Template talk:Plot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Addition of copyvio warning

I think this is a useful template with the copyvio warning, but it isn't the same template I added to the article where I used it. In the case I used it (A Clockwork Orange) there is clearly no copyright violation, just endless rambling driveby detail, and mentioning copyvio is likely to just lead to red herring discussions that focus on trying to refute that rather than dealing with the real issue. Accordingly, I would support restoring the original meaning, and creating a new template for this particular case. Comments? Notinasnaid 09:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the copyright warning after a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) where everyone agreed that a plot summary that is excessively long or detailed may constitute a copyright violation, even without a large amount of direct quotations. Any amount of discussion about what happens in a work of fiction involves the copyright of that work of fiction; a small amount is within fair use, but a large amount may start to become a copyvio. I haven't seen the version of A Clockwork Orange you tagged, but "endless rambling driveby detail" may indeed also be a copyvio, in addition to all the other problems. —Angr 09:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
As this template is almost always placed at trhe beginning of a plot that starts next to a right-aligned infobox, it needs to float left, otherwise it pushes the beginning of the section down the page ina very ugly way. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, the one sentence about copyright violation has lead to discussion being overwhelmed by that point, and an editor proposing the removal of the tag from an article because there is clearly no copyvio in this case, despite accepting that the plot synopsis is too long (Talk:The Last Mimzy). I propose a parameter to this template which can be used to suppress this distracting message when it is inappropriate. (I agree that an overly detailed plot summary can constitute copyright violation, but I content there are many articles nothing like that detailed where the plot is still too long). Comments? Notinasnaid 09:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any responses, I have added an option "copyvio=no". If this option is used, the copyvio text is suppressed. This allows the template to be used without introducing discussion that focusses unnecessarily on the copyright issues, rather than article quality issues. Notinasnaid 09:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Already I've found another example of this text acting as a distraction. [1] shows the tag being removed, correctly, but with a comment that it certainly doesn't violate copyright. I realise that reasons were good, but the weight of this sentence is such that it dominates discussion. I feel this can doharm to the original intention of encouraging balanced writing about works rather than plotcruft. I therefore propose changing the default for this template to copyvio=no. I realise that this means that it won't be the same text that was added by the person adding the tag, which is regrettable and undesirable, but apparently there were no such qualms when adding the text. Any comments? Notinasnaid 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the notion that a long plot summary could be a copyvio is WP:CB. An overly long summary is likely to contain original research, but copyvio? Redxiv 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long plot summary as copyvio

Long plot summary as active copyright violation discussion. Discussion here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 February 19/Articles --GunnarRene 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptable length

What is the specific ratio of words to movie length that is considered acceptable? Is there a numerical limit to a plot summary? Thanks in advance if you can answer these questions. Quadzilla99 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I did some research on this based on featured film articles a while ago. There was no consensus. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/archive7#Guideline for plot summary length. – flamurai (t) 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "overly long"

I just have a query about the "overly long". There are quite a number of articles which are not overly long (but beyond stub class so not listed for attention) but are almost solely made up of a plot summary. Apart from that first line, the template addresses the problem perfectly, as it is a question of the context and "weight" of the summary in any given article which is an issue in terms of What wikipedia is not rather than any specific length. Is there an alternative template which can be used in this case? I don't like to stick an unencyclopedic on them as they may be notable enough to have an article, but I can't seem to find an appropriate notice. baby_ifritah 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Having just scouted around for something appropriate can I propose this template have a parameter added to optionally leave off the "too long" phrase and replace it with text that suggests something more on the lines of "this article has a disproportionate amount of plot" with some advice about either adding more background (out-of-universe) information and/or triming the amount of Plot to be more balanced. The parameter could be "|disproportionate=(yes|no)" with a default of "no" which would give the existing text. If agreable I could make the changes. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the copyvio warning has to stay

