicist edits a page, it arises when a well-meaning editor with no COI includes material that a publicist has disseminated through the news and entertainment media, inadvertently aiding the publicist. So, on reflection, maybe the word tool is wrong, since that suggests it's a warning to publicists. Maybe it should say "...not a publicist's aide," or something like that. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What about "Wikipedia is not a publicist"? While it might lend itself to a more OR-ish interpretation on first glance, it might be more inclusive as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We do not need this, since we have WP:CSDcategory G11. But why should it matter where information comes from, if its suitable for inclusion? And why should it matter where it comes from, if it isn't? I remove contact details (other than the proper single external link to the website) from articles, no matter who puts them in. DGG (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm talking about. WP:CSDcategory G11 is about removing entire articles. I'm talking about personal details in existing, valid articles about notable people. For example, there's no need for an article about a notable actor to include his or her children's names. That kind of material gets released to the press by publicists, and my point is that Wikipedia should not help the publicist disseminate that information, even inadvertently. I want the guideline to clarify what kind of material isn't suitable for inclusion, even though it's out there in the news media. I'm not talking about contact information, either, although I agree it should be removed. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. I like "Wikipedia is not a publicist" more. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with my original name or any of the proposed names. Some of the comments here suggest that people are reading this as a warning to publicists, which narrows its scope too much. Now I'm thinking along the lines of "Wikipedia does not duplicate a publicist's work." —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply in userspace for wikipedians

WP:NOTMEMORIAL was intended for mainspace. Our tradition and current practice is that it does not apply to userspace of now deceased contributors. This policy note is sometimes misquoted, unsuccessfully, with respect to wikipedian memorial pages The text needs to be modified to clarify that it is not policy that past wikipedians may not have memorial pages.

Proposed text (new text in bold):

Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, and so forth. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. This does not apply to the userspace of formerly productive wikipedians.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye Anything like this or suitably similar. People can do nearly whatever the hell they want in user space, we can at least make a clear note for memorials. --Tznkai (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree Keep it simple here in the NOT policy. Then, we work on getting the proper guidelines established for the user space. — Ched :  ?  05:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree Specifying here that the policy does not apply to userspace effectively endorses the use of user pages as memorials and arguably conflicts with other NOT policies, such as WP:NOTMYSPACE, as well as other WP policies such as WP:UP, which clearly states that people cannot "do what they want" in user space. Some overlap between policies that generally make the same point is good for consistency and reduces unnecessary debates. This is not a neutral proposal to clarify an existing situation and a more detailed debate is warranted than this 'simple' suggestion implies. As the OP effectively notes, WP:NOTMEMORIAL has been quoted by several users as an argument against the use of user space as a memorial which suggests that there is some disagreement about whether or not the policy should apply... regardless of whether 'convention' suggests it currently does or doesn't. AngoraFish 木 09:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• comment community consensus seems to be favoring the ability to establish memorial pages in this case. I don't see a reason why we couldn't move forward on several fronts at the same time. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  11:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Policy never said that userspace memorials weren’t allowed, and never was it intended. This change is not changing policy, but clarifying it. This clarification is needed because occasionally editors read WP:NOTMEMORIAL, find a userpage memorial, then feel a need to MfD the userpage. In each of several cases, MfD has been decisive – experienced wikipedians know that memorial information on a deceased valued contributor is normal. It is also a good thing for wikipedia. For more information, start with Wikipedia:Editors matter. The confused editors were quickly educated, but it would be better to have policy written non-confusingly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It will be interesting to see what a few editors have to say who aren't already heavily invested in the poll over at the deceased wikipedian policy discussion. AngoraFish 木 11:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• reply to AngoraFish: If you'll scroll up a bit, you'll notice that I've posted to this page long before the RIP matters came up. If you're trying to imply some sort of impropriety, please feel free to say it outright. If you feel there is some sort of nefarious plan afoot, you are more than welcome to visit my talk page and discuss it. — Ched :  ?  13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, I've always interpreted WP:NOTMEMORIAL as applying to articles, not userspace (and more specifically, to articles about every single victim of multiple-death-causing events). If there's typically no consensus to delete memorial pages for deceased Wikipedians at MFD, then I think the proposed text is fine. I see that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians ended in keep (and again as keep in February[39]). At Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians I see two memorial pages on the French Wikipedia and one on the Hungarian Wikipedia. As of now I see 35 results for MFDs with the word "memorial"[40] and 4 results for MFDs with the word "memoriam"[41] But another thing to consider is that every single Wikipedian will die someday. I would wait until Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians becomes more finalized before editing WP:NOTMEMORIAL. --Pixelface (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Agree, this would be just a clarification that NOTMEMORIAL applies only to mainspace. Resurr Section (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Agree, though I don't think the existing text applies to anything other than article space, if an exclusion need be added I say add it. Productive editors who die should be allowed recognition. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

List of a show's...

Some Some articles on TV shows have the list of a show's broadcasters worldwide and that of a show's title in multiple languages. Some users consider those are unnecessary fancruft, and delete them all, while some other users think those are useful information, and keep them.

Should those kinds of list be considered indiscriminate collections of information? -- JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 09:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(Wait! It could work with such kind of books and all kinds of media, also. -- JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm inclined to say it is an indiscriminate collection of information, particularly the list of titles. It also does not mesh with WP:MOS-TV, and 99% of the time, is completely unsourceable/unverifiable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, if it is just a rebroadcast of that show in another language. In cases where it is a completely different production, nationalized for that country/area, then I'd keep that list. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alas, WP:ILIKEIT is no reason to keep such lists of indiscriminate stuff. If the lists are unverifiable, then they should be nominated for deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to JSH's second addition above, yes, the list of the alternate names of a published (and translated) work, show, movie, whatever in foreign countries is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And also, name of a fictional character in various languages. Now, it seems a solid guideline is needed. -- JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED

At the RFC at Talk:Autofellatio on putting the photograph there in a togglebox defaulting to Hide, WP:NOTCENSORED was widely cited. The RFC has about concluded, and the consensus seems to be that WP:NOTCENSORED means that the method of displaying image content should not be affected by their nature. Since in its current form NOTCENSORED only refers to the removal of content, this suggests it needs amending appropriately, since experience shows that the issue can and will crop again and again in different places. It might only need a sentence but making the consensus explicit policy would save a lot strife. Comments, suggestions? Rd232 ^talk 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it occurs to me that NOTCENSORED doesn't really fit into WP:NOT; certainly it's the only NOT which is an adjective - the others are all nouns. It would be more logical to separate it out; and it would also permit some more explanation of and guidance on the issues. Rd232 ^talk 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So there's no comparable noun form in the English language for this adjective -- so what? That doesn't mean you get to censor a line that says we don't censor things. DreamGuy (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF? Giving NOTCENSORED its own page would constitute censoring? Rd232 ^talk 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing from the list because it's the only entry that is not a noun? Not a real reason for removal. Of course, no problem with suggesting alternative wordings, my own suggestion is WP:NOTACENSOREDWORK. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That would fix the grammatical issue, which is trivial, but leave the qualitative difference with the other WP:NOTs. Censored is a quality, the other items are things; and "a censored work" is merely a thing ascribed a quality (compare: newspaper). However, it occurs to me that the reason it fits here is because WP:NOT is basically a messy Wikipedia:Inclusion policy, and obviously censorship fits into that topic. I suspect as a policy it would be better restructured as an Inclusion Policy rather than a series of NOTs, but given the battles of tiny parts of it I'd suspect it wouldn't be feasible to achieve agreement on the detail of such a rewrite, even the principle was accepted. Rd232 ^talk 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The real problem with WP:NOTCENSORED is of course that a lot of people think it justifies adding close-up photos of human turd production to defecation and forbids putting an autofellatio photo anywhere but in the most prominent position of the article where it appears. This is not what it says, but if moved to a separate page there is a chance that it will eventually say this. This problem would be corrected sooner or later, but only after much unnecessary disruption. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why WP:NOT#PLOT must remain policy

It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles about works of fiction should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of significant real-world coverage contained in an article. The reason is that as the focus on a work of fiction becomes narrower, the quality and quantity of real-world coverage becomes more limited, and makes it more difficult to write an encyclopedic article.

This means that while a book or television series may be the subject of significant real-world coverage, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on every fictional character, episode, scene or chapter that appears in a work of fiction, if the only coverage available is limited to information about the plot that is over reliant on a perpsective that is in universe.

In alternative venues such as Wookieepedia, where the inclusion criteria are more relaxed, this is not a problem: plot summary can be used on its own, or to provide filler where real-world coverage is lacking in order to provided extended coverage of a topic.

But in Wikipedia, a lack of significant real-world coverage will result in successive conflicts with various content policies. Generally speaking, if a topic fails WP:GNG, then it is likely that it will fail one or more content polcies. To some editors, these content polcies seem like a continuous drag on the ability to write about fictional topics in the way that they are accustomed to, usually in an immersive, in universe style. However, content policy exists not only as an editorial standard, it also exists to support Wikipedia's mission to create an increasingly better written and more comprehensive encyclopedia, and that means fictional topics can't be exempt from them, explicitly or implicitly.

At the moment, there is a concerted effort to have WP:NOT#PLOT removed on the grounds that editors should be allowed to write plot only articles, as is the fashion in Wookieepedia. The problem with this is a failure to recognise that as the level of real-world coverage becomess less and less, a plot only article will come into increasing conflict with other content policies. It is not difficult to find fault with plot only articles, as they tend to fail WP:V due to lack of independent sourcing, WP:NPOV due to a lack of independent perspective and in the case of fictographies, WP:OR due to them being a literary genre.

For this reason, I don't think that WP:NOT#PLOT can be dispensed with: without real-world coverage that is needed to write balanced coverage for incluison in an encylopedic article, an article that is wholly comprised of plot summary will fail all of the core content policies.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there is general consensus on anything of the sort. The general consensus of Wikipedia is that they can indeed be split if the material is important enough, as shown by decisions at afd, where split articles on fiction are frequently but not always upheld. What you say is contradictory to all common sense: the more important a work, the less we can say? Incidentally, WP:NOT doesnt discuss in the least whether there can be separate articles on character or background elements. You may be using it to mean anything connected with the fictional world itself. But all it says is that it can't be only "plot".

It doesnt even say it cant be primarily plot. Looking at wookipedia, and other such, their detail is in fact inappropriate here, and I think there should be a distinction. I am perfectly willing to say an article can't be only plot. I am even prepared to say that in general a full discussion of plot should go with the main article. I am not prepared to say that an article can't be primarily plot.

Incidentally none of the notability guidelines are policy. They're guidelines, and subject to control here, for all types of articles. I agree with the goal of making "an increasingly better written and more comprehensive encyclopedia" and that applies to fictional topics also. More comprehensive is the key. means fictional topics can't be exempt from them, explicitly or implicitly. Otherwise you get us in a circular bind. We cant change WP:FICT because it contradicts here, and we cant change here because it contradicts FICT. There has to be a route to change. DGG (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. There is widescale acceptance that plot-only articles are inappropriate, and that a "Wookiepedia" level of detail is inappropriate. However, the current policy is probably too harsh, or at least has been used in ways that are too harsh. We'd make a lot of progress if we rephrased the current WP:NOT.

• Scene-by-scene plot descriptions: An article must do more than describe the plot of a narrative work, with substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. However, a concise summary of the plot is an appropriate part of an article, and should consist of more than a mere teaser.

I think there's something in there for everyone. It never states that we don't want plot, but that we want more than just plot. And it also states that this policy is not an excuse to trim down a plot summary to the point that it beomes a mere teaser. I think most people would agree that this is an improvement on what we have now, or at worst a lateral move, because we explicitly try to stop this policy from being abused. Randomran (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Still broken. Try applying it to the Bible (where pretty much any character who did anything but begat another probably has an article) or, to use a practical example, the following FAs: Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, The General in His Labyrinth, Trial by Jury, Agrippina (opera). All of these clearly have a "scene-by-scene" plot description, for some definition of scene-by-scene, anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, please read User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT (and it's citations). It cannot be policy. And it's spelled "remain" by the way. --Pixelface (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The general consenus in reality is that the thousands of article creators and writers who work on plot based articles that a scant minority of at times only a half dozen accounts comment on in AfDs and the millions of readers who come here for this information is that these articles are what Wikipedia is. Thus, "not plot" is something supported by a vocal minority only whereas compared to the few who comment in threads such as this versus those who actually work on and come here to read the articles suggests that overwhelmingly the community thinks spinoff articles are acceptable. And I cannot help but wonder how much we would actually improve these articles if we devoted more time to adding references and out of universe information than on Guideline pages and in AfDs. It increasingly seems that so much time and energy is misplaced. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, histrionic comments about why we should ignore any people who dislike it being here neither further discussion, nor are they likely to to help, nor will strawman versions of the arguments against NOTPLOT.

I think everyone agrees we should have some policy or guidelines on fiction, but here, we can only use a blunt stick to deal with a nuanced issue. Better to open an RfC at, say, WP:WAF and sort out some appropriately-nuanced version of the ideas that has consensus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

God, this is so boring - haven't we just had a discussion about plots in artciles about fiction somewhere? I agree (!) with Gavin Collins's first sentence, "It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles about works of fiction should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment." After that it all goes wrong. I commented in the previous debate that articles on fiction have to start with plot, otherwise reporting of sources' commnets is meaningless, since there's nothing for them to refer to. And the fact that an article starts as plot-only does not mean it's going to go cancerous and metastasise into a swarm of in-universe trivia.

