Knowledge (XXG)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think it would be good to use the time to prepare for the inevitable "no consensus", and talk about possible middle grounds. As I see it, the vast majority of editors agree that articles that are purely plot are a bad thing: we have reasonable consensus on the point. Those that object to it being in WP:NOT seem to object not really on the basis of wanting plot-only articles, but on the argument that people are using it to delete articles that could be sourced, just aren't yet. I've got problems with the "write it first and source it later" approach, but there's enough of it going on that I can't single this application of it out. However, it is nearly impossible for a plot-only article to comply with WP:V's very succinct statement: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it. No one is going to gain anything at AFDs by deleting this policy section, because quoting WP:V has just as much weight as quoting WP:NOT. I think the issue really comes down to the perennial proposal of WP:NOT#TVGUIDE. The people that favor removing WP:NOT#PLOT are doing so because they are attempting to construct a television program guide. I really don't know how to address the issue of plot summaries until that fundamental difference in goals is addressed.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed that we should prepare for the NC. I've tried to outline some options above. 1) Keep NOT#PLOT as written, 2) Modify it, 3) move it to WAF (what isn't already there) or elsewhere or 4) remove it straight up. I think I'm leaning hard toward 3, am fine with 4 (though don't think that has a chance) and would be open to 2. But I'd like to see proposals from the other side of this debate (something that has been greatly lacking so far--AFAIK all proposals have come from those who want to remove NOT#PLOT). Hobit (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that I can't think of where to move it (except that downgrading it to a MOS entry doesn't seem at all reasonable), and I can't think of how to fix what is really a non-existent issue: pure plot articles fail WP:V anyway, and WP:IMPERFECT applies to fiction articles as much as it does to anything else. Is deleting candidates with promise enough of an issue to restate WP:IMPERFECT as a part of WP:NOT#PLOT?—Kww(talk) 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Above discussion moved by agreement

• Firstly, I think that meeting WP:V can be done with primary sources. Not WP:N of course. But one can use primary sources per WP:V and rules related to sourcing. Secondly, a pure-plot article can be sourced with review and summary information. I suppose Cliffnotes would work (for example) as I think that would be a reliable and independent source.

  More on point, if you can't come up with a middle ground that's acceptable to you, I'd think that would make it for a compromise to be reached. I'd consider a move to WAF and a potential rewording that makes it clear that too much plot is a reason to improve, not delete. I'd prefer we just remove this as, as you note, other policies and guidelines exist which prevent unsourced articles. I don't think fiction should be held to a higher standard than WP:N. But I've realized that isn't likely to actually happen. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:V: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly that's ideal (should). But we allow primary sources "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Knowledge (XXG), but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." I'm not seeing a problem. We allow WP:ATHLETE articles that are solely sourced by the club they play for. Notice I'm not claiming that we should have pure-plot articles that are only sourced to primary sources. I'm saying that we could write an article that is purely plot using both primary and " reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As long as the reliable sources meet the requirements of WP:N. That said, any such article should be improved as it would be a horrible treatment of nearly any subject to have a plot-only coverage. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How could you have anything but a pure plot article that was based on nothing but the primary source? (This is in relation to "Firstly, I think that meeting WP:V can be done with primary sources.")-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you could. I'm just saying such an article could meet WP:V (but not WP:N). Not a relevant distinction, but the plot article would be verifiable, just not notable (assuming no sources existed). Hobit (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

An option for moving includes moving it to its own policy if there's enough support to keep the concept as policy. This would be akin to the WP:BLP policy though not as length or restrictive. If this is done, it needs to be expanded to include non-fiction works as well (it should anyway just to remove the bais; we need to treat any published work in the same manner regardless of its core content) --MASEM (t) 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's where we are headed. I think it's a horrible outcome and I very much doubt we'll be able to find language that gains consensus. But perhaps I'm being pessimistic. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should avoid trying to make new policy, but 1) if the concept (not language) has consensus to be PLOT and 2) we cannot find a way to word PLOT to fit into NOT without avoiding the issues that many bring up (the impliciations against any type of plot in the first place), then a new policy makes the most sense. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the pain that has been WP:FICT forever, do you really think this has even a 5% chance of working? I was going to propose it, but I don't see how it could possibly be workable as everyone and their brother will try to slide in something that meets their views. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't take it out of WP:NOT until the contents of the new home had been agreed upon.—Kww(talk) 01:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

:Smile: Hobit (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're talking a very simple tenet that is reflected through most of the !votes on the RFC:

• Plot summaries are appropriate.
• Coverage of fiction works (and I propose expanding to all published works) should not be solely (this word may need to be adjusted) plot summaries.
• Plot-only articles should not be deleted on sight, but instead considered per their current state of development.

Not this exact wording but a short sweet statement like that. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

":I'd be fine with that, though I'd want some work on the third point. Hobit (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem seems to have something very close to a condensed version of the opinions in the RfC.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kww — ignoring for one moment the fact that WP:NOT#PLOT and that sentence in WP:V came about because of the same editor, Hiding — it's entirely possible for a plot-only article to be written entirely from "reliable, third-party sources." Take any film with a wide release for example. Quote that sentence in V all you want. It's also bogus. And it came about all because Hiding wanted to win an editwar over the UGOPlayer article, which he had nominated for deletion, and it was deleted anyway. The "perennial" proposal of WP:NOT#TVGUIDE has consistently failed, like your RFAs. And your statement "The people that favor removing WP:NOT#PLOT are doing so because they are attempting to construct a television program guide" is the stupidest thing I have EVER read on Knowledge (XXG). Ever. And why don't you say "Jimbo Wales was attempting to construct a television program guide"? Oh that's right, because you continue to be willfully ignorant of WP:NOT#PAPER and the over seven years of precent behind articles for TV episodes on Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) only has about 8,000 articles about TV episodes anyway, last time I checked. And I'd be happy to look and tell you what percentage of people who think WP:NOT#PLOT does not belong in this policy have ever created any of them. Meanwhile, over one-third of Knowledge (XXG)'s articles fall under Category:Fiction. The RFC above is conclusive proof right now that WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy, for any people with their heads in the sand. You do not leave things without consensus to be policy on policy pages. You remove them. Shoemaker's Holiday already removed WP:NOT#PLOT, but Masem re-added it, again, with no leg to stand on. Maybe it's time for a user RFC on Masem, with de-sysopping on the table. --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop attacking editors and address the discussion. And again, I justified what I did because SH has removed PLOT while the RFC was going (less than 2 weeks into it), and given the various AN threads today over the removal earlier today, that was the right course of action. Remember, the question asked was "Should PLOT be in NOT" , not whether "Should PLOT be policy." --MASEM (t) 02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I only see one or two instances in which Masem actually reverted significant changes to the page. I highly doubt any questions of his adminship should be raised over what are essentially, at worst, misconceptions of consensus. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Don't take the bait. Just let it go, guys. Randomran (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT, #24. And admins are supposed to be able to evaluate consensus; they're entrusted by the community to do so. --Pixelface (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I attacked no one in my comment above, and I addressed what Kww said. Why don't you address Kww's statement of "The people that favor removing WP:NOT#PLOT are doing so because they are attempting to construct a television program guide"? It's a horrible example of bad faith, wildly offensive, and just plain wrong. And in light of Kww's previous statement about fictional spinouts and "vandals", his statement at the top of this thread could be interpreted as accusing every editor in the Oppose section of being a vandal.

You can drag your feet all you want Masem. I'm used to it. If you think consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy is going to magically appear, fine. The question was, and I quote, "In principle, do you think that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries?" That you think a "new policy makes the most sense" after reading the RFC above shows how out of touch you are. --Pixelface (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Or how about just leaving WP:NOT#PLOT there but flag with with the (clearly true) statement: "This part of the policy currently lacks consensus" or some equivalent statement. I think I'd be fine with that. Hobit (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We could definitely say that some part of it lacks consensus, but it's not really clear which. A lot of people generally agree that plot only articles aren't really acceptable, but many objectors feel it's a point of principle that we shouldn't be so harsh, and other objectors feel that as a matter of practice we need to give these articles a chance to improve. I think we can add a caveat that will make this palatable to a lot of people. But the moving to anoter policy would also be some middle ground. Randomran (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We do not leave things on policy pages with little asterisks that say "Note: This section does not actually reflect consensus." Moving it to another policy is not middle ground. It's passing the buck somewhere else. Want it on another policy page? Propose it there, not here. If WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't belong here, why do you think people would accept it on a different policy? --Pixelface (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It should have some kind of disputed tag or something, because clearly the above poll suggests that as is, it lacks community support. Best, --A Nobody 02:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is marked with a "dubious" tag, so that is there, and should stay there until we figure it out. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if anyone gets into really deep discussions relating to plot information then they'll see it easily enough. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm just suggesting a stronger statement as a long-term solution by way of compromise (rather than removing it entirely). Hobit (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We might find that the supporters and opposers to NOT#PLOT agree that articles without real world coverage should not necessarily be removed. That is, most people would agree that if there's a good chance that it can be found and the article is only in an WP:IMPERFECT state, then we should keep it. Another way to soften NOT#PLOT would change the bolded part. We're not against "plot summaries" but we're against "A plot summary with nothing else". Randomran (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is anything dubious about WP:NOT#PLOT, then this can addressed in new wording. I understand why so many editors dislike this aspect of policy, and perhaps expanding the wording will make it clear why it is needed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the straw poll placed at the top of this RFC from the beginning 'pushed' most editors into giving little explained votes in one side or the other of the straw poll, its unfortunately totally unclear what there is or is not consensus for. Once this RFC is closed, we should archive it and create a new one, without a straw poll, simply seeking community comment on what we should do with NOTPLOT. The discussion should serve as a search for consensus rather than as any kind of vote. It could include discussion of multiple possibilities including rewording it within this policy, a move to another policy, a creation of a new policy, a move to a guideline, or something else. Let me note that these different ideas should not be split into different subsections as this encourages polarization and voting rather than consensus-seeking. Locke9k (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's crystal clear. The question asked was "In principle, do you think that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries?" Currently, 57 people have answered under "Yes, it should" and 57 people have answered under "No, it should not" and 9 people have answered under "Neutral." There is no consensus that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries. WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy. So it must be removed from this policy, for the last time. There is no need for another RFC. It's time for certain editors to stop pulling the nails out of the coffin. If some editors think there is common ground to be found regarding plot summaries, they can do it somewhere else. Perhaps WT:PLOTSUM or WT:PLOTS (and then they can discuss whether WP:PLOTSUM actually merits a guideline tag). --Pixelface (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me unambiguous that NOT#PLOT does not enjoy consensus in this page, and equally unambiguous that NOT#PLOT as a general rule still enjoys consensus. The concern seems to be over whether or not it is best located in a policy page or elsewhere. That said, while we have no viable "elsewhere" beyond a MoS guideline (which is, I think, far too weak given that editing expressly to enforce MoS guidelines is actively discouraged) I do not think we can viably remove NOT#PLOT. The next step is to create a viable elsewhere for NOT#PLOT. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with your solution, or at least accept it. Rewording is one way forward, but so is moving it. Randomran (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It has to remain here, simply because plot summary articles are prohibited by one inclusion guideline (WP:BK) and one style guideline (WP:INUNIVERSE which may offer some hints towards a new wording), and is similar to other prohibitions in WP:NOT in that it has multiple antecendents. Once removed, it is sure to be reinstated - I think there are some very good reasons given in the straw pole to believe it essential that it stay, and I think these arguments have to be acknowledged, not least of which is the fact that plot summary on its own provides no verifiable evidence that a topic is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. .--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it has to remain, for a wide variety of reasons, but I do not see how you can say with a straight face that it has to remain here when there is a startling lack of support for its retention. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that NOTPLOT needs to be modified rather than removed altogether. Imagine if the UK held a referendum asking, "should the national speed limit remain at 70mph?" and the result showed a majority voting NO. The stupid approach is to conclude from that result that there should no longer be a national speed limit, i.e. that motorists may drive on the nation's motorways at whetever speed they want. The reasonable approach is to take the next logical step, and ask what the new limit should be. We should develop a new proposal that does have consensus support, and if that isn't possible, the policy should document the fact that there's no consensus on this issue. It must not pretend that there is no issue, or that there is a new consensus for unlimited plot content in articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually look at what the poll asked, it asked if WP:PLOT should, in principle, include plot summaries. It didn't ask about a specific wording. It's more like if a referendum asked if any sorts of hats should be banned, the referendum came back no, and so they decided to just ban tophats. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The poll asked if WP:NOT should include plot summaries. That's an all-or-nothing question, and what it actually asks is whether there should be any restriction on the amount of plot summary in an article. However, many of the responding editors clearly thought that they had to oppose, otherwise plot summaries would be banned altogether. In other words, they misunderstood the question. The only safe conclusion that may be drawn from the poll is that it was inconclusive; as such, it is a very poor basis for altering a policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I could just as well say that many of the supporters clearly thought that if it was removed here, then no discussion and guidance on plot summaries would appear anywhere. This "presume that people voted wrongly" thing gets us nowhere. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Hobit (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously folks, could we just leave NOT#PLOT here and add something to it that indicates the policy lacks consensus? It has the advantage of being simple and true. I'm open on the wording... Hobit (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One idea to obtain a fair wording would be to look at the "less harsh" half of the oppose !votes. That is, the !votes that say "I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of limiting plot summaries, but not here, or not with such an overzealous wording." If we add that half of the opposition to the support, we surely have a consensus. We would qualify the application of WP:PLOT by taking their words as inspiration. Randomran (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Which still means removing it from here, and working on adding some discussion to (probably) WP:WAF. That's pretty much what I've been advocating for all along. However, if you think that saying that people who think it shouldn't be here should be treated as saying it should be here, then hell no. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to some extent, it could be here if the language were changed. At least, that might enjoy more support than either keeping it the same or removing it entirely. But that said, even if there was a consensus that it should be somewhere else, this isn't the same as a consensus that we should remove it. Randomran (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to put options up on a new RfC and see what happened? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Plot summaries without indication of the work's real-world importance. The coverage of a fictional work should not be entirely plot summary: articles require evidence of notability, which can only come from outside sources. See also Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

While we're still discussing it, how about this? At the least, I don't think anyone can disagree that what's stated is well-backed by other policies and guidelines.

I'm hoping that by putting something that everyone can agree with up, even if some think we should say more, we can then take our time and discuss matters without having consensus-free statements held up as policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop pounding the same drum about there allegedly not being consensus for the current wording. If you want to change a POLICY, you need to get overwhelming, broad-based support to do so. Do that and then get back to us.