Please read the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/Archive5#Plot summaries as copyvio for why it is necessary and appropriate for this template to warn against copyright violation. Direct word-for-word quotes are not necessary for a copyright violation to exist. Any discussion of what happens in a fictional universe that goes beyond the bare minimum acceptable under fair use may constitute a copyright violation. —Angr 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Once again, I give you CliffsNotes (and Sparknotes and various others, none of which have ever been sued or even, AFAIK, accused of copyvio). Sorry, but your word just isn't enough for this. *** Crotalus *** 03:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And I give you the Seinfeld Aptitude Test, whose authors were sued, and lost, for going into great detail about a fictional universe. The reason CliffsNotes and the like don't get sued is that they get the copyright holder's permission before publishing their summaries. If they didn't, they most certainly would get sued. —Angr 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Licensed works generally have a notice to that effect in the book's copyright page or somewhere else in the introductory section. Last time I was at the bookstore, I checked a CliffsNotes for a copyrighted work (Orwell's 1984). There was no indication of licensing — but there was some boilerplate text, repeated in several places, saying that the CliffsNotes were not intended to serve as a replacement for the original work. That just happens to be one of the U.S. fair use criteria. I also checked the CliffsNotes and SparkNotes websites and found no relevant references to licensing or to the phrase "with permission" (there were a handful of hits for the latter, but neither were relevant to the issue here; they referred either to in-story references or to lengthy verbatim reprints). Can you provide any citation for your claim that CliffsNotes and SparkNotes have obtained licensing or permission from the copyright holders to publish their analyses with plot summaries?
As for the Seinfeld and Twin Peaks cases, which I've heard cited several times before, I don't believe that they are on point here. First of all, both of these cases were decided in the 2nd Circuit, and therefore have limited (if any) precedential value outside that circuit. The Foundation, being located in Florida, is in the 11th Circuit. It's not at all unusual for different circuits, when acting without explicit Supreme Court precedent, to interpret the law differently; in fact, this is often one of the prime reasons why a case winds up being heard by the SCOTUS. Has there ever been a case outside the 2nd Circuit in which plot summaries were held to constitute infringement?
Secondly, and more importantly, both cases mentioned above include third-party works that consisted of essentially nothing but plot summaries and other in-universe descriptions. Since Wikipedia does not (and never will) consist entirely or even primarily of plot summaries or other such elements, there's no reason to believe that either of these cases is relevant at all.
If in-universe plot descriptions and other related information about licensed works is so problematic, why did Wikia ever agree to host Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha, which consist of nothing but description and analysis of the copyrighted Star Wars and Star Trek universes, respectively?
I also suggest that you review m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. What you're doing here is a textbook example of it. I think it's also worth pointing out that, under OCILLA, the Foundation is immune from suit if they take down any allegedly infringing materials upon being notified. Therefore, the worst that could happen is that a publisher complains, and the office then takes down the material temporarily while the Foundation decides whether it's worth trying to fight the issue or not.
There are good encyclopedic reasons why plot summaries should be kept limited. Dubious copyright claims are not one of them, and do nothing but cloud the issue. *** Crotalus *** 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you've appealed to the fallacy of "copyright paranoia". There is no such thing. As a free content encyclopedia, Wikipedia keeps its use of copyrighted material to a bare minimum, even if it would be protected by fair use law. In this case, though, any plot summary that is long and detailed enough to warrant this tag in the first place is also long and detailed enough for us to think about whether we are using excessive amounts of nonfree content, possibly even violating copyright. (Remember the wording was always "may violate copyright", not "does violate copyright".) It is precisely because we are a free content encyclopedia that we shouldn't even come close to pushing the envelope of the OCILLA. No copyright holder should ever have to complain to Wikimedia (and Wikia isn't Wikimedia, so what they do is irrelevant) in the first place. If they do, we have forfeited the right to call ourselves "The Free Encyclopedia", even if it does turn out that our use of their material is legal. I've e-mailed SparkNotes and asked directly whether they have to get the copyright holder's permission to publish their summaries. —Angr 08:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The essay I referenced has been on Meta for years. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them (I've never even edited it). The fact is that it is not possible to coherently discuss modern (copyrighted) works of fiction without engaging in what would generally be termed fair use. If Wikipedia is going to have articles on such subjects, it will be necessary to do so. Again, as I said previously, there are good encyclopedic reasons for making plot summaries shorter and more concise; misguided copyright fears are not one of them. Technically, virtually any analysis of a copyrighted literary work, regardless of its nature, constitutes fair use. (Any substantive analysis will have to discuss the characters, the plot, and so forth, and will probably include at least a couple of short quotations.) This is the fundamental flaw behind all the schemes to purge fair use from Wikipedia. It's so fundamental to the way things work that we really can't do so without decimating any articles on anything related to modern popular culture. *** Crotalus *** 09:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I know it's been on Meta for years; that doesn't make it coherent. And actually, it is entirely possible to discuss copyrighted fictional works without touching fair use. You just have to talk about the significance the work has in the real world (what it's been influenced by, what it has influenced, how it has been received), rather than presenting the original creative ideas of the author, which (as you mentioned above) are unencylopedic anyway. —Angr 10:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias cover notable works of fiction, including their plots. End of discussion. --tjstrf talk 08:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not include lengthy plot summaries, and free content encyclopedias do not include copyrighted material at all. "End of discussion", my ass. —Angr 08:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The above sounds like a blanket argument against fair use. Maybe you believe that we shouldn't have any fair use material, but that is not and never has been policy on the English Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 09:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
All plot summaries contained on Wikipedia are licensed under the GFDL. If you believe that is too restrictive a copyright for our material to use, you would need to take that up with the foundation.
Much deserved smartassery aside, Anger, I believe you have confused "Wikipedia, the free content encyclopedia" (the encyclopedia whose content is free) with "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia of free content" (the encyclopedia which only contains information about things that are free). --tjstrf talk 09:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course a blanket prohibition of fair use would be ideal for Wikipedia, but too large a proportion of our editorship consists of fanboys for that ever to happen. And no, I haven't confused anything; Wikipedia's content is not free when it includes non-free material. I have never said or implied that we should not have articles on fictional topics; merely that our discussions of them must remain based in the real world, not in the fictional universe of the topic under discussion. —Angr 10:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving on...

