Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction

List of exemplary articles pruning

I still feel this section is too long, even after I pruned it last year. We should probably narrow down each category to 4 or 5 entries for the sake of succinctness. What do you guys think? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 10:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Deckiller, with this edit, you added, "Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective tend to cover fictional aspects in greater detail, inviting unverifiable original research such as fan theories and unsourced analysis." But articles on fictional topics tend to cover fictional aspects in great detail regardless, meaning whether the article is written from an in-universe or real-world perspective. And including fan theories is fine when the theories have received substantial media coverage and are presented in a real-world fashion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - I tweaked that sentence. That whole statement just seems a little vague to me still, even for an introduction. I'm not sure if there is an objective correlation between original research and the perspective of the article. (Not saying that an in-universe perspective is good). Now, one could argue that an article with in-universe perspective and undue weight looks more enticing to a passer-by who wants to hit the "edit button" and add some conjecture or theories. Hmm. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. Thank you. I don't think that this is needed, but I can live with it. I'm not seeing any issues with the section, but I'm open to changes being made to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about asking questions in plot summaries

So in the current version of Unsane (film), the plot synopsis reads, "A young woman is involuntarily committed to a mental institution where she is confronted by her greatest fear — but is it real or is it a product of her delusion?" I thought to myself, surely this cheesy language is unencyclopedic, but I've been noticing many more articles with plot summaries that ask similar questions. Any thoughts on this? Would this be considered an in-universe perspective? Sro23 (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sro23: When I see questions I usually jump to "is this a copyright violation of the book jacket?" or some other such conclusion. So check to see if that's the case first. Otherwise, it's not an expository tone to ask a question, i.e., it's not a question of in/out of universe but simply bad writing. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Also agreed. Questions like that are normally an editor's attempt to write something 'exciting', rather than something encyclopedic. A question in that form isn't a summary of the plot at all, and should not be presented as if it were. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections? Bright☀ 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Previous discussion; relevant guideline:

Sourcing and quotations

The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.

Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation

Bright☀ 15:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
This RfC follows (repeated) attempts to tell other editors that the current state of affairs where most articles about fiction don't have inline sources in the plot sections is not the desirable state of affairs:

• Sources in the plot section are not discouraged.
• The current MoS guidelines encourage sources for key or complex plot points, and to ward off original research.
• Removing sources (or reverting changes in general) because they are "unnecessary" or "not needed" is not a valid reason to revert edits, references should be removed only if they are detrimental. (For example, references should be removed if they cause visual or syntactic clutter. This argument was never raised in the given content dispute; it would be difficult to argue that two citations in a six-paragraph section are "clutter").

Attempting ward off the inevitable RfC arguments against the RfC itself:

• This is not an RfC about a content dispute, it's an RfC about plot section references across all Wikipedia articles. The content dispute was linked to illustrate the problem, which is Wikipedia editors who claim local consensus over this particular Wikipedia guideline. This RfC is meant to assess whether broad consensus exists for the guideline as it is currently written.
• This RfC is not malformed. It is neutral and brief. Everything after the first signature is meant to provide the relevant background to the neutral and brief request for comment, but does not have to be neutral and brief in itself.
• This is not instruction creep. The instructions already exist in the guideline, no change is proposed, this is only an attempt to gauge consensus for these instructions. Even if it was a proposal for new instructions, they would still be necessary as emphasis that inline citations are better than unspecified implicit citations, even in plot sections and even if most articles with plot sections do not have inline citations.

Bright☀ 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Additionally the wording of WP:PRIMARY support this guideline::

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Wikipedia · No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

