Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Essay

Discuss this story

Nice when you can do so, but try to find, for example, a plot summary of an obscure Victorian play, or, for that matter, in many cases a plot summary that includes details of the ending. Also, there's numerous cases where I've seen inaccuracies (or, at best, descriptions that reflect changes made in a particular performance) in summaries of a play; if we're not using the original work, and don't have sources to contradict it, are we forced to include inaccuracies?

If what's suggested here can be done, it should be done, but it really, really isn't that big of a deal if we do use the original source.

And, of course, sometimes complaints about a plot summary being too long can be counterproductive: If I'm considering putting on a play or opera or something, I need enough information to get a good idea of whether the plot sounds interesting. A paragraph-long explanation that strips it down too much inevitably makes it sound generic and trite.

There's good reasons for holding back a bit when it comes to copyrighted works. But with ones out of copyright? For rarely-performed plays, hard-to-find books, and so on? The detail is valuable. I remember when the movement to trim down plot summaries began. For years afterwards, half the plot summaries on Wikipedia were downright unusable without going to the page history, because they did things like cut the sentences introducing a character, and then suddenly names began appearing later with no context, or failed to establish a conflict until discussing the resolution of it. We don't need Round Two of that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 21:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, using second-hand plot summaries [because that's what "sourcing" plot summaries is] means a higher chance that an error slips in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find any sources describing the ending of the work, then I would personally consider it undue weight to describe the ending in the plot summary/synopsis. Poorly-considered trimming can be an issue, sure, but I like seeing this essay, as this has been part of my own Wikipedia writing philosophy for a long time :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy that. I really don't want to have to track down a French-language play and translate the 18th century French to learn how it ends, because the people reviewing it when one could easily see a performance of it wanted to avoid spoilers.

If you're describing a performance, weight is very different than in an encyclopedic article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 19:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, using secondary sources exclusively is, and always has been, how this encyclopedia is built. If there are insufficient secondary sources, that says to me that the topic is not notable.--~T P W 13:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's... not an accurate description of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary. Which even says "an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot". Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 17:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost talking about unnecessary trimming in plot sections for articles about creative works (including films)? I see this as a personal attack! -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 16:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Reminds me of that time when I wrote an article about a book without ever having read it. Avoids the famed WP:PLOTBLOAT issues. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With a plot summary that focuses very heavily on the setup and then descends into vagueness before describing anything after that. Which, y'know, is probably okay for a recent novel, but utterly useless for a historic novel. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 22:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that providing a secondary source makes it easier to verify content is only valid if the source is available online. What if an editor cites a printed review? How is that any easier to verify than citing the original work? I also echo the concern about secondary coverage avoiding spoilers, which would cause plot summaries to be unbalanced or incomplete. I'm adamantly opposed to mixing real-world and fictional material on character articles. I get the motive behind it, but it makes it much harder to recognize when the content is unbalanced. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]