To move past the rather nasty argument brewing above, I suggest the following:

  1. Make the copyvio field default to no.
  2. Change the phrasing to "plot summaries detailed enough to interfere with the commercial viability of the described work may constitute copyright violations."

In this way, those few cases where a plot "summary" really is starting to approach a replication of the entire film script could indeed be tagged with something a bit stronger than the normal, but we avoid spreading paranoid delusions about every ==Synopsis== section being a lawsuit waiting to happen. --tjstrf talk 09:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest a compromise where the template warns that overly long plot summaries may violate Wikipedia's own non-free content policy, in particular criteria 2 and 3, rather than bringing in copyright law. —Angr 10:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Original text entries (non-quotations) are not covered under that policy. --tjstrf talk 10:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
They aren't mentioned specifically by name, but the policy covers all non-free content. —Angr 10:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly. Plot summaries do not fall into that category. --tjstrf talk 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes they do. The fact that they aren't mentioned by name is irrelevant. Plot summaries are derivative works of the material they summarize and therefore subject to Wikipedia's fair use policy, regardless of whether that page explicitly says so. However, whether this tag mentions that or not is actually not terribly important. As Crotalus Horridus mentioned, there are other reasons apart from copyright issues why plot summaries should not be long and detailed. As long as the tag encourages people to shorten plot summaries to the minimum necessary, it's doing its job. The fact (and I mean "fact" quite literally) that long plot summaries are (in the case of copyrighted works) in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and in some cases quite possibly copyright law) in addition to being unencyclopedic does not actually have to be mentioned. —Angr 23:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me the point is that WP content should be freely reusable. A plot summary which is not a "significant taking" from the original work will be freely reusable (if it's GFDL licensed). So the free/non-free issue doesn't arise. It's not like an non-free image which can only be used for certain purposes. On the contrary, if the plot summary is non-infringing for WP to use, it's hard to see how it could be infringing for anybody else to use.
For examples of entirely legitimate plot summaries, from a source which does aim to be a scholarly and encyclopaedic, namely the film journal Sight and Sound backed by the British Film Institute, see eg their articles of record for The Lives of Others or Zodiac. Jheald 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is, any plot summary that is long and detailed enough to warrant this template in the first place is a "significant taking" from the original work; like any derivative work it has its own license (the GFDL) but is also subject to the restrictions of the original. Does Sight and Sound, like Wikipedia, have a policy of using the bare minimum of fair-use material possible? Or do they use as much fair-use material as they can without getting sued? Because doing the latter is in flat contradiction to Wikimedia (not just Wikipedia) policy and practice. —Angr 08:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Sight and Sound is a British magazine, and their website is (or at least appears to be) hosted in the UK, so US fair-use laws are surely not as relevant as British fair-dealing ones (which I believe are often more restrictive). Loganberry (Talk) 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] overly long?