If this guideline does not have consensus, then the policy will need to be changed too. Discussion prior to making the aforementioned quote a part of policy, discussion after the quote was made part of policy, the sentence being put into the policy in 2008, remains unchanged to this day. So people who like to say "it's only a guideline, not a policy", there you go: citing passages as primary sources in a plot sectioni is policy too. If there's no consensus for it then there's some serious failure in Wikipedia for allowing it to be part of policy for nine going ten years. Bright☀ 14:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you are seeking support for use of primary sourcing then you need to make that clear in the RfC question otherwise I would consider the RfC to be posed deceptively. Of course editors are going to support citation, it is the basis of WP:V but, from the discussion below, it is apparent you wish to use this RfC to change how primary sourcing and citation is used. That is not the question posed by this RfC and a Support close simply can not be used as a legitimate basis for such changes. Jbh ^Talk 15:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If you are seeking support for use of primary sourcing then you need to make that clear in the RfC question otherwise I would consider the RfC to be posed deceptively. I knew someone would claim the RfC is deceptive or malformed even though it asks a simple question and the guideline in question is quoted verbatim. Sigh... If you didn't know plot sections can be referenced to the primary source, then you didn't read the guideline and you're supporting or opposeing something you didn't even read, which I feel is common around here. it is apparent you wish to use this RfC to change how primary sourcing and citation is used. Would you look at that, two for two! No, this RfC wishes to change nothing. The guideline is quoted verbatim and people can read it a mere paragraph or two above. Either there's consensus for this guideline or there isn't. If there is, that includes primary sources. If there isn't, then it needs to change. Thank you for getting the obvious out of the way. Bright☀ 15:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You added the top part, and everything other than the six bullet points, of the Discussion after I, and others, had commented. That is correct. For reference, the original pre-discussion "discussion" section, with the guideline linked under "relevant guideline" in the very first line. I later added the guideline inline because people weren't reading the link. If anything, I am making concrete efforts for people to read the guideline in question. Bright☀ 16:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the guideline was linked in your opening 'discussion' statement but it was not "quoted verbatum" in the RfC as you originally posted it nor is it referenced in the question as posed. Nor does the RfC question or your initial 'discussion' address what it is you want to encourage or how the current guideline is not being followed. Your question is a restatement of the existing guideline. How do you expect things to change if this closes Support — the guideline is unchanged and current practice would therefore be unchanged. What do you think Oppose would mean — most of the opposes are saying current practice is proper.

My guess, is that you want this to be a referendum on the conflicts you linked but that is not the question you asked and you can not claim that supports for this RfC are supports for the position you take in those disputes. Jbh ^Talk 16:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

My guess, is that you want this to be a referendum on the conflicts you linked there we go, three for three... funny how that happens in every RfC. but it was not "quoted verbatum" in the RfC I didn't say it's quoted verbatim in the RfC, I said it's quoted verbatim. I quoted it verbatim because people didn't bother to read it when it was merely linked in the very first line of the original discussion section of the RfC. Do you regularly support/oppose RfCs without reading the discussion? That's very bad. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Nor does the RfC question or your initial 'discussion' address what it is you want to encourage Sheesh again... the question is literally Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections? I guess it doesn't address what's encouraged? Oh wait... "to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections". Whoa, it's like it's right there!!! How do you expect things to change if this closes Support — the guideline is unchanged and current practice would therefore be unchanged. What do you think Oppose would mean — most of the opposes are saying current practice is proper. It was a yes/no question but people were in such a hurry to WP:NOTVOTE that they, evidently, didn't bother reading neither the question nor the guideline it addresses. Again, thank you for bringing this extremely basic point to light. Bright☀ 16:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Now you are just ranting. Instead of doing that why not explain what it is that you think is not being done and how the guideline is not being followed. As it stands, applying basic knowledge of Wikipedia's sourcing policies and by not reading the Plot section in isolation, it is necessary to, per WP:PRIMARY not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source". This is mirrored, in the Plot section which says "… encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps to discourage original research".^{(emp mine)} The final section of plot, the one you are focused on, must be read with the same caveat of avoiding original research. As I mentioned in my !vote below, dealing with most 'complex' plot points involves some form of analysis or judgment therefore the situations where quoting the work is limited. There are cases where it may be appropriate and in those cases editors are, per the guideline, encouraged to cite the work. (An example might be an 'info dump' or exposition where the narrator or character addresses the point or a point where a director 'hangs a lantern' on it.) That, however, is a matter of editorial judgment. You may disagree with the current collective editorial judgment (aka WP:CONSENSUS) but that is, again, not something you address in the RfC question which would be worthwhile to address here. Jbh ^Talk 17:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC) last edited

