Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Hosted in Florida?

I thought the servers had been moved to California. Maybe the policy needs to be updated. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

no, just the WMF the offices have moved. The servers remain in Florida. DGG (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Could the deletionists please cool their jets?

I would like to gently point out that there are times when a brief listing of different quotations on a topic may indeed help to illuminate that topic, and the excessively strident language of this guideline on this point ("If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.") should probably be toned down. (The page on my mind, at the moment, is Beat Generation.) -- Doom (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's more of an organizational standpoint than a deletionist standpoint. We have Wikipquote for quotes, so we don't need entire quote sections in articles. Which isn't to say you can't quote someone, but a section dedicated to it would be better on Wikiquote. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Victim Lists

Wikipedia:Victim Lists is an attempt by me to create community consensus on the inappropriateness of lists of victims on Wikipedia. As this relates to this guideline, and I used it in formulating reasons why these lists are inappropriate on Wikipedia, I felt it important to notify those who pay attention to this page that this discussion was occuring. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change to PLOT

(moved from #Break: Suggested change to PLOT)

I propose that PLOT be rewritten as such to expand on what this really implies:

• Study, reading, viewing, or fan guides: Wikipedia's coverage of published works is not a replacement for reading, hearing, or seeing the work for oneself. Wikipedia articles on published works, including non-fictional and fictional works, should not provide in-depth descriptions of the content of the work nor detailed plot summaries, but instead should describe the development, critical reception, influence, and historical significance of the work as a whole or aspects of the work. Such coverage should be supported by real-world context and sourced analysis, and can be augmented by concise plot summaries and limited coverage of characters and elements from a work of fiction.

This makes PLOT more explicit, in that we basically should not be a replacement for the work itself, as most guides tend to be. This is also inline with WP not being guide for travel, consumers, etc. Mind you, I understand that could also be seen as a significant shift which is why I'm only proposing this or wording like it to see how it would fly. --MASEM 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I enthusiastically agree with the idea you're forwarding here. However, assuming it is ever actually embraced as policy, I wonder how hard it'll be to actually implement it. People have gotten into the habit of dumping the complete plot of a work into Wikipedia... can we make a convincing case that Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of abridgements?--Father Goose (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Surethe idea is right, but how you are planning to discriminate it is another matter. Replacement for what purposes? "in depth" how are you going to define it. All this is too detailed for a policy page, and should be discussed along with the guidelines for writing about fiction. DGG (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with handling it in a guideline, which would probably involve moving WP:PLOT into such a guideline. As a very approximate rule of thumb, one paragraph (50-100 words) per half hour length seems about right to me for an overview. Greater plot detail can readily be included in commentary sections that discuss various plot points.

As a reader of Wikipedia, I've learned the hard way to not read any article about any work of fiction I plan to see or read in the future. But I don't see why we can't structure our articles so that those who want a sense of the work can read the first few sections, and those who want a detailed analysis can read the whole article.--Father Goose (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Brilliant!! Fully agree to this proposed change by Masem. Dorftrottel (canvass) 20:50, April 16, 2008
• Very nice clarification. It clearly explains what Wikipedia is and is not, and hence in my view this is the perfect place for it. Jakew (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I might be misunderstanding your proposal, but the proposal sounds like current plot summaries should be shortened further (should not provide in-depth descriptions of the content of the work nor detailed plot summaries vs. not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot). The plot summary, which summarizes an entire book, movie, etc into a few paragraphs, can never be a replacement for reading or watching. A certain level of in-depth summary is necessary for readers to understand other facets such as receptions, significance, etc. If someone is using Wikipedia to avoid reading, then that's their problem. eDenE 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, plot summaries should be kept to the necessary and useful minimum. Dorftrottel (talk) 13:28, April 17, 2008
  • It is not so much to prevent users of Wikipedia from skipping out on reading the work for themselves, but to make sure our coverage of works doesn't end up looking like that. What are currently good plot summaries (typically 100-200 works for every 10 minutes) are fine, and we shouldn't be looking to cut these further, but this is more to point to the fact that editors, particular fans of certain types of fiction, tend to pontificate their work and that we end up describing every little factoid of plot. We should encourage that at offsite wikis and freely link into them, but what is at en.wiki should be just the basics to set the stage to appreciate the real world aspects and analysis of the work. Basically, to be completely clear, this is stating that while the first pillar states that Wikipedia is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias, one type of specialized encyclopedia that we are not is that of a reader or fan guide for published works (just as we are not a travel guide or a consumer guide). --MASEM 14:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• I like the current wording, I like Masem's wording, and DGG's wording is also fine. As long as it is made unmistakenly clear that plot-only articles (or articles containing little else than plot) are not what wikipedia is for, I am not opposed to any change in the fineprint. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• I am happy with both, except I wonder how they fit in with supplementary articles which may have sprouted out eg. fictional timelines, due to length or layout concerns. Also, if something is clearly notable, then wording which encourages addition of critique, rather than wholesale removal of plot should be encouraged. Carrots generally work better than sticks and some ideas on how to find RL material eg biographies, film reviews, critical essays etc. should be highlighted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • On this end, in WP:FICT we've realized that providing exactly these types of likely sources to support the elements of a work of fiction as to show notability is appropriate, as to help people locate information. We also probably should make the transwiki of material a more visible and acceptable option (read: get over the issues of COI vs Wikia, and the stigma of wikis for EL's). --MASEM 15:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree totally - thing is is to highlight a quick and easy link to a "how to" essay from this bit here.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with what sgeureka said, I like all three wordings and think they capture the basic idea. Though if I had to choose I think I prefer Masem's over the other two, just slightly. Stardust8212 22:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I think this version says it much more clearly than the current, and I like that it particularly includes characters as far too many people try to get around "but its not plot, its character description". I also agree that the current guidelines of 100-200 words for every 10 minutes (400-900 for films) are fine. Its that most people ignore them that tends to result in plotty articles. Some sort of guideline for written work would be tremendously helpful as well. I've seen far too many articles on books that are insanely long on plot, and some graphic novel articles giving a panel by panel description! How many words is considered good to summarize a 200 page graphic novel, or 300 page novel for example? AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It might be worth retaining "Plot summaries" at the beginning, so it starts "Plot summaries and study, reading, viewing, or fan guides" but other than that it's great. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Skeptical, not an improvement. I think the language about "not a replacement for reacing..." is a red herring and detracts from the issue. I don't think that those editors who are wont to fill articles with plotcruft would agree that they are doing so in order to make the article a "replacement for reading..." the real thing. Therefore, as an argument for why one should not fill articles with plotcruft this statement just falls flat. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree it won't stop those deadset to spell out every detail, and I don't think it's NOT's job to prevent this. NOT's issuance on not being a travel guide does not prevent those with pride in the city/country they live in to fill the geographic article with touristy details - but approached from an encyclopedic manner. Stating that we aren't a reading guide can only help to focus (if even a fraction of editors) to describe their favorite published work in a more encyclopedic tone. The worse that could happen is.. well, no change from the current since PLOT's core elements are still part of this; the emphasis of PLOT is not weakened. --MASEM 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I support this being added under "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook" (after being adapted appropriately); but oppose it replacing the current WP:NOT#PLOT. G.A.S 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• 'Support In my view, this is a good clear statement of what WP is not.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose, no offense Masem but that's the worst idea I've ever heard on Wikipedia. You want WP:NOT to say "Wikipedia is not a fan guide"? That may be true in some sense, but then you'll get people saying "Why do we have an article on Acrocanthosaurus? Wikipedia is not a dinosaur fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on Ramblin' Wreck? Wikipedia is not a Georgia Tech fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on the Canon T90? Wikipedia is not a camera fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on the Pioneer Zephyr? Wikipedia is not a train fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on Halo 3? Wikipedia is not a Halo fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on Callisto? Wikipedia is not an astronomy fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on You Only Move Twice? Wikipedia is not a Simpsons fan guide.", "Why do we have an article on Hollaback Girl? Wikipedia is not a Gwen Stefani fan guide.", and so on. You have to think about what unintended consequences your actions may have sitewide. Do you really think Wikipedia is not a study guide? It's obvious that articles are not replacements for published works and there's really no need to include that in a list of things Wikipedia is not. Articles should not contain in-depth descriptions of the content of the work? Are you serious? And I'm personally quite interested in finding out when this "real-world context" meme got started and what policies back it up. --Pixelface (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Real-world context is what we need to have verification of articles on published works, as independant, third-party sources. We can use primary sources to support the description of a work, but without secondary sources for real world context and analysis, the article fails verification. The "study/fan guide" is meant to point at the fact that when we are writing articles, we do not write them for the benefit of those that enjoy those works, but to someone that may never ever encounter the work at all and requires a 60,000 ft overview of what that work is. There is a large different in writing towards that level, and writing towards those that do enjoy the work. Part of that entails writing just about the work's content from the primary sources (the guide approach) and writing about the work's content and influence or analysis in the real world (the encyclopedic approach). If any topic (work, character, episode, etc.) can demonstrate the latter, we should have an article on it. If not, its not that we can't cover it as part of a larger topic or listing article deemed appropriate by consensus; there should be no technical reason that a user cannot search on an episode name, character name, or other topic and either be taken to the article or seciton of article where the concept is described briefly, or to a disambig page (or equivalent Hatnoted page) to be pointed to such. I will also point that "study/fan guide" also points to issues of possible original research and non-neutral points of view in how the content is presented, even if real-world context is shown for a published worked; eg, the editor may unwillingly give one aspect of an article too much treatment or write it in a highly flattering way with peacock terms, a style that would be appropriate for a guide but needs to be scaled back or quoted to secondary sources if included here. The fact that we are already not a how-to guide, a travel guide, nor a comparison shopping guide implies that we are not a study/content guide for published works. --MASEM 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Real-world context is what we need to have verification of articles on published works, as independant, third-party sources." Per what policy? If you can find when "real-world context" was added to WP:NOT#PLOT, and where that conversation occurred on this talk page, I'd like to know. I'm still looking myself. You say "without secondary sources for real world context and analysis, the article fails verification." That is absolutely false. The verifiability policy only requires a reliable, published source. The book 1984 is a reliable source for much of the Winston Smith article. If any analysis is presented, secondary sources are needed. And your claim that we do not write articles for those who enjoy fictional works is absolutely false. Who do you think reads Wikipedia Masem? I don't agree with your characterization of the "guide approach" and "encyclopedic approach" at all. Why does someone have to demonstrate that the character Winston Smith has had an "influence on the real world" before there should be an article on Winston Smith? Or Jean Valjean? Or any other fictional character stub? Wikipedia is not paper and the five pillars say nothing about "real world influence." "Real world influence" has nothing to do with verifiability, no original research, or neutral point of view. And WP:NOT#OR already covers original research. Masem, please read WP:NOTTRAVEL. It lists Travel guides and then explains what that means. You haven't explained what a "fan guide" means and that's the problem. Do you seriously think Wikipedia is not a study guide? Do you seriously think that it was *not* Doctor Who fans that worked to make Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) a featured article? The majority of Wikipedia is written by fans, Masem. Who else are you going to get to work for free? --Pixelface (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I found when "real-world context" was added to WP:NOT#PLOT. Kyorosuke added it September 3, 2006 with the edit summary "Make less insane" and Kyorosuke also added "However, a plot summary is one of the most important aspects of any article on fiction, and, in most cases, consisting solely of a plot summary is grounds for expansion and cleanup, not deletion." However, "content that does not belong in an encyclopedia" is a reason for deletion. Therefore, an article being only a plot summary is a reason for deletion, something that Hiding, who added the Plot summaries section in the first place (when there was no consensus for it) has denied again and again in the WT:NOT archives (see here for example). I can find all kinds of opposition to this section in the archives. As far as I can tell, it has never had consensus and it doesn't belong here. It appears to be one of those things that people saw in policy and thought, well policy says so, so I guess that's the way things are. Masem, unless you can explain why plot-only articles should be deleted, I plan on removing this section again because it simply does not have the consensus needed to be in a policy. And I'd be happy to provide more quotes regarding WP:NOT#PLOT from the WT:NOT archives. --Pixelface (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Judging by the rest of this discussion, while exact wordings may have different support, there is overall strong support for this section.
      • Also note that verification requires "independent" sources. The work itself is not sufficient for verification of the work's plot.
      • Remember, first and foremost, WP is a highly generalized encyclopedia; people should be able to read any topic without a priori knowledge and come out from the article with a better understanding of what that topic is and why it is important, regardless of the type of work. If, in satsifying the highly generalized reader, some elements of a more specialized nature can be added that can help those that know the topic already to learn more, but these should not overwhelm the generalized information. For fiction, the priority in these articles is to explain to the reader that will never watch or read the work, but needs to learn about it for research purposes, why that work is important without having any understanding of the work; in achieving that, it is expected to provide some plot information as needed, but the "why", through reliable sources, is going to come from the real-world context of the work - did it win an award, was it highly or poorly received, etc. If all that is provided for a work, character, episode, etc is plot information, it fails its duty in informing the causal reader appropriately. Again, this mimics all the other "not guides": a travel guide may be useful to those that visit a location, but without telling why those places are important, it is indiscriminate information. Yes, real-world information does not exist anywhere in the pillars because it is a term that only applies to fictional works; the point is that to show that a fictional work or element of it is not indiscriminately added, and to that, you need to show why others needed to know about the work. If it is the case that the general reader needs to know about the episode was a significant turning point, or that a character was key to the resolution of the work, these statements cannot be stated from primary sources only without engaging in original research, though evidence from secondary sources are completely appropriate. But as long as the article can satisfy showing why the fictional element is important, then plot and other details, within balance to help fans to learn more, are reasonable inclusions to that article.
      • Also, we are talking about the ultimate fate of such articles. 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. Lists of Episodes and List of Characters are two well accepted article formats that one can group plot-only information as an adjunct spinoff of the main article on the work of fiction itself. Doing this, we do not lose coverage of these topics (redirects are cheap), only deemphasize them as stand-alone topics since they cannot show the "why" from above. Other types of information should be readily moved to offsite wikis and linked in from WP so that fans will still be able learn more. All this helps the maintainability of WP; instead of dozens and dozens of articles that each have to show their real-world context to describe why they aren't indiscriminate information, we instead have one or a small number of lists that are much more maintainable. --MASEM 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That was very well said. Please consider archiving that comment as an essay on plots. I'd like to be able to refer to your explanation in future discussions. Rossami (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No, Masem, I don't see "strong support" for the section, now or any time before now in the archives. Show me some diffs. And yes, the work itself is sufficient for verification of the work's plot. See the article Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back for example (oldid) and tell me how many citations you see. You say that Wikipedia is a "highly generalized encyclopedia." Where do you get that from? The five pillars? No, that says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." WP:NOT says Wikipedia is not paper. And no, there is no "priority" for fiction articles to learn "why that work is important." What policy is that from? Even if WP:WAF said something like what, why does that belong in a list of things Wikipedia is not? And again, you repeat "real-world context." Tell me which policy (other that the edit made by Kyorosuke) you're getting that from. You say "If all that is provided for a work, character, episode, etc is plot information, it fails its duty in informing the causal reader appropriately." How so? If a reader wants to learn about what happens to Winston Smith in 1984, how does plot information fail to inform the "casual reader."? And how is "failing to inform the casual reader" what Wikipedia is not? And no, you don't have to tell people why a geographical location is "important." There is no importance policy. You seem to be arguing like WP:NOT#PLOT has been a policy since Wikipedia was created, "the point is that to show that a fictional work or element of it is not indiscriminately added, and to that, you need to show why others needed to know about the work." People don't NEED to know about anything on Wikipedia. Again, show me the importance policy. Please. You say "Instantaneous evaluation of a plot-only article right now should not be means for deletion", but that's what inclusion in What Wikipedia is not means. Content not suitable for Wikipedia is a reason for deletion. The inclusion of Plot summaries under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information means that articles that are only plot summaries should be deleted, just like articles that are ads or original inventions. 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? And again, please show me the importance policy, I'd love to read it. You're saying the Plot summaries section is in WP:NOT to help the maintainability of WP? If you can show me ANYWHERE in the WT:NOT archives where this section EVER had consensus, please do so. Or I plan on removing it again. There needs to be consensus for a section of policy to be a part of policy, and I cannot find anywhere where this section ever had consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Everyone participating in this current section, except yourself, clearly seems to agree that the current PLOT or a variation of it needs to be here. That's the current consensus I am pointing to. Articles needs independent third-party sources by WP:V; the work itself, while sufficient to support the plot summary within the context of a larger work, is not sufficient to support an article which lacks anything but plot summary. And why articles should be deleted verses how they get deleted are two different things; yes, we don't allow plot only articles, but it is improper to immediately delete them on site, instead letting editors give a chance to do something about it. That's the balance between maintaining encyclopedic quality verses the editing process of a volunteer system. If Winston Smith can ultimately show real-world info, the article should be kept, if not, then merged to 1984. --MASEM 14:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Please look at the entire talk page. And I'll be happy to quote more people from the archives. There's no consensus for the fan guide rewrite, and there's no consensus that the current wording of WP:NOT#PLOT belongs in WP:NOT. You said "Articles needs independent third-party sources by WP:V" but that was also added to policy by Hiding, the user who added PLOT to NOT when there was no consensus for it on this very talk page. It's likely that phrase had no consensus either. There's no consensus to merge Winston Smith on Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four either, and you and Eusebeus appear to be the only people in favor of it. And why are you suggesting a merge if plot-only articles should be deleted? If you think editors should be given a chance to do something about plot-only articles, should they be given only five days — the time it takes for an AFD to close? Content not suitable for an encyclopedia is a reason for deletion. Would an article that was an advertisement be okay if it was merged into another article? Would a how-to guide be okay if it was merged into another article? There is no policy on real-world info and the addition of "real-world context" by Kyorosuke was never discussed on this talk page as far as I know. Why should the Winston Smith article "show real-world info" and why should the article be deleted if it does not? I think articles probably shouldn't be only plot summaries either. However, articles that *are* only plot summaries should not have to be improved within five days or face deletion. That is why WP:NOT#PLOT belongs in a guideline like WP:WAF instead of a list of things Wikipedia is not. WP:PLOT leads to such nonsensical events as the splitting of a plot summary into its own article and then having the plot summary deleted altogether. --Pixelface (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
              • I have looked at the entire page; there's no consensus on which version to keep, but there is strong consensus to have something that, effectively, states WP is not a collect of plot-only articles. And despite your insistance this is a style guideline, it is not: it is a combination of both style and content, just like travel and how-to guides. We say WP should not be a travel guide: this means that we avoid, from content, including "places to eat" and "things to do" in articles talking about geographic destinations unless they have citable information of why they should be included, such as a highly notable restaurant or a nationally renown festival. It also means we avoid describing, in style, these notable elements to make them sound more attractive or as must-see places, but instead gather information into logical chunks. In the same vein, because we are not only plot summaries, then from content, we simply do not reiterate plot details without any other information, but instead make sure these are included as part of the general discussion of the work to explain why the work is of importance or renown to be included in WP. From a style approach, we know we don't split off plot summaries or the like, and there's general ways of organizing various works of fiction depending on the media that includes plot along side that real-world information. Mind you, exact details - exactly how notability should be judged, and how the articles should be organized, needs to be defined in guidelines and not the policy (the RS/V comparison), but consensus again shows that a topic that is only plot is not an appropriate article for WP, and we use those guidelines to define exactly why.
              • A plot-only article, if ultimately can only be made plot-only, should be deleted in 5 days if consensus is for that, but it is clear from TTN's past work and the Ep and Char cases that we don't want to do AFD of these articles immediately. Articles should be tagged for 2 weeks to a month to show good faith efforts for improvement, whether merging plot-only aspects to acceptable coverage of the larger work, or to demonstrate real-world considerations of the work. If no such efforts are attempted, or clearly there is no way these can be met, then and only then should AFD be considered, barring any other dispution resolution routes. This approach (tag, wait, and then AFD) needs to be emphasized more, likely in WP:N, WP:DEL or WP:FICT (or all three, and I know this is in the third), because to otherwise bite people to fix an article in five days without warning is not what we should be doing. That doesn't weaken why PLOT should be in NOT; if anything else, it provides a point for newer users to know what the policy is (both NOT, NOTE, FICT, etc.) and work to improve towards those. The ArbCom case clearly (to me at least) states that we need to focus on more colloborative efforts, and even if tagging a plot-only article as being such can be seen as a problem to some, tagging and waiting is certainly an acceptable step in the editing process. --MASEM 17:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Real-world context" is not a meme, it's policy - and it "started" to keep unencyclopedic material out of an encyclopedia. However, I agree that the "fan guide" wording is unhelpful, even if you have stretched it way past what it was intended it to be. Black Kite 09:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - partly per Pixelface, partly because I think it introduces substantial ambiguity into the section, and partly because whether an article is an adequate replacement for "reading, hearing, or seeing the work for oneself" is something for readers to determine for themselves. We can determine what content our articles should contain, but it is not for us to dictate the needs or preferences of our readers. (I assume that this was not intended, but that's how the proposed wording reads to me...). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: It is more ambiguous and will lend itself to varying interpretations. To a fan of a fictional work, even 1000 words of plot summary may be adequate and falls far short of recreating that work; to someone who hates the show, 200 words may seem excessive. And there is no objective dichotomy between "fan" and "not fan" but gradients from one end of the spectrum to the other. Much as I agree with the sentiment that WP should not be a fan site, or should not recreate fictional works, the underlying subjectivity of the concepts will not make this wording very useful. I'm not sure the existing wording is much more helpful, but I think it is more concise, and doesn't introduce the difficulty of defining when you are substituting a Wikipedia article for the actual work of fiction. Fletcher (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. ...fan guide... and ...not a replacement for reading... are pejorative...belittling some Wikipedia editors is not helpful. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative

Wikipedia coverage on published works (such as fictional stories) generally should contain an appropriate summary of that work's plot or contents but also should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on such matters as a work's development, reception, influence,and historical significance. This should apply to non fiction as well--we have too many article on slightly notable nonfiction containing a detailed summary of the contents far beyond what is warranted by the works importance. Things may be clearer if we get away from the overemphasis here on fiction, which should go in more detailed guidelines. DGG (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine that people might get hung up on the definition of appropriate, but I think this is a slightly more elegant way to put things. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I quite like this; I would be tempted to say "...but must also contain real-world..." to make it quite clear that sole screeds of plot summary are not appropriate Wikipedia articles, but apart from that, it's all good. Black Kite 09:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; I think we want something sort of between this and the above; certainly something that is stronger and slightly more focussed and clearer than what we currently have. The net effect needs to be that no article should every be solely "plot" (or in-universe content, etc), and that there needs to be an appropriate balance between the two. Defining what's appropriate in terms of that balance is much harder, and belongs somewhere like WP:WAF, really. SamBC(talk) 13:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Where, speaking from experience, people will ignore and dismiss it as being "only a guideline". Dorftrottel (talk) 13:31, April 17, 2008

If the guideline is referenced here, then the policy would be telling people to follow the guideline; and whatever happens, people will wikilawyer, it's inevitable. SamBC(talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose that wording encourages solely in-universe material and makes real-world context and analysis an afterthought Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This guideline talks about what WP is not; this wording avoids saying the extended plot summary is not appropriate, and is therefore is too wishy-washy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Seems good enough to me, but wording like that belongs in WP:WAF, not a list of things Wikipedia is not. "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" is a reason for deletion. Should we delete all articles that lack sourced analysis? Unless you're saying that an article "should contain real-world context and sourced analysis" within five days (the length of an AFD), that sort of language does not belong in this policy. --Pixelface (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the policy statements found in Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are good enough. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Current version

"Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work."

While I won't say that I'm opposed to the above suggestions for WP:PLOT's wording, I would like to say that the current wording would be my first choice. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• This remains my first choice too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sweet and short. This is indeed my preference as well. At most it could be expanded to include non-fictional works (or be clarified that it includes non-fictional works). G.A.S 10:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nope. Still doesn't belong in WP:NOT. Inclusion in WP:NOT is a reason for deletion. The current wording suggests that an article like Winston Smith should be deleted, which is ridiculous. --Pixelface (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Winston Smith shouldn't be deleted, it should be improved. It needs real-world sourcing and references. It's technically a delete candidate as it stands, but in reality it's not, as if it was sent to AfD someone would improve it - it's just an utterly crap article at the moment. Meanwhile, I agree with Ned - the current wording is fine (or even DGG's with the addition of the word "must", as I suggested). However, removing PLOT from WP:NOT and sending it to WP:WAF where it would be endlessly wikilawyered over, would be a recipe for chaos. Black Kite 09:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • But "content that does not belong in an encyclopedia" is a criteria for deletion. The inclusion of Plot summaries in WP:NOT means that the Winston Smith article should be deleted. Again, why should a cleanup issue be listed in what Wikipedia is not? And again you repeat the "real-world" sourcing meme (that appears in WP:FICT no less than 18 times for no apparent reason). --Pixelface (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Because it's not a clean-up issue, it's policy. You calling it a "meme" makes no difference. But just think how ludicrous this sounds, really - "Oh, I've missed the latest episode of whatever program. I must found out what happened! I know - the very thing - I'll look in an encyclopedia!". Meanwhile, yes, you're quite right - in its current state, Winston Smith is a deletion candidate. My point, however, was not process-based, but pragmatic - that it would never happen, because it would need to be an AFD - at which point someone would fix it. Unlike Smith, however, there are plenty more fictional character and other articles which wouldn't get fixed, because they can't be fixed - there's no out-of-universe sources, context, or analysis available for them. And that is what NOT#PLOT is there for - it's a vital cleanup tool. The only reason I can see for trying to shuffle NOT#PLOT off to WP:WAF is to give such unencyclopedic content-free articles an easier run at being wikilawyered away from deletion or merging at AfD. Black Kite 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Do you know WHY WP:NOT#PLOT is policy Black Kite? Because Hiding added it despite no consensus on the talk page and Kyorosuke added the part about "real world context." That's it. You're saying someone would fix the Winston Smith article at AFD. Again, why waste people's time at AFD for a cleanup issue? Why force people to improve the article in five days or else? Where is the "out-of-universe sources, context, analysis" policy? There is none. Inclusion in WP:NOT is a reason for deletion. Period. If articles like Great Expectations plot details are being merged, which is the obvious thing to do, WP:NOT#PLOT simply doesn't belong in policy. You may support WP:NOT#PLOT Black Kite, but it simply doesn't have the consensus required to be in policy. --Pixelface (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • If there was no consensus for the addition, why has it remained in the page so long? Hiding T 21:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Because Pixelface doesn't understand the concept of consensus. He believes it means that unless hordes of people descend on difficult-to-find backwater talkpages to defend a particular policy every time he raises a point, it means those policies don't have consensus. He's completely wrong, of course, but refuses to accept it. Black Kite 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
              • At what point does such behaviour become disruptive? Hiding T 09:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
                • At the point it involves edit-warring or being incivil, which I believe Pixelface is far from doing. I take offense the the idea that mere discussion of the issue, and attempts to change consensus (which may involve the occasional bold edit), is disruptive. Policy says that "Past decisions are open to challenge and should not be 'binding' in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back." DHowell (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • When someone suggests that, you will be right and free to take offence too. Hiding T 13:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If I understand it correctly WP:NOT may provide reasons for deletion, but does not mandate deletion. WP:NOT could also be a way of noting an article has gone in the wrong direction, and should be improved. Fletcher (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Improved in five days or else? --Pixelface (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• The wording is very good as it stands - admirably clear and to the point. Its basic tenets have been amply reconfirmed at numerous AfDs, which to, my mind me at least, offers clear and unequivocal evidence that this position still enjoys community consensus. Eusebeus (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Only if you accept the premise that those editors who frequent AFD are representative of the community of editors as a whole. Catchpole (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'll agree with keeping the status quo as well. This section is supposed prevent the creation of articles such as Plot of Naruto: Shippūden and countless other "articles" that were (and would be nothing more than) plot summary dumps, but still allows for shorter summaries as part of a larger article about the work or other fictional element as a whole. Winston Smith doesn't fall under this rule because the article is supposed to be about the character and can be more than just a plot summary since there are sources that talk about his character and his real world impact. If his article is just plot summary, but we know it can be exapnded to meet the notability guidelines, then we clean up and expand the article. On the other hand, something like Plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four would fail this rule since it's purpose would be nothing more than a longer regurgitation of the novel's plot. WP:PLOT's goal is to prevent articles that are only "plot guides" and nothing more that that, and the current wording does that just fine. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's supposed to prevent the creation of articles? Do you think new editors read WP:NOT before creating articles? Plot of Naruto: Shippuden was kept at its first AFD, which is more evidence that WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't have consensus. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Naruto I, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Exile Plot,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot Synopsis of 8-Bit Theater, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Mortal Kombat, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Expectations plot details for example. The article Winston Smith *does* fall under WP:NOT#PLOT. And so does every article in Category:Fictional character stubs. 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. You really think an article like Plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four couldn't be merged into the Nineteen Eighty-Four article? That it should be nominated for deletion instead of placing a {{merge}} tag on the article like WP:ATD suggests? WP:PLOT doesn't actually prevent articles that are only plot guides. It serves as a blunt instrument to nominate and delete fictional character articles like Fantine or Cosette. --Pixelface (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• A question of clarification on something may be useful here. The words "plot summaries" can be taken to mean two things. The first is the direct, literal meaning in that it is a summary of a plot of a work, and does not include character descriptions, setting information, etc. The second is the one that basically includes all in-universe elements that are derived from the plot, including characters, setting, and the plot itself. My question is: which way are we interpreting this? The change I suggested emphasizes more the latter, but I've seen people argue this current version doesn't cover characters, and thus there are arguments to whether this applies at all. --MASEM 12:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think a valid point that has been made by Pixelface is being glossed over or ignored here. The article on Winston Smith fails WP:NOT. Therefore, it should be deleted. Anyone willing to prod it? If not, then it seems to me that you agree that that WP:PLOT is a MoS issue, not a WP:NOT issue. Please address this point, anyone. Plvekamp (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I was going to reply that Winston Smith should be proposed to be trimmed&merged (not deleted), and unless someone volunteers to cleanup/expand the article in the next one or two months, the merge should be performed so that wikipedia can have the cake (coverage of the character) and eat it too (NOT#PLOT is observed). But I see the article is already being proposed for a merge, so I'm a little late to the game. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For any of us to do that at this time could be seen as reaking of pointiness; since it's in the works, however... --MASEM 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Current version covers things well enough. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 12:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Please note I appear to be misrepresented in the debate above. If people want my opinion, I would expect them to ask for it. My position is that WP:PLOT is a tool for improving Wikipedia. Sometimes that means deleting stuff. I support the inclusion of this section. Wikipedia articles should not exist to regurgitate plot. Hiding T 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe the current version contradicts the 'no original research' and 'verifiability' policy. In other words, if an editor can write a 'plot summary' from good secondary sources outside of the work itself, then why not? I'm certain one can write a very good article on the plot of Hamlet from scholarly sources. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And that means you can write an article that approaches Hamlet on analysis and other aspects more than just plot alone. That is, if you can write a plot summary from secondary sources, there's bound to be other information necessary to round out the article to broadly cover it. --MASEM 06:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What if an article is just a plot summary written entirely from secondary sources and yet contains no analysis? Should the article be deleted? --Pixelface (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, but it does need to be hit with some improvement tag; the fact that if the plot sources truly are secondary, it is just a matter of cleanup and adding more from these sources beyond plot. 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. --MASEM 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed

The problem with WP:NOT#PLOT is not necessarily how it is worded, but how it is used. Because deletion policy gives WP:NOT as a reason for deletion, it is used in AfD and DRV debates as a reason to delete, rather than improve, many articles about notable published works. "Policy trumps consensus" is an oft-heard slogan at AfD and DRV, and as such it is used not just as a reason for deletion, but as a reason to ignore "keep" arguments. Despite several statements above from supporters of this policy that it is not intended to require deletion of articles which don't comply, that is exactly how it is being intepreted in deletion debates, and by several (though not all) administrators who close such debates. As such, it circumvents deletion policy by not requiring an actual consensus to delete. The very fact that the policy says "should" or "should not", and not "must" or "must not", indicates that this should be a guideline, not a policy. Anytime a policy says "should", it might as well say "must", because that's how policies are used and interpreted in Wikipedia. There might be a consensus that articles should not solely consist of plot summary, but that does not create a mandate to delete all articles which contain mostly plot summary or descriptions of plot elements. This is why WP:NOT#PLOT should not be policy. Those who object to the deletion of plot summary articles are routinely rebuffed in AfD because of the existence of this policy, and then they are rebuffed by the supporters of this policy because "it doesn't require deletion". Such bureaucracy is not conducive to a healthy editing atmosphere. DHowell (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, you'd think that removing or culling over bloated plot summaries from articles would act as a shield in an AfD. You know, fix the problem instead of waiting for the article to be deleted and vetching latter.

That is assuming that we are looking at articles that have more to them than just plot summary. In which case the article may not be salvageable.

The long and the short: Writing about fiction only in an in-universe context, which is what plot summaries are, isn't good. Having something to point to as a statement that the primary focus of the articles should, if not must, be the real world context of the topic is a good thing. It keeps us honest both with what were doing and how we're treating the property of others, which the works of fiction (TV shows, films, games, etc) are. - J Greb (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we please table this discussion? For weeks now, we've had people regurgitating the same arguments back and forth at each other. So far, no one advocating to remove this section has answered either 1) under what conditions would an encyclopedia would consider a page that consisted solely of plot summary to be a good article or 2) how WP:NOT#PLOT is different from WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTGUIDE or any of the other WP:NOT sections dealing with content. Just like pages that consist only of a dictionary entry, pages that consist only of plot summary are not what encyclopedias are about. If a dicdef page can be expanded, fix it. If a plot-only page can be rebalanced, fix it.
The arguments to remove the section are based on the false premise that pages which currently violate WP:NOT must immediately be deleted. The actual wording of WP:DEL#REASON is "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia". If it can be made suitable, then fix it and the point is moot. If the content's not suitable, then I don't see any reasonable argument why it ought to be kept. If a page could possibly be fixed in the future but neither the AFD participants nor anyone who has the page watchlisted can be bothered to do so, that's a more difficult judgment call but even Eventualism has a limit. If a page has not been fixed after a reasonable amount of time and visibility, I do think that can be de facto evidence that the page can't/won't be fixed. The AFD process is surprisingly good at making those judgment calls for dicdefs, and the clauses of WP:NOT so I see little reason to suspect that it suddenly fails only for plot summaries.
Regardless, if you see plot-summary pages nominated at AFD that you think could be fixed, the right thing for the project is to prove your point by improving the article, not endlessly arguing that Wikipedia should lower its standards. That's also the easiest way to win the argument. If you make substantial improvements which successfully address the concerns raised during the deletion debate, those early concerns get no weight during the closing. Rossami (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my impression that a number of "list of episodes" articles are little more than plot summary pages, yet several of them are featured lists. My understanding of why this is done is because multiple seasons of TV shows contain a lot of plot that even in very summarized form fill a page unto themselves. In that respect, we do still have real-world commentary and analysis of the TV shows, along with the plots of the individual episodes, but they are on separate pages. Are any changes to WP:PLOT needed to reflect this practice?--Father Goose (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

LOEs as well as Lists of Characters are currently subject of debate at WP:FICT, but the way to consider them is that they are notable by themselves (Smallsville (Season 1)) or they are considered as a spinout of the notable work due to length (though when and how they should be used is in some question). These lists are considered as support for the main article of fiction, and thus must meet other policies (V/NOR/NPOV) but as long as they are treated as a supporting spinout, they are effectively the same as if they were part of the article itself, thus keeping in line with PLOT. --MASEM 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No change should be needed. "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." (originally worded as "a part of a larger topic", but meaning the same thing) leaves the door open to seeing these pages not by themselves, in context with other articles on the show. While there is often disagreement about how much plot we should summarize for a given work, things like LOEs and season pages are often seen by most as an acceptable amount for fundamental information. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As to your questions, "Under what conditions would an encyclopedia consider a page that consisted of plot summary to be a good article?" — I don't think that's relevant to this policy. This isn't about good articles, this policy is about what doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Saying ungood articles don't belong on Wikipedia sounds like a good idea in theory, but you can't say ungood articles qualify as content not suitable for an encyclopedia written by volunteers. Under what conditions would the English Wikipedia consider a page written entirely in German to be a good article? Probably never. But we don't put "Articles are not simply German" under WP:IINFO. Regarding your second question, on how WP:NOT#PLOT is different from "WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTGUIDE or any of the other WP:NOT sections dealing with content.", there appears to be some people who think WP:NOTDICDEF should be changed to a guideline, as can be seen here after the AFD for Dude. Wikipedia has all kinds of articles on words, slang, medical terms, etc. In my mind, WP:NOTDICDEF is meant to direct people to Wiktionary. And as far as I know, nobody has argued that propaganda, OpEds, self-promotion, advertising, sales catalogs, price guides, instruction manuals, how-to guides, or travel guides would be acceptable as long as they were presented along with "real-world context and sourced analysis." If a dicdef page can be expanded, I agree, people should fix it. If a plot-only page can be improved, people should fix it. However, Wikipedia is not a forced labor camp. It's a volunteer project. I feel that the idea that a plot-only page has to be improved within five days or be deleted goes against the editing policy. If a new contributor creates a page with just a plot summary, and someone immediately AFDs it for "failing PLOT", I think that would be pretty sad. A better way to help people write better articles would be to teach them how to look for sources and cite them. Yes, it would help if people would improve plot-only stubs. But deleting them doesn't improve Wikipedia. And I certainly question whether Wikipedia has high standards. It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity.[1] Any information you may find in Wikipedia may be inaccurate, misleading, dangerous or illegal.[2] The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional.[3] There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise.[4] The great majority of articles are written primarily or solely by individuals who are not subject matter experts, and may lack academic or professional credentials in the area.[5] I'm not saying that as an excuse to "lower our standards." But I think the standards of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV are what we should be looking to when writing articles. If someone creates a new article and it's just a plot summary, I say let it be unless there's plagiarism involved. Let people work on it. Let people improve it. This is a wiki. The editing policy offers good advice in this regard. PLOT is utilized as an appeal to authority in AFD debates. I think AFDs are more about evaluating subjects rather than the current state of the article. If an article is currently just a plot summary, that says nothing about whether Wikipedia should cover that topic. When there have been AFD nominations based on PLOT, there has been no consensus to delete.[6] I also think this DRV[7] resulted in no consensus, yet the article was deleted anyway. This was an article where the plot summary was split off from the main article, and people appear to want to delete it instead of merging it back in. That makes no sense to me. If someone wants to nominate an article that's only a plot summary for deletion, let them, but let them come up with a different reason than "fails PLOT." I think we need to take PLOT out of NOT for exactly the reasons DHowell gave — in addition to the fact that nobody can seem to agree on what PLOT should actually say. --Pixelface (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this page for days now and I have seen this discussion has gotten far. But I can't really see the problem with the section, I find it fine. Sure it's short, but there is a "see also", I'm not asking what's wrong with the section as it already has been explained. But after the last sentence on that paragraph there is a see also. My question is why is it there instead of the top of the section? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe FT2 first added the See also portion to point editors to more advice on the topic. It's common to put See also notes at the end of things, like this very policy for example.[8] I feel I should note that of the pages the See also bit currently links to, Wikipedia:Television episodes has a disputed tag[9] and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is a proposal[10] and I don't think either of them should be currently linked to from this policy. --Pixelface (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The box at the top.

I have a question about that, why are those four threads more important than the rest? And how? Oh and before you ask the reason I didn't post my view in any of the polls is because I got nothing to say there. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They're topic-specific, rather than date-specific, archives. They aren't more important, per se, but they are focused on one subject and hence can be given a name other than "threads from the second half of the month of October 2006". --erachima talk 03:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this lot will end up in a "plot" archive. Hiding T 08:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed

I've removed the plot section from WP:NOT and now wash my hands of it. All the best. Hiding T 14:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already put it back. There is absolutely no consensus for removing it at all. Pixelface is not the army of one, and more than enough people have said to keep it to make removing it a non-consensus base action. Plot belongs. People want to work on wording, fine, but not removing without real consensus. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The boot is now back on the other foot. Where is the consensus for adding it? There is absolutely no consensus at all. Now that I have played devil's advocate, I shall retire from this debate, apologies all around. Hiding T 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is more than enough consensus above for it to stay. For it to be removed at this point, consensus should be determined by an uninvolved administrator (or two or three). AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Per WP:BRD, one can try to boldly change something (you), but if it isn't accepted and hence reverted (AnmaFinotera), it goes back to discussion (here). Many people have talked until they were blue in the face, but by a simple count of heads, or by analysing the weight of arguments to secure the improvement of the encyclopedia, NOT#PLOT still has enough back-up to stay. You have made excellent points, by the way. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, when I removed PLOT from NOT on March 29, I honestly thought there *was* a rough consensus on this talk page to remove it — based on the comments of Father Goose, DGG, 23skidoo, Eubulide, SmokeyJoe, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, and Hobit — in comparison to the comments of Taxman, Dougweller, and Rossami. While I am not an "army of one", Hobit has also removed PLOT as well[11], and it has also been removed in the past by Metalbladex4. There are several people here who favor keeping PLOT in NOT, but there appears to be no consensus on what PLOT should say. You say PLOT belongs in this policy, but how can PLOT be a widely accepted standard all users should follow if it's ignored in AFDs like these[12][13]? That's why I think WP:WAF is a good place to give advice on the matter. Does there need to be a consensus to remove a section of policy that has no consensus? Another question is whether plot-only articles make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles like Cosette[14], Fantine[15], Winston Smith[16], Julia[17], Baldrick[18], Living Laser[19], Lenny Leonard[20], etc. Is that content not suitable for Wikipedia? Do those articles "fail" PLOT? Is it enough to say "Cosette is a fictional character in the novel Les Misérables by Victor Hugo." in order to not fail PLOT? "Fantine is a character in Victor Hugo's 1862 novel Les Misérables."? "Winston Smith is a fictional character and the protagonist of George Orwell's 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four." and a list of the character's portrayals? "Julia is the name of a fictional character from George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four."? "Baldrick is several fictional characters featured in the television series Blackadder [...] They are all portrayed by Tony Robinson (although in the unaired pilot episode he was played by Philip Fox)."? "The Living Laser (Arthur Parks) is a character that appears in comic books published by Marvel Comics. The character was created by Stan Lee, Art Simek and Don Heck and first appears in Avengers #34 (vol, 1, Nov. 1966)." with a mention of media appearances? "Lenford "Lenny" Leonard, MPhys [1] is a fictional character in the FOX animated series, The Simpsons, and is voiced by Harry Shearer."? How long should those articles be allowed to remain on Wikipedia as they are? I think those articles belong on Wikipedia. Should an editor be allowed to split off and remove the plot section from the Stop-Loss (film) article and then another editor nominate the plot-only article for deletion? --Pixelface (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Those articles can remain there indefinetely, as I am sure the contributors could make a good case that one day they might reach good article status. However, as long as WP:NOT#PLOT remains, they will know that these articles could be improved. Removing WP:NOT#PLOT would mean that there would no longer be any imperative for those articles to be improved beyond being plot summary. I think the consensus here at Wikipedia is that articles can be and should be improved, and that WP:NOT#PLOT is a useful benchmark by which article content can be judged as trivial and lacking in depth information. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• How can you say content not suitable for Wikipedia can remain on Wikipedia indefinitely? Are we both talking about What Wikipedia is not? PLOT says Cosette, Fantine, Winston Smith, and Lenny Leonard don't belong here. Whether those articles are "good" or not is not within the scope of this policy. We don't put Ungood under WP:IINFO. NOT is not WIAGA. As long as PLOT remains, and those articles remain unchanged, those articles qualify as content not suitable for Wikipedia. Removing PLOT from NOT would remove the arbitrary five-day deadline for improvement. Removing PLOT from NOT would not remove the imperative for improvement. You act like WP:NOT is the only place for editors to learn how to improve articles. PLOT is not a benchmark, PLOT is a deadline, a five day deadline. It's the lowest bar for inclusion. PLOT says improve the Winston Smith article in five days or else, because that content is not suitable for Wikipedia. Oh, and you won't get paid to do it either. There is quite a difference between what IS done, what OUGHT to be done, and what MUST be done. And there is no policy against trivia. I think you'll find just about everything on Wikipedia unrelated to your survival is, in fact, trivia — and that includes featured articles — and even then, Wikipedia is not a doctor or a how-to guide and Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity, so you're left with 99% trivia. Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not paper and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? Whatever happened to Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect.? Whatever happened to endeavor to preserve information? And you still didn't answer whether editors should be allowed to split off plot summaries from existing articles and then nominate the plot summaries for deletion for failing the NOT policy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• How can I say content unsuitable for Wiokipedia can remain on Wikipedia indefinitely? Because its a fact, although it is not policy. Take the example of Winston Smith, which is totally unsourced at the current time: an attempt to have the article to deleted at AfD is likely to fail, because there are probably sources from which the the article draw from but they just have not been added yet. The process of AfD tends to protect such articles from deletion indefinetly. And your "example" (unsupported by any actual examples) of editors splitting off plot summaries from existing articles and then nominating the plot summaries for deletion is an example of WP:GAME. This is a behavioural issue that would be picked up at AfD. Trying to legislate what should or should not happen at AfD falls outside the scope of WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• If someone nominates the Winston Smith article for deletion and it's unlikely to be deleted at AFD, why should this policy contain PLOT? Are we trying to waste people's time at AFD? Are we trying to force people to clean up articles in five days?
• And here are some actual examples:
• On October 12, 2006, JenKilmer split off[21] a plot summary from the For Better or For Worse article and created an article called History of For Better or For Worse. The History of For Better or For Worse article was then nominated for deletion on March 10, 2008 by Angr. Now, JenKilmer didn't nominate History of For Better or For Worse article for deletion (and it wasn't Angr that split off the plot summary), but the method appears to work. There was no consensus to delete the article at AFD, so Black Kite took it to DRV, saying consensus is irrelevant in relation to policy[22]. There was no consensus to overturn at that DRV, yet Nakon deleted the article anyway.
• On July 5, 2007, the Plot of Les Misérables article was nominated for deletion for violating WP:NOT#PLOT. There was no consensus in that AFD to delete, yet Kurykh deleted the article anyway. During the AFD, two people even said that WP:NOT#PLOT should be changed.
• If this is a behavioral issue, how do you suggest we change the behavior of over six million editors? By leaving this policy as it is? --Pixelface (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• By working with those that have the AFD process set up such that nominations where no attempt to inform the editors that there's a failure of the page (NOT, PLOT, NOTE, whatever) should be immediately halted, and/or implementing something similar to PROD's "holdit" mechanism, that, again, if the AFD has not been proceeded by a notice, and an editor feels they can improve it, they can state this to have the AFD speedy-closed to give that editor time. In other words, making sure that no article that fails in content is deliberated in AFD unless the editors have been given a chance to tackle the content to some extent. Mind you, there do need to be the cases for deletion of patent nonsense, BLP failures, and the like, but these should be very clear failures. --MASEM 19:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is actually a very interesting idea. However, as you say, it's applicable to all policies, not just PLOT, and so discussing it here probably doesn't give the idea the wider audience it deserves. I think it's a good idea to raise this point at the WT:DP. Jakew (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• You're right about this, and I've laid out a proposed idea for this (as it spans multiple policies) at WT:AFD, since that's the point where this can make the most difference. --MASEM 20:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you look at WP:DEL, then before the processes for deletion, before the reasons for deletion, there's a big section on alternatives to deletion. If an article could be improved to avoid meeting a reasons for deletion, then it should be tagged rather than deleted. Consensus seems to be that if these problems persist and don't get fixed after some time, the material should be deleted, but in the first instance no-one should AFD an article for failing WP:NOT unless they think it can't be fixed. SamBC(talk) 09:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh I've read WP:ATD. But saying people should do so-and-so instead of nominating content NOT allowed on Wikipedia is simply wishful thinking. Leaving PLOT in NOT gives people a reason for deletion. Consensus seems to me that articles like Baldrick[23] have been here for over 6 1/2 years and nobody seems to think it's a problem. Consensus seems to me that PLOT is regularly ignored in AFD debates. It appears to me that even among people who support PLOT being in NOT, they can't agree on what PLOT should say. So PLOT should be removed from NOT and added to NOT only when PLOT has actual consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• A point about Winston Smith. I slapped up a merge tag on the article; then rebuffed by the usual suspects in this debate - correctly as it happens. The Smith article has now been completely rewritten and, while still in absolutely appalling shape, nonetheless places the character within an analytical narrative tradition, discusses the background of the character and relates the character to the metatextual meme of "2+2=5" as a shibboleth for blind obedience. While it is true that I am myself responsible for some of these changes (pat pat), the fact is that it demonstrates, to my mind, the logical fallacy of the argument to remove Plot from WP:NOT. Winston Smith absolutely should have been deleted if it could not reasonably have been expected to contain anything more than mere plot summary (my merge suggestion was based on the spinout principle). As it is, it is reasonable to expect that such a character deserves independent encyclopedic treatment only if it can aspire to something more than plot regurgitation and implicitly argues en vif for the retention of the Plot summary injunction at WP:NOT as a useful yardstick in such instances. I really think there is no debate here. The current wording is admirably limpid and straightforward and articles of mere plot summary are regularly despatched at AfD. Clearly not everyone is in agreement, but a vocal minority is still a minority and there is nothing at all in any of the debate above that suggests community consensus does not reflect the current phrasing. I think further discussion will prove unhelpful in moving the debate forward, as there is no forward to move to. $0.02 Eusebeus (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image content guidelines