In the meantime, when you show up here suggesting making a change, the good faith way to do it is to wait until you have consensus to do so before you change the policy page. How many times do you need to be told that you can't just up and change policy on your own? I've reverted that change.

Most importantly, what on earth do you even see as the the differences between the longstanding version of the page and your suggested compromise version above? It seems to me that if you agree that that new version is uncontroversial, then you basically admit that the longstanding version is uncontroversial and therefore fully supported by consensus, and all your constant complaining and wikilawyering has been for nothing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not agree that there is clear consensus to keep the current wording; concensus points to keeping the concept, but the wording is confusing based on the number of people in the no !votes that believe this makes any plot summary in violation. Thus, a rewording seems perfectly in line with a compromise solution. I'd make sure the wording was agreed to before adding it, but it's disingenious to insist that no change is needed at all.

As to SH's version, it seems fine, but it's not as "smooth" as the other parts read, but it is a good restatement. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm okay with it. It could use some love (and implies that plot summaries can't be sourced by reliable sources which I disagree with) but it's okay. Hobit (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Change "entirely" to "primarily", and I'm on board.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see people starting to work towards a consensus position. However, I don't think that the correct approach is to start by jumping to the weakest commonly supported statement and then deciding where to go. I think we should start working straight towards either a consensus wording or a consensus move. I'd like to suggest a start towards a consensus wording. It seems to me that a lot of the 'no's were coming from concern that by leading with "Plot" we appear to be saying that plot summaries are inherently unwikipedic, rather than simply saying that simply summarizing works is not our goal here. Perhaps we can abandon the 'plot summary' wording and get at the same meaning a different way. How about this?

1. Primarily in-universe coverage of fictional works:. The coverage of fictional works should not primarily consist of plot summary written from an in-universe perspective. Knowledge (XXG) aims to provide real world coverage of fictional works, including such aspects as development, reception, impact and notability. Such articles should thus be written from a real world perspective, relying primarily on tertiary sources. See also Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I think something like this might be able to gather real a consensus with some work. Locke9k (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I hoped that if we could agree on a minimum, we could then discuss what, if anything, to add to that minimum. It's just much easier to add to a framework, because it simplifies the discussion. I'd suggest we open sub-threads on each proposed tightening of the minimum restriction, and see where we end up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your position. However, my feeling is that there are already too many threads to this discussion and too many things trying to be done at once. It makes it very hard for someone to come in from the community and figure out how to help. I think the best thing would be to have a single thread where we all can work together towards a consensus, rather than to develop a bunch of miniconsensuses that could then serve as a basis for further polarization and debate rather than discussion. Locke9k (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is really close to a compromise, if not a permanent one. I'm sure some tempers are still hot. But this is a big step forward, and we can refine this and use this as a starting point as people start to cool down and understand it. Randomran (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If I might point out something to avoid: I think we can agree that sourced literary analysis, such as discussion of themes, the plot, and so on, is (usually) highly desirable. Let's be careful to make sure we don't accidentally come out against them, through inexact phrasing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't support Kww wording. Over reliance on a perspective that is in universe is a matter of style. The problem with plot only articles is that their content does not contain any real-world coverage about the topic itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's the line? If the only real-world information about a character is the casting, can that tidbit be used to justify a character article?—Kww(talk) 03:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm comfortable with either of the compromise proposals or the version in the article. I would be OK with more restrictive language on notability for series providing that we also had a clause like, "For a series containing many episodes that has strong evidence of substantial notability each work inherits sufficient notability from the parent." In terms of the debate about the edit war, I agree with Shoemaker a restrictive policy requires a continuing consensus to remain in existence. If there is no agreement as to what should be restricted nothing is restricted. This comes from the broad principle of law that all negative laws require the consent of the governed, which is the basis of juries. jbolden1517 02:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the continuous attacks on established policies by a handful of editors who cannot get over being defeated cannot be allowed to work. No policy change is warranted, and I consider User:jbolden1517's claim of "compromise" to be the usual; an attempt to attack the established policy. Resurr Section (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Kww, real-world information such as casting, authorship or publication is indeed real-world information, but if the rest of an article is entirely plot summary, then that is little more than fictional directory entry. I think for there to be a sensible discussion about plot summary articles, we need to draw up a list of policies and guidelines which they contravene, and then review the wording to see how this can be susinctly expressed in this policy. Without a comprehensive review of all the issues, I think this discussion is likely to drag on without any hope of us understanding each other. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think all this is a waste of time. Most articles about fiction start as bare plot summaries, and it's unreasonable to expect them to start with more, for a whole host of reasons. Knowledge (XXG):Assess#Evolution_of_an_article_.E2.80.93_an_example shows a sample article life-history. OTOH plot-only articles should never rise above start-class, and I would not mind scrapping C-class and possibly even B-class, which I think think just blur the boundaries between articles with and without a "seal of approval". That would mean that to rise above start-class articles have to face independent review and meet content and other guidelines. --Philcha (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles starting out poorly is all the more reason that editors need policy and guidance. You would not argue to remove the guideline that new articles need categories. It is perfectly reasonable. Many newbies want to do a good job within the rules, and I remember reading and rereading Knowledge (XXG):Five pillars for help. The first pillar led me directly to WP:Not, which was immensely comforting. Resurr Section (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Resurr Section's "I think that the continuous attacks on established policies by a handful of editors who cannot get over being defeated cannot be allowed to work. No policy change is warranted, and I consider User:jbolden1517's claim of "compromise" to be the usual; an attempt to attack the established policy." (03:19, 13 May 2009):

• The use of "defeated" is interesting. Perhaps Resurr Section would like to explain why that term is used. --Philcha (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• "attacks on established policies by a handful of editors" is even more interesting. I've read User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT and the diffs in the first section of that essay. Obviously more investigation is needed, but I think User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT establishes reasonable doubt about the legitimacy of WP:NOTPLOT, which apparently was discussed by only a dozen editors and then inserted into WP:NOT while the discussion was split 6-6, which does not look like a consensus by any reasonable definition of "consensus". So the claim that WP:NOTPLOT is an "established policy" bears a very heavy burden of proof, which at present appears not to be met. --Philcha (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• The established policy to which I refer is that articles need secondary sources. Everything else you just said sounds like wikilawyering to me. Do you want to do away with secondary sources for fiction? Sounds like it to me. Resurr Section (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Philcha is merely trying to refine the rules of the numbers game which Pixelface has been playing for a long time now - adding up the number of objections then multiplying it by the number of months in which WP:NOT#PLOT has been the subject of objections to get a really really big number than nobody can deny is very very big indeed which "proves" this prohibition should not be policy. My advice to you and Pixelface is that when you have calculated the number, use it to buy a lottery ticket instead, and donate your winnnings to the Knowledge (XXG) Foundation, and maybe then we will take you seriously :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Resurr Section blatantly misrepresents what I wrote. I have never denied the desirability of independent commentary, and would not expect to pass an article as a GA without it - see for example Knowledge (XXG):Good_article_reassessment/Ali's_Smile:_Naked_Scientology/1. OTOH I think it's quite normal for many articles about books, movies, plays, etc. to start as a summary of the content, and think that, if there are no "emergencies" like violations of WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO, any step towards deleting such articles is biting the newbies and driving away editors who, with a bit of gentle guidance, could become assets to WP. --Philcha (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, I stated that further investigation is required, but that the first section of User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT and the diffs provided there indicate that there is a prima facie case agaist WP:NOTPLOT. If you think the evidence is incorrect or misleadingly incomplete, or that my reasoning is faulty, please explain why - but please stick to commenting on to what I actually said, without the false suggestion that my comments are part of some wider "numbers game". --Philcha (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You appear to need more than investigation, you appear to need to re-read what you state you have already read if you believe that what you have read allows you to assert, against the evidence, that PLOT was "inserted into WP:NOT while the discussion was split 6-6". It is precisely for this misreading that I have asked Pixelface numerous times to restate the facts in a clear manner rather than a manner open to mis-interpretation. Even myself and Pixelface agree that Plot was never inserted "while the discussion was split 6-6". Hiding T 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the RfC has pretty consistently shown slightly more in blanket opposition than in support. To claim that "no changes whatsoever" should be the result is a rather extreme view. We may be able to compromise, but it's not like any version of WP:PLOT has been stable for any length of time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"prima facie case" reads like... wikilawyering. Why not give us an example of an article under the current and under the desired policy? We need to see the difference. What are you guys for? Resurr Section (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm for tolerance, patience and not biting newbies. No, I'm not writing an article that's vulnerable to your tender(?) mercies or those of any other deletionist. --Philcha (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Those things are enshrined in other policies. And you don't have to write the example(s); just provide diffs. Resurr Section (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Pilchca, although my comment is admittedly facetious, you must admit Pixelface's analysis is lacking a certain something, in the sense that if he is right, then why was the policy created in the first place, and why do so many editors support it in the face of such strong and well reasoned opposition? There must be one or more reasons, which Shoemaker's ammended wording does not really address. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Was that answer facetious too? Seriously, I think your "why do so many editors support it" is an exaggeration. WP:NOTPLOT still seems to be controversial - even the little green men have probably noticed by now :-) --Philcha (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's just keep on chipping away at the wording, folks. Both sides need to understand by now that "no changes whatsoever" and "remove it entirely" are both untenable options, and will inevitably lead to more edit warring. There's a lot of support to modify WP:PLOT, so let's get there. Important questions are "in what way is the proposed wording too harsh" and "in what way is the proposed wording too lenient"? Polarizing answers that simply rehash the two extremes at the RFC are not helpful at this point. But answering these questions will help us get to the bottom of this. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I really think simple, short, and sweet is best: "The coverage of a fictional work should not be primarily plot summary" establishes the concept nicely. If you really want to elaborate things, then "The coverage of a fictional work should not be primarily plot summary. Topics which cannot be expanded sufficiently that the real-world information is more than a stub should not be the subject of stand-alone articles."—Kww(talk) 15:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:NOT, not WP:WAF. I think that means we are suppose to describe inclusion guidelines here, not writing style ones. How about simply "Fictional topics which cannot be expanded sufficiently that the real-world information is more than a stub should not be the subject of stand-alone articles.". I still think that we should just go with "fictional articles need to meet WP:N" which is sorta self-evident (and thus shouldn't be here) but I guess that's not likely. Hobit (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Kww, while your wording looks clear and very reasonable, there is a big problem about how it is likely to be used. I've seen AfD discussions where "Topics which cannot be expanded sufficiently" has effectively been interpreted as "Topics which have not be expanded sufficiently ...". The most famous case, that brought ridicule on WP, is Political Quarterly. --Philcha (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Hobit is on the right track. But as to Philcha's concern, people often delete fiction articles because of their WP:IMPERFECT state instead of actually thinking how easy it might be to add real-world information on reception. Is there something short we can add to prevent abuse? Randomran (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the current version also understates the problem with plot only articles. Most of the article types listed in WP:NOT fail the notability guideline anyway, so in some ways the emphasis on notabiltiy is just stating the obvious. The real problem is that plot only articles tend to fail all three of the core content policies (verifiablity, Neutral point of view and original research), for reasons that are outlined by some respondents in the RFC.If plot only articles get deleted, it is usually because they are really atrocious, rather than imperfect. Special pleading for an exemption from policy for articles on fiction that are are awful is not viable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, nobody is calling for a special exemption from policy. I'm sure that if you want to tighten up the wording from Shoemaker's Holiday, Hobit, or anyone else, you can do so by adding something that explains the connection to WP:V. The issue is that many of the people on the "oppose" side of the RFC had a problem that WP:PLOT could be used, in practice, to delete stubs on their way to becoming something. If we can prevent those kinds of errors without creating an indefinite and indiscriminate exemption for all crap articles, we'd likely pacify a large amount of opposition. Randomran (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, I think you've over-stated your case. IIRC refs are not required for plot summaries, so they are not automatically WP:OR or violations of WP:V - provided they are accurate of course, for which the implied source is the book / movie / play / etc.

As I mentioned in another discussion with you, I'm not actually in favour of plot-only articles, and cannot imagine any circumstances in which I'd pass a plot-only artcile as a GA. But - well, you know why I'm generally against deleting plot-only articles, and that I also recently voted "merge and redirect" at an AfD for an almost entirely plot article that almost entirely duplicated another article.

What do you mean by "really atrocious" in "If plot only articles get deleted, it is usually because they are really atrocious"? --Philcha (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

When I say really atrocious, I mean that they usually contain a lot of unsourced content that is original research or impossible to verify.
In answer to Randomran, the problem is that plot only articles don't even come close to meeting WP:V or many of the other content policies and guidelines. Testing a plot only article for verifiability is analogous to testing a crack addict for sobriety - its just pointless. This is why we need a clean and simple prohibition, so we don't have to wade through implausible or fabricated arguements about plot only articles that might meet the content guidelines if only we would give them a chance.
My position is not based on a desire to "tighten" WP:NOT#PLOT. On the contrary, I think we need only to give brief & simple description of the issue, rather than throw the book at the problem.
The real issue, in my view, is not that plot only guidelines are unattractive because they fail Knowledge (XXG)'s content policies, but plot only articles are very attractive to many editors and readers because they appeal to desire for immersion in fictional narrative. I don't want to seem disparaging to those editors that feel this intense pull towards ficiton for this reason (images from Poltergeist come to mind here), but immersion is not the rationale for having an encyclopedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, that sounds like you support SH's wording proposed at the top of this thread. I take it you think something is missing or wrong in that proposed wording? Randomran (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave that impression, but if none of the prohibitions here at WP:NOT don't even meet WP:V, so what is the point of saying that plot only articles don't meet WP:N? The reason for the prohibition goes deeper than that, and is related to the issue of editorial immersion not being a suitable approach for writing articles. I will have to think about some suitable wording that expresses this and make a proposal over the next few days. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that we can't edit this thing at the moment, I'd like to suggest that we have a few people propose specific wordings and see if we can't find something we can get most people to agree on. I'd ask that people support things that they could live with rather than only what they really want. I'll start, please feel free to add things and provide a more detailed explanation. Hobit (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Remove PLOT from NOT, move it to WAF.
   • Strong support Hobit (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Replace current NOT#PLOT with Fictional topics which cannot be expanded sufficiently that the real-world information is more than a stub should not be the subject of stand-alone articles.
   • support Hobit (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Keep WP:PLOT as-is
   • oppose Hobit (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Keep WP:PLOT as-is with a note that this policy lacks consensous
   • weak support Hobit (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is helpful at this time, nor as it's framed. We know that keeping WP:PLOT as is is untenable, and you don't arrive at an improved phrasing by throwing a statement out there and voting on it. You discuss, make incremental changes upon each others' wordings, until you arrive at something people can basically live with. Randomran (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My hope is to use this as a direction to get other suggestions until we can find something we agree on. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is ridiculous. It only contains a small set of options, most of which are all in ones the "let's write about fiction all we want, it's not like we're trying to build a real encyclopedia or nuthin'" support and not the "this is a real encyclopedia and this policy has always reflected and must continue to reflect that" side. The option that is badly needed to get the section back tot he way it was before some people watered it down without consensus the first time -- restore the wording to indicate that plots should not be a majority of an article, may not be needed in all articles, and should be short and concise when they do appear, AND must be reliably sourced from independent reliable third party sources -- must be presented as an option, as that's really only restoring the section to the way it was created and what it was intended for. Everything else is just an attempt to get away with complete junk that was never supposed to be here.