Now you are just ranting What a lovely way not to address anything I said and pretend you weren't wrong about what I pointed out in specific detail. You may disagree with the current collective editorial judgment (aka WP:CONSENSUS) but that is, again, not something you address in the RfC question which would be worthwhile to address here. RfCs are specifically meant to address consensus. Again thank you for saying exactly the wrong thing so I can point out the obvious right thing. dealing with most 'complex' plot points involves some form of analysis or judgment And as I replied to Erik, key or complex plot points do not necessarily require analysis; in fact both the policy and the guideline say they can be cited to a passage from the primary source, without any analysis or synthesis or anything that requires a secondary or tertiary source. Bright☀ 17:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You simply are not listening — hell my !vote even partially supports your position. I gave an example, just above, of the type of complex point that may, in my opinion, be cited to the work. In what other cases would it be proper to cite the work? Either the work clearly states the point, as above, or it does not. I do not see anyone arguing against the former and the later is clearly an OR violation.

You seem to be reading the Plot guideline pedantically and in isolation while completely missing what most everyone is saying — Yes you can and should cite the work on a complex plot point which is clearly and unambiguously addressed within the work otherwise you can not because it is OR. Is it not happening that way? Do you think that statement incorrect? Jbh ^Talk 19:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

completely missing what most everyone is saying — Yes you can and should cite the work on a complex plot point which is clearly and unambiguously addressed within the work Would be nice if most everyone were saying that, you'd see a nice long string of yeses below... but that isn't the case. Some people simply don't accept citing plot points to the primary source, which is the source of the content dispute and the reason this RfC is gauging consensus on the guideline. Bright☀ 06:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Malformed RfC