I confess when I see the word "encyclopedic" I suspect the motives of whoever uses it. I've seen no definition of the word, and suspect it's more of a tribal badge. It reminds me of the saying that the 2nd best way to sink a politician's career in the UK Conservative party is to ask "But is (s)he sound?", which really means "Can we trust this person to do as we want?" (BTW the most damning words in the UK Conservative party are "too clever", which means "thinks for himself / herself"). I suggest "encyclopedic" should be treated as WP:WEASEL. --Philcha (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the key point for you to note is that a lack of significant real-world coverage will result in successive conflicts with various content policies which define what content is or is not encyclopedic. In the case of plot-only articles that place undue wieght on the primary source, they lack credibility. Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context and enhances the credibility of the article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re "In the case of plot-only articles that place undue wieght on the primary source, they lack credibility", I suspect a plot summary that's defective in some way will be the most serious threat to credibility. If readers think, "That's not the movie I saw / book I read / etc.," they won't read down as far as the digest of third-party comments. "Public and scholarly critique ... enhances the credibility of the article" but is not essential to its credibility. --Philcha (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right. The plot summary of Shane was incorrect for the longest time by giving the wrong ending, and that is the kind of thing that would give Wikipedia a bad rap with readers. I don't know how that originated, but it may have come from an incorrect secondary source. If you see the film itself (and the ending, probably a copyvio, is on Youtube), you can see how it actually ends. So I totally disagree that reliance on the primary source is a WEIGHT issue; if anything it is a verifiability issues. On this "NOT" question: While Gavin is certainly correct that plot-only articles are undesirable, there may be exceptions to that. Perhaps there should be an article on the plot of Ulysses, for instance. I just don't think it belongs in this particular policy, as it elevates plot issues to the far more weighty things that Wikipedia indisputably should not be. Stetsonharry (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I know you want WP:NOT#PLOT to remain in this policy because you have a thing against articles about D&D characters. It's okay that you have a thing against articles about D&D characters. But it's not okay that you want to enforce that viewpoint through this policy page. If "lack of significant real-world coverage" results in an article not meeting various content policies (and that claim is dubious — even after Equazcion's attempt to sneak that into WP:V), what does that have to do with this policy? If an article in that state already does not meet other policies (and which policies exactly?), having a section in this policy would be redundant. You wouldn't even have to mention this policy, just the other policies.

If "significant coverage" does not exist about a particular story, it's not "undue weight" for the article to summarize the story. Once that coverage has been written, that's when "undue weight" comes into play — when deciding which opinions and viewpoints to put in the article. You could say that the King Claudius article is giving undue weight to the view of Charles Boyce, since the views of Charles Boyce are the only ones the article cites. But if the article didn't cite Charles Boyce, there would be no opinion given undue weight. All articles on Wikipedia lack credibility. That's because you never know what who wrote what and when. Regarding "critique", opinions are opinions. They are not facts we're dealing with. It's not "undue weight" to cite Shakespeare and his play Hamlet in the King Claudius article. I want to know who he is and what does he do. That can easily be summarized from WikiSource. What Charles Boyce thinks about the character is not the priority. If the views of Charles Boyce conflict with another source, then you can start talking about undue weight, and neutral point of view, and how best to summarize their views. --Pixelface (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• The straw poll above clearly indicates that there is no consensus for WP:PLOT here. There never has been any consensus for it. We're done. This section just seems to be WP:IDHT - tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Correct, there is no consensus to have it here. There is also (unfortunately) no consensus to remove it, and since it is already here, that means it stays here, does it not? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That is the rule (on rules), right? Anyway, the average article usually is okay; it is the children's TV shows/movies and/or articles on new TV shows that have too much plot. Some of the speculative fiction TV shows/movies/books have too much plot also. Resurr Section (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Nope, per policy. Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus is surely emphatic enough here. Hiding T
        • It does have community consensus. The straw poll is a list of all the players in this endless war who happened to notice the straw poll. But if you look at the response of the average editor who encounters an article on a minor character for the first time, their inclination is to think it has too much plot and tag it for deletion or merging. Resurr Section (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Irrelevant unless you take account of those editors who create the articles in the first place. And a failure to comment means you can't count their opinion, per Wikipedia:Consensus: "silence can imply consent". But as I said up above, there never was an exit strategy so we're free to move the debate on from whether it should be in this page to a debate about what consensus means. Good luck with that. I'm quite clear on what our polcies direct us to do. Hiding T 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
            • In other words, because of the history of this battle to save some WoW/D&D/SF text, in which the text was added in the heady early days on Wikipedia , a small group of editors will repeatedly attack until the rules on using secondary sources to write articles are not enforced for that text. Resurr Section (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Good luck to them. WP:NOR and WP:V deal with that. Hiding T 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
              • You started editing 20 days ago (under that username anyway). What history do you know about? Over one-third of Wikipedia's articles fall under Category:Fiction [42]. Fiction is much bigger than WoW/D&D/SF (by the way, do you happen to be a Naruto fan?) You don't need secondary sources to write a plot summary. Besides, it's possible to write an article that's just a plot summary from only secondary sources. And if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. --Pixelface (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
                • I'll dispute your numbers in asserting Over one-third of Wikipedia's articles fall under Category:Fiction, as per [43]. Hiding T 08:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
                  • Look for yourself. --Pixelface (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • I'm disputing that over one third of articles fall under the rubric of WP:PLOT per [44]. Hiding T 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • Yes, I know that already. And I'm familiar with that story in the Signpost. I also know that the study was based on a database dump from January 2008. It's currently May 2009. Could show me where in the study it says how many articles fall under Category:Fiction? I just pointed you a tool (that I used) that will give you that information. Have you used it? --Pixelface (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
                        • The tool you pointed me to won't prove that over one third of articles fall under the rubric of WP:PLOT. I doubt you really contend that, so I'm not sure what the issue is. According to the study in the signpost, 30% fall within "Culture and the arts", so the top end of articles to which WP:PLOT can relate is going to be less than one third. Not every article within Category:Fiction is relevant here, is it? Hiding T 11:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
                • Reply Obviously I had a previous incarnation. I stopped editing Wikipedia quite a while ago because of this sort of fighting, and am not posting using any other username at present. I care about quality and improving Wikipedia as much as the next person, and it is my view that secondary sources are needed, at about one per paragraph, to justify anything on Wikipedia. I am a huge fan of fiction, which is why I can say that the error rate in these plot summaries is high. I view policy as set by precedent and usage, which is why the current state of affairs is fine the way it is; PLOT is discouraged, but practiced, and over time excessive text by fans is pruned by more mature fans--sometimes even the same editors as they grow up. PLOT is needed because people refuse to abide by NOR, N or V. Resurr Section (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Nutiketaiel, if that were true, I could add "Wikipedia is not a place for Nutiketaiel to edit" to this policy. Then I could contact editors who don't like you (or wait for them to show up), and then there would be no consensus to remove it. But since it's already here, does that mean it stays here? No. A person might edit a policy page after consensus to add, no consenssu to add, or no discussion whatsoever. Editors make bold edits to policy all the time. But text within policy must have consensus to be policy. You do not have to get consensus to remove a portion of policy (that has no consensus to be policy) before it can be removed. It needs consensus to be here. A policy must have wide acceptance among editors. --Pixelface (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I did read in a policy/guideline awhile ago that if there is a lack of consensus on something, the status quo should be used. "No consensus" in AFD means "keep". "No consensus" in a merge discussion means "keep separate". But that's at the content level; I'm not sure if it also applied to policies. When there is "no consensus" on a policy, shouldn't that mean that it shouldn't be policy? It might be more acceptable on guidelines, but looking at WP:POL: "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow." If there is no consensus on a policy, then it doesn't have "wide acceptance", and I'm not sure if the fact that it has been policy for a long time should really affect that. If NOTPLOT was just now being proposed and the above poll was done, it obviously would not be added to the policy due to a lack of consensus. Just because it has been in the policy for a few years doesn't mean that it has any more consensus just because of that reason... after all consensus can change.

Also, I think that there may be a misunderstanding in some of this discussion. I think that many opposers of NOTPLOTs inclusion in the policy is because it is in a policy. Having more detailed information about what amounts of plot is acceptable would, in my opinion, make perfect sense in a guideline like WP:WAF, but not in a policy that also includes things such as NOTMYSPACE, NOTCRYSTAL, and NOTFORUM. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Drilnoth. I'd really like to have a more productive discussion on relocating WP:NOTPLOT, or rewording it. But it's frustrating when someone comes along and says "it must stay exactly the same", and others are more than happy to take the bait and respond with "it must be destroyed!" Can we take a step back and see how futile these arguments are? Wikipedia works on consensus building. Randomran (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One interpretation (and that's all that is) of the straw poll is that:

• The concept of PLOT is still strong enough to be policy, and certainly at least a guideline (all the Yes voters, and a good chunk of "No" voters) (And that is, to be clear, that plot summaries are appropriate, but that they shouldn't be the only aspect that constitutes a work's coverage)
• PLOT as written into NOT is possibly misplaced because it implies plot summaries are not appropriate at any time. (most of the No votes)

Thus, I think the prudent action is to move it, which begs the question, is it strong enough to be policy (thus likely requiring a new page) or is it a good guideline (allowing it to be moved to WAF without question). The way I read the !votes, I'd believe it edges on policy, which is why I think we need to think about a new policy page that can go into depth to encompass all the thoughts and issues relating to this. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Randomran, I am not making bald assertions that WP:NOT#PLOT should not removed from this guideline. The rationale for keeping is overwhealming in the sense that plot only articles conflict with Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines.

1. Plot only articles fail WP:V because reliable, third-party sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations;
2. Plot only articles do not contain any measure of encyclopedic coverage as described by WP:INUNIVERSE;
3. Plot only articles conflict with WP:UNDUE on grounds that they disregard all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavour; instead undue weight is given to trivial aspects of a work of fiction (again, WP:INUNIVERSE refers);
4. Plot only articles conflict with guidelines, such as WP:N because evidence of notability cannont be confered from coverage of a topic which does not impart real-world information about its subject matter by repeating or summarising the primary source.

Overall, the achilles heal of any argument that plot only articles should be allowable is a failure to recognise that as the level of real-world coverage becomess less and less, a plot only article will come into increasing conflict with other content policies. Simply removing WP:NOT#PLOT on the grounds that some editors disagree with it. The fact remains that as long as this policy is supported by WP:WAF in verifiable evidence that it enjoys consensus support at guideline level.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a competition to see who can pick the most holes in Gavin Collins's last post, with a special prize for the most holes in a single item.

Or let's do something productive, as A Nobody suggested in ""not plot" is something supported by a vocal minority only whereas compared to the few who comment in threads such as this versus those who actually work on and come here to read the articles suggests that overwhelmingly the community thinks spinoff articles are acceptable. And I cannot help but wonder how much we would actually improve these articles if we devoted more time to adding references and out of universe information than on Guideline pages and in AfDs."

I'm not an all-out inclusionist, but this discussion is almost a satire on the follies of deletionism. --Philcha (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not about inclusionists vs deletionists. I can see the point you are making, namely the main argument against about having a policy about plot only articles that fits within the framework of Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines is that it would facilitate the deletion of articles which do not meet WP:NOT#PLOT. However, this is an entirely spurious argument when you think about it. I have never participated in an AFD discussion in which a policy or guideline has been invoked, and the participants automatically agreed that this was the correct approach. AFD is conducted through a process of peer review in which all the arguments and opinions are weighed up, and everyone's opinion counts. Since policies and guidelines can proscribe what editor's opinions must be, perhaps you now realise that WP:NOT#PLOT is not a magic bullet that can guarantee an article will deleted. In my experience, most plot only articles get merged in topics that provide real-world evidence of notability. As the level of real-world coverage becomess less and less, a plot only article will come into increasing conflict with other content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you refute his point 4, "Plot only articles conflict with guidelines, such as WP:N because evidence of notability cannont be confered from coverage of a topic which does not impart real-world information about its subject matter by repeating or summarising the primary source"? Resurr Section (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And for that matter, how do you reconcile having lengthy plot descriptions with the WP:PSTS policy? Resurr Section (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG, there's another one! If point 4 simply said, ""Plot only articles conflict with guidelines, such asWP:N" I'd agree with it as a bald fact. The addition of "such as" conflicts with [[WP:WEASEL}}.

WP:PSTS is irrelevant so long as the plot summary is only that, and does not incluide and comments on motifs, construction, characterisation, or any other aspect of literary criticism. Merely summarising something that has been published cannot conflict with any policy or guideline dicussed here (WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK are a different matter) because that's what encylopedias do - otherwise they'd have to quote every single word of very source literally, which would be WP:PLAGIARISM. --Philcha (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I find incredible Gavin Collins "I have never participated in an AFD discussion in which a policy or guideline has been invoked, and the participants automatically agreed that this was the correct approach". As far as I can see "delete, not notable" is the 3rd most common phrase in AfDs, behind "keep per ..." and "delete, per ..." --Philcha (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I need to repeat for the aggressive group of people hoping to wikilawyer their way into getting what they want without the consensus to do so: if you don't have consensus to remove something, as you clearly do not, you cannot remove it by claiming there is no consensus to keep. That's exactly opposite of how everything works here. PLOT has always been in this policy, has always been supported, and a coordinated campaign by a small but vocal group of people who don't want to play by the rules don't get to change the rules with an argument of "we don't have the support to change it but we win anyway". I've not seen such a calculated attempt to turn Wikipedia policy on its head in a long time. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Always? Really now! In any case, this is, as far as I can tell, the first widespread debate as to whether the addition has consensus. If it shows there isn't consensus for the inclusion, then it cannot be considered a "a widely accepted standard", as all policy pages say they are right at the top. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Shoemaker's holiday, its not that simple. Wikipeida's existing framework of policies and guidelines do have consensus, and as the level of real-world coverage in a plot only article becomes becomes less and less, it will come into increasing conflict with them. Philcha can dismiss these concerns with a bald assertion that they are mere weasel words, but as I have made clear at the start of this section, Wikipedia policy don't exist as a restaint on editorial autonomy as Philcha might have you believe; rather it is there to support the creation of articles which anyone can edit without the need for editorial oversight by any other authority (such as a panel of experts). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you claiming that WP:NOT#PLOT has consensus to be policy? Because it doesn't. And if you're saying that a section of policy page that has no consensus to be policy should remain on that policy page, you're dead wrong. You absolutely do not need consensus to remove something from a policy page before it can be removed. Otherwise, whenever someone makes a bold addition to a policy page and someone wants to remove it, it would have to be debated for days until there was a consensus to remove it. No, sections of policy must have consensus in order to be policy. They must have wide acceptance among editors. The straw poll above is proof that WP:NOT#PLOT does not have wide acceptance among editors.

As for "PLOT has always been in this policy, has always been supported...", WP:NOT#PLOT has not "always been in this policy." WP:NOT#PLOT was proposed on June 29, 2006 and there was no consensus to add it when it was proposed. It was supported by a total of six people, including the proposer — and it was not supported by six people. WP:NOT#PLOT was then added to this policy on July 9, 2006 when there was no consensus to do so. And WP:NOT#PLOT was removed for the first time less than 3 months later on October 2, 2006[45] — probably due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Naruto I [46], where Pentasyllabic cited WP:NOT#PLOT in the reason for deletion. The article was kept at the time, more evidence that WP:NOT#PLOT did not actually have community consensus.