And I dispute the idea that keeping PLOT as is is "untenable" -- while I would prefer it be restored to the previous more encyclopedic warning and make it clear that plot summaries are bad in general, keeping it as is would be better than nothing. The idea that it HAS to change is certainly not supported by any strong consensus anywhere. People loudly opposing it doesn't mean that we have to give in to them, or else that'll eventually mean we'll compromise away all of our policies bit by but until there's nothing left of the originals. DreamGuy (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to make it plain that others were to add their suggestions. Sorry if that was unclear. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

When half the people who supported keeping WP:PLOT here said that they would be open to changes, it's time to work on changes in good faith. "Better this than nothing" will only be met with "better nothing than this", and we'll keep bickering to no end. I can promise you that there will never be a consensus to remove it entirely, but then you have to accept that there is a consensus against keeping it exactly the same. Randomran (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Without an example article adhering to each option, no worthwhile discussion can take place. Resurr Section (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Any experience on Knowledge (XXG) policy pages will show that bickering will never end. Changing policy to prevent bickering isn't an option. We change the policy only with a broad consensus of editors. We simply will not ever be able to get everyone to agree. In order to make any changes at all to something this controversial requires a broad consensus. Without that consensus, the policy should stay at the longstanding version. That's just how things work. A consensus against keeping it exactly the same doesn't mean it gets to change unless we agree what the change should. I think the wording should be returned to the older version, so while I would agree that it SHOULD change, not changing is preferable to it changing to something worse. People who try to equate "nobody is 100% happy with how it is now" with "that means we must change it... toward my preferred version" are just wikilawyering. DreamGuy (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:POLICY is pretty plain. If we can't find something that has consensus we either remove the policy or indicate it lacks consensus. The notion of "policy inertia" doesn't exist in WP:POLICY as far as I can tell. People who just keep saying "I don't care if it lacks consensus, we should keep it as policy" are stonewalling. Thus the attempt to find something that has consensus. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, by that argument all of our policy pages would have everything marked as dubious. Not agreeing on exact wording is not the same as agreeing the whole thing should be removed. That's the most ridiculous argument ever, and you can repeat over and over, but that doesn't make you right.Your interpretation of WP:POLICY is not how things have ever been done on Knowledge (XXG). We don't have to have active consensus on exact wording to keep something that was created with consensus in the first place, and a bunch of vocal complainers in itself can't be evidence that there is no consensus either, just that some people throw fits when they don't get what they want. If you want to change something, get consensus to do so. Period. End of discussion on that. DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, you do realize that more than half in the RfC agree that PLOT should not be here, right? So, yes, it is dubious. Hobit (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should assume good faith. The truth is there's 75% of people who support changes, and we should be able to talk about them without worrying that the most extreme 25% will somehow get to remove the whole thing. Randomran (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but supporting changes doesn't mean they agree on the direction of those changes. And if you were assuming good faith yourself you wouldn't be claiming without justification that I am not. I can assume someone is making comments in good faith and still conclude that they are wikilawyering to try to get their way: it's a natural defense mechanism. And, frankly, assume good faith can only work when there's actually some way something could still logically be seem as good faith. Assume good faith doesn't mean ignore clear bad faith.

By all means talk -- nobody says people aren't able to talk -- but it's clear we're not going to remove the section completely. If we can get a consensus to agree to a different wording of PLOT, great. If not, well, the one that was there is perfectly fine in the meantime. DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of throwing around words like "wikilawyering" and "complaining", you could focus on the fact that a few WP:PLOT detractors are trying to build a consensus for something less than what they truly want. That's not wikilawyering their way towards destroying WP:PLOT altogether. That's consensus building: finding something less than what they want that the rest of us can live with. So I think we should give them a fair chance to come up with a wording, and help them get to something acceptable through constructive criticism. Can you point to something that you would specifically add to or change about SH's wording? Don't just propose something new. It helps to understand where you think SH's proposal falls short. Randomran (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lets please focus on working towards a consensus, not rehashing the same old polarized the debate. The proposal at the top of this section appears to be just another straw poll, which is the last thing we need. No more straw polls! And why do we keep having more and more new sections, each a rehashing of the same old material? Lets just have one section where we propose some wordings and try to work towards a consensus. Locke9k (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think before we talk about rewrites, we need to agree on what the key issues are that the no !votes stated above about PLOT that give good reasoning for why PLOT should be in NOT that have the potential to be resolved. I believe this boils down to two:

• By being present on WP:NOT, there is an implication that plot summaries are never allowed. A plot summary is appropriate and at times necessary part of covering fiction.
• Bare plot-only articles may be deleted by PLOT without considering the history of the article, as many articles start as a plot summary but can be expanded.

There may be other reasons given (such as other printed encyclopedias giving plot-only articles) but these are either minority views or things that are not actionable simply by rewording PLOT and would be outside the scope of simple rewording:

Thus, we should attempt to rewrite PLOT to address these points while keeping the spirit given in the yes !votes and past discussions, and then seek another consensus on it. If that cannot gain consensus, then we should consider moving it to WAF, but given what I'm reading, I don't think this step is necessary.

Thus, considering the two points above, we can state:

(Knowledge (XXG) is not) Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not strictly be a plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work including aspects of development, critical reception, and legacy. Articles on such works may start as containing only a plot summary, but these ultimately should either be expanded to include the real-world context, or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted. For more information on writing about fiction, see Manual of Style (Writing about Fiction).

This addresses both points above, but does not really differ much from the concept of the old PLOT. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable with this, even just as a starting point. Let's see what other people say. (Please offer constructive criticism, instead of just "it sucks".) Randomran (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Masem's wording, though "or merged into the context of a larger topic instead of outright being deleted" may be too specific to TV episodes and such to be able to handle novels and so on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel that if the work or element can't be expanded past its plot and doesn't otherwise fail other policies or guidelines (eg. non-notable weapons in video games per WP:GAMEGUIDE), there's always some larger topic it can be merged to. A novel that can't be expanded past it's plot but the author has a page? Then it can be included in the author's page, and if that author has several, then it would be a list form with other novels. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what if the novel and author are genuinely non-notable? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we want to avoid being overly prescriptive about merges. Sometimes a merge isn't appropriate, while a redirect or a deletion is. Good call on saying "try to expand it" though. Randomran (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but as to address the second point that I think the no !votes were getting at, deletion should be the last route for these. Mind you, WP:DP and other places suggest that already, but clearly there's concerns here that if its not stated explicitly , editors will be free to delete plot-only articles without any other consideration. Maybe ... but these ultimately should expanded to include the real-world context or merged into the context of a larger topic if possible. is a better way to state that, leaving it less instruction-y. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think providing instructions on how to deal with bad articles falls within the scope of WP:NOT - all of the sections in this policy are about articles that need improvement, not just plot only articles. In any case, there are too many options (such as userfication) to consider, and in any case, improvement may be insufficient to prevent an article failing other policies as well. I think this glib advice should be dropped. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We still need to address the plot-only article as a possibly transient state for any article being developed but that we expect more beyond that, otherwise we've completely ignored the concerns of point 2. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot only articles are not acceptable as final or transient state is the whole point of WP:NOT#PLOT in exactly the same way that all of the other prohbitions in WP:NOT. Setting time limits is another prescription that we need not consider, as there are many other options such as merger or userfication. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Implicitly, yes, every NOT case calls for cleanup or merging or transwiki or userification or deletion and it may not be necessary to spell that out in each case. Except that a good number of no !votes worried PLOT would be used to target works-in-process articles. I'm all for keeping things as simple as needed, but there's also the need to address that concern even if that means spelling out what's already been stated elsewhere, simply to clarify for this specific concern, given the difficult history this point has had. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this as a starting point, but I am not comfortable with the focus on "elements of such works ". To my mind WP:NOTPAPER implies that we can have 'daughter' episode articles that derive their notability and acceptability from the mother article on the overall fictional work. It doesn't make sense to ingrain a bias against splitting and linking in Knowledge (XXG) when this is one of its greatest strengths relative to paper encyclopedias. Insisting that such episodic summaries all be merged into the same article isn't really sensible. It will lead to absurdly long articles on a subject that could be much better covered by having multiple pages and wikilinking. I think the policy should address overall fictional works, not specific episodes, articles, or other elements of that work. Locke9k (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In line with my above comment as well as some of the other commentary, I propose the following rewording of Masem's proposal:

(Knowledge (XXG) is not) Plot-only summation of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction should not consist strictly of plot summary but instead should include both a concise summary of the work's fictional content and the real-world context of the work, including aspects of development, critical reception, and legacy. While coverage of such works in its early stages may contain only plot summary, it ultimately should be expanded to include the real-world context or may be merged into a broader topic if appropriate.

Locke9k (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the concepts, but wonder if we can make it flow a little better. It seems just a little over-wordy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Only tossing this out to see if this is another possibility: What if it is the case that WP:NOT#PLOT really should be about the style of plot summaries, and not necessary the content of the topic of the work itself; in other words PLOT should be focused on the "concise" property that we've had in PLOT before - the other aspect of PLOT, being the context of real world stuff, is truly about notability, and maybe should be a guideline to separate the issues.

Case in point, this diff shows how some want a nice long plot with lots of dialog exerpts -- from a 6 minute short. I think that most would agree that via some policy this is unacceptable, but I can't think of any policy that qualifies this beyond delving too much into COPYVIO. A PLOT that addressed that concise plot summaries are acceptable parts of coverage, but not blow-by-blow with lots of quotes, would be what I can point to. This becomes more inline with "indiscriminate information" - wholesale repetition of plots does not help the reader to discriminate key points. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Style and content are just different sides of the same problem when it comes to plot only articles - both are an indication that either undue weight is being place on the primary work for sourcing. WP:NOT#PLOT is as much about content as it is style. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem I don't see any reason the choice between 1 scene and 3 scenes shouldn't be left to the editors of the individual article. I don't see any reason for us to definitively ban 3 scenes. I personally prefer the one scene version but I think that's style not a something should subject someone to discipline. jbolden1517 15:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is partially a style issue, and we shouldn't be spelling out that you can only have X words for Y minutes of actual work in WP:NOT. But in a very holistic sense, plot summaries, wherever used, should not reiterate scene-by-scene or recreate the entire work for the reader; that's not the point of the encyclopedia, and scene-by-scene reiteration is indiscriminate information. That's why I'm saying that the general advise "Plot summaries should be concise" is strong enough to be said as a policy as to how to make plot summaries discriminate, but to still allow for individual project guidelines to suit that better for their needs, including, if they choose, "X words for Y minutes"-style limitations. It's the same logic behind the advice for Lyrics. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That language is going to be problematic if we apply it to theatre, where "scene" can often mean "half an hour of dialogue". In most classic theatre, and particularly opera, saying that it should not cover every scene, if interpreted under the definitions of scenes there used, would mean that the plot could not be described in any coherent way. For instance, Falstaff (opera) has three acts, with two scenes in each act. The opera lasts about two to three hours, and the current plot summary describes all six. Which of them could be removed in order to avoid a "scene-by-scene" description? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

i don't think anyone would object to language prohibiting "recreation of the entire work". That seems reasonable. "Plot summaries should be concise" is going to get used to ban subplots like my Ophelia example not just your 6 examples of reversal involving Daffy Duck. You haven't answered the question why the page editors can't handle this on a case by case basis. By creating a policy you are taking that away from them. jbolden1517 17:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ignore the "scene-by-scene" wording (I was not trying to mean "scene" in the play/opera sense). Basically, plot summaries should not seek to describe every nuance of a work, but instead should be used to highlight the key elements as part of being concise. To what degree "concise" is taken to, yes, that should be left to guidelines and wikiprojects. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) Let me repeat the wording back to you. "plot summaries should not seek to describe every nuance of a work, but instead should be used to highlight the key elements as part of being concise. The degree of conciseness required is left to the editors of the page, subject guidelines and wikiprojects". If so I can agree to that wording.jbolden1517 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine - and you'll note that I only objected to "scene-by-scene" for language reasons - it has a high potential of being misunderstood. Though we do need a "is not X" version. Perhaps " a complete retelling of a work"? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention back here, it got lost in a bunch of other arguments. It seems like we had agreement on specific language from two sides? Is that correct? If so the problem seems solved. jbolden1517 13:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone ask again for some neutral admin (who probably needs to be completely uninvolved with this whole... thing) to close the straw poll? The RfC is closed; I don't think leaving the poll open will assist the discussion in any way. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• did so (before I saw your post actually). Probably should have let someone else do so. Ah well. If any of the "pro-NOT#plot" admins (or anyone else for that matter) would be so kind as to head over to WP:AN and echo my request, that would probably be helpful. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} could you any one add this for Bengali Knowledge (XXG) interwiki ].- Jayanta Nath 11:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 O.K. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you- Jayanta Nath 07:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the AfD for Magic and Other Misdemeanors might be a good case study for NOT#PLOT.

• Should such an article be deleted even if there are "real-world" RSes? If not, what is the point of NOT#PLOT? If so, are we really claiming we should delete an article on a notable subject because it is currently all plot? fixed AFD link Hobit (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I'm not claiming this is a notable book, though I suspect it is. Rather I'm wondering if this is the kind of article we want deleted even if it otherwise meets WP:N and other guidelines/policies. The article, as is, certainly sucks, but we generally believe in improving articles rather than deleting where possible. I read NOT#PLOT as saying "delete if the article is pure plot" (otherwise what is it doing in an inclusion guideline?) But I want to hear what others think. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the current version of WP:NOT#PLOT does not work, because notability can't be applied to articles that don't contain any commentary from secondary source, so running a test or making a comparison with the General notability guideline is pointless.