Please see Wikipedia:Image content guidelines for an attempt to start a guideline to consolidate and improve our guidelines on image content on Wikipedia. Please discuss at the talk page and help improve this new guideline, which was inspired by this and other recent image discussion controversies. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT

I've made a request for comment about WP:NOT#PLOT. The question I would like editors to answer is whether the Plot summaries section of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information belongs in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or if it belongs in a guideline like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Inclusion in WP:NOT is a reason for deletion. If articles like Winston Smith should be deleted, WP:NOT#PLOT should remain in this policy. If articles like Winston Smith should not be deleted but expanded, I believe that WP:NOT#PLOT belongs in a guideline such as WP:WAF. I believe I've seen two editors suggest this issue be added to {{cent}} and I suppose if someone would like to do so they're welcome to. --Pixelface (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why have you moved this RFC down here? There's already an entire conversation above about this - did it not suit your agenda? Presumably this is another idea to get several people to agree with you in order to make another attempt to smuggle an important part of WP:NOT away from policy, to a guideline where you and your fellow travellers can attempt to wikilawyer over it in deletion debates to your heart's contents. When even an arch-incolusionist like User:DGG includes "...but also should contain real-world context and sourced analysis" in his proposed wording, isn't it obvious this is a non-starter?Black Kite 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I moved it down because the RFC had received no comments in five days and was apparently overshadowed by the other section that someone else moved down. I feel I can safely ignore the rest of your comment. --Pixelface (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, you usually ignore anything you don't like or that doesn't fit your views, so that's nothing new. It doesn't make it any less true. Black Kite 06:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is really getting to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now... but Pixel has a history for this... recent too. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Will, please read this section (oldid) on the talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • And Black Kite you seem to be ignoring that DGG said "More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there"[24] --Pixelface (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Misses the point of WP:NOT and Wikipedia entirely. The article on Winston Smith you link to is not best suited to Wikipedia. Whether it gets improved or deleted and a new article put in its place does not matter overly. You're trying to make a distinction which does not exist. Should we delete this article as being a dictionary definition or improve it? We don't delete things because of WP:NOT. We delete things because of editorial consensus. WP:NOT is a guide to editors as to what tends to get deleted or needs to be improved. It's a style guide and an inclusion list all in one. Hiding T 21:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We apparently do delete things because of NOT. It's actually a reason for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No, we delete things because of editorial consensus. Show me one instance where an admin deleted something unilaterally because of WP:NOT. We delete things because of WP:CSD, we delete things because of WP:PROD and we delete things because of WP:AFD. We discuss how WP:NOT applies at WP:NOT, but we never delete because of WP:NOT. Hope that clarifies the decision making process on Wikipedia. Hiding T 09:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Here's an example for you. For example, this AFD resulted in no consensus, so the article was kept. Yet Black Kite took it to DRV, which again resulted in no consensus — yet Nakon deleted it anyway for some reason. This AFD resulted in no consensus — yet it was unilaterally deleted because of WP:NOT. This policy proposal had no consensus, so it should never have been added to policy — yet you did anyway. Why did you do that? In February 2007 you said " WP:NOT is not a deletion tool.", but it actually is, because it's a reason for deletion in the deletion policy. Does that clarify things for you? --Pixelface (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The deletion review was closed with a consensus of overturn and delete, which contradicts your assertion that it resulted in no consensus. Please don't misrepresent the facts, it doesn't help matters. If you think there was no consensus there, you should have escalated the situation with the closer and seek to find where the consensus really is. I appreciate this is probably part of that. The problem seems to be, are you prepared to accfept that you may be wrong and actually there is consensus for WP:PLOT? Unless all those editors who oppose PLOT actually voice their opposition, by WP:CONSENSUS they give their consent for it to remain. Also, you keep asserting that the addition had no consensus. People have already explained that the discussion on the talk page showed consensus. People have already explained to you that consensus is formed through editing and discussion. People have explained to you that it would not have remained so long in the policy if ut did not have consensus. You ask why I added it: Please read the advice to be bold , our decision making process, the ability to revert and discuss and even our editing policy. They might explain how Wikipedia works and why I added it. I believed it had consensus. Because of our interaction guidance you have to accept that, and refrain from questioning my integrity. I also believed that if I was wrong, someone would remove it, and then through further discussion, clarification and editing a consensus would emerge. I hope this puts the matter to bed for you. If not, will you accept arbitration to settle this? As to the reasons for deletion listed at deletion policy, those are the reasons editor's use in deletion debates. People can use tools for many different purposes. Is a hammer a tool for carpentry or a tool for murder? Things don't get deleted because of words, they get deleted because of people. I agree that the close of the DRV doesn't count the numbers. However, do you think the article was encyclopedic? Consensus, expressed through WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:WAF, WP:NOT, WP:FICT, WP:BETTER and WP:NOT appears to be that the article is not encyclopedic. Do you think the consensus has changed? Hiding T 06:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Consensus hasn’t been demonstrated for WP:PLOT being in WP:NOT. What is happening here is an example of how much easier it is to prop up the staus quo than to change it. I think User:Hiding is clearly wikilawering. WP:PLOT should be in WP:WAF because: (1) it is an arguable point better suited to a guidline; (2) WP:PLOT is not pet se a deletion criterion, and WP:NOT is frequently considered to be a list of deletion criteria; (3) WP:WAF is all about advice for better writing about fiction, and WP:PLOT is clearly within that scope; and (4) WP:NOT is overly full of stuff like this, which if considered afresh would probably not gain enough support for “policy” status. There’s been an awful lot said on this little question, but I fail to see a simple reason why some people feel that WP:PLOT should be in WP:NOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Hey Smokey Joe. Do you think Wikipedia articles should simply be plot summaries? Hiding T 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I think WP:PLOT should be an emphatic statement in WP:WAF, that WP:NOT has crepted too big, that “articles should not be simply plot summaries” or “plot summaries should contain only so much detail”, while true, is not a fundamental requirement and so should not be “policy”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Hang on, you have me confused. You think it is true that articles should not be simply plot summaries? Hiding T 08:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Hiding, do you think articles on the English Wikipedia should be written entirely in German? --Pixelface (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • How do you write an article published in English in German? Hiding T 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • In much the same way that someone writes an article in Serbian[25]. Should we put Serbian under WP:IINFO? Articles on the English Wikipedia ought to not be written in German, but we don't list A foreign language under WP:IINFO. We have a whole page for pages that need translating into English. --Pixelface (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
                        • Ah, it's apples and oranges, yes? So, because we don't have a line about foreign language articles but we do have a line about FAQ's, should we have a line about plot summaries? Is that the nub of this debate? That the community needs to decide whether we have this or not? I don't think you've moved the discussion on here, do you? Hiding T 12:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
                          • You keep asking "Do you think Wikipedia articles should simply be plot summaries?" as if an answer of no necessitates this policy mentioning that. Articles shouldn't be written in Serbian either. But there's no need to put Serbian under WP:IINFO. Even foreign language text is given two weeks for improvement. Meanwhile, people are prodding plot-only articles for failing FICT (which is a proposal that cites PLOT) and those articles are only given five days for improvement. I think an article ought to have more than just a plot summary too. That's why it belongs in the guideline WP:WAF. WP:IINFO isn't a place for people to list everything they don't think articles should contain. Articles like Baldrick, which are pretty much just a plot summary, have been around for over 6 1/2 years. PLOT being in NOT leads to AFDs like these[26][27], where PLOT is routinely ignored. Still think PLOT reflects consensus? --Pixelface (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
                            • Play fair. I'm actually asking, if Wikipedia articles are not simply plotr summaries, whether that is a point we should make in WP:NOT. As this point, in one form or another has been in the policy since 2003, I think it probably should be. We can all point to articles which have existed 6 and a half years. That isn't the point. The point is this. Do people think it should be in WP:NOT or not? I don;t have the magic answer, Pixelface, and neither do you. But I'm honest enough to admit I don;t think Wikipedia articles should simply be plot, and that we need to say that strongly in policy to help move the goal of Wikipedia forwards. If you think that removing it from policy will help move the goal of Wikipedia forwards, explain why and sell it to the community. All I ask is that you do it honestly. I honestly believe having this in policy will make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I think it will do that by indicating that articles which are simply plot summaries need to be improved to an encyclopedic standard, and it will empower editors who wish to do that. To me that is in keeping with the goal of WIkipedia and of editing policy. Do you think removing it will make us a better encyclopedia? How so? How will we know which standard to improve to? It dopesn't matter if a particular afd says this or that, that's part of the whole process. I'd gladly remove it today if I thought it would end all the edit warring, but it won't, will it? Because what people are asking for when they want it removed is that articles be allowed to be plot summaries. Let's at least be honest on that. If that's what the arguiment is about, let's frame the argukment in those terms. Let's discuss it openly and work out how to solve it. I'd rather just edit Wikipedia articles the best I can and hopefully improve the encyclopedia in the process. If this debate can do what two arbitration cases have failed to do, great. The trouble is, consensus can always change. So how will we ever settle this dispute. As soon as you remove it, someone will want it back in. This isn't a debate that can be one by one side or the other. If there is a middle ground we can all agree on, please help me find it, because that's how you build consensus. Hiding T 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

                            Let's separate behavior of editors from content issues. Any editor, deadset on removing something from WP whether it's in NOT, listed in DEL, or the like, will find a way without regarding editors that want to keep it; PRODing articles without giving fair warning that something is wrong, while technically an allowable editing process, is something we need to discourage more and more. I completely agree that we should be giving more than 5 days for editors to correct articles that may presently fail, but could possibly be made to meet guidelines. However, that itself is not an issue with NOT - that's more specifically with WP:DEL and WP:AFD, in that PROD or AFD shouldn't be tossed onto an article until the editors have been told that there's a problem and given time to correct; if no one steps forward, or they ignore the notice, then PROD/AFD is warranted. This is clearly an issue made aware during the Epsiodes and Characters cases, and while only TTN is enjoined from doing this type of editos, other editors should be cautioned that only allowing 5 days to improve by AFD is not necessarily wrong, but is very WP:BITEy. But again, this is a complete side issue to the PLOT argument.