As far as can be determined, this page was created September 24, 2001[47] (it's possible any older history was lost in the transition from UseModWiki to PhpWiki). Based on that date, this page existed for nearly five years without WP:NOT#PLOT.[48] WP:NOT#PLOT didn't even exist[49] when you began editing[50] in November 2004, DreamGuy. Wikipedia:Check your fiction existed though[51]. The {{policy}} template was created March 7, 2004[52]. That template was added to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on May 12, 2005 by Radiant!. Before that, this page was in Category:Wikipedia official policy as early as October 7, 2004[53]. Before that, this page was in Category:Policy thinktank as early as September 30, 2004[54]. WP:NOT#PLOT clearly had support from some editors when it was proposed, and clearly has support from some editors now, but policies describe standards that have community consensus. WP:NOT#PLOT does not. --Pixelface (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change. This historical excursion fails to recognize that true Policy is not written down; it exists in the minds of users. A lot of articles on fiction are written by children and children cannot be expected to understand the need for reliance on secondary sources to guide the article. Instead, they are convinced that the reader will be entertained, as they were, by a retelling of the plot twists, revelations in the backstory and the other plot devices. Resurr Section (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This gets covered by WP:Competence is required. Anyone, regardless of age, can edit, but if they can't comprehend policies and guidelines, they aren't mature enough to edit.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that WP:NOT#PLOT existed in the "minds of users" before it was added to this policy? And if "true" policy does not need to be written down, there's no reason to have WP:NOT#PLOT here anyway — that is, if it were true policy. People would just always argue to delete plot-only articles, but that doesn't happen.[55] Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables. You've got people saying befehl ist befehl, people (including the closing admin) saying "this rule is a rule is a rule", looking at WP:NOT#PLOT as some kind of authority — completely ignoring that the "rule" was written by just another anonymous person on the Internet. If policies describe standards that have community consensus, and if this policy actually describes standards that have community consensus, you could remove everything from this policy page right now, build it up from scratch and it would look the same (or very similar). I don't think WP:NOT#PLOT has ever reflected the thinking of the community. It's reflected the thinking of small group of editors.

You're right, many articles about fiction can be written by children. If you have a problem with that, you may want to propose an age-limit policy. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's easy for a child to retell any of Aesop's fables. And nobody needs secondary sources to do so. What happens in the fable? Consult the fable itself. What happens in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz? Go to the book. Who is Cosette and what does she do? Consult the novel, or the musical. If an editor is capable of providing a summary of a secondary source about a fictional work, they're certainly capable of providing a summary of the fictional work itself. And you don't need secondary sources to tell you what happens in a story. Look at some of our featured articles: The Empire Strikes Back, Quatermass and the Pit, Casablanca, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pattern Recognition, etc. Any secondary sources would be consulting the primary source anyway. Now, what does The Crow and the Pitcher mean? If you want to include analysis in the article, fine, cite a secondary source. Have conflicting interpretations been published? Fine, cite them. But you don't need analysis to answer the question "What is fictional work X?" or "Who is fictional character Y?" If you want to insist on analysis, okay, Wikipedia editors can and do provide their own analysis all the time, like it or not. If a child, say a fan of Naruto, makes a plot-only article and it's nominated for deletion for "violating WP:NOT#PLOT", do you think that would make them more likely to add secondary sources to plot-only articles in the future or more likely they'd just start vandalizing after seeing all the other plot-only articles (many of which have survived multiple AFDs)? I suppose they might even start redirecting every plot-only article they see because "them's the rules." --Pixelface (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that editors need guidance. Written rules are needed for some people. The continuing war on the absolute requirement of citing secondary sources to write a tertiary source is misguided. Resurr Section (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything that has secondary sources can be the topic of a Wikipedia article. The examples you provide are of classics of civilization that have secondary sources. Joseph Campbell commented on Star Wars. If secondary sources are found for Elaeniaro Anime, great. Resurr Section (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The complete lack of willingness of most people to build a consensus here is embarrassing. I won't be surprised if we're arguing about "keep exactly the same" versus "remove it entirely" one year from now, unless people wise up and recognize we have to find a middle option to build a consensus. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's what I was trying to do in my post above, but as always the discussion descended into a completely unproductive battle between two equally uncompromising sides. Here's an idea: Why don't we try to compromise by discussing the following section... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The only issue where I feel we can compromise on is the issue raised by Philcha is that WP:NOT#PLOT is being used as a "one-stop" deletion arguement at WP:AFD, and maybe he has a fair point. I am open to expanding the wording, so that it is not a bald prohibition without rationale, but is clearly explained.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTPLOT: Guideline discussion

Rather than arguing over whether NOTPLOT should be kept as-is or removed altogether, with no middle ground, let's try to discuss the pros and cons of having NOTPLOT in a guideline like WP:WAF. For the users who fully support NOTPLOT, this would be a little less firm and more likely to be ignored but it would also need to be generally followed in the long term in the same way that another important guideline, WP:N, is. For the users who feel that NOTPLOT should be removed entirely, demotion to guideline status will provide them a little more leeway to work with plot in articles without feeling quite the same level of impending deletion as there is now (kind of like with non-notable articles; they are typically given some more time to grow before being AFD'd). Neither side would truly get what they wanted, but neither side should be completely dissatisfied, either. This dispute won't be resolved—ever—unless a compromise can be reached. Let's try to have some productive discussion, rather than having each side arguing the other around and around in circles that never get anywhere. What do you think of having NOTPLOT as a guideline, rather than a policy, keeping in mind that it could be a compromise and, therefore, not necessarily what anybody, both yourself and the users with the opposite view, really wants to see. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this just won't work. Since plot only article fail WP:V on account that they don't contain any reliable sources that are independent of the primary work, demoting WP:NOT#PLOT from a content guideline to a style guideline is not acceptable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So how about a content guideline, rather than a content policy? It doesn't have to be WP:WAF that it is moved to. As I said, this won't perfectly suit everyone... I'd rather see it made an essay or something, but that isn't going to happen because it is unreasonable. I'm trying to help find a middle ground that will suit everyone to some extent, even if it isn't quite what any one person wants.

Anyway, I feel that plot-only articles can pass WP:V; reliable sources often have some information on the plot which can be used for verifiable sourcing. If an article fails WP:V because it is entirely plot and it doesn't have such reliable sources, it can be merged or deleted per WP:V, so NOTPLOT wouldn't be needed for removing such pages. NOTPLOT would, however, seem to make some perfectly verifiable pages unacceptable even if they do use reliable sources. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries have nothing to do with sources - or at least, it's not just a sourcing. It is possible in many cases (classical works) to source from secondary materials without touching real world aspects (though if you can do this, you likely have more than enough secondary sources to fill out the real world side). This is a balance of content issue, almost an extension of NPOV's part about undue weight. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little worried that demoting it to guideline is weaker than what consensus suggests. Several "no" !votes on the straw poll suggest that it's still a valid argument but express the concern that editors may take its presence in NOT to immediately AFD articles that are plot-only, and another group of "No" !votes suggest that the presence of PLOT here in NOT implies that plot summaries are never appropriate. Both of these are very valid concerns, but they still emphases that a plot summary should be part of , but not the only aspect, of the coverage of a work of fiction. Only a handful of "no" !votes can be read to outright disagree with this factor. This suggests that there's still the strength of a policy behind it but just in NOT. Unfortunately, save for my suggestion of NPOV (as this really comes down to an issue about balanced coverage), there's really no other long-standing existing policy this could be moved into, and even the NPOV is not the best home for it as is. If the consensus agrees that if we're trying to avoid creating a new policy page but we need to move PLOT off here to avoid the implications of what NOT implies, then maybe WAF is the best place, but there's something that bothers me about demoting the concept to a guideline given that it has the reasonable strength to be policy. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Reasonable strength to be policy"? No. It. Doesn't. Get over it. It should not take take this long to remove a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy. Masem, your stubborness, and your recent re-addition of WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy, is absolutely ridiculous. --Pixelface (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is the new consensus - what has happened in the past is not longer relevant per WP:CCC. The above RFC shows that there needs to be some change (particularly avoiding the misconception this invalidates any use of plot summary) and suggests a move off NOT into a separate page. But there's enough people in all three !vote categories that support the idea that coverage of a topic should not be only plot summary. (which, btw, is not the same as "plot-only articles are not allowed", since a article may be part of several per WP:SS that make up coverage). --MASEM (t) 03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no new consensus here Masem. Just still no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy. Like I've been telling you for more than a goddamn year. And what happened in the past[56] [57] is not irrelevant. If that were true, you would have never started those ANI threads on me and user RFC on me for my removals of WP:NOT#PLOT — removals, btw, which are totally justified by the RFC above. The RFC above shows that there is no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy (if you were ever having trouble believing that). Accordingly, Shoemaker's Holiday removed WP:NOT#PLOT from this policy on April 23, 2009 and you re-added it — again. Care to explain that? You're an admin. And you've re-added WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy more than anyone else on Wikipedia. [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] I am sick and tired of your obstructionism. Enough is enough already. You just can't let it go, can you? --Pixelface (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not even reading the conversation or attempting to work on collaboration on a solution, you're just reiterating which is not helping. Again Consensus can change, and Shoemaker's RFC above is the current reassessment regarding PLOT which overrides any other previous discussion or consensus on PLOT. That includes any past assertion that PLOT has consensus or no consensus to be in NOT. Now, even I agree that reading the !votes that there's likely good reason to move PLOT out of NOT, but the concept behind it is reiterated through a majority of all !votes and thus appears to still be a general policy, that coverage of topics should not be solely plot summary. Taking it out of NOT can allow for more discussion on the point and strongly assert that PLOT is not a reason for deletion.

The only reason I've reverted Shoemaker's change was that the RFC was still on going and until it is completed we should not be making changes to what the RFC is discussing, even his straw poll said that it would be evaluated after 2 weeks and that change was not two weeks after the RFC. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fiction (getting rid of the redirect first, of course) about how to go about creating a new policy regarding fiction... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I could live with this. But maybe we should brainstorm some other locations besides WAF. Maybe there are better locations. Let's try to ignore the few people who insist on a hardline either way, unless they truly are a majority. Randomran (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your misssing the point; most of the policies and guidelines have some prohibition against plot only articles. For instance, a plot summary might come from a reliable source, but guidelines such as WP:BK#Criteria specifically prohibit the use of flap copy as evidence of notablility. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If plot only article are already prohibited by multiple other policies, as you state, then why are you so fixed on having it redundantly listed here? If your assertion is truly correct then removing it from this policy shouldn't affect anything. Locke9k (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The kind of users who create excessive decriptions of plots (children, in other words) will not understand what a primary vs a secondary source is. They need a simple explanation of what is an is not appropriate. Resurr Section (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

anyone who uses flap copy is clearly not doing it right, for several reasons, including the prohibition on teasers: sections on plot here have to give the ending. One can usually tell flap copy because the plot description is too short. But this is a separate problem: how to write them competently. (the worst of it is the episode section, written in TVguide style, which is possibly even worse)

While I dislike deletionism, I'm not in favour of fancruft. Attempting to strengthen the policing of fancruft is pointless, because fan-boys hugely outnumber good editors, and policy changes designed to exclude fancruft have tarnished WP's image and very probably alienated newbies who might have become good editors with a bit of gentle guidance. I've done a bit of lateral thinking and proposed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Make_each_article.27s_class_visible_to_unregistered_users what I think might be a win-win solution to issues like this. --Philcha (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as a point: for every article that says that WP's current "cruft removal" is tarnishing its image, there's likely another article that criticizes WP for documenting fiction in too much details over the weight of other topics, also tarnishing its image. The pendulum of what degree to fiction that we cover has swung back from being too deletionist and is approaching a midpoint. It is important to get this pretty close to right. (and yes, the class idea is good to help encourage editors to get involved) --MASEM (t) 16:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

citation for that, please. I think the ratio is probable 5:1. pro fiction, though it of course depends on where you look. What I think really tarnishes our image here is inconsistency, and, even more, bad writing. There are lots of ways to do an encyclopedia, but people expect serious reference works to have some degree of uniformity and quality. DGG (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• you are all aware of current guidance: Articles about fictional topics should not read like book reports; instead, they should explain the topic's significance to the work. After reading the article, the reader should be able to understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work. That's been around since before we had the guideline/policy split, when it was one of Wikipedia's rules to consider. It's currently guidance over at WP:CYF. It helped form the initial proposal for WP:PLOT. Personally, I'm thinking we p[erhaps do need a separate policy on fiction the way we have a separate policy on biographies. Eventually I would imagine every subject area is going to need its own policies. Hiding T 10:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But I still think it's one aspect that's being thrust into the limelight far too much by this. Far better to handle it as part of a coherent set of guidelines. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I've got a proposal at User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction that attempts to situate the core of NOT#PLOT as a guideline that is better tied to other policies on fiction, and thus fills the much-needed hole of a guideline on what it means to cover fiction in an encyclopedia of fact. It still needs some work, but I'm open to comments on it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Advertise

Should this be on the watchlist? I know that it is on CENT, but as we may recall, FICT was placed on the watchlist and received a good proportion of the RfC traffic from there. Arguably changing NOT is a bigger deal than creating FICT. Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Almanac or not?

I have come across quite a lot of Wikipedia pages that are written more like almanac than encyclopedia entries. They have nothing but a chart, and serve just one purpose. Common examples are that they list things like statistics or the date when a particular holiday or event will occur in upcoming years. I have looked to see if they were previously proposed for deletion, and many times, they were, but they overwhelmingly survived the afds.

I have looked, but found no sister project called "WikiAlmanac," a place where this would make better sense to be.

What is Wikipedia's view on being an almanac? Sebwite (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Our first pillar says that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Thus, almanac type information is appropriate. However, it should be treated more than just a list of data. A list of upcoming days that a holiday will be observed alone makes no sense, but in context of discussion about the holiday itself is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Guideline or Policy?