An analolgy would be trying to monitor the heart rate of a dead corpse. If there aren't any vital signs, what is the point of trying to monitor something that we already know is not there? You could argue that this article fails WP:V on the grounds that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it. But I think the problem goes deeper than this - this article is attempting to immerse rather than inform the reader.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with you (I think, I admit to being a bit lost there) the question I'm trying to ask is if the article should be deleted because it has only plot even though there are outside sources for it (just not in the article). Again, I don't want to argue (here) if those sources are enough. What I'm trying to get at is if we want NOT#PLOT to be written in a way that we delete said articles because they are pure plot even if good sources exist. Hobit (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is a trick question. If we were to assume (good faith) that the creator of the article knows everything there is to known about this topic and has added it to the article, then I would say it fails WP:NOT, not just because it is entirely plot summary, but because Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory of every topic under the sun. This I think is one perspective on plot summaries that I think there is general consensus: indiscriminate stuff does not get its own article. Is plot summary on its own indiscriminate stuff? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This particular article should clearly be deleted on notability grounds, but extreme cases make bad law. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

All versions of the statement strongly discriminate against plot summaries, and actively forbid articles from containing plot summaries alone.

Given the nature of WP:NOT, this seems inappropriate: A plot summary is a basic type of encyclopedic information, and yet, we're including it here, implying (or, in the second version quoted above, outright stating) that plot summaries are bad, and should be discouraged. Why are plot summaries suddenly so unecyclopedic that they must be included here?

One might argue that the text is saying that articles should include discussion as well. But why single out plot summaries? You could just as well say "Knowledge (XXG) is not dates and events. Dates and events should be used to facilitate discussion." - or any of a thousand other things. Saying that Knowledge (XXG) articles should discuss and analyse information does not require us to single out a basic and important type of encyclopedic information as Unwiki.

Secondly, What Knowledge (XXG) is not applies to all articles, not just featured articles and well-developed articles. Being "What Knowledge (XXG) is not" is grounds for deletion, and is used as such at WP:AFD. So, if someone provides a plot summary for, say, an opera - perhaps the most useful information (since many readers will not speak the language used in the opera), and information highly encouraged to be included by the Opera Wikiproject". Also, a great part of opera criticism centres on the plot, so the plot would be a good thing to have at an early stage in the article, but according to this patently absurd policy, including a plot summary is Unwiki.

Thirdly, according to the above discussion, the section on plot summaries was added without any consensus being built for such a policy.

Hence, this RfC. If it is agreed that some discussion should remain in this section, we will then discuss wording. At this time, let us vote on whether the statement should be in this policy at all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on RFC rework and move of above section to discussion section' I don't know who wrote this section originally. While a good start, it didn't really represent a balanced view of the issue and was clearly biased in one direction. Accordingly, I have rewritten the lead for the RFC in a way that simply states the overall issue and gives an overview of the main points in each direction. I have moved the original RFC intro to the discussion section, above, as it seems to be more of an argument against inclusion than a neutral RFC intro. If whoever wrote it would sign it that would probably be best. Sorry for the confusion, but I don't really see any other quick way to help get the best community help possible. For the record, I am presently undecided on this issue and appreciate the arguments in both directions. Also note that while I helped come up with the present wording, note that it is softened from the position before; furthermore, I was simply helping to improve the clarity of what I perceived as the present consensus rather than necessarily asserting that I absolutely agreed with that consensus. Nevertheless, if anyone feels I have missed any major points in either direction or unfairly characterized them, feel free to let me know and I will change it, or make (concise and neutral) edits yourself.Locke9k (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a loaded question, still. I can't honestly answer "yes", because I agree that a plot-only stub or start-class article shouldn't be deleted, but I can't answer "no" because I think as long as the wording is taken as a means to clean up (being part of a content policy and not part of inclusion guidelines), there's no issue at hand; that is, we're talking about the long-term development and potential of the article, not the present state. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• What is this RfC about? I am confused, please rewrite so it is clearer. Ikip (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Whether any rules related to plot summaries should appear in this policy, as opposed to other policies and guidelines which allow more subtle discussion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not the question you're asking. You should consider rewording it if that's what you feel it should be about. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Point. Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
        • You should probably choose the actual long-standing version of WP:NOT#PLOT, rather than the ones that started to occur from the revisions just over the past few weeks. Go back to early March. Randomran (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Adding... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks. That's a lot more accurate. But isn't the RFC now a little confusing / long? Do we really need the one from early April *and* the long-standing one? Randomran (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Presumably a number of people thought the April one was an improvement, since it was arrived at by consensus of a number of editors working together on this discussion page. I see no reason to favor an old version over a presumably improved on; why throw out the hard work of lots of editors in improving the material? Locke9k (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure we need three versions, is all. I'm not even sure we need one. We're having a debate in principle, not wording. Randomran (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see this as RFC trying to construct an exemption from policy for stubs. To be frank, I don't see the point. You may a well say "Plot only articles are not allowed, except when they are written by people under 5 foot tall. Because short stubby people are not tall, they are allowed to write plot only articles". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There's more than just that: This is What Knowledge (XXG) is not: anything listed on here is going to be seen as unwanted on Knowledge (XXG). If we include plot summaries, we are saying we don't want plot summaries. I don't think that is true. Why are we choosing one type of encyclopedic information to hold up for scorn and dismissal? Unless there's a very good reason why we shouldn't include plot summaries, then we shouldn't say they are What Knowledge (XXG) is not. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good faith legitimate question. Obviously, I disagree with your answer. I think we can safely say that Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for recaps. And with less enthusiasm, I'd say it's not a place for plot-only articles either. Randomran (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of other non-encyclopic information on its own that we discourgae - see both the WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY; reduced versions as part of larger coverage, yes. By themselves, no. But at the same time recognizing that WP:IMPERFECT applies to all. (Actually, would not that be a good thing to include on WP:NOT: "Knowledge (XXG) is not perfect", and pointed to WP:EP? ) That's my disagreement with this RFC - plot summaries are not be singled out here and it assumes we're talking about the state of the article at any time instead of the most likely result of the article. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are fairly characterizing the present policy. It does not say that 'plot summaries are always what wikipedia is not'. In fact, it says that plot summaries that don't serve to further real-world coverage of the material is not acceptable. That is a big difference. In fact, the present policy would seem to endorse plot summaries for many articles, where they facilitate coverage of real world material. Again, I am not necessarily fixed on having this included in the article, but I would like to have an honest discussion about the options rather than setting up an extreme straw man version of the present policy. Locke9k (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, while I agree that excessive plot articles do not belong on Knowledge (XXG) this has always struck me as the wrong place for it. First of all, it's definitely more of a guideline than a bright-line policy. There's wiggle room, depending on the kind of sourcing we have, the nature of the subject, etc. Ideally, a plot summary would be a minor part of an article. Circumstances, however, may dictate that a plot summary dominate an article (even if it's a few brief sentences) when that's the only information on a notable work. But, then, I think that a lot of what's here really shouldn't be. WP:NOT is one of the most misapplied pieces of policy that we have. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• The RFC lead seems to misframe the issue. It states "according to this patently absurd policy, including a plot summary is Unwiki." Thats just not true. The current version of this page says that including a plot summary is acceptable. In fact, in the 'opera example' in the lead of this RFC, the present policy would endorse the inclusion of a plot summary, since it states that "A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance." If, as you say, most criticism of operas revolves around their plot, then the present wording would expressly allow or even encourage inclusion of a plot summary under this policy. I am perfectly willing to have a debate over this and to consider the other side. I'm not fixed in one direction or the other. Nevertheless, lets be more clear about what the policy presently is. Also, could whoever put the RFC up please sign the intro? It should be clear whose statement that is, and presently it is not. Locke9k (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Technically, the opening statement isn't supposed to be signed. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• It should be a neutral tone, then. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, while the RFC page does suggest not using a signature for the RFC statement, it also says that the statement should be neutral. Rather than just outlining the two positions, this RFC statement promotes on of them. Either the promotional material in the RFC statement should be removed and it should just be turned into a brief overview of the debate positions, or it should be signed. Locke9k (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, since its presently not signed and is supposedly not 'attributed' to one author, can we ourselves edit it to neutrality since it doesn't seem to legitimately fall under the rationale for the usual rules for not editing other peoples' discussion posts? Locke9k (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not disagreeing that it's problematic. Sure, take a swing at it. Frankly, I don't think that anything productive will result, which I why I didn't even bother voting and just wrote an opinion for the discussion section. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded the RFC intro, above. However, I also have a huge problem with the intro for the voting section. It presently reads, in one line, "This poll will run for two weeks, until the 28th of April. If "Yes" wins out, it will be followed by a discussion on what those limits should be." Sorry, thats just not how Knowledge (XXG) works. We work by consensus, not by voting. A straw poll is by definition not definitive, and it polarizes the discussion to falsely state that the straw poll will decide things. Lets let a full discussion happen and see if we can move towards consensus. Also, a statement against canvassing fails to assume good faith and acts to polarize the discussion. Again, this section is unsigned, so I don't think it falls under the usual rules for editing other peoples' discussion posts. I will treat it as an attempt to establish a consensus RFC framework. With the above issues in mind, I am removing these statements from the lead in to the straw poll. They are inappropriate, explicitly against the role of a straw poll in discussion, and they should not be in this RFC. Locke9k (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In particular, regarding the straw poll note the following guideline. Knowledge (XXG):Polling is not a substitute for discussionLocke9k (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I still think the Arguments against inclusion are too contentious to be inlcuded - . For instance, making the statements such as "The present inclusion in this policy lacks consensus" without supporting evidence goes against the grain of Wikipeida. Far better to get rid of all the arguments, both for or against, than allow this nonsense to go unchallenged. Either they are withdrawn, or someone bold enough will remove the lot. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps I didn't adequately make clear the way that is framed. As I tried to say, the arguments for and against are contentions of each side. I'm not actually trying to assert that any of them are objectively correct. I'll try to do a slight rewording to clarify that. Locke9k (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Episodes comment Just for discussion, does everyone realize that the present policy makes it almost impossible to have articles on individual episodes of telivision programs? There are large sections of Knowledge (XXG) content in which there is an extensive real life discussion of a TV program which links to the summary of multiple episodes. Under the present policy, all those hundreds, thousands, or maybe many more articles would stand to be deleted. Is that a good thing? Locke9k (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • A lot of those have information about reception, or could with a little bit of work. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Individual episode articles would (or more specifically, have always needed to have work to meet both PLOT and NOTE). Lists of episodes, however, and IMO, are part of the coverage of a TV show, and thus as long as the TV show itself is meeting PLOT, the lists themselves are part of the coverage and not affecting the TV show's ability to meet PLOT. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • So, to clarify, your position is that, provided the show itself meets notability, you can have a list of list of episodes but not necessarily have a separate article on each? Locke9k (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Another incorrect statement Masem. Episode articles that are mostly plot summary are frequently not deleted at AFD. And articles for individual episodes of TV shows have over seven years of precedent and are explicitly allowed by WP:NOT#PAPER (on Knowledge (XXG) and meta).
        
        The premise that Hiding had consensus to add WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy and the premise that Radiant! had consensus to tag WP:N guideline are both false. WP:NOTE is not a policy. And like I said during E&C2 (an arbitration case I know you're familiar with since you edited the case pages), it is common practice for articles about episodes and fictional characters of notable works to not contain evidence of notability.
        