I'm of the opinion here that given how often BrightR has had to clarify what the RfC is actually about after everyone's !votes that the RfC probably is malformed in some way, specifically in that it isn't clear enough in what it's actually asking. I additionally suspect this because it just seems everyone is giving an opinion on a slightly different matter. It just feels to me like there's a lot of different conversations going on here and few people are on the same page with each other, let alone with BrightR. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I 100% support resubmitting this RfC in a way that people will actually read it and respond to it instead of arguing about things that aren't there. For example one editor opposees the "requirement for citations for plot summaries". Such a requirement was never part of the RfC, yet this editor (and others) for some reason argue against it. This isn't one or two editors; the overwhelming majority of editors support and oppose their own suggestions that simply aren't part of the RfC. What would be a short, neutral statement that people will actually read and respond to? Bright☀ 10:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest an RFC that seeks approval for the specific clarifying amendments to the guideline that I suggested in green text in the Survey section, below. There needs to be a proposal for a definite change to the guideline, if you think that one is needed, otherwise there will always be the suspicion that you're really seeking support in a content dispute. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that the overall consensus of the votes and comments is clear enough. An RFC is not something that is literally voted up or down - this is why we have comments and why we use the term "!vote". It is fine for each commenter to focus on a slightly different aspect of the topic - that is how a consensus develops. In this case, the very clear consensus is against tightening the language about sourcing in plot summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I know this. The reason I'm concerned about the divergences is that BrightR, in my understanding, is constantly concerned that rare anyone has actually addressed the specific issue at hand. I also am not exactly sure what the RfC is trying to accomplish. You suggested that it's seeking a change in language on the MOS, but that's very unclear to me. There hasn't been an actual proposal to change the language here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Bluntly, I believe BrightR's almost sole reason for having initiated this RfC is so that they can claim they have a consensus to support the edits they made at 12 Monkeys. The couldn't get a clear consensus at the Talk page when they tried, edit-warred on the article to the extent that I felt compelled to report them at 3RN when they ignored a direct request from me imploring them not to reinsert their edits without a clear consensus, and maintain that their edits are right and implicitly supported by policy even when it's become abundantly clear that while their edits may be supported by a reading of policy, there is far from a consensus that their edits should be supported by policy. Indeed, they are so convinced of their own self-righteousness that they couldn't even acknowledge they were violating edit-warring policy without claiming I'm right. DonIago (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It does seem that multiple editors' opposition to the citations BrightR added to 12 Monkeys prompted this RfC. That's fine, and the RfC can be made more specific, but I will say that exhaustively quoting a primary source on plot points that don't seem to require interpretation is the very definition of unnecessary, and I think most editors here agree. What BrightR shoud really do is open a discussion at Talk:12 Monkeys explaining why he believes quoting dialogue is important to understanding the plot summary. If consensus cannot be reached to restore the material, which is likely, everyone can move on with their lives.— TAnthony^Talk 14:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• It depends Anything which requires analysis, interpretation or insight should be cited to third party reliable sources or commentary of writer/director per WP:NOR. Jbh ^Talk 19:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 14:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  In the case of citing the work in the plot section I would say it is only necessary to highlight/demonstrate some point which will later be addressed, and supported by RS, in later or concurrent analysis. Arguably even saying a given plot point is key is an act of original research requiring judgment of significance. Jbh ^Talk 15:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose primary references, Support secondary references. If it requires analysis, interpretation or insight then we should start looking to sources other than the work itself. DonIago (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• The more complex the plot, the more important it is described out-of-universe. This will preclude referencing to the primary source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a long needed correction to an OR not expert problem all over these articles. Not sure how this has been like this for so long. It's a basic that information be sourced...let alone the bases for conflict resolution... how can people debate things without any sources. --Moxy (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not sure what is supposed to be meant by "key," and we don't add references to plot sections simply because the plot section is complex. We add them when needed. I see that this and this discussion has resulted in this RfC. Editors should especially look at the first discussion and see if you agree that the one reference was needed there. I know I didn't. The same goes for most others in that discussion. I'll go ahead and alert WP:Film, MOS:FILM and WP:TV and MOS:TV to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, it is encouraged No paragraph should be without in-line citation, including plots. (I make no judgement about the dispute at 12 Monkeys.) Chris Troutman (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose using primary sources for "complex plot points", which is what this RfC is really about. Moxy, Chris troutman, this RfC is really about 12 Monkeys at which BrightR wants to use primary source inline citations to "prove" certain "complex plot points". No one actually opposes using secondary sources for inline citations; WikiProject Film supports this with WP:FILMPLOT, "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section." It should be further noted that BrightR only launched this RfC because they were opposed by five or six editors in using the primary-source inline citations, and they have the audacity to declare that they are right and everyone else is wrong in regard to applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The fact that this RfC makes no distinction between primary and secondary sources is problematic in itself. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Erik: I agree with SmokeyJoe and Doniago: secondary sources are needed to verify the plot. I don't like the idea of citing the movie at x minutes because that screams OR. BrightR's question was about encouraging use of citations in plot summaries, which I affirm. If you think BrightR is being tendentious, then please take the issue to WP:ANI. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  Chris troutman, Doniago isn't saying that plot sections need to have inline citations. Doniago said, "If it requires analysis, interpretation or insight then we should start looking to sources other than the work itself." And this RfC is about sourcing for "key" and "complex" plot aspects, not the whole plot section. Why do you think we should source the whole plot section? WP:OR "means material for which no published, reliable source exists"; it doesn't mean "unsourced." And for films, for example, the film itself is the source. Where we get into problems is when people start interpreting character motivations and putting in things that are not in the television show, film, book or other form of media. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  BrightR only launched this RfC because they were opposed by five or six editors in using the primary-source inline citations, and they have the audacity to declare that they are right and everyone else is wrong in regard to applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines This RfC is about consensus for this guideline. If there isn't any, it shouldn't be a guideline. If there is, then people explicitly can't use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore it. I don't like the idea of citing the movie at x minutes because that screams OR Unfortunately that is also encouraged by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which means if they don't represent consensus, they shouldn't be policies and guidelines. Specifically WP:PRIMARY: For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot. So now we got the guideline MOS:PLOT and the policy WP:PRIMARY and the question is: do they represent consensus? If they don't, then they need to be changed. If they do, local consensus can't override them. Bright☀ 13:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  You're right that WP:PRIMARY says that, but you are omitting the entire sentence, "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." As seen on the talk page, you used secondary sources to validate the "complex plot points". Why not simply use these secondary sources? WP:PRIMARY says earlier, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." What does "with care" mean? It means to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" that everyone can agree with. If you have to resort to inline citations to support a passage that is not straightforward, then use secondary sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  Why not simply use these secondary sources? Because there is no analysis and the quotes make it far easier for the reader to understand the plot as it is presented in the movie, with no analysis. The secondary sources were provided because some of the talk-page editors argued that these are not key plot points. I told them that secondary sources identify these plot points as key plot points, not that I need to analyze these plot points with secondary sources in the plot section. Regardless, that does not invalidate the use of a primary source, which is explicitly encouraged by the guideline: using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. The RfC merely asks if there is consensus for this guideline, but people seem to not bother with reading it and immediately assume this is about analysis and usage of primary sources for analysis. Stop jumping to conclusions and just read the guideline! Bright☀ 15:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  "Analysis" is the extreme end of the spectrum, but obviously, we are not talking about "straightforward, basic descriptive statements of facts" here. We're exploring the space in between, right? Because if you think inline citations are necessary here, we've moved beyond being straightforward and basic, and that crosses a line. If you don't agree, try to think of it this way. We could easily have an inline citation at the end of the six paragraphs using the {{Cite AV media}} template that cites the film. We would technically have the whole plot summary verified as long as there is consensus for the basic description of the story. This is implicit in all plot summaries. Here, the two inline citations stand out and basically indicates that something needs more clarifying than what is basically written. But if these inline citations are self-referential, it begs the question, why are they more necessary than any other passage in the summary? Why not reference quotes inline throughout? If there is emphasis on clarifying a particular plot point for which a basic description is not enough, then we should be switching over to secondary sources. That imports outside weight and credibility to complete the clarification. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  We're exploring the space in between, right? Because if you think inline citations are necessary here, we've moved beyond being straightforward and basic, and that crosses a line. Just because something is key or complex doesn't mean explaining it is analysis or "the space in between". To use the 12 Monkeys example, the key plot point that time can't be changed requires no analysis, but it's still complex enough to merit being mentioned as complex (or "distinctive" as the secondary source puts it). But even if we throw away the "or complex" bit, both the policy and the guideline still encourage using references for plot points in general:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Wikipedia · No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