I was just wondering - why is WP:NOT tagged as policy? There are a lot of different concepts here and some of them seem to rise to the level of policy but others do not. For example, "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" is largely an expansion on our WP:OR policy, so it makes sense that we consider that policy as well. But other sections, like the one indicating that Wikipedia is not a personal web page host, is an expansion on WP:USER, which is a guideline. So why should it be policy here when it's only a guideline on the page referred to? Maybe it's overly lawyerly to worry about what's a guideline and what's a policy, but as long as we're making the distinction, I'm just not sure it makes sense to apply the term to such a broad swath of ideas. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually many of the items in this list are noted in the Five pillars, so in some sense this policy actually has greater force than most other policies, in my view. Especially given that fact it seems like it unquestionably should be a policy to me. Locke9k (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I do think it's a mess - it just doesn't have the logical backbone that other policies do; it's basically a shopping list of "stuff the community has agreed WP shouldn't do". A lot of it is duplicative of things elsewhere, just collected in one place. I think a major revision to structure it as Wikipedia:Inclusion policy would improve it; but I'm not sure the reams of virtual paper that would require would be worth it. Rd232 ^talk 21:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a more explicit definition of which are considered policies or guidelines? I don't know, that might be too messy and hard to gain consensus on. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Another early step in rationalizing this will be to split the behavioural and the content parts-- though I do not know what to call them. DGG (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a content policy, pure and simple. Admittedly, a lot of the content, like WP:SOAPBOX is really a retred of other content policies, such as WP:NPOV. In some ways it makes sense to keep all of the prohibitions on article content in one place, rather than spreading them around. I guess it boils down to the fact that content that fails one or more content polices is an indiscriminate collection of information that is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not a policy? The simple answer is that the {{policy}} template was created March 7, 2004[64] and that template was added to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on May 12, 2005 by Radiant! (no surprise there really since Radiant! appears in the top 20 editors of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines more than anyone else on Wikipedia[65]). Before that, this page was in Category:Wikipedia official policy as early as October 7, 2004[66]. Before that, this page was in Category:Policy thinktank as early as September 30, 2004[67]. Whether it should be policy is another question. The page seems to have begun[68] as a list of things encyclopedia articles are not, but it's gradually changed over 7 1/2 years. Also, just because a section links to another page (WP:USER for example), that doesn't mean that the section here is an expansion of the other page. For example, WP:V links to WP:RS, but WP:RS is not a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

the part that needs to be separated is the "Community " part. this should be policy. The rest should be a guideline. DGG (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Swearing

Hello. I see that swearing isn't censored. My question is, what about the children? If they see it on here they'll think they can get away with it.--Launchballer (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe parents should act responsibly and go on the internet with their children if they are concerned about content. Or maybe people should stop being so puritanical and not worry about a few four letter words being used in circumstances where they are appropriate, like the article Fuck. I prefer not to censor my speach around children- if they hear the swear words all the time, then the words lose their impact and, eventually, stop being taboo. Finally, there is the fact that words that are taboo in one culture are perfectly acceptable in others, and Wikipedia is intended for use by all cultures. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you are talking about discussions among editors, this page is irrelevant and we have WP:CIVIL. In article space, not censoring swearing doesn't mean that our articles use offensive words, it merely means that when our articles discuss offensive language, or when they quote passages containing offensive language, we don't follow the silly practice of many newspapers to replace it in more or less creative ways. Can you imagine what our article Latin profanity would look like if it was censored? Do you think anyone other than a Latin scholar would be able to understand it without using a dictionary? Or for another example, how can we discuss that a politician got into trouble for using a certain word, and perhaps also how newspapers reporting the situation tried to avoid saying it, when we are not allowed to say what the word was? We are writing for an international audience. Most of our readers (not all) will know what f*** or a...hole is supposed to mean, but anything slightly more creative and many of them will be lost. And they can't look up things like "c***" in a dictionary. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine exactly what the article Latin profanity would look like (albeit people with Asperger's syndrome aren't supposed to have any imagination).--Launchballer (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Update

The April update of all content policy, deletion policy and enforcement policy pages and all the general style guidelines is done, and I'll try to get the updates done on the first of each month from now on. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 03:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics

I don't remember a consensus being gained for the addition of the statement "Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary upon them, or to illustrate some aspect of the style" in WP:NOT#LYRICS. I've removed it as a result. The current position is that lyrics should not be included in articles. If free, they should be in Wikisource. If non-free, they should not be on any Wikipedia article at all. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. The current consensus is presumably that of the main content guideline, Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. I hope this isn't controversial, but I've reworked it to better reflect that guideline, and linked to it. I don't think it actually conflicted before, but it was a lot more ambiguous.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your version may be a bit wordy, but it seems to reflect consensus in the sense of reflecting general good practice. I don't think there's ever been a consensus against lyric snippets for the purpose of commentary.—Kww(talk) 12:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I kind of threw it all in: I figured that it was better, for the moment, to try and summarise the whole guideline than to try and simplify it too much and get yelled at for leaving out material that others thought was crucial to the point. A simpler phrasing might be

“ Copyrighted songs (most things written after 1922) should have quotes kept to the minimum amount necessary to allow commentary on the work, or to illustrate the style (See Wikipedia:Fair use). For works out of copyright (or released under an acceptable licence), articles which consist of little more than lyrics should be transwiki'd to Wikisource, and more developed articles on these out-of-copyright works should follow Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources: which, in short, says we should only quote the song in full if it's fairly short and/or all of it is relevant to the discussion, otherwise we should try and choose some representative sections of the song, and link to the full text (preferably on Wikisource). ”

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday, are you still opponsed to lyric only articles, and if so why? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm OK with how it appears now. The words "relative to the length of the article" are crucial. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there's no objections except for mild ones related to length, we may as well leave it at that for now. Certainly, I agree with those words - the only reason I left them out of the attempt at shortening above is because that concept is made very clear in the linked guideline. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP#PLOT again.

Given that it is now plain that WP#PLOT lacks consensus to be here (which is exactly what the RfC was about) I'd like to explore the options

1. Leave it as is. Inertia rules and we only change things that have consensus to change.
2. Update it so that it is plain that we only don't have articles that are 100% plot.
3. Remove it and put it in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WAF) or some other location.

   3a: Remove it from here, and open an RfC at WP:WAF to make sure we get the wording right, and consensus - there's been so many versions that I don't think we can point to a consensus wording for it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Remove it entirely from here and everywhere else.

Please feel free to add other outcomes above but please keep the old numbers the same in order to keep discussion sane. So adding #5 or #3a is fine.

• As I read the RfC and the comments, I think #3 is the correct outcome, but I suspect #2 is the best of the rest. My personal preference would be #4, but I don't think the RfC supports that. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a slightly modified plan, 3a. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• There's two issues that I think we may need to strawpoll again for because the current poll only suggests moving off NOT but not if it should be weakened or not:
  • First Issue Where should advice that "Ultimately, the coverage of a fictional work should not be only a plot summary" should be located:
    1. Remain as policy at WP:NOT
    2. Remain as policy in new policy page (or possibly an existing policy page)
    3. Change to guideline in WP:WAF
    4. Change to guideline in new guideline page (or possibility an existing guideline page)
    5. No advice of this sort is needed and/or appropriate and should be removed outright from WP

• Second Issue Given any but the last choice above, what wording should be used at the target policy/guideline page? --MASEM (t) 18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• We should probably just remove the first and last option. They'll attract and undue amount of attention, and will ultimately polarize the debate, making it impossible to build a consensus. Rather, we should say "given that there is no consensus to remove WP:PLOT, but there appears to be large support for moving it and/or rephrasing it..." and then offer several middle options. Randomran (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see some analysis of the RFC before accepting the argument that consensus has changed. The straw poll seems quite close to me, so I see no consensus for removal, but mainly I would like to know what would be the benefits of allowing non-encyclopedic coverage, when clearly plot summary is not encyclopdedic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy requires a decent amount of agreement. If over 50% are opposed to something being in a policy in any form, I don't see how we can continue to put it on a page that says that it has widespread consensus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, we're not about numbers here, we're looking at strength of argument - which is about equal on both sides. Plus there are a number of no !votes that suggest that they are misreading it (the ones that seem to be believe inclusion bans any plot summary, which is not the question being asked). But there are several no !votes that point to the fact that while the statement "coverage should not be only plot summary" is appropriate, WP:NOT is the wrong place for it, which is a very good point and I'm willing to consider if it should be moved - but there's more than enough support reading through all !votes that it should not be outright removed completely. Which is why I suggest a more specific straw poll now that the lay of the land that takes into account those no !votes that express the biteyness of PLOT being in NOT to figure out if a new location is better. That's why the above 5 options cover all possible cases and thus would be a quick numbers estimate to see where it should fall. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not so sure. If it turns out the argument in favour of WP:NOT#PLOT being removed boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then that arguement does not hold up. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Gavin here. At the risk of recapitulating the whole debate above, NOT isn't a popular policy. There are thousands of users who come here each week hoping to add content which we have determined violates NOT. If we assembled them and asked whether or not we should remove our restrictions on advertising, directory or blog content, there would be a resounding "yes". I'm not trying to draw an equivalence directly here. there are dozens of long term users of the encyclopedia who are unhappy with plot for reasons which extend beyond ILIKEIT. But we might want to consider that the boundaries of the encyclopedia are constantly contested. The fact that they are contested should not indicate in of itself that we need to expand them. Outcomes matter too. Articles which are predominantly plot summaries and cannot be sourced to independent, third party sources are routinely deleted. As articles move up our internal assessment schemes, the bulk and relative importance of original summary decreases. We have existing style guides and wikiproject suggestions noting that we regularly seek to limit plot summary in articles. Just like WP:N, these policies, guidelines and practices come into conflict with many editors. I think that the conflict is partially unavoidable. There is no system of inclusion that can be made to satisfy an open editing pool while still retaining some boundary of what our content is and is not. We should take care (as has been noted here) to fix or clarify positions where this conflict flares up. One of the reasons I supported FICT was to ameliorate the conflict between policy and editors. PLOT here should probably be revised to do the same.

But I'm not sure that we have consensus to move plot to WAF (where it may provide needed oomph but would likely be regularly dismissed as "just a style guide"). I'm convinced that we don't have consensus to eliminate it entirely. Protonk (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. (edit conflict) with Random. He speaks the truth. Finding the middle path is the way out. Protonk (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And once again, we find ourselves dragged off topic with the old "keep it the same" versus "remove it entirely" polemics that can only end in "no consensus". I'll be waiting around for the moment when people get sick of this pattern, and decide to discuss the numerous options in the middle. Randomran (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think #2 and #3 on the list at the top of this section are the middle ground. Secondly, I think you should propose something specific if you have any ideas about that middle ground. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was only talking about this little diatribe in the middle here. You're right that #2 and #3 are both compromise solutions that get us away from the old debates, so hopefully we can get people to focus on those. Randomran (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent):If WP:NOTPLOT does not have consensus support, it should cease to be a policy, per WP:CCC. --Philcha (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest incorporating it into MOS and into the list of MOS elements required for GA status. I specifically would not want to see it incorporated only into WP:WAF, as the same principles apply to articles about non-fiction works in many fields - whether it's literature or science or political theory or whatever, third-party comments on the content, the influences on it and its influence on later works should be required for any kind of "higher grade". --Philcha (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Why is it that my statement that we should remove iot from here, and open a discussion to work out a wording to add to WP:WAF constantly re-interpreted as "let's throw the whole thing out"? It's like noone's even reading what I say.

Let me state my position - again. 1. This is not an appropriate place for it. 2. The core idea is reasonable, but the wording isn't stable, so we ought to discuss changes. 3. This discussion on wording is best done at the page where we propose to insert it, to make sure that there's no edit wars by editors of that page.

If you will look, I proposed a week ago that we begin to discuss what wording we should take to the new page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The place to discuss its incorporation into the GA criteria is at list of MOS elements required for GA status, not here. In practice, I believe that GA articles are not passed that are only plot summary. I have not seen it. Also, at WP:DYK, articles are not accepted for DYK that are only plot summaries, primarily because plot summaries are not referenced. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse, thanks for showing up. WP:NOTPLOT is currently a part of policy WP:NOT, not a part of MOS. I suggested it should be part of MOS (but not in as specific a section as WP:WAF). I mentioned this at WT:GAN because, if my proposal were accepted, the effects on WP:WIAGA need to be considered - and other regular frequenters of WT:GAN might spot snags that I haven't. -Philcha (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What the RfC indicated

Before we start yet another RfC, we should agree on what the last one got us. I'd say the following is true: The RfC showed that having NOT#PLOT in WP:NOT doesn't have consensus, but nor is there consensus to keep it here. The RfC asked "In principle, do you think that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries?" That's a pretty clear-cut issue, but I get the sense that others don't agree. Could everyone indicate what they think we did learn from the last RfC? Hobit (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear that this is widely agreed not to be the place for it, but that something discussing plot summaries should go somewhere. WP:NOT#PLOT has not been stable, so I think that we'll save a lot of time and editwarring if we can reach a rough agreement on where it should go, and open an RFC there to work out the new wording.

I don't think it should remain here in the meantime: that would just proide a distraction from the work to try and create a stable policy or guideline that relates to it. In addition, the current wording is awful. I think it's the worst of any of the recent revisions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, you just can't ignore everyone else. Between the two of you, you have not provided a single scrap of evidence that plot summary only articles contain any encyclopedic coverage. It seems to be that arguments for removing based on WP:NOT#PLOT, whilst popular, just don't have any intellectual basis and are based on arguements such as WP:ILIKEIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And it seem your arguments are based on WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. First off: A. Major encyclopedias do contain largely plot-only articles. [69] [70]. Those were found in one minute of searching, I'm sure articles with even less introduction exist. B. The statement is over-broad as it stands, and, due to its appearance in WP:NOT, it is very hard to treat it with proper subtlety. C. It is a standard that only works well on developed articles, not new ones. Please listen to what other people say. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Britannica and Wookieepedia have inclusion criteria are determined bytheir owners, or their delegated representatives. Wikipedia does not have an owner, nor an editorial board, nor a single editor in chief whose personal opinion determines what sort of coverage is suitable for inclusion as a standalone article. Instead, Wikipedia operates through a framework of policies and guidelines that enables anyone to contribute, provided they adhere to the standards set in this framework. What you are basically proposing is to ignore that framework in order to impose your own personal views about the inclusion of plot only articles. Shame on you. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying that Britannica isn't encyclopedic: That you are the only arbiter of what "encyclopedic" means. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:NOT and you will notice that it says that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but that is not a free pass to inclusion. There are standards to be adhered to if we want Wikipedia to be open to contributions from any editor, and we can't ignore them unless you want to change adopt the management model employed by other publications. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, you've just been faced with evidence that your main point was wrong, and have claimed it doesn't matter, and launched a personal attack on me. I don't think there's any point whatsoever continuing trying to discuss this with you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that these arguments hold true, but if you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore me, be my guest. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can define what encyclopedic means. It means supported by secondary sources. For example, if I were to write an article on The Prisoner episode Hammer Into Anvil, I would do a Google Books and Google Scholar search, and use those sources to provide the reader of the article with more than just a description of the events in the episode. Why was The Prisoner so pioneering? What does it mean? Resurr Section (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. but if the only thing RSes have is plot stuff, does that mean that the article shouldn't exist even if it otherwise meets WP:N? I think it would be acceptable, though never a good article. I strongly suspect such a case is rare. Hobit (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday opinion that the "wording is awful" and also with Hobit's last comment that a plot-only article with RSes would be acceptable. And also that it could not reach a good status. However such cases are not really rare as I can create plot summaries sourced from established encyclopedia, which are admittedly tertiary sources.