        Explain again how WP:NOT#PLOT applies to individual episode articles and not articles that contain a list of episodes? Explain to me how a list of episodes counts as coverage of a TV show, but individual episode articles do not count as coverage of a TV show. --Pixelface (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
        • It is common for those articles to be kept, but not because they ignore either PLOT or NOTE, but because they have the likelihood of meeting them as deemed at AFD. There are articles that are still deleted because they fail NOTE, and are deemed to be needed cleanup or merging because they fail PLOT, just as there are those that you keep pointing out are kept, and when those are kept, they general point to the ability to add sources or being part of a larger coverage, so that's in line with the above. (See why I think we need to be clear that we can't apply PLOT or other policies/guidelines to the immediate state of the article and have to consider potential.)
        • As for why episode lists are ok and not individual episodes? Because I would expect that the coverage of the average TV show on WP to include a list of episodes (or something equivalent if its like a soap opera summarizing season by season), regardless if there is an episode that is expanded upon further as you would still have that episode in the list, period, for completeness. If one wants to discuss an episode at more depth beyond what would be in the core TV show coverage, then that needs to merit its own article - that is, the episode is now a separate topic from the show itself. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
          • The premise that Hiding had consensus to add WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy is not false. The premise that Pixelface does not believe there was a consensus is true. You can link to the discussion and you can make your own assumptions, and pother people can do so too, but don't present your opinion as fact. Consensus is subjective, like everything else on Knowledge (XXG), and is what causes half these disputes. I discussed the issue and I believed I gained a consensus, persuading those that stayed to discuss. Now in retrospect, I probably should have garnered more discussion and things could definitely have been handled differently, but Knowledge (XXG) was a very different place back then, and I firmly believe that at the time I added it there was a consensus to add and that I was acting within the framework of that consensus. You may well have your own opinion, Pixelfaxce, but as far as I am aware, you do not have the luxury of having been there at the time. I tried to do my best, and I tried to do what is right. Ultimately, Pixelface, this isn't about me, this isn't about Radiant!, this is about what we should do now. Hiding T 11:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes, lets try to stick to the situation now. Until recently, I was in favor of inclusion of the statement in this policy. In fact, I helped to word and ultimately implemented the present version. However, based on this discussion, I am beginning to lean against it. In particular, note that according to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, Knowledge (XXG)'s rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. Thus when setting this kind of broad policy, we have the responsibility to represent the consensus of not only the small fraction of editors actively participating in this debate, but of all the other editors who are out working on articles and never think to come to a page like this. In line with the above discussion about episode articles, there are numerous television shows for which there is an article on every single episode, most consisting almost entirely of plot. There is no way that every episode of these shows has independent notability and real world impact; they glean their notability from the notability and impact of the overall show. Thus for most of these articles they could never have much other than plot summary; they could not possibly have survived AFD on the basis that they would likely 'eventually' be able to contain real world analysis. The point is, if the article on the overall show demonstrates notability, then articles outlining the plot of each episode seem to be the norm on Knowledge (XXG). I don't see how we can endorse a policy that would result in the deletion of thousands, or possibly many more, articles that have apparently stood the test of time and the consensus of the Knowledge (XXG) community. In other words, I don't see how, considering the large number of longstanding quality articles of this type, there can be a broad consensus in favor of this policy. Such a consensus is certainly not established with the present level of support demonstrated on this page. Given the massive breadth and impact of this issue across Knowledge (XXG), it seems to me that we aught to be discussing what the Knowledge (XXG) editing community at large feels about this policy based on their edits, rather than trying to claim that a consensus exists based on our own feelings, when we represent only a few dozen editors out of tens of thousands or more. Based on this approach, it seems to me that a policy reflecting the actual present consensus of Knowledge (XXG) editors at large would state that the notability of the television show or fictional work must be established on the main article page about the work, but that once that notability is established, articles on individual episodes or characters consisting largely of plot should be allowed. This, however, would be a notability guideline, not a What Knowledge (XXG) is not statement of policy. This therefore seems to weight against having such a policy statement in this page. Any thoughts? Locke9k (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
              • If we focus on why this is in NOT and not in something NOTE, FICT, WAF, or the like, the reasoning being this is not notability. The reasoning for something along the language of PLOT is that we are not hear simply to reiterate what is in the primary source - fiction, non-fiction, whatever. "Plot Summaries" is loaded against fiction, but we don't treat non-fiction special like that either. Maybe a better way to call this section is "WP is not simply a collection of narrative summaries, but instead includes summaries, as necessary, to aid in the coverage of the narrative work to provide context to the general reader." Now, as to whether this implies that individual TV episodes are part of a TV shows coverage? I don't think we're trying to make that decision here, though it does suggest that if you have a TV show, every character, and every episode without anything else but a plot summary save for a couple lines on one page, you're probably violating this version of PLOT, whether that TV show is a crime drama or something like Mythbusters. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
                • The problem is that although I don't necessarily disagree with you in principle (I'm not sure), that doesn't appear to me to be the present consensus on Knowledge (XXG). The point is that in this discussion we should strive to describe the consensus, not to try to set it. A few dozen people don't 'control' or 'decide' the consensus on Knowledge (XXG), all of the thousands of people editing do. And it appears as though Knowledge (XXG) does contain extensive episodic plot content of the type you argue for banning. In fact, it contains so much that I would argue it constitutes a consensus in favor of having that sort of content in Knowledge (XXG). With respect to your proposed wording above, this argument seems to suggest that there is a broad operational consensus on Knowledge (XXG) that the purpose of narrative summaries is not just to provide context or anything of the sort. On the contrary, it would appear by their work that many Knowledge (XXG) editors feel that narrative summaries have intrinsic value of their own, provided that the notability of the work is otherwise established. To put it another way, those of us in this discussion do not have the power to decide to ban some sort of content from Knowledge (XXG); all we can do is decide whether there is already a broad consensus that such material should not be allowed. From that perspective, regardless of what we think personally, I don't see how we can include the 'Not Plot' statement in this policy. Locke9k (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
                  • PLOT has never been meant as a way to "ban" plot summaries from WP. If a topic fails PLOT it either is all plot summary, meaning that either sourced context has to be added or the summary should be described in the context of a larger topic (eg merging a TV episode article into a list of episodes for that show), or the topic has too much plot summary relative to the sourced context, then either the summary needs to be trimmed or more source content added to balance it out. If the current wording suggests that plot summaries are discouraged that needs to be fixed, but I don't read that in the current version. Plot summaries are useful and the like when in context of other information. When they sit by themselves, they are not useful to the general reader of WP, which is who are target is. And while I would agree that if you just did the numbers game on this page on support and dissent against PLOT, it's in the teens, low twenties in number of activity participants, which is why you have to look at related pages and discussions. For example, the WP:N RFC clearly showed that a majority of editors are not tolerant towards lots of fiction stubs, the types of articles that fail PLOT. Our article quality process for GA and FA will not let a plot-only article get through. That's not to say that today every topic that fails PLOT or every article that is plot-only should be deleted or merged. But we should be trying to figure out how to reduce that number, either by expansion of those articles (see what the South Park project is doing) or by considering rational merges that maintain the information as part of a larger topic. Plot summaries are still there, information is not lost or deleted, and the overall quality of the work improves. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                    • My basic point is that, from my perspective, if the notability of a television show is strongly established in the main article, it aught to be acceptable to have almost pure plot articles on its episodes provided that they prominently link back to the central show article. In this way they do supplement the coverage of the central television show article; my concern is that the present approach to this appears to address individual articles when it should address subjects. I don't think we aught to discourage article splits or to only allow 'lists of episodes'. If we are going to allow a list of episodes, I see no reason to discourage a summary of each; nor do I see a reason to require all of those summaries to be on one page such that the page becomes absurdly long. Finally, I don't think that the 'amount' of plot summary content should be required to be less than the amount of "real life" coverage. Rather than making some statement to the effect that 'Plot summary should not "dominate" the article', we could perhaps say something like "plot summaries related to a fictional work should complement coverage of real life aspects of that work". The wording would need some work of course, but hopefully you see the difference in the meaning conveyed by the two statements. Locke9k (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                      • Given that a plot of a work is subject to copyright, how do you think your approach fits in with the policy on non-free content? Specifically numbers 2, 3, 5 and 8. Hiding T 18:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                        • People have brought up this assertion several times. Can someone point to any page that actually states that plot summaries constitute copyright infringement? I do not believe that they do. I'm not even sure what you mean when you say that the "plot of a work is subject to copyright". The page that you have linked deals with media, not with text. The more general page Knowledge (XXG):Non-free_content doesn't seem to have any bearing on plot summaries, unless the summary is directly copied from some copyrighted source (which has no bearing on this discussion, as it applies to the copying of any copyrighted material). So, in a nutshell, if you can point me to a reliable source substantiating this claim I'll be happy to read it and discuss whether or how it interacts with my current position on this discussion. Locke9k (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                          • You're right, that page doesn't cover text. I'll have to query that to see if that's deliberate or accidental. As to what I mean, what concerns me is when we build a mass of articles on a given fictional universe to the point that we infringe upon published guides of the same nature. To my mind we're a derivative work if we aren't adding transformative material. I have no substantial issue with plot summaries, but I have concerns with an approach which allows us to build a work which, when published by a commercial reuser, would fall foul of the law. That's my angle. If I'm wrong on that score, I welcome that input. Hiding T 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
                        • It isn't necessarily true to say that the plot of a work is subject to copyright. As Judge Learned Hand said in Nicholls v. Universal Pictures: "Upon any work, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the work is about, and at times might consist only of its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the author could prevent the use of his 'ideas', to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended" (emphasis mine). The point is that a sufficiently brief summarization of the plot of a work is not subject to copyright. JulesH (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
                          • Nobody is here saying a brief summary is a bad thing, well I'm not at any rate. But we also have to look at the acretion of a large number of plot summaries and how that impacts upon commercial reusers. Hiding T 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
                            • Commercial reusers such as Wikia? I'm unaware of any current copyright concerns regarding plot summaries at Wikia wikis. They're the ones profiting off of plot summaries. --Pixelface (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
                              • I don't have much to do with wikia, short of occasionally exporting deleted articles to the annex. I'm not a fan of tailoring our policy to suit commercial reusers to be honest, as I think I have made clear elsewhere, but that's the direction the board has taken us in, so... I'd like us to start using "no commercial" images in articles, and rely on fair use a lot more, but that's not acceptable for the board. Whether that has anything to do with donations and Wikia we can only speculate. Hiding T 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
                                • The Star Wars wiki (later renamed Wookieepedia) hosted on Wikicities (later renamed Wikia) was created upon the suggestion of the WMF Board of Trustees, which at the time included Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley (who earlier had co-founded Wikicities together). Wikia is licensed under the GFDL, and Wookieepedia content is licensed under the GFDL. I'm guessing that Wikia is the #1 commercial reuser of Knowledge (XXG) content (since many times it's the #2 search result in Google). Wikia doesn't seem to have any problem with plot summaries, or profiting off of plot summaries, or fair use images. Since Knowledge (XXG) is also licensed under the GFDL, it should have no problem with plot summaries or fair use images either. And it's not even trying to profit off of them (supposedly). --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
                        • If NFCC applied to plot summaries (and it doesn't), it would also apply to "third-party coverage" — summaries of copyrighted text. NFCC doesn't forbid summaries of copyrighted text. Is the NFCC based on the GFDL? --Pixelface (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
                          • I'm not following. Are you comparing summarising fiction with summarising non-fiction? The issue of summarising non-fiction is lessened by the fact that you can't copyright facts in the way you can copyright fiction. So you can copyright "creative expression", which means the way you describe something, but not the thing you describe. And if there are only a limited number of ways of describing something, your chance of winning a claim for copyright infringement is diminished, so no-one could ever copyright the phrase "the sky is blue". And we also get a stronger fair use claim because of teh educational purpose, and Knowledge (XXG) also gets a slightly stronger claim because we're non-profit. Which is why I'd like to see us severe commercial re-use ties. My stance there is that we're already given this stuff away free; I don't see why commercial reusers can't be made to work out what they can and can't do with this free stuff all by themselves if they're going to exploit that fact and profit off of us. It's also why I'm opposed to adopting the CC license, it seems like Knowledge (XXG) is just making it easier and easier for me not to get acknowledged for the work I have done, which isn't much to ask for and was all I wanted in the first place. But I've gone off at a tangent. The difference between fiction and fact is that you can protect a right to exploit a work of fiction better than you can a work of fact. So you can limit the extent to which other people can produce guides to your fictional universe through infringement laws, and here our fair use defence is weaker. That's why I'd like to see articles padded with real world detail, to improve both the reader's understanding and our fair use defence. I've got nothing against plot summaries, but I have against articles which bloat to fifty or sixty paragraphs summarising the events of a television episode or comic book. I dislike that on a couple of reasons, for style, legal concerns and personal morals. I don't think it looks or reads well, I don't think it is in keeping with the law and I don't think we are doing right by the author. In the same sense I want people to respect the fact that I ask for acknowledgement of my work here, I believe I have to respect the right of an author to be able to exploit hos creation, even though I don;t necessarily agree with that stance. That may be why "my side" tends to lose, because we're not ruthless enough, but there you go. It is what it is. I don't know what the NFCC is based on, you'd have to ask the board, that was a mandate from up high, and I recall speaking out against that at the time. Have a read of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup#Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion.2FChronology_of_Star_Wars and see if that also helps in any sense. Hiding T 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Noting that per Pixelface's comment, I have placed notice of this at WP:VPP and WP:CENT and the Fiction Notice template that is on various other fiction-related policy/guideline pages. --MASEM (t) 12:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Let's draw the line here. VPP and CENT are good. Anything more than that starts to cherrypick audiences who have biases about certain kinds of content, and thus gets into the kind of advertising that can sway the !vote rather than obtain a better discussion. If anyone can think of any other neutral places to advertise that are not concerned with either adding *or* removing content -- perhaps the talk pages of other related guidelines and policies -- then I'd be okay with that. Randomran (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Someone might want to post it to the mailing list. Someone recently wrote up Knowledge (XXG):Advertising discussions, that may offer options. My only worry is that we don't have an exit strategy, since this poll was framed on the fly. What's going to happen if there's a 60-40 split either way or a 50-50 down the middle? The usual descent into arguing over what consensus means? Just once maybe we could get all that sorted before we start. Hiding T 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You said "All versions of the statement strongly discriminate against plot summaries, and actively forbid articles from containing plot summaries alone." like it's a bad thing. That doesn't go far enough, as a matter of fact. WP:NOT is all about pointing those kinds of things out to people who don't get the basics of what an encyclopedia is even for. DreamGuy (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is a bad thing. Basic information on a subject should not be What Knowledge (XXG) is Not. We should cover unambiguous things here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't grasp your reasoning. Lyrics are basic information on a subject, but we don't allow them. Quite a lot of these clauses indicate basic levels of information we don't desire. I also have trouble working out where the ambiguity is. How would you write it so that we umambiguosly state that Knowledge (XXG) articles don't tell the story of a fictional work or element? Or is that what the debate boils down to; is Knowledge (XXG) the place to tell the story? If that's the debate, I say no because of copyright concerns, pure and simple, per Mike Godwin. "I see no reason for contributors to worry about coverage of fictional universes, so long as relevant provisions of copyright law, trademark law, etc., are followed." We have to respect the relevant laws, and the relevant laws here are copyright laws which prevent infringing the commercial reuse and exploitation of a copyright protected work. We don't get to give other people's work away for free. If the only way to get that recognised on Knowledge (XXG) is through WP:PLOT, then you'll leave me no choice but to support its retention. That's my main concern and over-riding motive. Our usage of non-free material relies upon a fair use defence, which means we have to make some critical commentary upon the work. Since WP:OR prevents us doing that ourselves, the only way we can do so is sourcing that from reliable sources. Hiding T 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any official pronouncement from Godwin or any other representative of the Foundation that states that bare plot summaries should be avoided because they're copyright infringements. And I think there's a reason for this: as long as they are reasonably brief, I don't believe they are. I won't go into a technical discussion of fair use here, because apart from anything else I'm not an expert on the matter so I don't see why anyone would trust what I have to say, but I will point you all towards some good articles written by people who are. First up, this one suggests that a use that does not involve copying of actual text, and which does not copy a large portion of the content of the source work is unlikely to be found infringing. This article discusses the notion that transformative uses are much more likely to be found non-infringing than non-transformative ones. A plot summary is quite clearly transformative of the original, non-summarized version of the plot. JulesH (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A fair use defence would rely upon a number of things. What we've got to separate out here is a couple of things. If we're talking about the plot of a film or novel, we're well in teh clear. What becomes a problem is when we start to aggregate a number of articles on a fictional universe. If they're all written from an in-universe perspective, we're in danger of not being transformative enough to satisfy a court, especially if someone chooses to publish those particular sections of the wiki. Now yes, there's an argument that re-users publish at their peril, and it is one I subscribe to, but unfortunately the board doesn't. That's my concern on the matter. I don't have a problem with plot summaries, but I have a problem when we aren't transforming, but deriving. That's why I tend to feel plot summary alone is not enough. I'll grant it is a grey area as to what constitutes teh difference between transformation and derivation, but I would hope we'd all agree the more "out-of-universe" facts we can cram into an article, the better. Hiding T 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• I generally agree with Shoemaker's Holiday here. The issue of when a plot summary should be written is, I think, too complex to deal with in a policy, which should have few or no exceptions. It is not the case that plot summaries are not encyclopedic content; it is hard to imagine how to cover fictional content without plot summaries. In many cases, it seems to me, that a plot summary may need to be dealt with separately from any "real world" considerations, for example it may be desirable to break out the plot summary of a particularly complex work of fiction into a separate article in order to limit article size. This policy currently prevents this, and I have seen perfectly reasonable articles deleted (e.g. the plot summary of Les Miserables) simply because this policy proscribes them for no good reason. Yes, it is quite clear that we shouldn't have a plot summary of a work of fiction if that is all there is to say about it, but this restriction can be addressed quite adequately in the relevant notability guidelines. JulesH (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think JulesH logic is flawed. On the one hand, be thinks that it is hard to imagine how to cover fictional content without plot summaries would be possible in order to provide balanced coverage within an article; but then he suggest that the plot summary should be seperate from balanced coverage within an article. It is a bit like saying that you can balance a see-saw with two people, but you can also balance a see-saw with just one, provided they are somewhere nearby. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What he said was a bit confusingly phrased, but I think it's clear enough: For some very complicated novels - War and Peace, Les Miserables, etc - where there's loads and loads of characters, and the plot is very complicated and highly interwoven, it may make sense to spin off the longer discussion of the plot, and the discussion of the more minor details. Heaven knows that enough has been written on them that there's not going to be a problem, say, discussing Fantine's fall (done over several chapters in the original) But the detail, while it can be encyclopedically described and discussed, could overwhelm the main article.