The policy talks about citing a passage to describe a plot. No requirement for analysis or "space in between". the two inline citations stand out and basically indicates that something needs more clarifying than what is basically written Not at all. They are there to tell the reader "this is a key or complex plot point and its description adheres almost word-for-word to the primary source". If there is emphasis on clarifying a particular plot point for which a basic description is not enough, then we should be switching over to secondary sources. That is not what the policy and the guideline say. A citation to a primary source is sufficient for "describing the plot", and "using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points." This is what the RfC is about: is the policy and guideline not the consensus (one of them for nine going ten years, mind), or are they the consensus? Because if you can't use passages from a primary source to cite key or complex plot, then the policy and guideline need to be changed. Bright☀ 17:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Encourage only in limited circumstances and make it clear what those are. It is long-established consensus, and already stated in the guideline, that plot summaries do not generally need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the summary. So the issue is under what circumstances - if at all - should editors be "encouraged" to cite the primary source explicitly? (Obviously, any secondary sources where used would need to be cited in any event).

The guideline is not well-written and does not properly distinguish cites to the work itself and to secondary sources. The sentence "However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps to discourage original research" might suggest that explicitly citing the primary source is always a good thing, even in straightforward cases where the stated assumption applies. But, the last sentence is much narrower and says that "using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points". The guideline would be improved by making it clearer that:

1. Plot summaries don't need inline citations if they are wholly based on the primary work

2. Citations to the work itself are encouraged only where it might be unclear that that is in fact the case.

Some wording along the following lines would be an improvement to the existing guideline:

The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not normally require in-line citations where the work itself provides the entire source for the summary. However, the use of in-line citations to specific brief quotations within the work is encouraged where it may be unclear to a reader that the summary is indeed wholly based on the work. For example, where a complex or key plot point could easily be misunderstood or overlooked, an in-line citation to a direct quotation may be helpful. If the summary itself includes a direct quotation from the work, this must in any event be cited using an inline citation per WP:QUOTE. If the summary relies on sources other than the work itself, they must be cited in the normal way.