For example, I created Armance (novel) from a tertiary RS with a 76 page section of "famous works", all of them almost pure plot-summaries (plus the title, genre, author and date). Most of these works already have articles in wikipedia. Amphitryon (Molière) is one that the RS exceptionally omits plot and instead compares and contrasts it to Amphitryon (play). If I made the Moliere play plot-summary what should happen to it? Merge to Amphitryon I suppose, but not delete.

Finally I looked again at the RFC question and I still think PLOT should both not be in NOT and also be rewritten in its new place to be a lot clearer. That does not mean I think there should be no standards for plot summaries, in fact I would likely favour an adherence to WP:V too strict for most. 84user (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a falacy that any source provides evidence of notability if it is all plot summary. By definition, a source which only summarises the primary work is not independent of it. Plot only articles fail WP:V for this reason.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting definition of "independent" you have there. Evidently, like most of your definitions, it means whatever's convenient to you at the time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

positive wording

One of the things I've most disliked about this entire page is that it is worded negatively. I can see how it developed, but to actually say things in such a manner is characteristic of legalism and bureaucracy. It's like copyright law: the creator has all rights to copy and distribute--except -- and the exceptions and the exceptions to the exceptions is where all the complexity comes itn, until you need an expert to untangle it and find the actual meaning. Wikipedia should not be a place where you need to be an expert to know what you can do. The Wikipedia coverage of fictional works should be an appropriately balanced combination of description of the internal elements (such as plot, characters, and setting) and the external ones (such as creation and distribution and reception) and then we go on to discuss the extent of coverage and how to divide it into articles. I'm not sure it would fit in rhetorically here in the list of negatives, but we should still word it in a positive direction. Ideally, we can make the others into positive statements also, and call the page: WP:What wikipedia is. Too much to work out in one afternoon, so let's start right here with this. DGG (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Like the idea. Would want a better word than "appropriate" as it provides no guidance about ratio. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

there is no one rule about ratio. Finding one is impossible, as the preceding year's worth of discussion makes evident. It will depend on both the specific subject being discussed, and the available material. Some topics have more worth saying about one thing than another. DGG (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but as articles show up at AfD for being in violation of NOTPLOT, I'd like to see some more guidance about what we expect. Hobit (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I like Wagner's wording in Die Meistersinger: "Not too short, and not too long" . If I was not clear, this wording is intended to replace NOT PLOT. DGG (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is great, but it ought to be in WP:WAF as per discussion above. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved PLOT to WP:WAF

In order to try and move things forwards, I've went ahead and merged it in at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries. I propose that a week is spent letting things stabilise a bit, and then we open an RFC there to check the wording we've come up with. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think there was a clear consensus to downgrade NOT#PLOT to a guideline, you'll have to point me at it. I don't see it. In the meantime, I've reverted the removal from NOT.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The well-participated-in Straw poll came down against it appearing here. I've reverted you back. If policy is going to be meaningful,. it must actually fit the description of policy given att the top of each page: "a widely accepted standard" - having it clearly shown that a majority is against its inclusion here makes a mockery of that statement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy has inertia, and is only changed with a clear consensus to change. That consensus has not been demonstrated.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Policy must reflect the general consensus - that's kind of the whole point. If there's not consensus for a policy, it should be removed. It shouldn't hang around based on inertia - that is a terrible idea. Now, I think you could possible argue that a local consensus here and one RFC do not accurately represent the general consensus and therefore, we shouldn't change anything. But to say that it's okay for policy not to reflect consensus is just wrong. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy when it was first proposed.[71] Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. The RFC above shows that WP:NOT#PLOT does not have wide acceptance among editors. Do you disagree with any of those claims? WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy. And if you want to talk about "inertia", currently it's below 49% for people who think this policy should have a section about plot summaries. --Pixelface (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We do not work on majorities. Yes, there is strong consensus for some type of change, but moving it to WAF is not the only option and we are presently discussing what changes can be made to meet the consensus the straw poll generated. We should not move it until that has been determined. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus, and a mere straw poll does not rewrite policy. DreamGuy (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You need consensus to make changes to policy. There is no consensus to remove PLOT from NOT. Thus it will not be removed. Period. You can't just take some action that you know you don't have support to do and insist you get to do it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some sort of notice on the page stating the current dispute over this policy? There's clearly no consensus yet as to either way, so we shouldn't confuse editors by omitting WP:NOT#PLOT and therefore making it seem as though there is consensus against the policy. Something like {{pp-dispute}} would do good. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that. Sorry about the delay. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. No consensus always reverts to the status quo, much to the chagrin of BLP defenders. And SH should not have removed it as he has a COI by virtue of voting in the straw poll. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To quote WP:POLICY "Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus..." By their very nature, you cannot have a policy that does not have consensus. There is no "inertia" or "default to keep" for policy. Policy MUST reflect the consensus of the community. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

<EC with Mr. Rice> Two things. #1 Could you point to policy/guideline or whatever that shows that no consensus always reverts to the status quo? I've looked around and not seen it. My sense is that policy should reflect consensus, and I'm not seeing any here. #2 Are you seriously claiming that someone who is involved on the talk page of a policy issue shouldn't update that policy? I've also never seen that. It is exactly those people who generally do update policy, guidelines and essays. I've done so a few times in the last week. In some cases I've gotten reverted (once by Gavin and once by Ikip I think) but not because I was an involved party. Hobit (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:POLICY:

However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgement that editors disagree on the point.

Mind you, this is in addition to "policies should reflect consensus", we've got two issues here. While we discuss if it should be moved, it is completely appropriate to mark it disputed/under discussion per the above. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So if "there is no consensus for a given text, old or new", one option is silence on the issue. Isn't that exactly where we are? Marking it disputed is one option, but removing it is another according to WP:POLICY (as I read it). Hobit (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You know to well it is not that straight forward: quite a lot of polices and guidelines already prohibit plot only articles by definition, and some (like WP:BK and WP:WAF) go out of the their way to explain why plot only articles are not encyclopedic. Its not like you are trying to remove one minor policy, that does not function at any level, rather you are proposing to delete a policy which is widely supported elsewhere. I have explained before, as the level of real-world coverage becomess less and less, a plot only article will come into increasing conflict with other policies and guidelines. WP:NOT#PLOT is the Wikipedia equivalent of Becher's Brook; it is only one hurdle which a topic will fall at if it is not encyclopedic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

While interesting, your response doesn't answer my question. Aren't we at the point there is no consensus for a given text, old or new? Hobit (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We certainly aren't at the point where PLOT ceases to have force as a content rule (policy or guideline). WAF, BK, VGSCOPE, RS all have some guidance about plot only articles or relative size of plot summaries. We need to determine what form plot will eventually take, rather than edit warring over its inclusion or exclusion from NOT. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the relevance of other policy and guideline pages. But do you agree there is no consensus to keep it here? I felt the RfC was pretty clear about that. Hobit (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to agree that at guideline level, WP:NOT#PLOT is well supported and on the other hand, ignore similar prohibitions in WP:BK and WP:INUNIVERSE. Since WP:NOT is all about setting the boundry of what Wikipedia is not, here seems the best place for it to be. I can understand why you might dislike WP:NOT#PLOT, but like death and taxes, we have to recognise it too is necessary to set boundries in order to enable everyone to edit Wikipedia without having to answer to an editorial board or a proprietor. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Round and round we go. Could you please answer (or just say you won't answer) the question I've asked? Do you agree the RfC resulted in no consensus either way on keeping WP:NOTPLOT here? Hobit (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, because it is not a feasible option for the reasons I have explained. You could run an RFC along the lines "Are plot only articles encyclopedic?" and get the same outcome, but we both know they are not.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. I'm asking what the result of the RfC is. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• WP:POLICY says "The process for changing the status of a guideline or policy should normally be similar to the process for promoting a page: Start a discussion on the talk page outlining the reasons for the proposed change in status ... and solicit community input. After allowing a reasonable amount of time for comments, an independent editor should close the discussion and evaluate the consensus." The onus is therefore on those wishing to change a policy wording to gain consensus. Not to mention that the discussion wasn't closed by an independent editor. Black Kite 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• That's not what it says. It says that consensus needs to be evaluated, not that the change itself requires consensus. As it states elsewhere in the policy, and quoted in the above discussion, if there is not consensus for a policy or a specific portion of a policy, that portion should be either removed or tagged as in dispute. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• And it is and has been tagged since near the start of the RFC. And should remain tagged until we're sure about what to do with it. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is it? I can't find any such tag. I must be missing something. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think they are referring to the dubious-discuss tag, which Hobit left when he unilaterally remade the policy and is now more appropriate than ever. Resurr Section (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case opened

I have opened an Arbcom case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#WP:NOT#PLOT. All are welcome to participate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a request; open is another matter. Seems to be short on parties. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've commented, and knowing ArbCom, this is way too premature of a step to be taken. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Either this is very good timing or well organised concert party [72][73][74]. I would like to think this is all in good faith, but action represents an unnecessary escalation. Shoemaker has already started an RFC, an Arbcom case. What next for heaven's sake? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice that one of the diffs above is my protection of the article. That's rather unfortunate, since it seems to imply that I am part of this "well organised concert party" - I'm not sure what that means, but it doesn't really sound good. I would hope that discussion here can establish whether or not there is a consensus to change policy, without animosity, personal attacks, grudging admittance of good faith, or anything in between. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You might start by restoring the longstanding consensus version of the article. By letting someone who clearly does not have consensus make a change and protect that version -- whether intentional or not -- you are taking a side. The status quo must be preserved until an actual consensus is established, otherwise someone has successfully gamed the system. DreamGuy (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You protected it in a state where it contradicts long-standing policy. Normally I'm not big on "wrong version" arguments, but in this case I am. It's been brought up at ANI. Please note that I don't accuse you of wrongdoing, just that I think that preserving stable policy is one of the rare cases where the correct action would have been to revert SH's change while the article was protected, and am trying to get consensus to do so at ANI.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion at WP:AN. Needless to say, I didn't think the situation required urgent administrator intervention. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already commented on SheffieldSteel's talk page. I suggest that next time a administrator blocks this policy from being edited, he do his detective work before hand, not after, rather than use WP:WRONG as an excuse to make a sudden intervention, which in this instance seems to bizzarely reward the edit warrior. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Following protection policy shouldn't be cause for trouting and insinuations that I'm colluding or acting in bad faith to protect a version of the article that I disagree with. Apologies if this makes no sense; I'm sure Gavin sees his actions as perfectly rational but I cannot personally see how. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You might be right, but I think a word on two (like a warning) on this talk page would have worked wonders - at least then we would know where you coming from. It seems to me that WP:WRONG seems to be the only policy which administrators refer to nowerdays, and then only in retrospect.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are unfairly jumping on Sheff. There is no reason to insinuate that he acted to aggravate an edit war. His actions were within a reasonable interpretation of policy (arguably crystal clear if you read only PROTECT). And he reversed his actions when questions were raised about them. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an innocent mistake. Sometimes the long-standing version is obscured when you look at the most recent edits. It helps to check back at what was the policy a month or so ago, but even then, you might stumble across a fleeting version. Randomran (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:POLICY (shown above) it really doesn't matter if the text has been around for a while.... Hobit (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We're really talking about WP:PREFER, here. Randomran (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? Which part? I'm seeing nothing that applies to this discussion there. Hobit (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the decision to protect the article as-is was taken deliberately. The reason I did not revert to a pre-edit-war version was because I did not want my personal views to be reflected in my admin actions. I believe policy shouldn't be changed without a consensus to do so, and I believe WP:PLOT should be part of WP:NOT. My reading of protection policy (specifically the section linked to by WP:PREFER) gives me the option to revert; I decided not to revert in an attempt to avoid giving the appearance of acting improperly. That didn't work out so well, and here we are  :-/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. It's tough to handle these kinds of contentious issues. Randomran (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

← (ec) I'll agree with Protonk here (once again) and suggest that we are always supposed to AGF. While I'm sure it's not intensional, I think that maybe we're looking for a scapegoat to blame, and Sheff got caught in the crossfire. Perhaps a lot of it stems from the difficulties in achieving a community consensus for items like NOTPLOT. From my vantage point, it looks like a lot of great writers are starting to show some signs of fatigue and frustration. We're trying to take something that is not real and document it in a very real world fashion. I don't know what the "big picture" answer is to dealing with fictional elements is; but, I think it's important that we stay focused on the task at hand. We need to find wording that everyone will accept, and we need not look for any individuals to blame when we fail. We should try to learn from what has not worked in the past, and look for better (and as DGG has mentioned), more positive ways to adjust the items that need adjusted. I don't know that ArbCom is going to be willing to "decide our issues" for us, so perhaps it's better to simply search for our own compromises that we all can live with. The page is WP:NOT. The general topic folks is "Fiction" >> and we've now segregated the individual element of "Plot" into its own discussion. Could we please close out the WP:PREFER, WP:WRONG, and other items better dealt with at WP:PROTECT? Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  19:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I take pleasure in finally being able to agree with Gavin's initial statement--though, alas, not his subsequent ones. . Arbcom has twice opened cases on this, and, each time, refused to decide the content issue, instead deciding the question before it on the narrowest possible behavioral grounds. The only actual content issue i can recall their ever dealing with is fringe science, and they decided it in such a way that there have been multiple cases about it there and elsewhere ever since. If they were to actually decide content guidelines, it would indeed mark a revolution, and I am not sure a desirable one. My own view is that they're a den of wild beasts, unsafe to anyone in the vicinity. Best avoided, because the results will be perhaps unexpected but certainly disagreeable.. I do not think anyone on any side of any issue has ever has ever gone away from a decision (or non-decision) there satisfied. I don't disagree with subsequent comments about an apparent conspiracy. If the fiction-positive people were to be able to mount a conspiracy, it would be the first sign of unity they've ever shown. I see no reason why an admin in his right mind would permit editing this part of the policy in any direction until there is some evidence of consensus. DGG (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on, get serious

You now, despite never having any consensus to make any changes, the PLOT section when it was restored reads: "The coverage of a fictional work should not be entirely plot summary." ENTIRELY? So if it's 99.99% plot summary it's fine? That's NEVER been what the plot section was for. In fact, by saying entirely it's basically encouraging huge plot summaries, which is the exact opposite of what this section of NOT has always been about.