This does not generally apply to books that aren't classic Victorian doorstoppers, and the rest of his points apply to everything else. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to sum up the discussion and straw poll, it appears that:

1. There is no consensus for plot summaries to appear in WP:NOT (50% is surely not enough for inclusion in site policy)
2. There's widespread agreement that they should be discussed somewhere more appropriate, such as WP:FICT or another policy/guideline.

Does this seem a fair assessment? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I think that's a reasonable interpretation, but not the only one. There's definitely a consensus it should be put somewhere, so we probably shouldn't remove it until we can determine where it should go. Randomran (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Technically, there's also no consensus for removing it from PLOT, and we've let this run for less than a week so we shouldn't be jumping on any trains yet. That said, while I still feel it needs to be in here, the results suggest that it's just difficult to keep this section in NOT since it seems to bias against the use of plot summaries (it all depends how you read it) and thus should probably be moved to WAF assuming this remains. Note that this does not mean plot-only articles are suddenly ok; WAF and NOTE will still be guidelines on their acceptability. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is evidence that many editors like Shoemaker don't like the prohibition on plot only artlcles, but there is no compelling intellectual reason to remove WP:NOT#PLOT based on his proposal. Plot only articles could potentially provide evidence of notability, and the need for real-world coverage an inclusion criteria must be addressed in the rewrite of WP:FICT at some point. However, plot only articles are primarily a content issue because plot summary on its own does not provide balanced coverage of topic that is needed for an encyclopedic article. Trying to remove WP:NOT#PLOT is just an underhand way of trying to delete this section which has been redrafted on the basis of consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gavin collins, I'm not sure I understand your point. You say that the section has been "redrafted on the basis of consensus". However, I was one of the people who played a large role in that redrafting, and there were far far fewer people involved in that then there are in this RFC. I don't see how that redrafting created any kind of binding consensus. What do you mean by saying that "Trying to remove WP:NOT#PLOT is just an underhand way of trying to delete this section"? Trying to remove this from the policy isn't underhanded at all; people are being totally above-board and clear on the fact that they want to see it removed. Locke9k (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that coverage of fiction has to be balanced between the real-world and the fantasy-world perspective in order to provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding; to rely entirely on an in universe perspective is misleading, as it requires the reader to believe that fiction is some how real. We can't write encyclopedic articles from the persective of the fantasy-world, not because fiction is bad, but because a fantasy-world perspective ignore why fiction is written in the first place. Writing fiction is a process conducted by real-world people, who are subject to real-world influences, personal preference and ambition. Since fiction does not exist in a vacuum, encyclopedic articles have to address the real-world medium in which they exist. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is where I'm getting hung up, and why I support removal of PLOT from NOT - we have a fairly detailed set of standards on fiction articles at WP:WAF. Moving PLOT to this page suggests that PLOT is the fundamental policy of writing about fiction. This does not seem to me to be the case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that WP:WAF is about style, not content. It does not matter how nicely presented a sow's ear is, it is never going to be a silk purse. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

When you have lemons, you make lemonade. Hiding T 10:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I incorrect in my assumption that WP:PLOT predates the non-policy pages like WP:WAF? I always thought it did. I became aware of WP:PLOT early in my Wiki career (via reading NOT), but didn't discover the related guidelines/essays such as WAF until much later. If this is the case, then it follows that pages like WAF are descended from NOT, and designed to complement/clarify it, rather than (as Phil states) that PLOT was somehow "moved" to NOT from WAF. I always thought that NOT#PLOT came first, and WAF came later. Or is this a chicken/egg thing? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:WAF came first, and influenced WP:PLOT. So yes, you are incorrect in your assumption. Hope that clarifies. Hiding T 08:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, WP:NOT, including NOTPLOT, is an extension of the first pillar: "Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia." There are books that consist of plot summaries of "the world's greatest novels" and such (presumably for people unwilling to read the actual books), but they are not encyclopedias, and Knowledge (XXG) is. WP ≠ WWW, no matter how many people would like it to. There is a place for everything, and the place for some of it isn't here. Deor (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the oppose voters commenting that PLOT is rightly a notability issue, so it doesn't belong in a content guideline. Some of you may remember that the community punted our best attempt (IMO) at a notability guideline for fiction, leaving us with just the GNG. Considering that even WP:FICT explicitly ducked the question of article content (as does WP:N, see WP:NNC), I don't know where that leaves us. We are concerned with the makeup of individual articles. Presumably we need to determine that wikipedia does have an interest in restricting the makeup of those articles from being plot summaries or that it does not. What we cannot do is decide first that we can't reach a consensus on notability for fictional subjects (arguably the crux of this issue, since the size of a plot summary in the main article is hardly the issue at stake) then when faced with the problem on a content guideline, punt the issue back to notability. that leaves us with no guidance save the GNG for article issues (a situation we are already in) and no guidance whatsoever on content issues.

I worry that we will see more cases where an article is sent to AfD, people decide that the primary subject meets our inclusion guideline and so we don't take action on the daughter article and later attempts to merge, edit or redirect content in the daughter article is stalled because the outcome of the AfD wasn't "delete". In fact, you could see this situation as analogous.

If we truly feel that PLOT is an inclusion issue and not a content issue, then we need to find some sort of compromise for inclusion of fictional subjects. If we feel (as some did on the FICT RfC) that PLOT is a content issue, then we need to reach some agreement here. If we feel that it is a mix of both, then we have to reach an agreement on both parts. We cannot prop ourselves up on WP:N when we know that there is no force of consensus to support this issue.

I see that Random has raised a variation on this point above, but I figured we should air it out thoroughly. Protonk (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Last time this came up I suggested we work something up at WP:PLOTS, but that stalled. There might be something of use there though? Hiding T 10:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • My suggestion is to ignore the venue. It doesn't serve us to debate location. Are we prepared to come to some sort of compromise that lives in WP:PLOTS that couldn't be possible at FICT or PLOT? If so, then I need a pretty compelling reason why. Because I suspect that folks engaged in this debate are as likely to compromise on the subject here as they were over at fict and mostly for the same reasons. We could even, were we so inclined, dig up that RfC and see which pro/con rationales matched up word for word as I'm sure some do. But that might not help things.  :)

• • I just don't think we should shy away from the real conflict here. there is a very core element of the encyclopedia that makes a number of people very unhappy and may not accurately describe current practice. Apart from the attempts to define away the consensus around plot, we can't ignore its centrality to the project. And defenders of plot can't ignore the split between policy and practice which is evident...well, to anyone with eyes. I don't think that stonewalling and defending the current revision of the page is a good idea, but I'm just as upset at the logs of this page which show months of agitating by a few editors to have the section removed more than they show anything else.

• • Just so I don't spend three paragraphs on "on the other hand...", here's a suggested solution. The first sentence in PLOT should remain. The second sentence (which I'm sure generates much of the controversy) should be reworked and a third sentence added attempting to work daughter articles in. Arguably you could make the case to rewrite the first sentence because it pretends to be an inclusion guideline. But that's it. I think attempts to outright remove the section will be non-starters. Protonk (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My view is WP:NOT#PLOT is the consensus, because plot summary on its own offers no encylopedic coverage. There is a lot opposition to this, but it boils down "I like plot summary" . I see no compelling intellectual reason to change. Plot summary articles are probably better covered in Wikia or Wookiepedia, where the inclusion criteria for articles on fictional topics are more relaxed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And my view is that reasonable minds can differ on this. Even among those of us arguing in good faith, there are those who don't think that your view of PLOT approximates their view. I don't want to rehash the debate in this section. I just wanted to offer a clear warning to people that we shouldn't be tempted by the prospect of dumping this debate off on a different kind of guideline/policy. Protonk (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think when you say "compromise", you really mean "water-down". The compromise position is that plot summary must form part of a 'balanced' coverage of a fictional topic. I agree that article inclusion criteria for fiction is closely related to this issue, and my impression is that those who wish to allow plot only articles do so on the basis that plot only articles inherit notability from the fictional work. Just because WP:FICT does not address the need for real-world coverage (yet), does not mean WP:NOT#PLOT is not a good policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a matter of semantics. By compromise I certainly don't mean my preferred revision or your preferred revision. And I don't mean Pixel's preferred revision. What we forgot about fict was that a good compromise should leave everyone unhappy (and it did). Here I suspect that any good outcome will leave you me and pixel upset about the final revision. I doubt that anything like that will gain consensus but there you go. Protonk (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to compromise anyway since policies and guidelines should describe current practice, norms. They should describe the consensus among the community. If no consensus exists, a policy page should not try to pretend one does, or attempt to manufacture one. You cannot get 158,000 editors to come to a compromise. And if a bunch of "rulemakers" are huddled in a corner trying to reach a compromise, they're already facing the wrong direction. --Pixelface (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the current version of WP:NOT#PLOT; in its way, its workding is a compromise, but on the other hand it is make sense from an encyclopedic viewpoint. I see no need for change. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Im happy with it as well, as I noted in the vote above. My only real concern is that PLOT bears little to no resemblance to practice in the wild. Consequently it (and WP:N) become adversarial guidelines toward a large bulk of editors. I don't think that outcome is reason alone to change them, but it is the core of a compelling reason to consider compromise. Protonk (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What goes on in the wild probably has more to do with the immersive aspect of fiction which provides the imputeus to act out or re-live fictional works - one of the reasons why fiction is the most popular form of narrative. However, the impulse to immerse probably does not benefit encyclopedic coverage unless plot summary can be balanced out by real-world coverage. I think that any article that fails WP:NOT#PLOT is when a topic reaches the boundry between real-world and fantasy-world coverage, between Knowledge (XXG) and Wookieepedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, please read User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT and feel free to respond on its talkpage or create your own rebuttal in your own userspace if you would like. By suggesting that plot-only articles are only acceptable when juxtaposed with banner ads on Wikia, you're only benefiting Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley, not the readers of Knowledge (XXG). Could one say that your argument boils down to "I don't like popular culture" or "Jimbo will make more money if we remove it from Knowledge (XXG) and put it on Wikia"? --Pixelface (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Knowledge (XXG) is about the real world. Plot summaries are not. A work of fiction is only significant to Knowledge (XXG) inasmuch as it has impacted the real world as a cultural artifact. Plot summaries are those only valuable inasmuch as they provide context for that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Pixelface, I don't think you will ever understand why WP:NOT#PLOT is a sound policy unless you consider some of the reasons why it was introduced, and why it is being defended so soundly, not just why you don't like it. So let me put you straight.
  Unlike your longwinded talk page User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT, you should know that Knowledge (XXG) needs coverage of a topic to be balanced in accordance with WP:NPOV. Since a work of fiction is written from the point of view of the author, a plot summary will only reflect the author's perspective. There is no point in writing a plot only article that gives undue weight to only one source.
  The other aspect to consider is that a plot summary is wholly reliant on an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective as its point of reference. If an article is comprised only of plot, then basically it is ignoring the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its medium of transmission are embedded.
  Lastly, you should consider the issue of whether plot only articles comply with the requirement of WP:V, which says that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it. Since plot only articles are reliant on primary sources, or sources that are not independent of the primary source because they rely on an in universe perspective for their point of reference, it is difficult to agrue that plot only articles should be allowed at all.
  You might wish to add these points to your own analysis to help your understanding of these issues. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading the input so far, I believe most people agree that a plot summary is part of the overall coverage of a work, but should not be the only part - and to the point that this is policy, not a guideline. The issue is primarily putting it into NOT that make it seem that we actively discourage it. Given that this is about distribution of content, I'm thinking that the best place to put this is at WP:NPOV, which includes WP:UNDUE, because really, at the end of the day, I believe most agree that coverage of fiction that weights a lot with plot-based information is unbalanced. Mind you, I would make sure we're not limiting this to just works of fiction but include any narrative-based work - we simply don't focus primarily on the content of the work when we discuss that work, but balance that.