I was wondering, should I add overly long or excessively detailed? Greg Jones II 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template conflicting with infobox

Is there any way to shrink the width of this template? When viewing film articles at a 1024x768 resolution, this template often conflicts with the film infobox, so whitespace is shown until the infobox ends and then this template is shown. Is there any way to decrease the width of the box this templates displays, so it doesn't conflict with the infobox? I usually think that a long section of whitespace before a section begins is more annoying than a long section of text. --Pixelface 06:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what article you are talking about, but if it has an infobox then it probably also has some content other than the plot summary. In that case you should simply remove this template. Loom91 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Take for example the Resident Evil: Extinction article. Using a monitor with 1024x768 resolution, and Internet Explorer 6.0.2800, the width of the plot template conflicts with the infobox, so the plot template ends up coming after the infobox, leaving whitespace under the Plot heading until the infobox ends(jpg). Using Firefox 2.0.0.3, the text of the plot template bleeds into the film infobox.(jpg) Editors are using the plot template to mark Plot sections they think are too long, but it often conflicts with the infobox and makes the sections even longer. I've tried to research the issue at WP:TEMP and WP:TMP. WP:TMP has a section that says:

A caution about line breaks Note that some templates may accidentally cause extra linebreaks in the rendered articles. This is especially true of Wikipedia:Infobox templates and other template boxes that usually float on the right side of an article, since the additional lines will not be seen on the template page. As a general guideline, avoid two break lines together in your template. These may "add up" with other breaklines in the article and be displayed as unwanted white space.

I notice the {{plot}} template refers to Template:Ambox which is the article message box template. That page says that ambox is "just a thin wrapper for the ambox CSS classes in MediaWiki:Common.css". I notice that page specifies the width for table.ambox as 80%

Maybe that width can be changed across the whole site or maybe I can just change it on my own account. The MediaWiki:Common.css page says any changes to Common.css should be first proposed to Wikipedia:Village Pump. Perhaps one of the expert template coders would know what do .

I took a look at Help:User_style and I think I found a solution (for me personally). I created a subpage on my userpage called monobook.css and copied this code to it, and changed 80% to 65%.

/* Article message box template styles */
table.ambox {
  width: 65%; 
  margin: 0 auto; 
  border-collapse: collapse; 
  background: #fbfbfb; 
  border: 1px solid #aaa; 
  border-left: 10px solid #1e90ff;       /* Default "notice" blue */
}

That seems to have worked.(jpg) All other message boxes are shrunk too but I don't mind. --Pixelface 08:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As I guessed, the plot template had no buisness in that article. It was probably vandalism. Loom91 08:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was quite vandalism. Many editors just tag a Plot section with the {{plot}} template if they think the section is too long. If the {{plot}} template is placed directly under the Plot heading, the tag often conflicts with the infobox (like in 16 Blocks or Enough). But, like I said, my monobook.css fix shrinks all message boxes so they don't display after the infobox. --Pixelface 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

The wording of this template doesn't seem to be very useful.

This article or section contains a plot summary that is too long compared to the rest of the article.

We actually have policies and guideline on this matter, which state pretty clearly:

Policy: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PLOT
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In addition to other sections of this policy, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:
'...'
2. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. (See also: Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot)

also

Guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Fair_use:
Fair use
As the Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, Wikipedia articles must conform to U.S. copyright laws. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation. This may apply irrespective of the way information is presented, in or out of universe, or in some entirely different form such as a quizbook or "encyclopedia galactica".
Information about copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Many works of fiction covered by Wikipedia are protected by copyright. Some works are sufficiently old that their copyright has expired, or the rights may have been released into the public domain.