You might try reading this "plot" template, which gives a better idea of how plot has historically been covered here:

I don't think ANYONE who has made any comments here was seriously arguing for an article to be entirely a plot summary, and if anyone has they've clearly mistaken Wikipedia for a blog or personal page or something. This is absurd.

What we need to do is go back to the version of this section before the months of edit warring happened and wait until there is a clear, demonstrated consensus to change it. The plot section encouraged "concise" plot summaries when appropriate, not plot summaries that can be so long that they are in danger of being the entire article if an external link or something gets deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, what we need to find is a middle ground. Per WP:POLICY we shouldn't be stating things in policy that don't have consensus. The RfC shows that there isn't consensus for WP:NOT to host a comment on plot. That said, there is a strong, admin-heavy, group that thinks it should be here and are unlikely to be flexible on the topic even in the face of the clear fact that NOT#PLOT lacks consensus. If changing "merely" to "entirely" is too much of a step, then I'm not sure how we are going to see any compromise. I see it as a small first step away from a policy that lacks consensus to be here. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I agree with the tag. Good editing style does dictate that per WP:WAF. But it's not a reason to delete or a reason to not include (which is largely what WP:NOT is about), it's a reason to improve (which is what WP:WAF is about). Hobit (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't really agree with your assessment of the RFC. An RFC is supposed to be a discussion-a search for consensus- not a vote. All the RFC showed was what the initial impression of a bunch of people was when they were forced to characterize their position as falling in one of two categories. It did not show that no consensus wording can be reached for inclusion within this policy. We need a new RFC without a premature strawpoll and without a few highly vocal individuals polarizing the debate at every turn.Locke9k (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The question asked was whether plot summaries should, in principle, be discussed in WP:NOT. If over 50% of people are opposed, irregardless of the wording, I don't see how any specific wording is going to get consensus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm more than willing to try to find some middle ground as frankly that's the only way we are going to get anywhere. But complaining about a poll as a way of judging consensus is silly. There is no other viable way to get input from a large number of people. We use polls for AfDs, the Admin bit and all sorts of things that require community-wide input. Now we need to figure out what to do about it. Hobit (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Close RfC?

Does anyone object to asking at the admin noticeboard for a neutral admin to close the RfC? We could run the full 30 days, but I think the lack of consensus is clear and is unlikely to change given the rate of change there. (I asked earlier today as part of another thread but was thinking 14 days was the normal RfC length, my mistake.) I'm happy either way. but I think moving forward is probably best at this point. Hobit (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a healthy idea. But truthfully, they're going to get shit from either side if they call it anything but "no consensus as to what to do with WP:NOT#PLOT". Randomran (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But we probably should formally do it. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Any one object? If no one does, could someone ask for a close in say 24 hours or so? I'll likely be off-line as of 4 hours from now for a while so I probably won't be able to go to WP:AN with this request. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: As I suggested in my comment on the request for ArcComm, I believe that the immediate strawpoll in this RFC 'poisoned the well' against an honest search for consensus. I believe that we should ask for a close of this RFC, archive it to avoid confusion, and create a new RFC explicitly for the purpose of finding a consensus position rather than to simply serve as a voting battleground between two frozen poles. Locke9k (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call the poll "poisoned", but just that it asked a misguided question. The feedback has been valuable and suggests a good reason to keep PLOT as policy, but not as part of NOT if anything simply to remove the bite it seems to get from being part of this policy. A second poll can be done to assertain options as to what to do with it, but clearly removing it completely from WP policy and guideline is not one of those. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • And as I argued in the same place, it was exactly the right question to ask. What we (or at least *I*) want to know is if there is consensus for PLOT to be here. One could have asked all kinds of other questions (should we have plot-only articles, etc.) but the fundamental question is if it belongs here (or better, if it should be a reason for deletion if WP:N and other guidelines and policies are met). It may not be the question you'd have asked, but as Masem indicates, it does give us feedback on the fundamental issue. And as I read it it was "pro deletionism" if anything as it asked if it should be here at all, not if it should just be changed (those who believed that would assumedly answer "yes") Hobit (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I requested the close at WP:AN. Hobit (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If the RfC is closed as No Consensus

I think it would be good to use the time to prepare for the inevitable "no consensus", and talk about possible middle grounds. As I see it, the vast majority of editors agree that articles that are purely plot are a bad thing: we have reasonable consensus on the point. Those that object to it being in WP:NOT seem to object not really on the basis of wanting plot-only articles, but on the argument that people are using it to delete articles that could be sourced, just aren't yet. I've got problems with the "write it first and source it later" approach, but there's enough of it going on that I can't single this application of it out. However, it is nearly impossible for a plot-only article to comply with WP:V's very succinct statement: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. No one is going to gain anything at AFDs by deleting this policy section, because quoting WP:V has just as much weight as quoting WP:NOT. I think the issue really comes down to the perennial proposal of WP:NOT#TVGUIDE. The people that favor removing WP:NOT#PLOT are doing so because they are attempting to construct a television program guide. I really don't know how to address the issue of plot summaries until that fundamental difference in goals is addressed.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed that we should prepare for the NC. I've tried to outline some options above. 1) Keep NOT#PLOT as written, 2) Modify it, 3) move it to WAF (what isn't already there) or elsewhere or 4) remove it straight up. I think I'm leaning hard toward 3, am fine with 4 (though don't think that has a chance) and would be open to 2. But I'd like to see proposals from the other side of this debate (something that has been greatly lacking so far--AFAIK all proposals have come from those who want to remove NOT#PLOT). Hobit (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that I can't think of where to move it (except that downgrading it to a MOS entry doesn't seem at all reasonable), and I can't think of how to fix what is really a non-existent issue: pure plot articles fail WP:V anyway, and WP:IMPERFECT applies to fiction articles as much as it does to anything else. Is deleting candidates with promise enough of an issue to restate WP:IMPERFECT as a part of WP:NOT#PLOT?—Kww(talk) 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Above discussion moved by agreement

• Firstly, I think that meeting WP:V can be done with primary sources. Not WP:N of course. But one can use primary sources per WP:V and rules related to sourcing. Secondly, a pure-plot article can be sourced with review and summary information. I suppose Cliffnotes would work (for example) as I think that would be a reliable and independent source.

  More on point, if you can't come up with a middle ground that's acceptable to you, I'd think that would make it for a compromise to be reached. I'd consider a move to WAF and a potential rewording that makes it clear that too much plot is a reason to improve, not delete. I'd prefer we just remove this as, as you note, other policies and guidelines exist which prevent unsourced articles. I don't think fiction should be held to a higher standard than WP:N. But I've realized that isn't likely to actually happen. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:V: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly that's ideal (should). But we allow primary sources "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." I'm not seeing a problem. We allow WP:ATHLETE articles that are solely sourced by the club they play for. Notice I'm not claiming that we should have pure-plot articles that are only sourced to primary sources. I'm saying that we could write an article that is purely plot using both primary and " reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As long as the reliable sources meet the requirements of WP:N. That said, any such article should be improved as it would be a horrible treatment of nearly any subject to have a plot-only coverage. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How could you have anything but a pure plot article that was based on nothing but the primary source? (This is in relation to "Firstly, I think that meeting WP:V can be done with primary sources.")-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you could. I'm just saying such an article could meet WP:V (but not WP:N). Not a relevant distinction, but the plot article would be verifiable, just not notable (assuming no sources existed). Hobit (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

An option for moving includes moving it to its own policy if there's enough support to keep the concept as policy. This would be akin to the WP:BLP policy though not as length or restrictive. If this is done, it needs to be expanded to include non-fiction works as well (it should anyway just to remove the bais; we need to treat any published work in the same manner regardless of its core content) --MASEM (t) 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's where we are headed. I think it's a horrible outcome and I very much doubt we'll be able to find language that gains consensus. But perhaps I'm being pessimistic. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should avoid trying to make new policy, but 1) if the concept (not language) has consensus to be PLOT and 2) we cannot find a way to word PLOT to fit into NOT without avoiding the issues that many bring up (the impliciations against any type of plot in the first place), then a new policy makes the most sense. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the pain that has been WP:FICT forever, do you really think this has even a 5% chance of working? I was going to propose it, but I don't see how it could possibly be workable as everyone and their brother will try to slide in something that meets their views. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't take it out of WP:NOT until the contents of the new home had been agreed upon.—Kww(talk) 01:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

:Smile: Hobit (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're talking a very simple tenet that is reflected through most of the !votes on the RFC:

• Plot summaries are appropriate.
• Coverage of fiction works (and I propose expanding to all published works) should not be solely (this word may need to be adjusted) plot summaries.
• Plot-only articles should not be deleted on sight, but instead considered per their current state of development.

Not this exact wording but a short sweet statement like that. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

":I'd be fine with that, though I'd want some work on the third point. Hobit (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem seems to have something very close to a condensed version of the opinions in the RfC.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kww — ignoring for one moment the fact that WP:NOT#PLOT and that sentence in WP:V came about because of the same editor, Hiding — it's entirely possible for a plot-only article to be written entirely from "reliable, third-party sources." Take any film with a wide release for example. Quote that sentence in V all you want. It's also bogus. And it came about all because Hiding wanted to win an editwar over the UGOPlayer article, which he had nominated for deletion, and it was deleted anyway. The "perennial" proposal of WP:NOT#TVGUIDE has consistently failed, like your RFAs. And your statement "The people that favor removing WP:NOT#PLOT are doing so because they are attempting to construct a television program guide" is the stupidest thing I have EVER read on Wikipedia. Ever. And why don't you say "Jimbo Wales was attempting to construct a television program guide"? Oh that's right, because you continue to be willfully ignorant of WP:NOT#PAPER and the over seven years of precent behind articles for TV episodes on Wikipedia. Wikipedia only has about 8,000 articles about TV episodes anyway, last time I checked. And I'd be happy to look and tell you what percentage of people who think WP:NOT#PLOT does not belong in this policy have ever created any of them. Meanwhile, over one-third of Wikipedia's articles fall under Category:Fiction. The RFC above is conclusive proof right now that WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy, for any people with their heads in the sand. You do not leave things without consensus to be policy on policy pages. You remove them. Shoemaker's Holiday already removed WP:NOT#PLOT, but Masem re-added it, again, with no leg to stand on. Maybe it's time for a user RFC on Masem, with de-sysopping on the table. --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop attacking editors and address the discussion. And again, I justified what I did because SH has removed PLOT while the RFC was going (less than 2 weeks into it), and given the various AN threads today over the removal earlier today, that was the right course of action. Remember, the question asked was "Should PLOT be in NOT" , not whether "Should PLOT be policy." --MASEM (t) 02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I only see one or two instances in which Masem actually reverted significant changes to the page. I highly doubt any questions of his adminship should be raised over what are essentially, at worst, misconceptions of consensus. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Don't take the bait. Just let it go, guys. Randomran (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT, #24. And admins are supposed to be able to evaluate consensus; they're entrusted by the community to do so. --Pixelface (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I attacked no one in my comment above, and I addressed what Kww said. Why don't you address Kww's statement of "The people that favor removing WP:NOT#PLOT are doing so because they are attempting to construct a television program guide"? It's a horrible example of bad faith, wildly offensive, and just plain wrong. And in light of Kww's previous statement about fictional spinouts and "vandals", his statement at the top of this thread could be interpreted as accusing every editor in the Oppose section of being a vandal.