                            The case in point on PLOT: Pixelface states "I think an article ought to have more than just a plot summary too." Great, we have a starting point, so let me expand on that. We need to state that PLOT is part of NOT because this specifically addresses, as a whole, how we handle our coverage of published works. Specifically, PLOT's goal (but not current wording) is to point out that WP articles (and supporting articles) should not only focus on the content of the published work, but instead should focus on the non-content aspects of the work, in conjunction with encyclopedic coverage of the content. If we were change PLOT to this:

                            Content-only Coverage: Wikipedia's coverage of published works should not focus only on the content of the work, but should focus on the non-content aspects of the work supported by encyclopedic coverage of the work's content."

                            then what falls out is that:

                            • What is "non-content aspects" of a work falls on the duty of WP:FICT/WP:NOTE which emphasizes real-world coverage (note, we also need to consider non-fiction works too)
                            • What is "encyclopedic coverage" of a work's content falls on the duty of WP:WAF

                            Restating PLOT in this fashion does not weaken what it is, however, it does better at separating guidelines from policy, again like the dependency of WP:V on WP:RS (as it is, the current PLOT does strongly suggest notability via the "real-world coverage" term, which seems to be the crux of Pixel's argument). Also, by talking "content" instead of "plot", this encompasses all aspects of a work's plot; characters, settings, etc.

                            Now, also note I stated "coverage of published works" and not "articles on published works". Based on how we've come to agreement at FICT, the WP "coverage" may include supporting articles that need not be notable on their own (such as list of characters and list of episodes), but can be considered as part of the encyclopedic coverage of the work. Thus, the EastEnders character lists would be part of the coverage of EastEnders (and looking at the lists, they are approached encyclopedically, so there's no problem with their format). Similarly, if issues with the FBOW timeline I've mentioned before were addressed, that would likely be part of encyclopedic coverage of the comic. Defining what sort of supporting articles and what "encyclopedic" means towards such works (along with balancing content vs non-content) is still left to WAF, but again, this all comes under the grouping of the article on the work and the supporting articles as the "coverage" of that work on WP.--MASEM 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • If they wouldn't gain enough support, why are editors who want to remove it now unable to gain any consensus to do so? You only have to look at this page and previous debates. Meanwhile, (1) WP:PLOT is clearly not arguable - if an article is merely an infobox, a plot summary and a bit of trivia, it fails, simple as that. (2) Unencyclopedic material should be deleted. Bare, unsourced, no-real-world-information plot summaries are unencyclopedic and belong on fanwikis. (3) Plot summaries are hardly "writing about fiction", they're duplicating fiction. I wouldn't call that "writing". (4) There's your reasons. Black Kite 07:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
              • “why are editors who want to remove it now unable to gain any consensus to do so?” Because it is much easier to prop up the staus quo than to change it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Well the Winston Smith article should not be deleted. I've never seen a verifiable article that is plot only that could not be re-written to have real-world context, so I would agree that this is a manual of style issue. (edit conflicted) Catchpole (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pixelface has sneakily linked to an old version of Winston Smith in order to cover up the fact that someone, correctly, has tagged it for a proposed merge with its parent article, exactly as should happen unless the article is brought into line with policy. Black Kite 21:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You can look at the current version of the article if you'd like. And if you want to have your say about Eusebeus's proposed merger, you're free to do so in the area designated for the merge discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• No, it should not be moved. In fact, it should be enforced more rigorously. I'm with Hiding and Black Kite on this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• I hoped that Pixelface would start an RfC like this so that it can be established once and for all (at least the near future) that PLOT is going to stay where it is: in NOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Of course, PLOT must remain NOT. As others rightly have pointed out, the reductio-ad-absurdum argument with the Winston Smith article doesn't cut it. Articles don't automatically get deleted for failing NOT in their present form; they get deleted if there is consensus that they have no potential of ever not failing it. Winston Smith might have such potential (or possibly not, in which case it can be merged). Most of the popculture-TV series-etc-cruft articles we have seen conflicts over do not have this potential. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How about the argument that the Plot summaries section never had consensus before Hiding adding it to NOT? --Pixelface (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Apart from the discussion here [28] where there was only one completely dissenting voice, with even inclusionist-to-end-all-inclusionists User:badlydrawnjeff being ok with it? Black Kite 11:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • In that thread alone, Leflyman said "I think this would be an extremely contentious issue."[29] Leflyman also said "I suspect that if this were to be seriously promoted, a veritable rebellion would be fomented on Wikipedia.", "attempting to ban plot summaries outright just isn't going to meet with success." and "Nearly everything on Wikipedia is, in effect, a "summary" so why stop at "plots"?"[30] Badlydrawnjeff said "is it worth the drama, and does it really improve anything?" and "are we really improving the encyclopedia if we remove plot summaries?"[31] JeffW said "I don't really see that plot summaries break any of the above policies." and "As for copyright issues, IANAL but I would think plot summaries would fall under fair use."[32] Williamborg opposed[33], as did TomStar81[34]
      • Later on WT:NOT, you can see that the Plot summaries section does not have consensus to be in policy:
      • On October 17, 2006 TheronJ said "I strongly disagree that a consensus exists."
      • On December 28, 2006, Davidbspalding asked "Plot summaries no longer applicable?" and "Has the No plot summaries guideline outlived its purpose?"
      • On February 2, 2007, Netuser500 said "We need to remove the part about plot summaries."
      • On February 7, 2007, Badlydrawnjeff said "It's obvious, in action and at AfD, that this part of WP:NOT isn't at all close to how we actually operate."
      • On February 7, 2007, Dugwiki said "So, if in fact the WP:NOT Plot Summary section doesn't actually have strong consensus, and a lot of editors actually want to include plot-only articles, then the plot bullet point of WP:NOT should probably be ammended or removed to match what the policy consensus actually is."
      • On February 7, 2007, Matthew said "I totally agree that it should be removed." and later asked "was there ever an actual consensus to add this?"
      • On February 7, 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. Or, to put it another way, I've refrained from adding things to policy/guideline pages with less opposition."
      • On February 8, 2007, Badlydrawnjeff said "If the only thing I can provide to a redlinked article is a plot summary to start, that shouldn't be abandoned immediately."
      • On February 8, 2007, TheFarix said "WP:NOT are for things that should be prohibited. It's not for things we simply want to discourage, but are will tolerate for a short time. If we simply want to discourage plot summary articles, then the statement should be moved into a guideline instead of policy."
      • On February 9, 2007, TheFarix said "If we just want to discourage plot summary articles, then we should move the point into a guideline, either WP:FICT or WP:WAF. That gives the plot articles a chance to be improved and keep AFDs down to those what are unlikely to improve, have been tagged for cleanup for a while but have not been improved, or are far too extensive to make a rewrite feasible. If we keep the plot summary statement in WP:NOT, then we are affectively saying that plot summary articles should be deleted regardless of if they can be improved towards encyclopedic quality or not."
      • So no, there was never consensus for Hiding's addition to policy and he appears to have added it so he could cite it in AFD debates such as this one. --Pixelface (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • For that last point to be true you'd have to ignore so much of my contributions it would be embarrassing. Are you actually going to remove it from policy or not? I have the courage of my convictions. Do you? Hiding T 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I've removed it five times already. I removed it three times in March.[35][36][37] Hobit removed it once.[38] I removed it once again.[39] And I removed it twice[40][41] on April 16, 2008 and I hesitate to remove it again. I have strucken part of my last sentence since you say it was wrong. Forgive me for thinking that you added it to policy so you could cite yourself in AFDs. However, the rest of my comment stands. --Pixelface (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The whole conversation is embarrassing, frankly, since he's completely ignored the linked conversation I put in, and has trawled for out-of-context quotes from various people - at least one of those quotes above is taken from an editor who said in the next sentence "I think the way to "improve" the situation is to promote better written, less fancrufty content" - in other words he wanted the policy strengthened. Still, let him remove it again if he wants to - I think he knows what the outcome would be. Black Kite 17:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
            • No Black Kite, I didn't "ignore" the linked conversation[42] you put in. You linked to an oldid of this talk page. Is this the section you're referring to on that oldid? Notice how I linked to that thread as it appears in the archives? I believe we're both referring to the same section. You can search for Williamborg's oppose in your oldid; however, TomStar81's oppose doesn't appear in your oldid. I haven't presented any quotes out of context. Those are all comments in the archives that provide evidence the section does not have consensus to be in policy. You're right, Leflyman did say "I think the way to "improve" the situation is to promote better written, less fancrufty content."[43] So how do you interpret that as meaning he wanted Hiding's policy proposal "strengthened"? I'll let someone else remove the Plot summaries section. This RFC is to discuss that section and get wider input from the community. Please explain why you think the Plot summaries section belongs in a list of things Wikipedia is not and why you feel that plot-only articles should be deleted. --Pixelface (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Because they're unencyclopedic, invariably unsourced, are a magnet for original research and could generally be easily summarised in "List of...." articles. Why have 20 pages of bare plot when they could be summarised in one page, making much more sense to the casual reader? Huge chunks of plot summary belong in fanwikis, not an encyclopedia. Referring to Leflyman, I think "fancrufty" sums up plot-only episode articles quite well, no? Black Kite 07:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Let's put this into context. Consensus in various guidance at the time was as follows:
• Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles: Articles about fictional topics should not be simple book reports; instead, the topic should be explained through its significance on the work. The reader should be able to feel like they understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work after reading an article about one. A reader should be able to understand why this person/place/thing/event is relevant to the story.

• Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. Wikibooks, Wikipedia's sibling project, contains instructional and educational texts. These include annotated works of fiction (on the [[wikibooks:Wikibooks:annotated texts bookshelf) for classroom or private study use. Wikisource, similarly, holds original public domain and GFDL source texts. See wikisource:Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): (ensure) fictional passages are short, grounded with real-world language, and do not form more than a small portion of the article.
  • • • Now I don't mind if you want to test whether consensus has changed Pixelface, but let's drop the lie that there was no consensus. If there was no consensus, it would never have survived in the policy. I can't see where there was an edit war over the text, I can't see where it was removed. You personally don;t happen to agree with it, and that's fine. But if there is consensus behind it, you have to respect that consensus. The consensus when it was added was that it should remain. Why don't you simply remove it and see if the consensus is that it should be removed? Hiding T 12:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to remove it again. But I did do some looking and these are all the edits to the Plot summaries section as of right now. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] Which version of the section do you feel has consensus? --Pixelface (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries seems to be the consistent factor in those changes. That's where I nail my colors. Beyond that, I'm all ears. That's all I'm fighting for.Wikipedia is not a battleground. Apologies. As an encyclopedia we do more than give you a summary of the plot. A plot summary is not the focus of an article. That's where I think consensus lies. Look, what do you reckon? You lean further towards including plot summaries than I do, and others lean further towards excluding them than I do. So where's the middle ground? Am I on it, or nearer to it than either side? I don't know. I do know this, though, There's a huge gulf between the two sides which needs to be bridged somehow, and arbitration isn't going to work, we've seen them duck this issue twice now. I don't have the answer. All I have is my best guess. What have you got? Hiding T 08:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
            • First off, I apologize for misrepresenting you on this page. That was not my intention. I know you had the best interests of Wikipedia in mind when you added it to policy. Regarding your bolded phrase, if that's what is consistent between those revisions, maybe we should shorten it to just that until people can agree on the rest of the wording. I agree, as an encyclopedia we ought to give readers more than just a plot summary. I think it's good advice. I think it sets a good standard for users to follow. But I think that's different than saying articles that are just plot summaries are not suitable for inclusion.
            • Masem suggested there may be some confusion with the issue of plot summaries. In your opinion, is the Cosette article simply a plot summary (oldid)? Or do you think biographies of fictional characters don't quite count as plot summaries? Is pointing out that Cosette is a fictional character created by Victor Hugo sufficient real-world context to keep the article? To me this seems to be a dispute about what order certain information should be added to an article. If someone starts an article with just a plot summary, I feel the article should be allowed to expand and I don't favor putting a deadline on that. Others seem to think that an article that is just a plot summary should be deleted for failing this policy. In that case, a deadline of five days is given for improvement. I believe some people have said if an article with just a plot summary has no reasonable chance of expansion, with "real-world context and sourced analysis", it should be deleted. I think it's fine if someone wants to nominate the Cosette article for deletion — but I hesitate to let them cite WP:IINFO as their reason. If there's consensus to delete the article, it should be deleted. But I think PLOT is used like loaded dice to influence the outcome of AFD debates.
            • The WP:NOT policy is often cited as a reason for deletion and I think this policy contains examples of hard deletion candidates (advertising, original research, how-to guides) and examples of things that can be improved (adding reception information to a plot summary, putting statistics into a table). When Kyorosuke added the language concerning "real-world context and sourced analysis", that user also added "consisting solely of a plot summary is grounds for expansion and cleanup, not deletion." I agree with that view. The Les Misérables article does have real-world context and sourced analysis. I think the original language of PLOT ("offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series.") meant that it was okay for just the Les Misérables article to have information about its impact. Do you think each of the primary character articles must also contain real-world context and sourced analysis? --Pixelface (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Here's an example for you: [119] or [120]. Obviously, by my edits you can detect which one I feel is more informative and more in keeping with an encycloedia. How about you. Hiding T 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I think there's a general agreement that a plot-only article without any tags or talk page notifications to indicate that the article fails PLOT or other content/style approaches that would otherwise make it a deletion target, should not be brought to AFD until 1) such tags have been placed and 2) sufficient time has been given for editors to attempt to correct and expand the article to address the tagged warnings, at least a month. The whole TTN arbcom case centered around extremely bold editing and overwhelming editors. If a plot-only article gets tagged and a month later, no one has stepped up to do anything (or worse, has ignored said advice and made the problem worse), then AFD is a fair call, which does bring the article to the attention of a wider group of editors and has a second chance for being saved. This is a mindset we want to encourage more - that the instantaneous state of an article should not be the reason for deletion, but instead the long-term state; if tagging an article doesn't lead to either evidence for it to remain or corrections as suggested, then and only then should deletion be considered.
              • Now, I agree that article series suggests that notability/real-world info only need to be shown at the topic level, not at each article level. However, to have separate articles for each character or each element creates several problems; each article reiterates the plot of the main work in some fashion, and while not every part of the plot is repeated in each character, the creation of X character articles without additional real-world information is basically X retellings of the plot. It is also hard to deny that plot-only articles can end up full of OR and POVness, though these are correctable - how much is left, however, is in question. This can also lead to undue weight on the plot aspects; as I've stated before, our purpose is first to inform the general reader why they should care about the work or the character or the like outside of understanding the work, and once and only once that is done, we can then talk to some degree about what the reader interested or a fan of the work would like to know. Furthermore, while notability is applies to a topic, verifiability is applied at the article, and that requires reliable third-party sources to support each article; most fictional characters do not support that aspect.
              • But I will stress again that just because PLOT as presently written and other policies do not allow for character articles does not mean we cannot cover these characters in more concise forms building the characters into the main work of fiction or into breakout lists for more notable works. We do not need to remove coverage of such aspects, and should still allow a user to search on a character name and be immediately taken to the right page through redirects and disambigs. --MASEM 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                • As far as I know, the only tag related to plot summaries is {{plot}}. That template doesn't say an article fails policy, it's usually used to tag a Synopsis section someone thinks is too long, like this one for example. The Plot summaries section doesn't suggest people tag and wait for improvement. I now notice there is a template that links to WP:NOT called {{allplot}} which reads "This article or section appears to consist entirely of plot summary. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot." and no pages currently use that tag[121]. It was created March 17, 2008 by Black Kite. Black Kite DRV'd the History of For Better or For Worse article on March 17[122] after there was no consensus to delete in this AFD, and following this ANI thread. The reason for the DRV given by Black Kite was "An article which clearly completely fails a standard policy WP:NOT#PLOT, but was kept. Given the recent RfAR on fiction, where editors described WP:NOT as "disputed", this could set a precedent."[123] I don't think there was a consensus to delete in that AFD. And I don't think there was consensus to overturn in that DRV, yet the article was still deleted. Black Kite has made some comments related to that article that I adamantly disagree with. Black Kite said "It's clearly procedural - "The community" doesn't get to rewrite policy, and the AfD should've been closed in line with policy - which it wasn't. If it was WP:BLP that was the issue here, there would be little argument - why is WP:NOT different?"[124] For one thing, I think BLP has consensus and PLOT does not. At ANI, which led to the DRV, Black Kite said regarding the History of For Better or For Worse article that "The article clearly fails policy and so consensus (which was fairly even anyway, and thus not consensus) is irrelevant."[125] I don't think consensus is irrelevant. Kurt Weber replied that "Policy does not trump consensus; rather, consensus trumps policy"[126] I have been removing a section of policy I don't think has consensus and the idea that the community does not get to rewrite policy seems rather strange to me.
                • I object to any and all attempts to make the concept of "notability" a policy. I don't think it's our job to tell readers why they should care about a fictional character. If someone doesn't care about EastEnders, they probably won't think the 672 articles about EastEnders characters (or even a featured article about an EastEnders character) are worthy of their attention. How does putting an article that is just a plot summary into a list improve the situation? Then you've just got a list with a bunch of plot summaries, which sounds to me like it would still fail PLOT. I think we need to remove the Plot summaries section until people can agree on what it should say and how it should be applied. I invite anyone who supports keeping Plot summaries listed under WP:IINFO to create a subpage in their userspace with the language they think the Plot summaries section should contain. Then we can compare the different versions and hopefully come to some kind of agreement. The current situation is such that someone can split off a plot summary from any article and then nominate that plot-only article for deletion for failing PLOT. --Pixelface (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • {{plot}} may be one, but there are several also related to plot-only articles, with two main ones coming to mind: {{in-universe}} and {{notability}}; but even without tags, notification on a talk page about a plot-only article needing cleanup is completely appropriate to start the process. However, how articles are deleted is not a function of NOT or PLOT, that's over at WP:DEL. All I'm trying to say about the "tag and wait" approach is that throughout all policies and guidelines and how we approach articles, we need to impose that better; calm, rational editing cannot take place if we don't work between WP:BOLD and WP:DEADLINE, and that means giving time to allow improvements should they be needed.
                  • Does an article on the timeline of FBOW fail PLOT? That is impossible to say. I think the AFD and the DRV of that article showed that how the information was presented was not satisfactory as it was not an encyclopedic approach, but they did not suggest that a different approach would never be acceptable either. FBOW is not my favorite comic, so I don't follow it heavily, but a year-by-year summary seems awfully arbitrary (compared with, say, a soap opera or a long running tv show, where by-season breaks actually make more sense); furthermore, the distillation of the events seem rather arbitrary: what's the value of the fact that in 1985, Farley was captured by the dog catched and had to be regotten for $20? Here is a case where, instead of presenting information that benefits the fan, would be better to think first of the general user; the timeline would be better presented as short character bios (tied to years, since the comic ages), and possibly a section on significant plots (Farley's death, for example). It still, ultimately, is a timeline albeit in a different form, and likely plot-only but 1) is part of the FBOW coverage meaning that it is an article series and thus is fine, and 2) is much more likely to be able to attach real-world aspects to the work (Farley's death, for example, gets a few notable hits from a google search).
                  • On the other hand, if there are truly 672 articles about EastEnders characters, there's a problem there. Just as with FBOW, a long-drawn out work, we don't describe everything that happens, but only the key highlights. It is very doubtful that all 672 articles are main characters and that they all meet PLOT, so first of all, a lot of those would need to be removed. Likely there's only 20-40 odd characters that are really important (not a brit, so can't comment on this beyond), and this is where the list format comes in handy: it helps editors to organize their thoughts better of how to present the characters, helping to enforce parallelism in writing as well as better balance between each character's description. If I created a list of characters article and spent 5 paragraphs on one character, and only one for each of the others, I'd obviously see a problem. Moreso, a list of characters is much much much more maintainable in the long run that a list of characters: watchlisting 672 articles is an insane proposition, and that's assuminging I know where they all are. That's why lists of characters and episodes are generally acceptable as they fall within the "article series" concept and thus do not need to meet PLOT or notability guidelines.
                  • I still think it's clear that PLOT wants to be kept, with a strong consensus on this page; the previous discussion was to see if there was support for changing the wording (which doesn't seem to have strong support, so thus is not changed). There needs to be clearly demonstration that there is a large consensus that PLOT should be removed, even temporarily, and I only see maybe two editors out of the rest asking for this. There's not even enough input against having PLOT to make it as disputed as can be done. While removing sections in guidelines while under development can be seen as ok, policies must remain as fixed as possible and only change when the consensus shows they should, or by exact application of the WP:BRD cycle. --MASEM 22:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • The {{in-universe}} template links to WP:WAF. And the {{notability}} template links to WP:N. You say how articles are deleted are not a function of NOT but DEL, but NOT is listed as a reason in DEL. Inclusion in NOT automatically becomes a reason for deletion. We have season articles for television shows so I don't see how a year-by-year summary of a comic strip is arbitrary. The fact that Farley was caught by the dog catcher in 1985 does not have to have "value." It just has to be verifiable. It's something people remember about the strip. I don't see a problem with 672 articles for EastEnders characters. And no, I disagree that we should only describe "key highlights." "Highlight" is a concept as subjective as "worthy of notice" and often is a judgement of whether someone liked something or not. Again, there is no importance policy. Things don't have to be "important" to be written about on Wikipedia. Do the Bushmen think Bart Simpson is important? Somehow I doubt it. Is Bart Simpson actually important in the grand scheme of things? No. Is Hamlet actually important in the grand scheme of things? No. Different things are important to different groups of people. And you don't have to watchlist 672 articles. You can check the related changes for a category[127]. It looks to me that articles such as List of minor EastEnders characters (1991) still fail PLOT. It was nominated for deletion by AnmaFinotera but was kept at its AFD. I don't think there's a strong consensus to keep NOT in this policy, as I explained in this comment and this comment. PLOT has been removed from this policy by three different users.[128][129][130] There was a past disagreement over whether it should say "Plot summaries" or "Descriptions of fictional works." There doesn't seem to me to be a version of the section that many people agree on. As I said in the section titled Break: Summary, I felt there was a rough consensus to remove PLOT from NOT. Even if you disagree, I don't think one has to obtain consensus to remove a section from policy that does not have consensus. It needs to have consensus to begin with. I don't think it had consensus to begin with. And in the talk page archives, TheronJ[131], Dugwiki[132], Matthew[133], and Bdj[134] all made comments questioning whether consensus existed for the section. You say "policies must remain as fixed as possible and only change when the consensus shows they should" but I don't think the initial proposal thread had consensus to change this policy. When you reverted me[135] and Hobit[136] on March 29, this talk page looked like this. You don't seem to have addressed the comments by Father Goose, DGG, 23skidoo, Eubulide, SmokeyJoe, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, and Hobit that were present on this page at the time you reverted. You don't seem to have addressed the comment by DHowell under the heading WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed. I don't think there's consensus on this page for any version of PLOT. It may even be beneficial for people to stop evaluating consensus for a few weeks and simply state what they personally think the wording should be. --Pixelface (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • Consensus can change, and so to determine if PLOT should go, we don't look at the past, we look at what the consensus is right now. You are the one arguing for it to be removed, and you know you've been reverted by bolding making the change, so those that want to remove PLOT need to show strong consensus to remove it. And I will say that I have addressed the general point of DHowell's issues which overlap with yours and others in that we need to make sure that instanteous failure to meet PLOT is not treated as a deletion reason; it's the ultimate failure of an article to meet PLOT that should be used; the "tag and wait" method is there to help demonstrate that. This is an editor behavioral issue, and one that cannot be addressed in NOT but instead at DEL and NOTE and sub-notability guidelines, in that if an article fails PLOT or is not notable this instance, it does not necessary mean it should be deleted. I know DEL says otherwise, and that's why I'm saying we need to make sure DEL better reflects the attitude that articles that fail PLOT or NOTE now that aren't tagged or notified that they do need better time for improvement before AFD (NOTE, on the otherhand, does suggest this) That point, the fact that deletionists are fast on the trigger to AFD PLOT-failing articles, is a large chunk of the arguments, and that can be solved while still having PLOT met; it's just a matter of making editors aware this behavior is not helpful. I will state, however, if you insist that PLOT is removed, you will have editors invoking NOTE regardless to have the same articles deleted. A plot-only article, in the void of no PLOT, will still fail NOTE, and thus will still be challenged and deleted if not corrected. --MASEM 00:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                        • We look at the past to see if it ever had consensus to be policy to begin with. When I removed it on March 29, this talk page looked like this. There were 7 people (in addition to me) who made arguments in favor of removing the section or moving it to a guideline. And only 3 people explicitly said it should stay in this policy. I believed there was a rough consensus to remove PLOT and you reverted me saying discussion was needed. Discussion had been going since March 10. Now, alot more discussion has occurred since then of course. But it doesn't appear to me that there is consensus on what language, if any, that PLOT should contain. Are you saying that someone needs to obtain consensus to remove a part of policy that has no consensus? If you think PLOT has consensus, please tell me what the consensus is for PLOT to look like. I don't care if editors invoke NOTE to get articles deleted. That has nothing to do with the WP:NOT policy. If I don't think NOTE applies to a particular situation, I'll ignore it and say what I think the best thing to do would be. And no, a plot-only article does not necessarily "still fail NOTE." I could write a purely descriptive summary of the film Iron Man (or any other released film that doesn't currently have an article) right now using only secondary sources and I think it would be presumed to be notable. So, are you saying articles lacking analysis must be deleted? --Pixelface (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                          • At this point, I feel you are using too much wikilaywering, pulling specific statements out of context, to try to defend the removal; since right now there's this RFC in place to try to get larger input, nothing should be done to remove it until the RFC closes (30 days after it started). NOTE has everything to do with NOT; it is one of the guidelines that the policy defers to for what indiscriminate information is, and in lack of any more applicable policy/guideline, NOTE applies to all topics. Now, I will argue that if you can write a plot from true secondary sources (per WP:PSTS), the likelihood you can add in other non-plot information is very very high (if not 100%), because secondary sources, by definition, do more than just reiterate the primary source. You can probably write an Iron Man article using only the plot info gained from previews and reviews from major outlets, but those reviews will easily provide critical feedback, details that satisfy both PLOT and NOTE. The article may not, at this moment, have that information, so it should be tagged with an appropriate cleanup tag, and likely should not be taken to AFD and defended in AFD if it is taken, if the secondary sources are clearly listed out per references. --MASEM 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                            • Those statements aren't out of context, they were on this page when you reverted me twice and Hobit once. You don't appear to acknowledge those statements were ever made. Yes, the RFC is to get wider input from the community — yet I keep seeing opposition from the same old faces. NOTE has nothing to do with NOT. NOT is a policy and NOTE is a guideline — which are advisory in nature. The only way NOTE is related to NOT is that they are both referred to in AFD debates. It doesn't matter if you personally think the article should be tagged with cleanup tags rather than being listed for deletion. If NOT says plot summaries are NOT ALLOWED, the article will be nominated for deletion for failing NOT. And then AFD becomes a discussion better suited to the talk page of the article: "Hey, we could include some analysis from these secondary sources which would make this article more than just a plot summary." It's a waste of AFD time. --Pixelface (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
                              • I still believe that this is a editing behavioral issue that we (community, not just here) need to correct. There's a good section below about adding language to NOT to suggest these are not reasons for deletion, to which I have to agree. NOT is mostly about content, though there are cases where certain content will be deleted. Because NOT is about content, that means deletion should not be the first way to improve an article that comes to mind; instead, improvement and/or reorganization of thought should be encouraged. Obviously it's not right not, but that does not mean the solution is to pull PLOT from NOT. The solution is to get word out through AFDs that NOT, specifically PLOT, is not a reason for deletion (more specifically, if someone insists PLOT is the reason, they likely mean that NOTE/FICT are the real reason they intend that something should be deleted). Basically, there is no reference at all to NOT in WP:DEL#REASON, and thus PLOT should never be the reason to delete an article. If anything, a failure of NOT, save in some extreme cases, should merit an improvement tag, most likely issues regarding notability, and only then once editors have time to correct, This is a behavioral issue that is spread across WP and one that can be corrected without fundamentally changing a core policy. I completely agree we need to avoid the flood that AFD gets of articles that fail context-aspects of NOT (including PLOT), and instead give them more time than just 5 days to be improved, though not indefinite amounts of time per BOLD. This is a matter of getting editors to rethink their ways. If you removed PLOT from NOT, either moving it to WAF or removing it completely, you will STILL have editors that will AFD such articles. WP needs to be a collaborative effort, and these editors need to be told politely that PLOT-failing articles should be given more time to be improved. --MASEM 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Bloody Question Already Since when did RFC turn into a soapbox for one querulous user to promote their idiosyncratic views ? We should be focusing on making WP:NOT#PLOT stronger, not wasting time responding to tedious Pixelface's latest pointy attempts to mould Wikipedia in his own fan image. Enough already. Eusebeus (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Feel free to comment on content and not the contributor like the no personal attacks policy says. Please tell us all what PLOT should say. --Pixelface (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Good afternoon, Pixelface. I think you're still drawing a false distinction. Advertising, original research and how-to guides are no more hard deletion candidates than plot pages. In all cases, if the page can be improved, it should be. Rossami (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Good day to you as well Rossami. Blatant advertising is a speedy deletion candidate. Admins can delete such articles without discussion. Personally I can't think of an instance where an article about an original idea or original invention has ever been kept at AFD. While I have seen how-to guides like recipes improved and rewritten (the AFD for Dilly beans comes to mind), I don't think an article like How to wear a mini skirt would ever survive an AFD. Meanwhile, Prolefeed is an article that apparently violates PLOT and DICDEF — but good luck finding consensus to delete the article. --Pixelface (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• You've already got lots of comments above (including mine). Leave it alone. Rossami (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The RFC is to gain wider input from the community. You've already made your opinion known Rossami. --Pixelface (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This, from you, is more than a tad ironic. This tactics of badgering every single post that is counter to your opinion is the sure sign of the disruptive editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  1. The plot section does belong here as a statement of what is not acceptable content. Article that are only based on plot summary are not encyclopedic and invite writing articles that fully substitute for reading or viewing the original source.
  2. Where this was placed to begin with was above multiple threads directly related to this. Moving it fells like an action to ignore what has already been posted.
  3. If it is acceptable to relocate the request to "restart" the discussion, it is also acceptable for those that have already commented to voice their opinions again. - J Greb (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • J Greb, are you saying plot summaries are not acceptable content? And why are you ignoring that the Suggested change to PLOT section was also moved down "to allow for wider attention"? --Pixelface (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, PLOT should remain part of NOT. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