This would help to ensure clarity if a reader might otherwise be confused or think that the summary is incorrect. Where there is a content dispute, of course, the issue for discussion on the talk page should firstly be whether the proposed content is or is not correct and appropriate for the summary. Secondary sources (with citations) might help. Only if there's consensus that the content should be included should editors then consider whether it would benefit from a specific in-line citation to the primary work to ensure that readers won't be misled or misunderstand. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This wording isn't very different from the existing wording and in either case I support both. Bright☀ 13:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Our policy is clear... Plot description can (if necessary) be cited to the work itself. Plot analysis requires a secondary source. That sounds simple, but it actually isn't... especially when the plot is complex. When writing a description of a complex point in a plot, it is very very easy to (inadvertently) slide over the line into plot analysis. So... When writing a plot description, it is important to summarize... and to keep the that summary very basic. We should especially avoid trying to describe nuances in the plot (that is where editors most frequently slide over the line into analysis). As a general "rule of thumb"... the more you say about a plot, the more you will end up needing to use a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong. It doesn't say if necessary. Citing plot sections is not necessary, but reverting an edit because it is "not necessary" is against Wikipedia policy. The guideline says editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible (not "if necessary"), which the RfC clearly states. Bright☀ 14:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I was not referring to the literal wording of the guideline... but to broader Policy. Specifically, I was thinking of WP:BURDEN... normally, we can “assume” that a basic plot summary is supported by an “unwritten” citation to the work itself... but if that plot summary is challenged, it becomes “necessary” to support it with a written citation. This written citation can be to the work itself, as long as we don’t slip into analysis. But as soon as we do slip into analysis we need a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This RfC was brought in bad faith after one previous discussion as well as the current discussion went against the editor who started this discussion. Simply quoting the film and pretending that these are references is rather silly, and that is what this entire debate comes down to. As I have said all along, if the film needs to be quoted, quote it directly in the plot section. Why package it as a reference? And, if secondary sources are needed to explain "complex plot points," that is why we have analysis sections in numerous film articles. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Why package it as a reference? Because Wikipedia policies and guidelines say so... That is the point of the RfC. Bright☀ 14:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Odd the film project doesn't follow our basic policy on verification.... it's why there are so many problems like to one outlined above. WP:BURDEN should apply to all projects especially in an area of analysis.--Moxy (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's funny everybody is talking about analysis when the guideline in question and the RfC have nothing to do with analysis... Bright☀ 14:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Citations are good. But we should assume that someone reading an article about a work of art, and reading the plot section in particular, will be able to check the plot against the actual work which is being described. So there is no reason to add numerous citations to the same original work of art throughout the plot section. If secondary references are needed, then they should certainly be added. This would be true, for example, if the plot section makes interpretive claims or if aspects of the plot are not clear from the original work of art. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

there is no reason to add numerous citations to the same original work of art throughout the plot section. Then why is this both a policy and a guideline? Quoting the primary source is helpful in verifying the plot summary is faithful to the primary source. Bright☀ 15:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

When you find that your interpretation of a guideline doesn't agree with other interpretations, one thing to ask is whether your own interpretation might be wrong, or whether you are reading the guideline more strictly than it is meant to be read. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's read them together, shall we?

Sourcing and quotations

The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.

Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Wikipedia · No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points and For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot. What, exactly, is the "strict" and "loose" interpretation here? There seems to be a single interpretation: it is helpful to source key or complex plot points to passages [that] describe the plot. Yes? No? Bright☀ 17:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Use secondary sources whenever possible if the whole work can be properly summarized with them, limit the work itself for either navigational aids or limited points Personally, if I can find one or two secondary sources that provide a sufficient level of recap of an entire work, as often the case for TV episodes, I feel we should use those to some degree. However, this type of secondary sourcing is not always there : most film reviews only cover the basic plot and not the resolution, for example, and half-assing only some references is not a good use of those. At that point, we should only use the work itself if we need to provide points of navigation (a recap of War & Peace needs placeholders to know where things happen, for example), or in the case of many video games, where the non-linear experience may mean people may miss content, supplying where that content is. I'm not thrilled much with the idea of using the work for "complex" plot points as that implies some OR in what is complex. The page where this came from, 12 Monkeys, is a "complicated" time travel plot but readily clear since it follows the experience of one person in their chronological view, and so the points that are being implied as complex are complex, but they're also readily obvious. --Masem (t) 16:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