I think this fits - there's a whole section on how to handle pseudoscience articles (I'm not claiming these to be fiction, just a special case called out) so it would seem that a section in NPOV is a possible addition to an already lengthy guideline. This also would allow us to frame the issue in more than two or three sentences. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a serious difficulty trying to claim that a plot summary is a point of view. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically it is: it is an in-universe view verses a real-world view. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Once plot summary gets moved to NPOV, it is more likely to be talked about in terms of an outright ban, rather than as part of the balanced coverage of a ficitonal topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this will fly, but it has intriguing possibilities for a compromise. If you could get away with defining "in-universe" and "out-of-universe" as opposing POVs that must be balanced in any article about fiction, you would avoid the situation where either side of the debate could be declared a winner or a loser. That, in and of itself, has some value.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think defining in-universe and out-of-universe as POVs has very, very bad ramifications, most notably in that it establishes things that are not real as equally important to things that are real. In-universe perspective is worthless, period, except inasmuch as it illuminates real-world perspective. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Truthfully, I don't even think that UNDUE should be at NPOV, because it's not just how we cover opinions. It's how we cover everything. I think burying WP:PLOT there would be a mistake. I think there's a consensus that WP:PLOT is good policy and should exist *somewhere*, but we need to discuss where, exactly. Randomran (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello all, I've added a disputed tag to WP:PLOT as I believe the above RfC shows at the very least this is disputed. I'd argue it also shows the policy lacks consensus and should be removed, but I think there should be some more discussion before anyone takes that step. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that there's a dispute, but the PLOT statement is already marked under discussion via inlines, so there's no need to doubletag, particularly when then "dispute" tag suggests the entire IINFO section is disputed. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Humm.... #1 I'm shooting for something stronger than "discussion" here. I think this is disputed, which is different than a discussion (which I'd assume is about tweaking, not removing). #2 The tag clearly indicates which shortcut is in dispute. I'd be okay with changing the superscript text to "dispute" rather than discussion. Objections? Hobit (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems good, Hobit. Locke9k (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Switched to {{dubious}} inline tag. (apparently "disputed-inline" redirects there, so it's the best one) --MASEM (t) 15:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not happy with the "dubious" label, I think it has been put there in bad faith, as WP:NOT#PLOT is common sense from the perspective of writing encyclopedic articles, although I can understand why fans of Wookieepedia might want to label it as such. I would be grateful if this tag is removed. It seems to me "Knowledge (XXG) is not for plot only articles" is going to be continuously disputed for as long as editors invest in the creation of childish plot only articles, so I don't accept this tagging this section is ever appropriate, unless someone can explain how you can obtain context, commentary, criticism or anlaysis from an article which is only comprised of plot summary. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that this be put back into the NOT#PLOT section as it is clear it lacks consensus. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Stubbornly insisting it's true does not make it so. It is not clear that it lacks consensus. Just the opposite, in fact. The wording needs to be changed (as the version there with the locked article was put there by someone without consensus) but it's very clear that the section needs to stay and is not at all dubious. Wikilawyering isn't helpful. 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been going over all the debates, and it seems that the initial intention was to block plot-only articles, but then the size of plot summaries got involved, and I'm not even sure where the issue stands now. There are three options in the intro to the vote, but the question itself asked in the vote is, "In principle, do you think that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries?" which is not asking, "Should WP:NOT have a policy banning plot only articles?" or, "Should WP:NOT have a policy banning plot only articles and limiting plot summaries?" I think these issues got mucked up in the discussion, so I don't think the question was direct enough to gain consensus. I believe we should start a new vote, with a very direct question, so we can definately say we have consensus on that specific subject. Angryapathy (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with having a straw poll in this RFC at all - I think it has short-circuited the conversation and basically just turned it into a vote-a-thon. If I had caught it before anyone commented there I would have removed it, but I got to it just too late for that to be reasonable. I certainly don't think adding another straw poll is going to help the situation. What we aught to do is have a much more extensive discussion to try to seek a consensus position rather than just having a battle between two fixed sides. Locke9k (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, straw polls have a way of turning debates into a false choice. There's always a middle option. A quick look at the last straw poll reveals a lot of people who like WP:PLOT but would be comfortable with revising and refocusing it, and people who don't like it here but can't outright disagree with it either. Only a few people at either extreme want to be hard-asses in favor or against plot. Randomran (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of the straw poll is that it can provide evidence that people are or aren't happy with the status quo. Otherwise we get arguments that "this has consensous" or "this doesn't" and we create an echo chamber of a small number of editors. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, whatever the muddling, it does seem that if about half the voters think that WP:NOT is not an appropriate place to discuss plot at all, that it should be removed, and another place found to discuss it. I'd suggest the manual of style, for now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem, though. We can somehow see half the voters saying "no" for some reason and then refashion it to meet our needs. I don't think that all of those 27 people would be happy w/ PLOT over at MOS w/ the same force of policy. Some don't want it to be policy at all. Some think it should be at N. Some think it should be rewritten. How does this poll give us the force to make any one of those decisions to the exclusion of the others? Protonk (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If WP:NOT#PLOT was in an article, it would have been moved to the talkpage long ago to be rewritten. This is a policy, so it should have been removed even longer ago. What you've just described is no consensus. We do not make text with no consensus policy. If there's no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be here, it should not be here. Period. If people want to propose to add it to some other policy or guideline, and think there would be consensus to add it to that policy or guideline, they're free to propose it on that policy or guideline's talkpage, just like any other proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's ever been a consensus that WP:PLOT be etched in stone. But the question is if there's a consensus to remove it outright. There isn't. The only consensus way forward is to revise it, not remove it. Otherwise, it's going to stay the same, and we're going to repeat the same debates. Randomran (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that a policy that doesn't have consensous should be removed. We don't need to show that consensous exists to remove it. We merely need to show that there isn't consensous to keep it. Is there a general president on things like this? How much inertia do we assign existent policy? Hobit (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If there's no consensus for altering a standing policy or guideline, it usually stays, but this is more than just altering. First, we still have 2+ weeks of an RFC to go through, so we shouldn't be rushing to do anything. Second, we need to look at more than the !votes and in this case, the general consensus is to move this out of NOT because of the negative connotations (that plot summaries are "banned" which they are not) but where to move is in question. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly fine with waiting. Do we have policy/guidelines/anything that tell us what to do when a policy or guideline loses consensus (say hits 50/50?) I don't think I buy that keeping something like that around is a good idea...Hobit (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember, this is a !vote - the numbers don't matter, only the relative strengths of arguments. And generally a "no consensus" to a question of change means you don't make the change. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The claim "numbers don't matter" is false. And I've given 33 reasons why WP:NOT#PLOT cannot be policy at User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT. Regarding your last statement, there was no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy when it was first proposed, so Hiding should never have added it to this page in the first place. Hiding should have never made the change. But he did, and we have almost 3 years of disputes to show for it. If there's no consensus to delete an article, we don't delete it (although some people would like to delete BLPs where the AFD ends in no consensus). But policies are supposed to describe standards that have community consensus. Policies are supposed to have wide acceptance among editors. Consensus for policies should be reasonably strong. Policies are supposed to state what most Wikipedians agree upon.

Like I said earlier, imagine two questions: 1) "Do you think WP:NOT#PLOT should be policy" 2) "Do you think WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed from policy." No consensus for question one and no consensus for question two are two drastically different outcomes. Things within policy must have consensus to be policy, not just lack of consensus to remove them. It has to have consensus to be here, and it doesn't. And consensus is not based on the "strength" of arguments (regardless of what Radiant! wrote on some policy or guideline). Finish this sentence: "If a section of text does not have consensus to be policy, then..." --Pixelface (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The question that is being asked is not "Should PLOT be policy?". The question being asked is "Should PLOT be in NOT?" Interpreting the results as open-mindedly as possible suggests that there's valid reasons to move it out of NOT because of the fact that it implicitly suggests "plot summaries are bad in of themselves", which is a valid concern. But several "no" voters as I read them still think the intent of PLOT - that coverage of a topic should be able to extend beyond just being a plot summary - is valid. (and yes, this means that plot-only articles can be allowable during the development of a topic or in circumstances where it make sense to summarize as such , such as list of characters or episodes) So, yes, there's likely cause to remove PLOT from NOT, but the concept behind it still needs to be put somewhere because that itself does not appear to be disputed. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Masem, WP:NOT is a policy, and this is its talkpage. That's the policy I'm talking about. I didn't think I needed to spell that out for you. There's no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be in WP:NOT. So it needs to be removed. I've said this countless times already. And I have removed WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT multiple times because it has no consensus to be in this policy. Was I wrong in doing so? If someone wants to put WP:NOT#PLOT somewhere else, they can always propose it on another talkpage. But it's painfully obvious that WP:NOT#PLOT does not belong here. We don't have to decide where to put things that we remove from policy before they can be removed. And one does not propose to add something to a page from some other page's talkpage. If it is proposed elsewhere, I just hope you won't stonewall for a year like you have here. --Pixelface (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But there isn't a consensus to remove it. At most, there's a consensus that it's too firm, or that having it here makes it too firm. (e.g.: it gives the confusing impression that plot summaries are banned) Randomran (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That certainly isn't the reading I'm getting. The question is really a strong one. "In principle, do you think that WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries?" A yes leaves a lot of room for interpretation (should be here but too firm) a no says it doesn't belong here. I don't see consensus for keeping it here (but the RfC will run for a while and it might well spring into existance).

There does not have to be consensus to remove a section of policy before it can be removed. A section of policy must have consensus to be policy before it can be policy. Imagine six scenarios: no consensus to add/consensus to add, no consensus to be/consensus to be, no consensus to remove/consensus to remove. Consensus to remove would be nice, but it's the far end of the scale. Look for my comment on this talkpage dated "20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)" where I explain how it's possible that a sentence which does not have consensus to be policy can remain in a policy if people keep insisting on a ridiculous "consensus to remove." There was no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be added to this policy, there's no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy, so it should be removed. This is a policy page and policies are supposed to have wide acceptance among editors. --Pixelface (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No Randomran. The question, as it always is concerning policy, is whether it has consensus to be policy. WP:NOT#PLOT does not. Revising it won't make it have consensus to be policy. Here's a novel idea: how about people wait until something has consensus to be policy before they add it to a policy page? --Pixelface (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think even if the straw poll is considered a failure (because people are asking the wrong questions), we have three pretty clear ideas of what people want:

1. Encyclopedia coverage of fiction ultimately should be more than just reiterating the plot
2. Articles are a work in progress and plot-only articles should not be outright deleted
3. Trying to state the above two points in WP:NOT leads to dispute because it implies plot summaries are not allowed at a first-glance reading.

So we're basically left with the question of where PLOT (or at least point 1 above) should be relocated. It seems most agree that 1 is universally true so that it is policy, but it doesn't fit in NOT and the only other place that seems to make sense is NPOV and that's a bit of fitting a square squishy peg into a round hole - it'll fit but take too much work. WAF would seem like the next best place for it but it makes it a guideline, which I'm reading as too weak for some.

So maybe the solution is to create a new guideline, combining several ideas on this page, on how any narrative or creative work should be handled - fiction, non-fiction, songs, movies, books, video games, etc - should be handled, specifically that while the content of the work should be described and summarized, this is part of the larger coverage that should include creation, development, reception, sales, influences, legacy, etc, as to put the work in context for the lay reader. This advice should not be describing how articles are to be treated, just the general coverage of any work as, as rightly pointed out, we do allow limited cases of narrative-only articles when they support the larger topic of the work itself. I can't think of any other policy this advice fits into so it may be necessary to create a new one. We have WP:PLOTS but that's geared towards fiction, so if we're going to create a new policy, it needs to account for all narrative works as to remove the apparent bias this has against them. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think creating a new policy on summarizing fiction is effectively "tabling" the discussion (for you Brits, I mean bury the topic). I do not feel that this discussion was focused enough to get any consensus from it. As Masem pointed out, there were three issues, as stated above, and none seem to be sorted out with any consensus. The votes seemed to be aimed at different topics, so a vote for "yes" didn't mean the same thing vote to vote. I say remove it for now, then focus the discussion so we aren't putting something into the policy just so we have something to show for our discussions. Angryapathy (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is it appropriate to alert the various fiction projects about this RfC? Hobit (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • See the comment in the discussion - alerting just the fiction projects will bias this. It has been tagged as an RFC, and noted in VPP and CENT. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you seriously think that notifying the village pump, and mentioning the RFC in Template:Cent, and mentioning the RFC in {{fiction notice}} didn't bring any bias here as well? Who are the editors most likely to notice any of those? --Pixelface (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with a more wide notification also, but I think in general we contact the projects that are related to the policy when we do an RfC. I'm sure baseball etc. are contacted about changes to WP:ATHLETE. Are you somehow claiming that people who work in a certain area bring bias to that area and shouldn't be notified? Hobit (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems like the plan is to notify all of the wikiprojects then? Sounds like a plan to me. Who wants to do it? Hiding T 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll get to it over the weekend if no one else does before that (in finals at the moment) Does there exist even a starting point for finding all the relevant wikiprojects? Hobit (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't want to bias the RFC by cherrypicking audiences who are enthusiastic about the material. To some degree, we need input from people who are dispassionate, and have a broader sense of Knowledge (XXG)'s content goals. Otherwise the legitimacy of the RFC flies out the window. Randomran (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
          • At the risk of repeating myself: I think in general we contact the projects that are related to the policy when we do an RfC. I'm sure baseball etc. are contacted about changes to WP:ATHLETE. Are you somehow claiming that people who work in a certain area bring bias to that area and shouldn't be notified? Hobit (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I hit a handful, I'd ask that someone using an automatic tool hit some more... Hobit (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
              • There goes what credibility this RFC had left. Randomran (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
                • Responded at talk page. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of great discussion has come out fo this RfC, and I don't want to see it squandered. Also, I don't want it to arrive at a consensus that really isn't a consensus. I suggest we create a few subsections within this RfC on this various issues at hand. Here are a few I can think of:

• Should WP have a policy against plot-only articles?
• Should WP have a policy limiting plot summary sizes?
• Is this the proper venue for policies on PLOT?
• Should we cover all works (TV, books, fiction/nonfiction) in PLOT?

Add any more issues from this discussion if you'd like, and comment on whether or not we should refocus and add new subsections so we can gauge consensus and/or reach compromise. Angryapathy (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a core issue on this debate that will make the final answer relatively simple is if PLOT is really notability aspect or if it is providing something that is above and beyond notability. From a 60,000 ft level, PLOT and WP:N pretty much read the same, but there's layers on layers of subtly (eg PLOT is generally about the overall coverage while WP:N is about individual articles; one is about real-world coverage, one is about secondary sourcing). But let's put this as easy as possible: is it possible to completely separate PLOT from WP:N from the average editor's POV?

If the answer is no, then the course of action is pretty obvious: as the recent RFC on WP:N shows, notability is only a guideline, and thus I would propose that PLOT goes to WAF (a guideline) or as the new FICT (a guideline).

If the answer is yes, we need to establish that wording that makes it clear that PLOT is very distance from what WP:N is, and then determine where that goes. If that is still policy or guideline, I'm not sure, though if it's as weak as a guideline, what is really separating it from WP:N?

I will add that in the "no" case, there's still a policy in place at WP:V that prevents articles sourced only to the primary work, though I know that's on shaky ground as well, but it would be more in line to a consist metric for all articles, no just fiction.