commentI think its fairer to say there was not clear consensus on just how it should be worded or replaced, and therefore it wasnt changed. there was no consensus behind the view that it should be kept as is. the question remains open.DGG (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• There has been some decidedly uncivil language throughout this thread and I think it is generating more heat than light. Assuming good faith, I consider that it is the goal of each and every editor that has commented here to improve the encyclopedia. However, I think moving this style concern to a guideline would be appropriate. This is not truly the content issue that some make it out to be. None would argue (I believe) that we should not have an article on Hamlet. Subsequently, none would argue (I believe) that we should re-tell Hamlet in an abridged form from an in-fiction perspective. Nevertheless, this is a style of writing issue and not an issue of whether or not we talk about the plot of fictional works. An encyclopedia includes plot summaries, but an encyclopedia is not just plot summaries. How do we say that? Ursasapien (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The existing (or proposed) wording says that fairly clearly. If PLOT is moved to a guideline I absolutely guarantee you that we will see another explosion of unencyclopedic articles like this. The correct way to do it is like this (a featured list). Black Kite 08:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything unencyclopedic about that article that could not be solved by editing. The real world context is clear from the lede but it does requires further sourcing and trimming. Making lists do not magically improve our coverage or encyclopedicness. Catchpole (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • First, I agree with Catchpole that your example just proves my point. This is a style issue that can be improved by editing, not a content issue per se. The cartoon Danny Phantom is certainly notable and should be covered in our ultimate encyclopedia. The depth of this coverage is an editing issue that can be handled by consensus. Secondly, we should not create or amend policy in an attempt to force editors to write excellent articles on the first try. As long as we have adolescent editors, I guarantee we will have articles on every video game, comic book, and cartoon in the universe. They totally ignore these pages. Policy should describe the core of who we are as an encyclopedia. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information because it is an encyclopedia. However, saying WP is not plot summary is not completely correct. WP is not just plot summary or a compilation of plot summaries, but WP certainly must contain plot summary as a part of their coverage of fiction. Ursasapien (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It doesn't say WP is not 'plot summary'. If you read it, it says "Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries". Or it did. I've changed it back, because it needs to be read in that grammatic context. Unless anyone is arguing that Wikipedia articles, being encyclopedic articles, are simply plot summaries. Hiding T 10:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Huh? Are you looking at the same article? That one I linked is 100% plot summary and original research, is completely unsourced and contains no real-world references whatsoever. It is a perfect example of WP:NOT. Black Kite 14:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The article is clearly about an episode of a television show, and the infobox contains "real-world" context. As for the rest "sofixit". Catchpole (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Seriously? That is clearly not sufficient real-world context. On that basis, every single piece of fiction, ever, would be worth an article. Where is the "impact and significance"? There isn't any. The only "sofixit" relevant to that article is a redirect to a list of episodes. (I'm not sure why it hasn't been - every other one in that series has). Black Kite 15:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Amendment

I've amended the wording to better reflect what I believe to be consensus. I would hope we all agree that as an encyclopedia, we treat subjects in an encyclopedic manner? Hiding T 07:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not keen on that, I'm afraid - far too easy to wikilawyer around, which as we have seen is a speciality of some editors in this arena. Needs to be strengthened a little - how about something along the lines of "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; a concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the coverage of a notable fictional work, but such articles must contain real-world analysis such as the reception, impact and significance of such works." Black Kite 07:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Black Kite, tour proposal seems to contain the wikilawyering. I would support Masem's proposal. Something akin to "Wikipedia is not an abridgement of works of fiction or a form of CliffsNotes. Ursasapien (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• You'd have to explain how that proposal contains "wikilawyering". I believe it is quite clear. Black Kite 08:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilawyering and perhaps even wikilegislating in the sense that you want the policy "strengthened" beyond consensus. This whole process seems far from our ideals and headed toward bureacratic politics. Ursasapien (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Now I'm really confused. That proposed wording is no "stronger" than the existing policy, and as regards ideals, is completely consistent with the first of the five pillars ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"). Because it's an encyclopedia, it shouldn't be hosting unduly detailed, unsourced content that is better suited to fansites. Black Kite 08:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused as well. Can you explain how your wording is better/stronger than Hiding's?

Hiding's version	Black Kite's version
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.	Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; a concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the coverage of a notable fictional work, but such articles must contain real-world analysis such as the reception, impact and significance of such works.

Ursasapien (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the "but" and the "must", words which ensure that the reader always gets the basic idea behind the policy. As I said, I believe Hiding's is a little more open to interpretation. Black Kite 14:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

and so it should be. that's its merit. this is policy we're talking about, which only works if it's not too prescriptive. Hidings permits interpretation, and has the merit that it states a policy we can probably all more or less agree on. Yours interprets it in a particular direction, which should be kept to editing guidelines. His is relative neutral--yours is pointing to a particular result which not everyone desires. Be welcome to work towards such a result in the guidelines, but this is not the place. Do we want to ever finish this discussion? then we have to accept something general. DGG (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; general is fine, but if a policy is open to too much interpretation it becomes effectively unenforcable and therefore often ignored - just look at the problem we have with NFCC. Black Kite 08:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

we're not disagreeing in principle, of course policies should not be too vague. But the disagreement is about whether your version above is over-specific, and I think it is--at the least, it is too over-specific to have consensus. The policy has to represent a deeper consensus than a guideline--a guideline is just a working agreement. Saying the elements of what must be included is not a matter of fundamental policy. DGG (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries

That's what the policy says. Does anyone actually dispute that? Is the consensus that Wikipedia articles should simply be plot summaries? That's the only basis on which to remove WP:PLOT from WP:NOT. Every other argument is spurious. That's what the policy says. Is that the consensus? Hiding T 10:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A common tactic in debate is to declare all other arguments null and then invite the opposition to make said null argument. I believe it to be a valid point that Wikipedia articles should not simply be plot summaries. I believe it is equally valid that all Wikipedia articles on fiction should contain plot summaries. I also believe that a valid argument can be made that this is a manual of style issue. Regardless, the argument that every other argument is spurious is spurious. Ursasapien (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you using that tactic to tell people to disregard my question? As to the matter at hand, a lot of this argument focuses on what this page is for. This page, or rather, this section of the page, is for outlining what Wikipedia articles are not. Therefore, if the consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries, it should go there. It can go in style guides and everything else as well, but it should go here too. The fatc that we aren't a dictionary is in about 3 policies and guidelines. The fact that we aren't a crystal ball is here there and everywhere. The fact that we aren't an indiscriminate collection of information is in three policies and two guidelines. Should we remove that. It's a spurious argument. The simple question, the one we're all debating is, whether Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries. If that is the case, I suggest it stays in our list which states what Wikipedia articles are not. I'm interested in everybody else's opinion on that, because that's the question under debate. Oh, and by the way, this is how an RFC works. We all present our view. Hope that helps. Hiding T 11:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to play devil's advocate here (though I'm in favor of the intent of PLOT).

There are two prongs that Pixelface and others have brought up before in terms not so much of what PLOT says, but what PLOT does. First is the fact that it can be read as a style guide: when writing articles on published works, you should include real-world context/analysis al. Because it can be read as a style guide, it can be pushed to WAF (a guideline). Now, my take is that that is also content: a plot summary cannot exist along without the additional information, so I'm not so sure on this one. However, in either case, as we're talking something as egregious as BLP violations, spelling out either specific style or content requirements in a policy instead of defering to guidelines as done elsewhere could be seen as a problem.

The second point I think Pixelface et al are making is that because this is NOT, such articles are then treated as deletion candidates because that we are basically stating notability for these topics, which clearly can only be shown through real-world context/analysis, within a policy. (Mind you, we are talking the ultimate state of such articles, not their instanteous state) Now, I'd argue that exactly what context/analysis should be included is left to a guideline (similar to how V depends on RS to define reliable sources, but still requires them)... but...I think it is very clear that the intent most of the rest of seem to have points to the fact that for published works only, we are basically making notability a policy.

Now, this could be seen as dangerous, but I think this may be the only point where we have to actually codify notibility as a policy if there is general agreement that PLOT is meant to do this. Published works are the only area that WP covers where there is two disparate ways to talk about the work: the content of the work (plot, characters, etc.) and the work as it exists in the real world. Towns, chemical elements, species of birds, etc. all have only one facet: the real world. If we admit to ourselves that the encyclopedic coverage of published works cannot only cover the content of the work, then we have basically made notability, and more specifically FICT, policy (though again, as with V/RS, specific details on how content can be shown notable are in a guideline). Are we sure enough on this point to make this the case? --MASEM 14:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But the whole reason that WP:NOT exists is to guard against types of content which are not encyclopedic and do not demonstrate notability, but of course cannot be deleted purely because of that, as NOTE is only a guideline. Black Kite 14:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll quibble over the claim that PLOT is unique. Pages about words, for example, also exist in two disparate ways - as pages about the word (the definition, origins, etc) and as pages about the concept behind the word. Pages about the concept can have some discussion about the word but must have more than merely lexical content or they end up tranwiki'd to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's not quite the case--if there is sufficient discussion about the use and significance of the word, the articles are usually kept. there is considerable overlap between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Same., in my opinion, with all the stringently worded but never-literally-applied parts of this policy. Personally, we should think of a way of expressing things in a positive way. DGG (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the kept pages have sufficient discussion of the social implications and significance to the real world - again, content that goes well beyond the mere definition. Just like PLOT. It's okay to have a short plot summary that enhances the encyclopedia article but plot alone, like definition alone, is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's good that this is a co-example, in that how we deal with definitions should show us how we should be dealing with PLOT. I haven't seen anyone lately insist that WP is a dictionary, and general consensus seems perfectly fine with Wiktionary. We need to push that concept with using off-site wikis (up to the point of not necessarily endorsing Wikia) to provide the same duality for details of published works. --MASEM 14:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the two examples is that they're inverse--the dictionary problem is that the content if just a definition is too short to be meaningful in an encyclopedia; the plot on the other hand can run away with the article altogether. Here's the true parallel--an article on a word would not be only a definition; an article or group of articles on a work should not be entirely plot. Nor do they ever need to be--if there is not some evidence for real world importance of a work, there wont be an article on it. The childish book-report articles sometimes submitted otherwise need to be supplemented or eliminated. DGG (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to "But the whole reason that WP:NOT exists is to guard against types of content which are not encyclopedic and do not demonstrate notability" above in a thread that doesn't allow for easy assertion: If that's the case, then it would be better to not be indirect, but instead directly say, "Articles about works of fiction that only summarize the plot do not demonstrate the notability of the work." At which point, however, it doesn't belong here but in WP:N. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

and if properly written , every one of the recently questioned articles would easily demonstrate the notability of the work from external sources showing at least the popularity, which in this context I think we would reasonably consider notability. All that is necesary to say is that this is the plot of an episode of a very highly watched series. DGG (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But on that basis, I could say that - for example - every single individual Premier League football match is eligible for its own article, after all they're watched by millions and written about by numerous reliable sources. But we don't do that - we do this instead. Black Kite 01:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How did that happen without a policy saying "Wikipedia articles are not simply summaries of individual sports matches"? DHowell (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Funnily enough, it used to be part of WP:NOT under Wikipedia is not news. That's how it happened. Amazing, that. Hiding T 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Common sense? After all, particularly notable matches do have their own articles, so the congruence with TV episodes issue is quite strong. Black Kite 06:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. It used to be part of WP:NOT, but now it's not? Imagine if now, we had a policy saying "Wikipedia articles are not simply summaries of individual sports matches" and that all sports-related articles had to contain "non-sports" contextual information, and we had strong-willed editors routinely citing this policy in attempts to delete, redirect, or gut articles like Liverpool F.C. season 2007-08, as well as articles on "particularly notable" matches, saying that they're just a collection of "summaries of individual sports matches" that don't contain any "non-sports context". This is exactly analogous to the WP:NOT#PLOT situation right now. DHowell (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Interesting. It used to be part of WP:NOT, but now it's not?" It looks like it still is, at least at my end, how about yours? As to your wider point, it's not actually analogous at all. A closer analogy might be that we had a policy saying that you couldn't write up a summary of a sporting event based upon a viewing of the event. Although, hold on, I think that's original research. Is that a better analogy? How about if we had a policy which said we're an encyclopedic resource, and then editors tried to ignore that and insert unencyclopedic information? So I guess we're full circle, and left asking if a plot summary alone is encyclopedic? Hiding T 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is arguing against the inclusion encyclopedically appropriate lists of plot-only information (as would exist in a list of characters or a list of episodes); PLOT is not about the article but about the treatment of the work itself, so a plot-only list to support the work is completely fine, as long as it's balanced with non-plot information. In the same vein, while individual sporting matches are likely not notable, a list of them treated in an encyclopedic manner is appropriate. --MASEM 22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But plenty of people are arguing exactly that! See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor EastEnders characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of For Better or For Worse (and its DRV), and plenty more examples can be found if one looks... DHowell (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

EastEnders characters: kept, as it is treated encyclopedically

Plot of Les Mis: deleted as it was effectively a long detailed summary of the work; "concise" plot is allowable but not

FBOW Plot: Initially kept but ultimately deleted for failing PLOT in the same way that Plot of Les Mis does - key and concise plot points as part of the main coverage, but not excessively detailed.