that implies some OR in what is complex Editors are encouraged to provide secondary sources that mention key or complex plot points as references. If an editor can't show that secondary or tertiary sources talk about the plot point as key or complex, then it's original research. the points that are being implied as complex are complex, but they're also readily obvious. Apparently not, as several times the plot section was edited with original research that contradicts those plot points, so much so that one of the editors added hidden text asking editors not to add this original research. And since they are mentioned as key or complex plot points ("distinctive" is the exact word used) by secondary sources, then there is evidently justification to treat them as key or complex plot points. But the RfC is not about 12 Monkeys specifically, but about the use of references in plot sections in general, per the quoted policy and guideline in the discussion section above. Bright☀ 16:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• This all comes down to the fact that our WP:V policy requires information to be verifiable... but does not require us to actually verify it (with an in-line citation) unless “challenged or likely to be challenged”. Now, a very basic descriptive outline of a works plot is “assumed” to be verifiable by reading/viewing the work itself. Call it an “unwritten” citation, if you want. We don’t actually have to write that citation UNLESS the summary is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. However, IF challenged, we do need to cite it (per WP:BURDEN). Now... Part 2 of this is determining what to cite... IF the plot description is very basic, we can still cite the work itself (the primary source)... as that will verify what we wrote... but as our description gets more complex, the more we need to cite a secondary source (because there is a greater chance that we have gone beyond mere description, and inadvertently included analysis in what we wrote). Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• If it's a complicated plot point that isn't easy to parse with just viewing the film itself or is ambiguous, use a secondary source. Citing a quote from the film? I don't understand how quoting the film is going to help clear up a complicated or truly ambiguous plot point. If everything for a section titled plot summary is just going to be citing the film itself, I don't see why we'd need quote citations. It's strongly implied that a plot summary of an accessible film is sourced to the film. This is what this manual says and is the practice for plot summary sections across multiple forms. And, really, if this isn't an RfC about analysis and if it isn't an RfC about 12 Monkeys, I do not really understand why there's an RfC at all here. The RfC is basically so broad it's asking "should the MoS remain exactly as it is". ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m actually trying to figure out how this became an MOS discussion in the first place... where is the “style” issue? Instruction creep? Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, the issue here is not about citing sources but it is a user behavior issue. Plot summaries are exactly that: a summary. Not an interpretation or a review. No need to explain more than the outline of the plot, which can be verified by anyone who reads the book or watches the movie/tv show. Of course, there are exceptions to this (I wouldn't try to provide a summary of "what happens" in Koyaanisqatsi) & if there is ambiguity in the plot or a loss of text where experts disagree over "what happens", then a secondary source should be used to establish this. But to return to my point, anyone who passes or exceeds WP:COMPETENCE should be able to write an acceptable plot summary without need of citing secondary sources in 19 out of 20 cases. Since there is no grey area about including secondary sources, I have to suspect ulterior motives when someone who insists on including them. (And IIRC, there is no ambiguity or textual corruption in 12 Monkeys that demand using secondary sources to provide a plot summary. It's a time-travel story with a couple of unexpected plot twists.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Use Common Sense Plot summaries are transformative works created collaboratively by Wikipedia editors. Thus, they are technically OR, and the reason we don't cite them to the work itself is simplicity: everyone can see what we're summarizing, and adding the primary source references is of limited help at best. If good faith editors can't come to a consensus on a plot point suggested to be included in a summary, then it is obviously non-intuitive, non-straightforward, and is not suitable to be sourced to a primary source: thus, the controversial point should be left out if a secondary source is not available to comment upon it. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Jclemens, although I wouldn't call plot summaries OR, I agree with typically not needing to cite a plot summary to the work itself. As you may remember, and as seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 7#Where we stand now, I argued this before, but there were arguments that television character plot summaries, for example, should be sourced to primary sources because the summaries concern different episodes. Bignole stated, "I think what needs to be made clear is that plot sections when they exist in episode lists (tables) do not require references. They do require references when you put them in character articles or as more prose summaries. The reason is, the table acts as the reference in the LoE situation. It has all the information you need for citing, so there isn't a reason to cite it again. In the others, you need that, which is why we have the "cite episode" template for references. It seems like a quick sentence or so to clarify. [...] Pot information on another page cannot source itself. They only 'source themselves' on episode articles and episode tables because the information has everything you need to verify it. The whole idea of 'you can watch it to verify it' requires you to be able to determine when and where to watch it. [...] It is reasonable to expect that if someone challenges an event described for a character from season 4 episode 5 to just go watch it to verify it. It is unreasonable to expect them to watch all 3 seasons prior to that because we couldn't even give them the information of where it was." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support using sources, but the work itself is the best source so long as there's no interpretation. Any interpretation needs a secondary source. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• If memory serves one issue that was raised in the past about using references for plot summaries is that secondary sources often get the plot wrong and/or add their own interpretations that do not necessarily belong into a plot summary as opposed to a reception section (c.f Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Analysis and interpretation: "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work"). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Even if the secondary source gets the plot wrong (and I just saw that today, between recaps of the latest Walked Dead ep from RSes), there are still broad enough strokes that are impossible to get wrong that make sourcing a plot to secondary sources, if possible for the entire work, a reasonable step to do; in the case I just found, I'd include both.) --Masem (t) 20:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • If you're writing about Smith's novel, then "Smith (2018), p. 3" is the best source for "Susan bought another bottle of gin", so long as it's purely descriptive. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This is exactly why citing the plot to a primary source is the most reliable, and it's exactly what the policy says. Bright☀ 06:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hm. I'm of the opinion that if anything is complex or ambiguous enough to require secondary sourcing to explain it, it doesn't belong in the plot summary section but rather somewhere else (analysis, interpretations, themes etc). Plot summaries should be a recounting of the narrative as described, although I don't know whether this is captured in guidelines anywhere or this is just my personal preference. For this, the work as a primary source would be sufficient. However, if interpretation of events is being placed in a plot summary section (or elsewhere) then Support using secondary sources for it. Scribolt (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any requirement for citations for plot summaries beyond what is recommended by current guidelines. I have a tendency to "overcite" articles with multiple citations in cases where one will suffice, and even I think it is unnecessary, unhelpful overkill to cite basic plot. We already have the caveat that interpretive summary needs sourcing.— TAnthony^Talk 21:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You oppose a requirement for references for the plot, but the RfC is not about requiring references in the plot... Is it really that hard to read before you !vote? Bright☀ 17:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. It is important for citations and references in key plot summaries, and the references help prove the plot is accurate and true. Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 07:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Not sure what support or oppose actually means in this survey since it doesn't actually provide a direction at the top' - So, to be clear where I stand: I support the use of primary sources (the work itself) when simply describing the events (no interpretation needed) of the plot in basic facts. If there is a grey area that requires explanation then I support and would require the use of secondary sources to support such a claim (which may or may not need to be in the plot in the first place). I oppose the requirement of in-line citation (which, by the way, is not a requirement anywhere, simply a suggestion) when it comes to using the primary source as the reference (obviously, since the in-line citation would be redundant at that point). I would encourage in-line citations for anything that requires a secondary source. Lastly, I keep reading this notion that using primary sources "screams OR". We have a definition of original research, and using a primary source doesn't automatically make something OR when you discuss it in the plot. For those of you that keep using it this way, I'm inclined to think of a |Mr. Montoya. Now, I do agree that a single editor claiming something is "key" when others disagree is problematic, but let's be honest here... you're rarely going to find a secondary source identifying plot points as "key". You cannot even go by "we'll just use what they say" because they are either just quoting the marketing synopsis for a film or show, or they are going into great detail about the entire film in which case we cannot follow (word count and all). But that's a separate issue here than I think what people think they are voting for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

off-topic I'd like to point out that 12 Monkeys is actually significant enough to be discussed at length in what passes for the technical literature of pop culture, like Journal of Religion and Popular Culture and various semi-technical books such as Eating the Dinosaur. So in this particular case, yes, there are reliable sources that name these plot points as key plot points. In general, though, you're correct, because 90% of published creative work is trash that simply does not have any reliable sources that say which of their plot points are "key", but it is not the case for 12 Monkeys. This is, indeed, a separate issue that is not the issue raised in this RfC... this RfC is attempting to gauge consensus for the question posed in the RfC, and the guideline and policy it stems from. Bright☀ 18:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing the RfC

@Doniago:: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. The RfC has been open for 30 days and no new comments have been made in over two weeks. I can close this RfC with "no consensus" and your ignorance of when and how to close an RfC (5) is again making you come to the wrong conclusion. Quoting an Article for Deletion closure procedure for an RfC closure is wrong. Bright☀ 07:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@BrightR: Someone deeply involved in an RFC should rarely be the one to close it. That discussion is ended is a fact. That you are the person to provide a conclusion is an incorrect belief. --Izno (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That is not the reason you gave. The reason you gave (how to close a deletion discussion) was wrong. Bright☀ 08:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)