You can drag your feet all you want Masem. I'm used to it. If you think consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy is going to magically appear, fine. The question was, and I quote, "In principle, do you think that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries?" That you think a "new policy makes the most sense" after reading the RFC above shows how out of touch you are. --Pixelface (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Or how about just leaving WP:NOT#PLOT there but flag with with the (clearly true) statement: "This part of the policy currently lacks consensus" or some equivalent statement. I think I'd be fine with that. Hobit (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We could definitely say that some part of it lacks consensus, but it's not really clear which. A lot of people generally agree that plot only articles aren't really acceptable, but many objectors feel it's a point of principle that we shouldn't be so harsh, and other objectors feel that as a matter of practice we need to give these articles a chance to improve. I think we can add a caveat that will make this palatable to a lot of people. But the moving to anoter policy would also be some middle ground. Randomran (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We do not leave things on policy pages with little asterisks that say "Note: This section does not actually reflect consensus." Moving it to another policy is not middle ground. It's passing the buck somewhere else. Want it on another policy page? Propose it there, not here. If WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't belong here, why do you think people would accept it on a different policy? --Pixelface (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It should have some kind of disputed tag or something, because clearly the above poll suggests that as is, it lacks community support. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is marked with a "dubious" tag, so that is there, and should stay there until we figure it out. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if anyone gets into really deep discussions relating to plot information then they'll see it easily enough. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm just suggesting a stronger statement as a long-term solution by way of compromise (rather than removing it entirely). Hobit (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We might find that the supporters and opposers to NOT#PLOT agree that articles without real world coverage should not necessarily be removed. That is, most people would agree that if there's a good chance that it can be found and the article is only in an WP:IMPERFECT state, then we should keep it. Another way to soften NOT#PLOT would change the bolded part. We're not against "plot summaries" but we're against "A plot summary with nothing else". Randomran (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is anything dubious about WP:NOT#PLOT, then this can addressed in new wording. I understand why so many editors dislike this aspect of policy, and perhaps expanding the wording will make it clear why it is needed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the straw poll placed at the top of this RFC from the beginning 'pushed' most editors into giving little explained votes in one side or the other of the straw poll, its unfortunately totally unclear what there is or is not consensus for. Once this RFC is closed, we should archive it and create a new one, without a straw poll, simply seeking community comment on what we should do with NOTPLOT. The discussion should serve as a search for consensus rather than as any kind of vote. It could include discussion of multiple possibilities including rewording it within this policy, a move to another policy, a creation of a new policy, a move to a guideline, or something else. Let me note that these different ideas should not be split into different subsections as this encourages polarization and voting rather than consensus-seeking. Locke9k (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's crystal clear. The question asked was "In principle, do you think that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries?" Currently, 57 people have answered under "Yes, it should"[75] and 57 people have answered under "No, it should not"[76] and 9 people have answered under "Neutral."[77] There is no consensus that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries. WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy. So it must be removed from this policy, for the last time. There is no need for another RFC. It's time for certain editors to stop pulling the nails out of the coffin. If some editors think there is common ground to be found regarding plot summaries, they can do it somewhere else. Perhaps WT:PLOTSUM or WT:PLOTS (and then they can discuss whether WP:PLOTSUM actually merits a guideline tag). --Pixelface (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me unambiguous that NOT#PLOT does not enjoy consensus in this page, and equally unambiguous that NOT#PLOT as a general rule still enjoys consensus. The concern seems to be over whether or not it is best located in a policy page or elsewhere. That said, while we have no viable "elsewhere" beyond a MoS guideline (which is, I think, far too weak given that editing expressly to enforce MoS guidelines is actively discouraged) I do not think we can viably remove NOT#PLOT. The next step is to create a viable elsewhere for NOT#PLOT. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with your solution, or at least accept it. Rewording is one way forward, but so is moving it. Randomran (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It has to remain here, simply because plot summary articles are prohibited by one inclusion guideline (WP:BK) and one style guideline (WP:INUNIVERSE which may offer some hints towards a new wording), and is similar to other prohibitions in WP:NOT in that it has multiple antecendents. Once removed, it is sure to be reinstated - I think there are some very good reasons given in the straw pole to believe it essential that it stay, and I think these arguments have to be acknowledged, not least of which is the fact that plot summary on its own provides no verifiable evidence that a topic is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. .--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it has to remain, for a wide variety of reasons, but I do not see how you can say with a straight face that it has to remain here when there is a startling lack of support for its retention. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that NOTPLOT needs to be modified rather than removed altogether. Imagine if the UK held a referendum asking, "should the national speed limit remain at 70mph?" and the result showed a majority voting NO. The stupid approach is to conclude from that result that there should no longer be a national speed limit, i.e. that motorists may drive on the nation's motorways at whetever speed they want. The reasonable approach is to take the next logical step, and ask what the new limit should be. We should develop a new proposal that does have consensus support, and if that isn't possible, the policy should document the fact that there's no consensus on this issue. It must not pretend that there is no issue, or that there is a new consensus for unlimited plot content in articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually look at what the poll asked, it asked if WP:PLOT should, in principle, include plot summaries. It didn't ask about a specific wording. It's more like if a referendum asked if any sorts of hats should be banned, the referendum came back no, and so they decided to just ban tophats. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The poll asked if WP:NOT should include plot summaries. That's an all-or-nothing question, and what it actually asks is whether there should be any restriction on the amount of plot summary in an article. However, many of the responding editors clearly thought that they had to oppose, otherwise plot summaries would be banned altogether. In other words, they misunderstood the question. The only safe conclusion that may be drawn from the poll is that it was inconclusive; as such, it is a very poor basis for altering a policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I could just as well say that many of the supporters clearly thought that if it was removed here, then no discussion and guidance on plot summaries would appear anywhere. This "presume that people voted wrongly" thing gets us nowhere. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Hobit (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously folks, could we just leave NOT#PLOT here and add something to it that indicates the policy lacks consensus? It has the advantage of being simple and true. I'm open on the wording... Hobit (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One idea to obtain a fair wording would be to look at the "less harsh" half of the oppose !votes. That is, the !votes that say "I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of limiting plot summaries, but not here, or not with such an overzealous wording." If we add that half of the opposition to the support, we surely have a consensus. We would qualify the application of WP:PLOT by taking their words as inspiration. Randomran (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Which still means removing it from here, and working on adding some discussion to (probably) WP:WAF. That's pretty much what I've been advocating for all along. However, if you think that saying that people who think it shouldn't be here should be treated as saying it should be here, then hell no. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to some extent, it could be here if the language were changed. At least, that might enjoy more support than either keeping it the same or removing it entirely. But that said, even if there was a consensus that it should be somewhere else, this isn't the same as a consensus that we should remove it. Randomran (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Book Reports

It's long been in guidance that WIkipedia articles should not read like book reports, so maybe we just rewrite to that effect? Articles about fictional topics should not read like book reports; instead, they should explain the topic's significance to the work. After reading the article, the reader should be able to understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work. That's been guidance since somewhere like 2003, so I guess you could say we're all supposed to have been editing under that guidance anyway. Hiding T 11:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why a character, place or event was included in a fictional work? Because the author made it up. Just like always. --Pixelface (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think this is a decent improvement. A book report is simply highlights the plot with nothing else. But a good encyclopedic article on a fictional topic would make a plot summary totally acceptable, in combination with other coverage. I know this isn't ideal for some fans of WP:NOT#PLOT, but it would certainly soften the language and make it more palatable for some of the opposition. Randomran (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense if books were the only medium by which fiction is distributed, but its not. I think some editors would say "films are exempt from WP:NOT#PLOT because they are not books", so its a sort of lame proposal. The current wording is pretty clear that balanced coverage of all fictional topics the way to go. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A character isn't always included in a fictional work because the author made it up, I can cite many where editorial whim decided such issues, so let's put that one to bed. Unless we have a source, we just don't know. And it's important to cojntextualise what is being asked: as the statement makes clear, what is being asked is that the topic's significance to the work be made clear. If you pick apart the statement, the sentence After reading the article, the reader should be able to understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work. is explaining the preceding one. However, given that that we may have issues with reading comprehension here, perhaps it is better to simply drop the second sentence. As to this not covering films et al, it doesn't take that great a stretch of the imagination to chance upon something like Articles about fictional topics should not read like reports or reviews; instead, they should explain the topic's significance to the work by summarising views held by reliable sources. The point isn't that this is about books, but that articles don't read like "book reports" or "film reports" or "game reports" or "television reports". We could then drop it into Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook instead of indiscriminate, and shift the focus from plot summaries to articles prviding encyclopedic reference, which is the domain of WP:NOT. Hiding T 09:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I still think this is a fundamentally sound approach, even if it will take us some time to massage the wording. "Not a book report" would be fine, if in the text we said "this applies to films, games, television, and other narratives too." But if there's a better way to phrase it, I'm open to it. I think that just as a matter of compromise, we're already better than "not a plot summary", because that's a misleading statement. Randomran (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is still valid. Since Hiding points out that a "book report" is just one form of plot summary, then plot summary is the correct term to use, otherwise it is possible to infere that some sort of exemption is available to topics that are not book related. There is also a problem with the term itself; wheras "book reports" is not a term defined anywhere then its meaning may be clear to Hiding but unclear to everyone else. Compare and contrast with the term plot summary, which is defined and described in detail elsewhere, and used in other guidelines. The way around this issue is not to use generalised terms like "book reports", but to provide a more specific definition of "enirely plot summary", such as coverage that is wholly comprised of a summary the primary source, or describes the primary source purely from an in universe perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's where I again think we need to make sure that the concept ("not a book report") extends to non-fiction works in addition to fiction, and thus makes "plot summary" the wrong wording. "Book report" deemphasizes the bias that "plot summaries" have on fiction when the advice needs to apply to any published work in any medium (we don't have scene-by-scene details of a religious text, a reality television show, or a documentary). --MASEM (t) 15:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What is needed is a clear definition of a plot summary only article. The only way you can ensure that the term "book report" is clearly defined is saying it is an coverage that is entirely comprised of plot summary. So why use a term that is once removed from type of coverage that it is prohibiting? I don't agree with your approach Masem. This sounds like another scheme to water down a simple prohibition in all but name, this time by obstification. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We do not need to talk about "plot only articles" here. That job is done by WP:V and WP:N. What we need is to talk about the overall coverage of a published work - whether it may be a single article or spanning across several. We cannot let this turn into a statement of WP:N in policy. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I continue not to understand why we are trying to cram a policy on fiction into a bullet point in NOT instead of just writing a policy page on fiction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a new policy too - we're trying to fit a small, but sufficiently sizable guidance into something meant for one or two sentence. Now, that's not to say that we can potentially have one statement that links to the policy page where it is expanded further, but I really think the best starting point is a separate policy page and work backwards if possible. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need new editors, frankly. But half-jokes aside, we have a similar problem in that WP:UNDUE is buried in WP:NPOV and is generally good policy, but isn't strictly a neutrality problem. We could stand to break WP:UNDUE out into a new policy, making sure that all coverage (in general) is given appropriate context. The three broad rules are (1) making sure that we don't give something undue weight by taking it out of context, (2) making sure that we don't give something undue weight by covering it when such context is unavailable, (3) making sure we don't give something undue weight by covering it in a way that is out of proportion with reliable, independent secondary sources. This would incidentally relate to fiction, but more than that. Randomran (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly support a new policy on fiction, and maybe the way forwards then is to put the nutshell of that new policy into this page? Hiding T 10:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I see Hiding, Masem, Phil Sandifer and Randomran all trying to change policy in subtley different ways, but he the objective is the same - get rid of WP:NOT#PLOT in one of several ways:

1. Remove it from WP:NOT altogether on the grounds that you like plot only articles;
2. Transfer it to some obscure essay on the grounds that it be better dealt with elsewhere;
3. Water it down by making the wording unclear through a process of obstification
4. Undermine it by changing other polices and guidelines to give the appearance that fictional topics are exempt from them.

To be honest, I think all four of you should be ashamed with your approach. Its clear that all three of you are desperate to make plot only articles legitimate by hook or by crook, and no sensible argument, policy or guideline will be allowed to get in your way. When you say that "I think we need new editors", in all honesty I think you should excuse yourselves from this debate and make a public apology for trying to undermine the existing framework of policies and guidelines.
I don't know why you are doing this, but maybe you have spent too much time immersing yourselves in plot only articles to understand they are not encyclopedic; and even though you plot summary is not a bad thing in itself, but by itself it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, have some shame yourself, Mr. "Encyclopedia Britannica is not encyclopedic because it contains articles of a type I'm campaining against". And please stop misrepresenting the people who disagree with you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, this is called "building consensus" and is the way we do things on Wikipedia. Sometimes you have to step back from personal ideals to be able to move forward to get everyone on board. And if you read what we are saying, none of what you stated is part of the pool of suggestions that we have. --MASEM (t) 12:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of this proposal, it seems like a way of re-adding WP:PLOT under a slightly different form, except that it's now far more confusing. If it's decided that WP:PLOT should be moved out of here - and I cannot see any other option at this time - then I don't think we should immediately add the same problematic statements in under a different title. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot see any other option then there's clearly an impasse, because a number of other editors are exploring other options. Hiding T 10:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss inclusion of advice about plot summaries in any other policy or guideline, but I do not think this is an appropriate location, and have 60 people who agree with me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Shoemaker, plot summary articles exist on Wookieepedia as well, but just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad arguement for permiting them on Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but defining things major encyclopedias do as unencyclopedic is 1984-speak. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are just trying to change the definition of what is encyclopedic in this context to suit yourself - a situation akin to Doublethink. For a better understanding of what is required to write an encyclopedic article about a fictional topic, read WP:WAF - its not my idea alone. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree that Gavin Collins is simply continuing his WP:NOTPLOT crusade by other means.

In the proposed " Articles about fictional topics should not read like book reports ..." ( Hiding, 11:14, 6 May 2009) why the restriction to fictional topics? E.g. would a summary-only article on Aristotle's Metaphysics be any more acceptable? If so, why? --Philcha (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what I've been pushing for lately, not only as it's true (we don't have or want scene-by-scene breakdowns of non-fiction works) but also would make this seem much less like a devious plan against fiction. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] Any discussion of summaries of fiction or non-fiction is going to need to cover a wide variety of types of material. Can WP:NOT cover the level of subtlety and detail required to do that? I honestly do not think so. Can other guidelines and policies? WP:WAF can certainly cover the bulk of it, and if there's widespread agreement that specific points are generally crucial, then they can be reduplicated elsewhere. But these attempts to force subtle issues into the least subtle of all Wikipedia policy seems fundamentally misguided to me, and likely to only result in no progress forwards.

In the spirit of the compromise everyone keeps talking about, can we consider other locations where it would be appropriate to include such discussion? Because at the moment, compromise seems to be defined as "IT MUST STAY IN WP:NOT! SHUT UP YOU DISSENTERS!" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It has to stay on a policy page somewhere. There are far too many editors that feel that guidelines can be ignored, and that's a problem that is prevalent at fiction AFDs. Witness the cavalier attitude towards WP:N, for example.—Kww(talk) 14:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, are there policy pages where it can be handled in an appropriately subtle and detailed manner? Perhaps the very basic, pretty much universal parts at WP:V (I presume that we can agree that some parts of this should be much more strongly enforced than others, for which sensible exceptions may exist), with the firmer guidelines at WP:WAF? However, I do think that it shouldn't be added to policy without another RFC to get agreement on wording. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be amenable to adding it to WP:V, as an extension of the need for articles to rely on third-party sourcing. Something along the lines of

• "Reliance on third-party sourcing means that the bulk of an article cannot be based on primary sources. Plot summaries, in particular, being inherently based on primary sources, can not be the predominant focus of an article.

—Kww(talk) 14:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What I would like to see, however, is a more thorough policy page that details rules for fiction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, with all due respect, you are behaving disgracefully. I should be ashamed of myself? No. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that my proposal to create an overall policy page on fiction amounts to "some obscure essay." I have said nothing like that, and you know it. What's gotten into you? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Shoemaker, if only my arguments were so bald, you could dismiss me out of hand. I agree with you that fiction is going to be covered by a wide variety of sources, including plot summary. However, I disagree with your view that WP:NOT#PLOT is a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut. The reality is that plot only articles stand on the extreme boundry where coverage about a fictional topic fails to meet Wikipedia content policies. It represents where the point where the coverage of fiction can no longer be governed by consensus alone and requires the intervention of "experts" to govern what topics can and can't have their own standalone article (which is more or less what Phil is trying to project himself as in his new "policy" fork). If you can ackowledge this argument, even if you disagree with it, you will understand why why removing the prohibition against plot summary only articles is not feasible, at least not for Wikipedia.
On a personal note, I am not asking you to shut up, and I acknowledge your annoyance at the strictures which content policies place on editors in terms of which topics can or cannot have their own articles. However, these same content polices are here to serve you by giving you the freedom to contribute. Afterall, I think we all want the same thing at the end of the day - balanced coveage - do we not? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

PLOT is not and never should not be about "plot-only articles". It should be about the coverage of the work (and the wording of this has always implied this regardless of the changes). "Coverage" may be a single (thus implying "plot-only articles" but this is only one case), but may also cover several articles that are written in an appropriate summary style of a critically notable piece of literature (such as the Bible). The point of this policy is to imply that for any work, just writing the plot and being with it is not enough. That does not expressive forbid plot-only articles as they may be part of the larger summary style. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree there. If the only reason that the coverage of an item is being expanded is to provide a plot summary, the expansion probably shouldn't occur at all. Can you point at a plot-only article that you believe is still acceptable under WP:NOT#PLOT?