I will point out I am separating out what people are demanding "here" (on WP:NOT) and what people are demanding on AFD are two different things. HEre, we should be using the results of what is kept and what is deleted from AFD to shape the policy, which over the last several months has clearly shown that the general trend that allows for lists of characters and lists of episodes to exist, but breaking much more detail from a published work without showing notability is frowned upon as this extends past the purpose of WP as an encyclopedia. Even staunch deletionists support limited non-notable lists as long as they are in balance with the non-plot aspects of a work, the result of many AFDs that end in "merge and redirect". --MASEM 23:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what you say, MASEM, I'm not convinced by the idea of using AfDs as a measure of consensus to amend policy. AfDs represent only a tiny (and not necessarily representative) sample of Wikipedians (with a number of regulars, further reducing the effective sample size). In contrast, policy is shaped by consensus among a much larger number of editors (for example, about 1,000 unique editors participated at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll). A better bet might be to document past AfD decisions at WP:OUTCOMES. Jakew (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the statement that "Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries". We have plenty of articles that are simply, or mostly plot summaries, including many articles about characters and elements of classical works of fiction. There is a big difference between saying "Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries" (a policy statement) and "Wikipedia articles should not be simply plot summaries" (or perhaps "Wikipedia coverage of published works should not consist of only plot summaries", which is what the current wording seems to be saying), which is more suited to a guideline. Why does this need to be policy? Why can't it just be a guideline? There is strong support for notability as an inclusion criterion, and yet WP:N is still a guideline. I'm sure most people would agree that ideal encyclopedic articles are not stubs, and yet we don't have WP:NOTSTUB, and we don't delete stubs just for being stubs. There is no pressing legal or foundation issue with plot summaries, other than the possible copyright infringement issue which seems to have been consistently rejected in discussion, and by Wikipedia's legal counsel, as a reason to have the NOT#PLOT policy. There's no sister project where plot summaries are better suited, so the comparison with WP:NOT#DICTDEF is not really apt either. I don't see clear consensus that this needs to be policy, yet there is does seem to be strong enough consensus for this to be a guideline, and so why don't we just do so and move on? To those who say this would weaken efforts to remove long rambling fan-written originally researched plot recaps, I'd note that many articles about non-notable topics get deleted without there being a notability policy. What I believe moving this to guideline status would do would be to lessen the disruption caused by those who would use policy in an attempt to override consensus, rather than to work collaboratively with editors and encourage and help them to write articles in a more encyclopedic manner. DHowell (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, no policy (save for NFCC and BLP) uses "must" or that strong a language; PLOT like most other entries in NOT should be descriptive instead of prescriptive. As for the lack of a sister project, there is Wikia (not a true sister project) and anyone is free to start a separate wikia for deeper, detailed coverage of published works, so there is a way to move this information around. As to why it should be here, it is not just about notability, it is basically how we treat published works; ultimately the coverage of a published work should be more than just it's content, because our coverage is not just about the content. While this points to notability (aka the real-world aspects), I'd argue there may be other ways we can cover a published work that is not just content but not necessarily its notability that still treats the work in an encyclopedic manner. We likely need to reword it (as I've suggested above) as to move certain specifics to point to guidelines more (eg we don't need to mention "real world content" specifically in NOT, only that NOTE/FICT should be referred to as to what is appropriate non-content coverage for a published work.

So ultimately the reason this belongs in NOT is that an encyclopedia does not simply cover the contents of published works, period. All specifics of that statement should be moved to appropriate guidelines, but that's why this needs to be in NOT. --MASEM 03:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there are specialized encyclopedias which do largely cover the contents of published works (The Star Trek Encyclopedia possibly being one of the most notable examples), and our first pillar says we incorporate elements of general encyclopedias and specialized encyclopedias. Second, coverage of the contents of published works, and sourced analysis thereof, is a major part of the encyclopedic coverage of many works. Third, I see no reason why articles solely on the complex plot details of works of fiction such as Les Misérables or War and Peace should not be considered encyclopedic. Such articles, suitably referenced to both primary sources for description and secondary sources for analysis, I believe are entirely appropriate for a general encyclopedia. As Wikipedia is not paper we should not have to limit the detail to which we can cover such topics, as long as we heed the content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. These content policies should be sufficient to fix most of the fan-generated plot recaps to which people are objecting. Fourth, as I indicated, as a descriptive policy it fails in that we have many such articles in Wikipedia, a number of which have even survived AfD. So I still fail to see why a general prohibition (whether it mandates deletion or not) on articles which are "simply plot summaries" needs to be policy. DHowell (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is sourced analysis of the plot as per your example, that meets the point of PLOT, because this is more than just "plot summaries". The key here is that the presence of secondary sources helps to make these articles meet WP:V which require independent, third-party sources. On the other hand, I would argue that we do not give a chapter-by-chapter recount of a highly notable work, because that goes beyond the purpose of an encyclopedia, even a specialized one. Our first priority in writing articles on published works is to explain why the general reader should be aware of this work, and once that's met we can talk additional details for those actually interested in the work, but then, if the information is not notable and highly detailed requiring deep knowledge of the work, it should be retained in an offsite wiki to accompany the WP coverage.

I have also explained above to Pixelface that PLOT applies to the overall coverage of the published work, and should not be applied at the article level. It is completely fair to have a list of characters in association with a notable published work, even if the characters are non-notable, as this a degree of encyclopedic coverage akin to fan encyclopedias. However, again, our first goal is the general reader, and to avoid details that would overwhelm them, which means we have to avoid undue weight of the content of the work with the non-content aspects of the work. Thus, PLOT applies to the entire coverage of the work, which may include one or more non-notable articles within the context. Again, see what I suggest as proposed wording: "Coverage of published works on WP should not focus only on the content of the work, but instead should focus on the non-content aspects with support of the content of the work in an encyclopedic manner." --MASEM 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But WP:NOT#IINFO says "Wikipedia articles are not..." not "Wikipedia coverage of a topic is not..." It essentially says that articles like Plot of Les Misérables are not appropriate on Wikipedia, no matter how much sourced analysis there is (and there is plenty). WP:NOT#PLOT is the main reason that Plot of Les Misérables has, for almost a year now, been a redirect to an article which has a woefully brief plot synopsis, given the amount of significant coverage that the plot of this work has received. For what purpose do we limit our coverage in this manner? DHowell (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

On my screen it says "Wikipedia articles are not simply...". How come yours is different? As to your specific article, isn't that a matter for editorial consensus? Hiding T 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed DHowell's point completely. Masem said "PLOT applies to the overall coverage of the published work, and should not be applied at the article level." but DHowell said "WP:NOT#IINFO says "Wikipedia articles are not..." not "Wikipedia coverage of a topic is not..." The "simply" is totally irrelevant to DHowell's point, which is that PLOT *is* applied at the article level. Would you rather DHowell say "WP:NOT#IINFO says "Wikipedia articles are not simply..." not "Wikipedia coverage of a topic is not simply..." If the "simply" is shown, the meaning of what DHowell said does not change.

And speaking of Plot of Les Misérables, it was nominated for deletion for failing PLOT. During that AFD, several people said PLOT should be ignored since ignoring PLOT would improve Wikipedia, and the closing admin Kurykh ignored those arguments, giving more weight to an essay, WP:ATA, instead of the IAR policy. The article was deleted when there was no consensus to delete. The article was taken to DRV 2 days later. There wasn't really consensus to endorse the deletion in that DRV either. Oddly enough, Xoloz endorsed the deletion but restored the article anyway. So what is the purpose of WP:NOT#PLOT? To give editors a reason to AFD articles about Brookside characters? To make you improve the articles for free within five days? --Pixelface (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I will note that I have started a discussion of trying to install a process for AFDs at WT:AFD to create an option to postpone an AFD to give editors more time to work on it if the article has not been tagged or warned before the AFD (that is, the AFD process should not be the first time that the article's quality or notability has been brought to the editors of the article). This is more than just a PLOT issue, since any NOT clause or other policy/guideline on an article's quality or merit may make it an AFD target. --MASEM 01:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you want to take the temporary injunction that occurred during the E&C2 arbitration case and make it a regular phenomenon at AFDs? How about we just remove PLOT from NOT instead? It doesn't have the consensus required to be in a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not - if you read what I proposed there, you'd understand. You're complaining that we're basically giving people 5 days to fix an article for PLOT because it was nominated to AFD. This behavior is very bitey - we need to encourage editors to let other editors know that there is a problem with the article (whether PLOT or other NOT or other policy/guideline) before an AFD should even be initiated since AFD is the last step of dispute resolution. To try to help this from the opposite end, the idea is that if an article is marked for AFD without having been tagged or the editors otherwise notified, an editor should be able to ask for a temporary hold on the AFD as to give them 2 weeks to a month before the article can be reconsidered for AFD. It is not postponing/suspending AFDs pending the resolution of any guideline/policy issues as the E&C2 arbcom case did. This is to address your specific complaint that PLOT only gives people 5 days to correct it, which I think most agree is a bad problem, but it is important to note this applies to any reason for deletion (including those on WP:DEL) that is not covered by CSD, a behavioral problem must larger than PLOT. Asking to pull PLOT to solve this issue is closing the barn doors after the cows have already escaped. However, this still leaves the question if there is one on the consensus for removing PLOT, and I noticed Hiding has started a centrallized discussion that addresses part of this. --MASEM 03:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The five days for improvement isn't the only problem. The other problem is that articles that are only plot summaries can easily be merged into existing articles. And the other problem is that PLOT is ignored in AFDs. And the other problem is that nobody can agree as to what PLOT should say. And the other problem is that PLOT never had consensus to be policy in the first place. And the other problem is that you seem intent on keeping PLOT in NOT because otherwise all the time you've spent rewriting FICT would turn out to be a waste of time, much like the time people spent working on the History of For Better or For Worse article turned out to be a waste of time. Do you think AFDs for articles that are resumes should be postponed? Do you think AFDs for articles that are self-promotion should be postponed? Do you think AFDs for articles that are original inventions should be postponed? And Hiding didn't start a centralized discussion, he forked the existing one. --Pixelface (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review the discussion of the suggested wording changes: the agreement for the current wording was there; suggestions for changing it did not reach consensus, but those that were in favor of changing the wording do not appear to be of the mind that PLOT should not be here; there is a huge different between this case and "nobody can agree as to what PLOT should say". As for the cases you present of things that you ask if I think should be postponed, I did specifically call out that CSD still applies, so resumes and self-promotions of course shouldn't even get to AFD. If, by "original inventions" you mean one filled with mostly original research, then the editors should be given the appropriate chance to show it is not OR, and thus does qualify for a fair chance for improvement. --MASEM 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Earliest example

The earliest example I could find along these lines is back in 2002[137], Larry Sanger, co-founder, added that Wikipedia articles are Neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. That's in up until a rewrite in Jan 2005[138] where the consensus seems to be that nothing has changed, which kind of doesn't make sense, but there you go. Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 3#Please discuss the rewritten version. So I guess the question is whether or not plot summaries are encyclopedic articles? Hiding T 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We're concentrating too much on "articles" -- the total coverage of a work of fiction should not be entirely the plot. (nor will it ever be except for the fan junk that Larry had in mind--at the least it will give the authorship and publication information.) How it is divided up into articles in a style guideline, not a policy. Even the current policy refers to how "Wikipedia treats fiction" not to individual articles. DGG (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Which, if applied to a work of fiction, would mean that one paragraph of non-plot in the main article would justify an unlimited amount of subarticles on each chapter of a book, each character, each television episode. So the next best thing is concentrating on articles while not going into specifics about the needed non-plot to balance the amount of plot. (edit: I still had one of the older PLOT wording in mind when I wrote this. Nevertheless, an only-plot article should be the exception rather than the rule.) – sgeureka ^t•c 16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely I've never meant anything of the sort; but when an article needs to be divided, the plot part of it would contain the plot. I agree we should not divide beyond necessity, but that goes in the article guidelines. For a really major work, it would usually be possible to find a real-world source discussing the plot, and I think that meets everyone's requirements? There are many factors to balance--importance of work, amount of secondary material, complexity and length of plot, people here with the ability and interest to write good concise plot summaries. The point here is thatthis is policy, and should not restrict detail. DGG (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Plot summaries section of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information belongs in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because plot summaries based on the first hand opinions or experiences of the primary source material. The article Winston Smith is a typical example of an article about a fictional character that does not contain real-world content, context or analysis from reliable secondary sources, and the long plot summary based on primary sources is a symptom that it fails the requirements of the General notability guideline. Although this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, there may not be grounds for deletion, as there may be a presumtion that non-trivial real-world content from reliable secondary sources will be added to the article in the future.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Another suggested rewording of PLOT

Ok, I've mentioned this above, but I think based on the various arguments from Pixelface and DHowell, this might help setting the issues.

I suggest rewording PLOT as such:

Content-only coverage of published works - Wikipedia's coverage of published works and elements from those works (such as plot, characters, settings, and episodes) should not focus solely on the content of the work, but instead should focus on other aspects of the work, supported by balanced encyclopedic treatment of the work's content. Content-only coverage of a work or element of the work should be either improved to broaden its coverage, or trimmed and merged as part of wider coverage of the work. Guidance on other aspects for published works can be found at Notability, Notability (fiction), Notability (books), and Notability (films), while guidance for how to approach content in an encyclopedic manner can be found at Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

This keeps the same flavor as PLOT does, however:

• This speaks to "coverage", and not at the article level. It's clear from NOTE and FICT that we sometimes allow non-notable character and episode lists, and this would be part of a work's coverage. However, this also emphasize that there's balance between the content aspects and the non-content (I'm avoiding "real world context" here on purpose), as a work that can only be shown to be notable via two sources doesn't merit 40 different articles under it, for example
• "Real world context" is removed from this, and completely deferred to Notability guidelines. Old PLOT specifically spelled out parts of this, and thus made PLOT feel like notability based on policy. This approach decouples that, (the V/RS approach) so that it's policy that we want more than just content covered, but exactly what that is is guidance.
• This hopefully points out that deletion should be deemphasized as a result of failing this. Either you can show there's more to talk about the work/element, or that it should otherwise be shortened and moved to a wider piece of coverage. We should never delete coverage of an aspect of a published work unless it is trivially minor, but just make sure it is covered appropriate to the overall work's presentation. (eg move to lists, because redirects are cheap).

Basically, at the end of the day, we are trying to say that "Wikipedia is not simply regurgiation of the plot of a published work", as this is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. How to work around this is why we should point to guidelines for the appropriate advice. --MASEM 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

With one tweak for logic ("merged as part of wider coverage of the work" => "merged as part of a broader topic" or similar), I'd agree with that, I think. The main reason for that change is the text as you put it says "content-only coverage of the work … should either be improved … or trimmed and merged as part of wider coverage of the work", which doesn't make logical sense. SamBC(talk) 14:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see this sentence as problematic: "Content-only coverage of a work or element of the work should be either improved to broaden its coverage, or trimmed and merged as part of wider coverage of the work." I think that this policy is about inappropriate content, and it should describe such content, but shouldn't impose a solution. The solution to a specific instance is generally best considered by Wikipedia editors, and if policy limits the options the effect is likely to cause more harm than good. Indeed, by saying that these are the two options available, the meaning is essentially inverted, saying in effect that such material does belong somewhere in Wikipedia. Yet deletion may in fact be the best option in some cases (for example, if the work itself is insufficiently notable, if the material has little encyclopaedic value, or if merging the material into another article would cause that article to become unbalanced in favour of in-universe material). Jakew (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Arguably, I think part of the concerns that Pixelface and others have is that there are some quick to apply the AFD/PROD tag for PLOT-failing articles, which I agree is a bit too bitey, but this ultimately is a behavioral issue. However, I think some language to suggest what else can be done with content-only works is appropriate, since it does describe a route to improvement. Maybe if "should be" was changed with "can be", as to emphasize that this is casual advice, not exhaustive of all routes, but policy and guidelines should still be followed, thus allowing for deletion when necessary? --MASEM 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that "can be" would be an improvement, but I'm not sure that it's optimal, and it seems rather open to wikilawyering. It seems as though we're trying to insert WP:DP#Alternatives to deletion into WP:PLOT, and I wonder whether we're trying to do too much in one policy here (as an aside, could some of the "bitey" issues be addressed in WP:DP?). My feeling is that we should let WP:NOT be WP:NOT. Jakew (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the proposal to change the existing wording as the current proposal is too prescriptive. Since this policy says what Wikipedia "is not", trying to say what "it is" goes against the spirit of this policy. Statements such as "Guidance on other aspects for published works can be found at ..." fall outside the scope of this policy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Real world context is an essential concept to WP:PLOT. We're a real-world encyclopedia, and that's why we strive to be more than plot-recap. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)