Now what this template does now is state that plot summaries should be in proportion to the article. This is absolutely true, and it's covered by our policy, but it doesn't fairly reflect what our policy says.

I would suggest a change of wording to say something like:

This plot summary is long and contains too much detail. In its current form it may be against our policy What Wikipedia is not:
Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries
In addition, it may be contrary to our guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction):
The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible"

--Tony Sidaway 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy says "not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot". It does not say articles should not contain a detailed plot summary, but that they should not contain only a detailed plot summary. A plot summary of a fictional work, even a detailed one, is a legitimate form of encyclopedic information about that work. Plot summaries so detailed that copyright considerations become relevant are rather extreme, I don't think we need templates to deal with those. Loom91 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot length

How about a general guideline for plot length, depending if the article is about a show, a film, a book, etc. It would help people writing these plot summaries to know how much to write. Similar to WP:LEAD#Length. MahangaTalk 16:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not in general set a limit on how much information to include about a subject. Write whatever amount of information yoou consiider appropriate. Loom91 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well obviously we're setting some sort of limit on the plot length or else this template wouldn't exist! MahangaTalk 05:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Also see WP:NOVSTY for Narrative prose related article recommendations. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The cryptic shortcut WP:NOVSTY actually points to a WikiProject page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, which purports to be part of the Wikipedia manual of style. How did that happen? How did a style guideline come to be part of a WikiProject? --Tony Sidaway 10:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't think I added it, think someones else did. However it is a project based guideline. Much like that over on WP:Film :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a policy or guideline that limits the length of plot summaries. As worded, this template refers to the length of the plot summary relative to the rest of the article. As I see it, it urges editors to expand the rest of the article, rather than shorten the plot summary. Loom91 18:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So how does all this contradict Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot and the original wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Plot and the original template wording here. Also Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PLOT has a character which strongly suggests a limitation is in order, even if it doesn't in itself give numbers. Then there is Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Plot_summaries which also has size related suggestions. I believe the limitations have a value, but I can see that a rewording or rephrasing of them to give a "softer" tone might well be in order. We cannot have a plot size free-for-all though already many fiction based articles have large, poorly written and some almost pointless plot summaries that give an unencyclopedic flavour to the wiki. I see the need to encourage input, within some soft boundaries. Oh, by the way I didn't come up with any of these I am just seeking to defend what I believe was the previous consensus. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Tony Sidaway's revert of two edits made by Loom91

Loom91 made the following change:

Before:

This article or section contains a plot summary that is too long compared to the rest of the article.
Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot.'

After:

This article is too short or lacking in detail compared to the plot summary.
Please expand the rest of the article] and focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot.'

This is inconsistent with usage of the tag at present, and contradicts our policy (shortcut WP:PLOT) which states that "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic", and certainly doesn't view the correct response to a plot summary of excessive length as expanding the rest of the article.

Accordingly I have reverted to the former wording. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot length

As this whole subject of Plot length guidelines is under challenge we need some centralized arena for it's debate. So that project are consistent with one another and some true consensus is reached. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the plot length guidelines under challenge? --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
An existing consensus can be challenged. However in this case, I don't see any prior consensus. Such a consensus may well exist, but it has never been documented (at least, I haven't yet seen any evidence). Loom91 08:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And here is the single guy who is challenging them! However He does have a point about the documentation of the consensus. I have no doubts myself that in this arena at least consensus exists, however as Loom91 (talk · contribs) rightly points out the consensus documentation resulting from a public debate seems hard to find. So how to we kick off such an unbiased and even handed debate to put the matter to some kind of "rest". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As to official policy, this template is an expression of WP:PLOT, which has been discussed extensively on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and has strong consensus. Other expressions of policy relevant to this template are Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF) and (more specialized but a good expression of the prevailing opinion on coverage of fiction) Wikipedia:Television episodes (WP:EPISODE). --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
None of which demonstrates consensus for setting hard celings on plot length. Loom91 17:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
They don't, strictly speaking, but there is no reason to treat these recommendations, guidelines as "hard" ceilings. Conversely there is no demonstrated consensus about not having some statements of ceilings. In fact during these recent debate you are to only one to have insisted on this view.  :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, guidelines are not merely essays. They are considered to be prescriptive documents which need to have demonstrated consensus. You need consensus to make statements, not to not make them. Loom91 18:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is anybody else interested in fixing plots?