Most episode and character lists, for one, which are part of summary style coverage of a topic. But I can also envision a case of a extremely notable classic work where there are multiple interpretations or significant discussion of the plot alone with legacy and other details in a parent article (there does exist the example of Inferno (Dante) as part of the coverage of Divine Comedy.) --MASEM (t) 15:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• You know, when one editor flatly ignores a straw poll, and four or five editors on both sides of the straw poll admit there's a consensus for some kind of change, usually that signifies a consensus (in principle). I'm not sure why that's something to be ashamed of. Are we ready to move to the next step, which is to open discussion on either a new location, a new wording, or both? Randomran (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know if we're ready to, but I just made a proposal to, so I guess we are moving to the next step, ready or not. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed exception to WP:NOT

I've been running into porblems with the part about wikipedia not being a guidbook our a how-to guide. While this is great, and works for almost every article out there, it presents problems when dealing with articles about animals that can be pets. We have been discussing this over at WP:AQF, where our articles pertain only to aquarium fish. The problem comes when a species has such detailed care instructions that it can't properly be conveyed in any format but a how-to format. The example given is that some fish do great in small aquariums while they are young, but need to be moved to a larger aquarium before they reach maturity. I don't want to leave that out just because it sounds lie a how-to guide, because if I do leave it out, someone is going to buy said fish, toss it in a goldfish bowl, and it will die a painful, stunted death. I'm hoping that articles dealing with animals that can be kept as pets should be given an exception to this policy. I've been using WP:IAR, but other editors are calling it a cop-out. A recognized exception to the policy is needed.D^rew S^mith 07:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to write about how to keep fish, perhaps Wikibooks is a better venue. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the part about wikipedia not being a guidebook or a how-to guide should not be taken too far. In addition to Drew R. Smith's aquarium example, articles on games need to explain enough about the rules to distinguish the games from others in the genre, articles about places often need to give some geographical and historical context, articles about mathematical techniques may need something close to an algorithm, etc. Like many of WP's guidelines, WP:NOT tries to legislate rather than guide, and thus tries to make issues black and white when there are actually shades of grey. Then people get legalistic about their interpretation and application, this leads to conflicts, and a lot of time and energy is wasted that would be better spent on improving articles.

Re Drew R. Smith's example, I see no harm in trying to save readers from elementary errors. If you look at medical articles, Wikiproject Medicine has a wide range of extensions to the standard polices and guidelines, because ambiguities, omissions or inaccuracies in medical articles may endanger readers' health or even lives - and in the litigious climate of some countries, that would probably get WP sued, especially if an ambulance-chasing lawyer wanted publicity. Likewise if WP omits some elementary info and aquarists suffer losses as a result, WP's reputation will suffer and WP may get sued. --Philcha (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Another great point. I was kind of hoping we could get an official amendment to the policy though, in case anyone does take it literaly. Like I said, WP:IAR isn't exactly a great comeback. Everyone seems to follow it, but will not allow anyone else to.Drew Smith What I've done 10:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few of the instructions I've read regarding the care of fish are apocryphal, contradictory, or examples of magical thinking that are published in quicky guides nonetheless. They fail WP:RS, and they certainly should not be given a blanket pass for inclusion. Any instruction that is notably weird, such as a fish that needs to be crowded or whatever, should be included on the grounds that it is notable. Resurr Section (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, all of the care instructions I'm putting in are from very detailed aquarium fish care books, and though I can't source it, I have confirmed myself.Drew Smith What I've done 10:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Resurr Section also makes a good point about some instructions being unreliable - re fish in this case, but I'm sure it applies to many other topics. I think WP:RS generally is too black-and-white (see User:Philcha#About_reliable_sources if you actually want reasons), but I'd be happy to see it tightened in cases where readers may suffer loss though faulty information. --Philcha (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to tighten, no need to loosen. I'm sure User:Drew R. Smith is capable of casting care instructions as general information rather than explicit how-to. ("Among fish commonly kept by hobbyists, Lucios arma is known to be especially sensitive to changes in pH.") Also, if the material is online, great use can be made of the External links section. Resurr Section (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Hobit (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the solution is to interpret policy with a grain of salt and a healthy dash of common sense. If an editor complains, for example, that

Owners should taken care to move Puffdaddyfish into larger, more brackish tanks after the first two years.<ref>Fishkeeping for anoraks, Mumbly, J. 1954</ref>

reads too much like a how-to, just rewrite it:

Aquarist J. Mumbly writes that Puffdaddyfish require more brackish water and larger tanks as they grow, recommending a 10-gallon tank at two years of age.<ref>Fishkeeping for anoraks, Mumbly, J. 1954</ref>.

I'm sure it can be done. If there are specific cases where you're having difficulty, drop me a line. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, no specific cases, but someone brought it up on the project page and got me thinking. Anyways, thanks for the advice.Drew Smith What I've done 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you guys are so opposed to how things are done here, why don't you go to a website that allows you to do those things instead of trying to convert what's supposed to be an encyclopedia into whatever you happen to want to do? Pet advice? Elsewhere. Plot summaries? Elsewhere. Lists of random trivia? Elsewhere. There's wikibooks and wikia.com and a zillion other places where your every whim can be realized. Please respect what Wikipedia was created to do. DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agreed. We don't need an exception for fish care how-to articles. Or plot summaries. Or episode guides. --John Nagle (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we're all in agreement then. If it's possible for "how-to" information to be rewritten in an encyclopaedic form, then we should do so, and if not (or if it can't be sourced) then it shouldn't be included. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

An exception to the policy just to save animals' lives? Sorry, but an encyclopedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not responsible for anyone who misinterprets it as a "pet guide" and uses it to care for their pets. Frankly, if pets are dying because of such irresponsibility, the owners should be banned from owning them, not Wikipedia being forced to change what it fundamentally is. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Try substituting "humans" for "pets" and suggesting that at Wikiproject Medicine.

While I sympathise with "... the owners should be banned from owning them ...", that's not how things actually are. OTOH a certain nation with many WP users is notoriously litigious.

What harm does a modest amount of sound advice do WP? --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, whatever, let's not digress into discussions about animal welfare. Anyway, if such advice is "sound" as you say, then there would be reliable sources to back up that soundness. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles should be written in encyclopedic prose (per policies and guidelines); as stated above, there are alternative places for guides and we should not undermine Wikipedia's purpose by blurring the boundaries between encyclopedia and guide. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, it should be possible to make comments about animal welfare without being a how-to guide. As long as the information can be reliably sourced. It isn't that high of a bar.Hobit (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, do I sense (gasp) biting? I wasn't asking for an enitre article about how to care for a fish, just being allowed a small section of the article so the animal doesnt die. BTW, an encyclopedia is an encyclopedia. I dont now what encyclopedia you're reading, but every real encyclopedia article I've read about an animal that can be kept as a pet includes a small how-to section. So by your "an encyclopedia is an encyclopedia" rule, it should be allowed.Drew Smith What I've done 11:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding. An article on "how to" would be inappropriate. A small section on the topic, as long as it is well source, is perfectly acceptable. In general, for things like this, the best bet is to provide a brief overview and point people in the right direction. That's what the human medicine articles to (for example). Or at least the one's I edit. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

I have created a proposal at Wikipedia:Fiction for a new policy page discussing fiction issues in general - pulling heavily from WAF, but also from NOT#PLOT and some of the more agreed upon proposals to come up in notability debates. The goal is to create a single policy page that clearly establishes core principles of what it means to write about fiction in an encyclopedia about fact. I welcome comments and criticism at the talk page there. The goal is to create a policy-level home for NOT#PLOT that deals with the idea more thoroughly and completely than a bullet point in WP:NOT can. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

a good endeavor, but I see that your view and mine about the underlying principles have little in common. See my comment there. DGG (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PLOT again

It's clear that this lacks the consensus necessary for policy. Hence, it should go. These proposals and counter-proposals for what to do with the ideas behind it in other policies and guidelines have nothing to do with whether it should remain here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been explained to you that policies have inertia, and there is no consensus to change this policy yet. Your edit-warring this change is becoming disruptive. Please stop.—Kww(talk) 02:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And it's been explained to you that policies require consensus, which this part lacks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't make something true just by wishful thinking and wikilawyering. That's all you're doing at this point. It does have consensus to be there. The wording is in question, but there's clear consensus to keep it in some form or another, and the wording doesn't change until there's consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, please use an edit summary when you are removing planks of a policy. I assume that you forgot to do so. Protonk (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Kww is right; we might reach consensus on something if we continue to discuss, but will only continue to quarrel if we start this sort of thing again. DGG (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Even interpreting the consensus has no consensus. One side is gonna say "this proves the policy has only the support of a minority and should be removed as no consensus" and the other side is going to say "this shows that only a minority want to remove a long-standing policy, so it should stay." How about we talk about something where we might gain consensus: a change in wording or location?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomran (talk • contribs)

The edit where Shoemaker's Holiday removed the section was reverted with the edit comment: "Reverted good faith edits by Shoemaker's Holiday" -- Frankly, that's giving him far more credit than he deserves at this point. He KNOWS he doesn't have consensus to make that change, and he KNOWS that he'll get reverted every last time he pulls that stunt, so continuing to do so cannot be called a "good faith" edit by any stretch of the imagination. DreamGuy (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow.

You people really astound me. Most wikipedians are all really nice, and very helpful, and open to new ideas. It appears though, that I have stumbled upon a tiny enclave of ankle-biters. How many newbies did you guys scare off of wikipedia?Drew Smith What I've done 11:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's not only here. The milk in my fridge always turns sour whenever I read a new post at WT:FICT. Goodraise 12:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That is nothing. My voodoo dolls of Hiding, Masem, Phil and Random ran out of space to put pins in them long ago. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Well, at least you have a sense of humor about it. Randomran (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not nearly enough newbies have been scared off, it seems. Useful newbies wanting to edit an encyclopedia wouldn't be scared off by having to follow encyclopedia-style content rules. The ones who get upset and leave probably never should have edited here in the first place and will be much happier on a blog or Urban Dictionary or someplace more their speed. This is an encyclopedia, not some preschool art class where everyone gets a gold star just for showing up and eating paste. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They don't show up wanting to edit an encyclopedia. They show up wanting to make a change to an article, or maybe write an article on some topic they care about. And pretty soon they are good at editing and start making changes casually. Then they start working on things "for the good of the encyclopedia", but they don't show up that way. Virtually every other project similar to wikipedia in 2005 had strict rules while wikipedia had loose ones. Where are we are where are they? Since this place has gotten strict 2 years ago what's the growth rate been? jbolden1517^Talk 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ the first half of the argument but not the second. While I am convinced that low barriers to entry and loose editing rules have been critical to WP's success, I can't justify the decline in the rate of growth of the encyclopedia with some change in metrics, given that there are more convincing explanations. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What are the more convincing explanations? jbolden1517^Talk 03:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's start with that question. The slant of it presumes that somehow, without any footwork on your part, the most convincing explanation is that barriers to content editing are the primary cause of reduced growth and that I have to assail that before we are on equal ground. Let's explore possible causes for the reduced growth rate. Wikipedia's growth, and the growth of social networks could be logistic, not exponential, as people originally assumed when WP was getting started. Wikipedia's growth could be a function of growth in internet access in US, Canada and Western Europe (just picking the places where the bulk of the english wp editors come from). We have some indication that the growth of internet users in the developed world is slowing. It could be that from 2001 to ~2007, the only widely known user editable information resource was wikipedia. We were first to market. Sure, there were open db's and plenty of wiki-like information repositories, but most of those were devoted to specific groups or were not widely known. You could characterize the growth of WP as aberrational during that time. There is little reason to assume that once we create Wikia, about.com, and dozens of other web2.0 information repositories that we would continue to grow as we have. Even existing popular repositories like imdb added a lot of content contributor facing functionality between 2001 and now. We also have to grapple with the fact that dozens of different things impact growth rates. And if we think we know what the cause of the change is, what do we modify to fix it? Protonk (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting reply to Protonk) Thank you for the thoughtful reply. We know some social networking sites continued to grow rapidly, for example Facebook and Linkdin both experienced huge growth during the last 2 years. As for being one of the only known editable sources at the time, Amazon certainly beat us by many years. It was well known with an active review community by that point, with a discussion community that exploded during the later phases of wikipedia's growth. DMOZ would be another well known resource that existed during all or wikipedia's life. As for strong competition that's precisely my point. Given the high viability of wikipedia most people would naturally want to add content here, that is there have to be strong incentives not to use wikipedia as the place to add content. If they are going offsite to add similar content they are doing it for a reason. If you talk to the people on those sites the reason they frequently give is "wikipedia's meanness" which I think is coming from thousands upon thousands of rules being blindly enforced. jbolden1517^Talk 11:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The growth rate has been mercifully low, since the main consequence of the somewhat stricter environment has been more merged articles. The information is still being added, just in omnibus articles. More people and up reading those then in a bunch of scattered pages. The other possible explanation is that most of the information that could be easily added to Wikipedia has been added: the endless stubs on towns, anything that was on TV, every corpus of knowledge that has fans such as trains and military history. Resurr Section (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c x2)"Since this place has gotten strict 2 years ago what's the growth rate been?" This may be what you're looking for. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Great link, yes exactly what I was looking for! jbolden1517^Talk 03:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Look man, I don't know what to tell you. You came to a bedrock policy page and suggested a change. People told you, in varying degrees of pleasantness, that the change wasn't going to happen. I'm sorry. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not just me. I read everything after my proposal, and everytime, without fail someone ends up getting bitten.Drew Smith What I've done 00:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It just seems to me that you are confusing rejection of your proposal for "biting" you. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Changing policy ain't easy, especially for controversial areas. Randomran (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)