Template talk:Plot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Literature (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Reword template?[edit]

The template currently states "this plot summary", however, if it is placed at the top of an article, it implies that the entire article is plot summary. I propose that it be reworded to "this article's plot summary" instead - then it would make sense anywhere in the article in which is placed.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Concur; sensible and simple change. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Reasoning is sound. Support. - kollision (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Can we get an admin to make the change? (section vs. article argument notwithstanding)--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}Admin, please change "This plot summary" to "This article's plot summary" in the template's opening first sentence. Thanks. - kollision (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Noting my protest[edit]

I'm noting and summarizing my protest here over what I consider part of a shameful and shamefully successful coup d'état against an important and basic aspect of Wikipedia's self-concept as an encyclopedia; namely, that we generally do not regard pages which consist entirely or almost entirely of a plot summary as proper stand-alone articles.

What went down here is that the wording of the wide-spread template Plot was switched to a distinct wording and meaning (the current one) which, as a matter of course, should instead have been put into a new template rather than pushing the issue of far greater, core importance to Wikipedia to a rather obscure, little-used template and thereby (this is the part that's literally offensive to me) "stealing" all the transclusions away from the more important issue in an effort to de-legitimize our long-standing standards even further.

Almost needless to say, the argument of "more transclusions" has actually been employed to stave off my attempts at righting this wrong.

Seriously, guys, this is just ridiculous and sad, letting Wikipedia be gamed and dominated like this by a bunch of people who want to turn Wikipedia into an indiscriminate info dump. -- (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Plot tag was always supposed to refer to "sections" of an article rather than entire articles, which was the job of all-plot. If you claim that the name of the template somehow influences its usage, I would say that articles completely consisting of plot summary are usually deleted rather than being tagged for cleanup.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No. They are almost never deleted. Heck, they are rarely even redirected.
The two things addressed by the two templates are two different and real issues. One is a stylistic issue of minor importance (the current wording of Plot), the other is a core content policy issue (the former wording of Plot which is now only found at All plot).
Of course the name influences the usage when one template has a generic name, has been around for a long time and is transcluded on 2300 articles as opposed to 60 articles. Someone successfully removed the policy issue and replaced it with a minor stylistic issue. Three guesses if they were concerned over the stylistic issue (plot section too long/overly detailed by itself) or whether they wanted to abolish one of our core content requirements (NOT#PLOT). I am sick and tired of this already. Lunatics like Shoemaker's Levi destroy Wikipedia and everybody else sits by. -- (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry, but calling people morons and accusing people of hidden agendas is not the way to prove a point, especially if you remain anonymous. If you have a good reason to 'restore' the plot template to assert that the article is mostly plot summary, delete all-plot and create a new template called, let's say, "plot-section" in order to house this one, then you can argue your point without name calling and accusations. But unless you can prove that people are trying to abolish WP:PLOT, your argument just sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Personally, I am a deletionist and support the deletion of plot-cruft like the articles you describe. However, I don't think template messages on a few thousand pages have a huge effect on the millions of pages in Wiki...--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fix bold placement[edit]


Please sync with the sandbox to correct the use of bold to cover only the verb phrase regarding the error, as with the rest of the general cleanup templates. No semantic changes, just style cleanup. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneTheDJ (talkcontribs) 19:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Allow Article/Section/Paragraph to be Specified in Template[edit]

{{editprotected}} I'd like this template to be modified to allow article/section/paragraph to be specified as the first argument, instead of just article. The code below maintains article as the default and is compatible with the date template parameter. I've tested it in the sandbox with the standard testcases. Can an admin please replace the template source:

This article's plot


This {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|article}}'s plot

Thanks! twilsonb (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll watch these pages so I can then edit the documentation page. twilsonb (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This seems reasonably uncontroversial and there have been no objections, so I have made the requested edit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It works in Johnny Mnemonic (film), and I've edited the documentation. twilsonb (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This should be reverted. The point of {{plot}} is that it refers to the whole article, as the length of the plot is supposed to be relative to the rest of the coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

requested edit: change link target[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please replace the current link to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Length in

This article's plot summary may be too long

with a link to the parent section Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#What to cut:

This article's plot summary may be too long

Although the piped link name "too long" may imply the "Length" subsection as the closest related target, I believe the parent section's content applies just as much, and by addressing the main challenge in writing succinct plot summaries it provides the more useful bookmark for interested editors. -- (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your rationale seems to make good sense. Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


I see that {{nonfiction}} redirects here. That is fine for narrative nonfiction, which has a "plot" to summarise -- but not for non-narrative nonfiction, for which the correct term would be "précis" not "plot summary". May I suggest that either (i) we expand the wording of this template to state "This article's plot summary or précis..." or (ii) recreate {{nonfiction}} to cover that eventuality. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can ascertain, the redirect was a undiscussed, unilateral WP:BOLD edit back in 2007. This would appear to indicate that I would not be violating any WP:CONSENSUS by recreating {{nonfiction}} to deal with [what is the plural of précis?]. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Template Not Moved Per previous discussion consensus is against the move. Alpha Quadrant talk 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to Template talk:Plot/Archive 1#Requested move. I am reinstating the request since the reasoning I provided has not been refuted at all, it was simply ignored and the request subsequently shut down based on simple I-don't-like-it opposition votes without any counter argument whatsoever. More importantly, my original reasoning still applies.

Template:PlotTemplate:Plot too long — In order to finalize the changes initiated by the 2009 rewording and the accompanying change of focus of the template, the template should be moved from its current name to something which more specifically reflects the current wording and specific meaning, e.g. Template:Plot-too long, similarly to the nongeneric naming of Template:Lead too long and the other intro-related template tags. The current name is too general, considering Template:All plot. Both templates are equally policy-based (All plot refers to WP:NOT#PLOT) resp. guideline/essay-based (this template refers to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary) and address distinct but both widespread, not to say rampant issues. -- (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change "overly" to "excessively"[edit]

{{edit protected}} The word "overly" is a modern Americanism that sucks and should be changed. It's one of those disputed portmanteau adverbs, like "fastly", that there are certainly more sophisticated alternatives for. "Excessively" is usually better in place of any instance of "overly". "Too" works too, although that's already used for the other parameter, and we don't want to overly use it. Equazcion (talk) 02:47, 22 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. If anyone agrees they can revert (or request a revert) and then discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks :) Equazcion (talk) 13:02, 22 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: dashes[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. Would someone please be so kind as to change

  • "refresh their memory — no more" to "refresh their memory—no more"; and
  • "Topic-specific guidelines - " to "Topic-specific guidelines—"

per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes).—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Bump—this still hasn't been done (please).—DocWatson42 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request: Plural[edit]

Edit Request: Adding a second default parameter to determine a plural status - i.e. exclusion displays the normal:

"This {{{1|article}}}'s plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise."

- whereas inclusion displays:

"This {{{1|article}}}'s plot summaries may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve them by removing unnecessary details and making them more concise."

Changes are displayed in bold. Especially necessary for television series episode tables where multiple summaries are too long, if not all, and a single tag can notify for most/all episodes. Alex|The|Whovian 07:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The required edits have been implemented in the sandbox. Alex|The|Whovian 12:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem, but there are other changes in that sandbox. Please synchronise sandbox with the live version and then make your required changes. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Done. Alex|The|Whovian 12:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)