I've begun to deal with articles that have been tagged with this template. Sometimes I revert the plot summary to a more suitable version from an older revision, sometimes I substantially rewrite it, and sometimes I just remove a tag that in my opinion has been misplaced on the article or where the plot summary has already been cleaned up. On one article (Rain Man) I removed some 10 kilobytes of plot summary, still leaving a substantial 800-word summary.

Is anybody else doing such work, or interested in doing it? --Tony Sidaway 06:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged a lot of episode articles with this template, usually along with tags for notability. Since the guidelines for television-related plot are currently under revision, resulting in a potential redirection of all-plot articles, I haven't really bothered with trimming plot yet. – sgeureka t•c 13:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm mainly concentrating on articles about full novels, plays and feature films. --Tony Sidaway 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say "This plot summary is too good. Please make it less so."? -212.139.90.104 (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Long and detailed" doesn't necessarily mean "better". I could write a six page essay on this but the preceding sentence both states and illustrates why I don't. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not just say "This plot summary is too good. Please make it less so."?'.
You could also add Please make it inaccurate which I have seen occur by 3 different editors when they reverted to an old version .Garda40 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Plot

Template:Plot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Wnt (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this template has done Wikipedia a great amount of harm; I've encountered many articles that have been damaged on its account. I am tired of seeing articles reverted arbitrarily to some past version, new edits reverted because "you can't add any more", or other arbitrary deletions of the good work that many editors put into Wikipedia. Some of the "cleanup" applied for purposes of this tag is worse than run-of-the-mill vandalism.

The template cites authentic Wikipedia policies, but I think it badly misinterprets them. Specifically, it tells people that the "plot summary" is "too long or detailed". But the policies speak only of providing adequate interpretation and commentary for what plot is provided. For example, if Wikilinks are provided for ideas in the plot summary, this provides vital context to facilitate understanding, but this doesn't make the section any shorter. Worse, if the plot section actually contains explanation or analysis of the plot, this is more likely to trigger complaints that the section is "too long" than credit for providing the necessary information for "fair use" issues.

The template also fails to distinguish copyright fears (as detailed in WP:WAF) from the WP:PLOT concerns about encyclopedic quality, citing both in its documentation. For example, it does not say whether it can be used in articles about works that have lapsed into the public domain. Therefore it is unclear which policy or which standard is felt to be violated in each instance the template is added to an article.

An additional problem is created because although the template (debatably) is linked to a continuous legal requirement that the plot summary be justifiable by fair use, it is presented as a cleanup template that is deleted after the "cleanup" is finished. In other words, there is no easy way to find all the articles that have been mangled already, and readers receive no warning that this version of Wikipedia has been censored according to the laws of Florida to remove good faith edits. By contrast, for example, articles subject to the restrictions on biographies of living persons bear tags that remind readers of this fact.

As an alternative, I propose that those concerned that WP:WAF or WP:PLOT is being violated should reference those policies on the talk page of the article, describing the problem in words, and calling for a solution specifically relevant to that article, just as is done for most other Wikipedia policies.

Those who disagree with me and think the template should be kept should at least consider major revisions to it. If they feel a fair use rationale for plot summaries is lacking then the template should say to add a fair use rationale, as opposed to say arbitrarily picking an old revision from the history. Wnt (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As an example, compare the development of Romper Stomper (a particularly disturbing film well worthy of close analysis) from the January version [4]. For this article, first the tag was applied; then the "too long" plot summary was replaced with a paragraph; then the "discouraged" Trivia section, which included many specific facts about places, costumes, and characters from the plot (which should have more than provided the needed fair use rationale) was deleted also. The net effect is that a very well-done Wikipedia page was reduced to an item from a video store catalogue, which if not outright prohibited by WP:NOT perhaps ought to be. Wnt (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)