My gut tells me we can never full separate these two from a common editor's POV - they're just too closely mingled, but the language of PLOT can be used to set something for fictional notability that still is in line with WP:N , but treated as a guideline with heaps of common sense. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot-only main articles whose category is widely accepted (films and TV shows) rarely get deleted. Editors (usually fans) only get unhappy about NOT#PLOT when a plot-only subarticle is AfDed or proposed to get merged. But an AfD or merger is reasonable in such cases, since the plot is usually already (or will be) covered with due weight in a parent article (or grand-parent article or great-grandparent article). So I'd say PLOT and Notability can be completed isolated as long as DUEWEIGHT and SPINOUT is observed at any time, which fan editors usually didn't do at the point of subarticle creation - and that's the source of the ("their") problem. – sgeureka 15:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Masem, you make everything too difficult for yourself. It's a simple question: Say the Hamlet article only contained the text "Prince Hamlet exacts revenge on his uncle Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father, the King, and then taken the throne and married Gertrude, Hamlet's mother." (or say the article only contained the text currently in the Synopsis section. Now, should Knowledge (XXG) have an article about Hamlet? Yes or no? I say yes. Now, say an 8th grader writes a story tomorrow and creates an article about it and it's just a plot summary. Should Knowledge (XXG) have an article about it? I say no. If someone asks why have an article about Hamlet and why not have an article about a story a junior high student made up, one could bring the concept of "notability" into it. Or one could say "because lots of people have heard about Hamlet but virtually nobody has heard of your story." Or one could simply say that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. --Pixelface (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that PLOT has no consensus for its current place and phasing: I've removed it, and would suggest our efforts would better be spent working out a new phrasing and more appropriate location, then we can open an RfC there to add the agreed material.

So: Let's begin. I think the obvious place is WP:WAF - a highly respected guideline, where it could be dealt with with all the subtlety it deserves. I propose something like the following text:

I believe this covers the intent, but the format of WP:WAF allows for more subtlety and clarity about what precisely we mean and want, which is a big advantage.° Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if there is consensus to move it (but not to remove it) then we need to figure out where first before making changes, because the policy still applies since it has consensus. As to where, WAF is ok, if we agree it's only as strong as a guideline, but my judgement from the above discussion is that this is a policy-level guidance (that it is generally true that plot summaries should not be the sole coverage of a topic) so WAF would not work. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you say it has consensus when there's that much opposition to the very idea of it being here? When nearly half the voters are opposed to discussion of plot summaries here on principle, there is no consensus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The key word is "being here"; as many NO votes point out, the concept behind PLOT being on the NOT page can be read to imply that "plot summaries are never appropriate on WP", which is bitey and just not true. So NOT is probably not the right place for it. But it's still a working policy or guideline that "coverage of topics should not be solely plot summaries" based on both YES and NO and Neutral votes above. There are some that completely dismiss any guidance on plot summaries but they aren't the consensus view. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The way forward here is not to continue to insist with no consensus that the section needs to be removed -- or putting bizarre editorial comments on the page attacking our standards (there's already a ridiculous "dubious" tag there, that's already more than what is necessary) -- but to try to forge a REAL consensus. If you want a wording change, try to present something that fits in with our longstanding policies and that a substantial majority of people CAN agree to. That's it. Anything else is just wikilawyering and obstructionism. DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Analyze what you're saying. We're talking about a section of policy that has no consensus to be policy. If there is no consensus for something to be policy, it cannot be policy. Do you disagree with that? Once there is a real consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be in this policy, then it can be in this policy. It's as simple as that. --Pixelface (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if the straw poll results are anything but "keep on the page" (and that includes "no consensus"), then the section will need to be removed until a consensus is formed, per nornal Knowledge (XXG) editing practice. (The onus is on those who wish to include, not those who wish to remove.)

And this isn't a discussion between a couple experienced editors and a bunch of over-enthusiastic editors. I think most everyone commenting has been a part of these (and other such) discussions now for quite some time.

So if this results in no consensus to retain (as it seems to be starting to appear), the next steps would seem to be: a.) find a consensus where such information should be located and b.) figure out what text we can build consensus on. - jc37 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though we couldn't find a consensus on what to do, reading between the lines shows some consensus. The first is that people would probably support some kind of relocation, if we could find a place that wouldn't just be ignored. The second is that people would also support some kind of rephrase, using softer language that is also more clear. That's if we can get people to look passed the usual "keep it the same" vs "remove it outright" extremes. Randomran (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The next step is removal. And I'd be glad to do it myself (for the 14th time). But I'll let someone else do it. I'll let someone else be wrongly labeled a "vandal" and "disruptive" and have three ANI threads opened on them and a user RFC opened them — all because they removed something from policy that does not have consensus to be policy. Been there, done that. If someone want to propose adding it to another page, they're free to propose it on that page's talkpage. --Pixelface (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The concept (but not necessarily this wording) is a long standing policy and the RFC shows that the intent of what PLOT provides accepted. But we have these issues

• Is it appropriate to put on WP:NOT? - That answer seems to weigh on NO due to the fact that being on this page would seem to outlaw plot summaries even though that's not the intent. When taken outside of NOT, it will have room to expand to explain the concept more so that it is clear that it's an end goal for articles but should otherwise not be taken as a means for deletion at the immediate time.
• Is it still either a consensus-agreed policy or guideline? - That answer is clearly YES, so relocation is going to be necessary
• Is it a strong enough statement or be policy or should it be a guideline? - That's more difficult to assert. The !votes favor remaining policy with some of the "no"s seeming to suggest this too. If it is to stay policy, it needs a home outside of NOT. I've suggested NPOV but that's stretching it. Maybe it needs to be its own ? And then I've also asked above if there's the issue if we can truly separate PLOT from notability to the layperson because if we can't, then maybe this just needs to be a guideline , in which case we can easily toss it to WAF and be done.

Thus, before we delete it (as it is still appropriate) we need to find a home for it. And that's basically determining if it is policy-strength or guideline-strength. --MASEM (t) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is why I think voting works better than "trying to gain consensus." Right now we have two camps claiming that during the same discussions, there is consensus AND isn't consensus. "Consensus" is obviously subjective. This is why I wanted to maybe focus the argument, because I don't know how anyone could derive anything from the mess of a discussion this has been. I agree with Pixelface in that there isn't consensus for the wording here, so it should be removed. The claims that, "We should leave it there until we finish," is only coming from people who supported the idea anyway, and it's a sneaky way to put in policy that does not have consensus. What will it take for the editors to realize we need a better discussion before it gets added to the page? Angryapathy (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

!Voting is bad because you aggregrate a lot of thoughts. There are several different reasons for "no" votes, as there are several reasons for "yes", and aggregating to a binary decision isn't a useful solution. That's why we need to look at the reasons people are stating. And recognizing there are a few that disagree with it, there is consensus for some type of high-level guidance to the extent that "Plot summaries are part of the coverage of fictional works, but should not be solely be the coverage". Having it in NOT is the point of contention between the arguments. The statement shouldn't be removed from WP, but it needs to be located somewhere. And this is why it should stay until we've figured out where to put it. If some city decided they wanted to change the speed limit on various roads to a different number, but they weren't sure what number that want to change it to, they don't remove the existing speed limits until they've figured it out. Similarly, PLOT is still a strong piece of guidance and should not be eliminted temporarily while we figure out where it could go. --MASEM (t)

JC37 claimed: "It occurs to me that if the straw poll results are anything but "keep on the page" (and that includes "no consensus"), then the section will need to be removed until a consensus is formed, per nornal Knowledge (XXG) editing practice. (The onus is on those who wish to include, not those who wish to remove.)"

I'm sorry, but that's NOT the normal editing practice here. Items that have historically been in a policy or guideline for a long time already have consensus of longstanding editors. A clear consensus would be needed in order to remove it. This whole statement is just an attempt to wikilawyer into getting your way without any true consensus to do so, and that will not fly. That same logic would get pretty much everything removed from every policy or guideline page with enough wikilawyering. Major changes on these kind of pages need overwhelming support before they can be made, not lukewarm support from a couple of highly aggressive people who don't take no for an answer. DreamGuy (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy when it was first proposed.#1 So it's absolutely ridiculous that people are insisting on there being consensus to remove before it can be removed. And Knowledge (XXG) existed for over 5 1/2 years without WP:NOT#PLOT as policy.#7 Is that too short for you? And WP:NOT#PLOT wasn't on this page for very long at all until it was removed for the first time.#21 To claim that a line of text has been on a page for a long time and therefore it must have consensus is absolutely false. Sections of policy must have consensus in order to be policy, not merely a lack of consensus to remove them. Period. Consensus to remove would be nice, but it's not necessary. --Pixelface (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to stop peddling the myth that there was no consensus when it was first proposed. I've questioned your numbers on the talk page of your user page, but you haven't responded, so I'll question them quite openly here. You get six against six. I don't. Show me your maths. Hiding T 08:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a myth. In February 2007, in this thread, Matthew asked "was there ever an actual consensus to add this?" Badlydrawnjeff, who was there when you proposed WP:NOT#PLOT 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." Later Matthew said "Okay, so it appears there was never a consensus to add this in the first place." Are they peddling myths too?

These are the six people I count a supports in the proposal thread. You said "any objections to adding the following to Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information?" JzG said "Strong support. It's almost impossible to do a plot summary without either original research or copyvio.." (which isn't true, but okay). Rossami said "I'll support it as well even if it will be difficult to apply." (which is definitely some foreshadowing). MartinRe said "Conditional support." Mwalcoff said "My views are along the lines of Hiding's. I don't think an article should be nothing but a plot summary. But if we're going to have a complete article on a work, I think a plot summary is an important thing to include." At first, Deckiller said "Disagree" and "WP:NOT's major weakness is that its policies leave AfD voters with a black and white view, when that clearly cannot be the case with so many branches of knowledge and styles of articles." (more foreshadowing) But then Deckiller said "Yeah, I like that wording a lot."

These are the six people I count as not supporting in the proposal thread. Leflyman used "Not going to happen" in his edit summary and said "I think this would be an extremely contentious issue, as the vast slew of articles dealing with television shows, film, books and comics go beyond merely "plot points" into full summaries. I would not be surprised if that's a major chunk of the many articles on fictional topics. For example, the Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Television episodes is specifically set up to create episode summaries. See, Category:Lists of television series episodes." (that's foreshadowing of E&C1 and E&C2) Leflyman also happened to mention Wikia (possibly since you mentioned WP:WAF in your proposal and WAF has mentioned Wikia ever since you marked it a guideline, or maybe he was just aware of it). Leflyman later said said "Saying it would be "difficult to apply" is a bit of an understatement. I suspect that if this were to be seriously promoted, a veritable rebellion would be fomented on Knowledge (XXG)." (more foreshadowing of E&C1 and E&C2) and "Nearly everything on Knowledge (XXG) is, in effect, a "summary" so why stop at "plots"?" Will Beback used "yes but no" in his edit summary and said "I agree with the intent of this proposal, but I'm afraid that Leflyman is correct in that there are huge numbers of plot summaries on Knowledge (XXG) (most dutifully marked with "spoiler alerts"). It will take more than a change to WP:NOT to make them go away. But I support the effort." I suppose that could possibly be interpreted as support by some people (I support the effort, I agree with the intent of the proposal), but the edit summary ("yes but no") is also telling. Badlydrawnjeff said "I don't mind it in theory, to be honest. But here's the bigger question - is it worth the drama, and does it really improve anything? I'm certainly aware of the OR issues here, but are we really improving the encyclopedia if we remove plot summaries?" I suppose that could also possibly be interpreted as support by some people ("I don't mind it in theory"), but the edit summary "improvement? drama?" and the statement "is it worth the drama, and does it really improve anything?" is telling. Badlydrawnjeff's comment in February 2007, "I've refrained from adding things to policy/guideline pages with less opposition." is also telling. JeffW said "I don't really see that plot summaries break any of the above policies. The article on IBM is a summary of all the information that could be written about IBM. Is it therefore necessarily original research or POV? As for copyright issues, IANAL but I would think plot summaries would fall under fair use." Williamborg said "Oppose — They are wonderfully useful for those who are trying to translate; they often provide the clues missing when you get mired in the original text. Instead of rooting plot summaries out, encourage them to grow into respectable analyses." Tomstar81 said "Oppose — I agree with Mwalcoff and Leflyman on this one. Plot summaries always play a part in character role and development. Striking them down puts a tremendous strain on those of us who try hard to write on fictional characters, which is hard enough as is." Now, Tomstar81 made that comment on August 26, 2006. By that time, you had already added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT on July 9, 2006. Like I've said elsewhere, if one defines consensus as "majority", I'm willing to believe you thought there was a majority of people who supported WP:NOT#PLOT being in WP:NOT (by one, if you include yourself the proposer), but it was split right down the middle as soon as Tomstar81 opposed — similar to the straw poll above.

In summary, in the proposal thread the editors I count as supporting are Hiding, JzG, Rossami, MartinRe, Mwalcoff, and Deckiller. The editors I count as not supporting are Leflyman, Will Beback, Bdj, JeffW, Williamborg, and Tomstar81. That's my math. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tomstar81 arrived after the event, so I can't see the validity in saying there was a 6 against 6 against before I added it. As to the rest, as I've detailed somewhere else that I've now lost track of, I only see two people outright opposing. There's actually no point in using later statements from Bdj to clarify what he meant at the time, since we didn't have that knowledge at the time, and his comments at the time to my mind aren't outright opposing. I'm not going to pronounce on old debates, because for me I don;t see how I can properly contextualise them, so I don;t really have any comments to make now as to the old debates. Did I make any comments at the time, those would reflect my thinking back then. The general consensus as I see it in that debate was try it and see, but as I've also said elsewhere, I'd agree I probably shouldn;t have made the call. I was bold is all I can say. The real thing that worries me is that you've tried to remove it, I've tried to remove it, others have tried to remove it, and it seems it can't be removed. It's quite clear up above that there is no consensus for it to stay in the policy, but how that consensus becomes respected, I don't know. But thank you for explaining your maths. Hiding T 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever said it was 6 against 6 before you added it. But if you don't count the proposer, it was 5 to 5 before you added it (in my interpretation). But I understand how one could interpret a few comments either way. I know there are only two people using the specific word "oppose." But how many people do you see outright supporting? One was a conditional support, and Rossami acknowledged it would be difficult to apply — not exactly something that can be said about a standard that has wide acceptance among the community. Bdj asked "is it worth the drama?" My current opinion is no, no it was not.

You were bold. That's encouraged. Perhaps editors back then were less likely to use policies as weapons. If you hadn't discussed it before adding it, you probably could point back and say "See? It stuck." But then it was removed for the first time from this policy less than 3 months after it was added, after it was cited in an AFD nomination for a plot-only article, which there was no consensus to delete at the time. Although I fully acknowledge that that article was eventually deleted. Many plot-only articles are deleted. But editors could always nominate them for deletion anyway, PLOT or no PLOT. I see 24 AFDs for articles that begin "Plot of" and I think that articles with titles like that are, in general, a bad idea (I have no problem with Plot of Les Miserables though).

Personally I've added reception information to scores of articles about fictional subjects, partly due to reading WP:NOT#PLOT. But I wonder how many people in the Support section can the same be said about? You say "it seems it can't be removed." Well, we can see who's re-adding itNOTPLOT#24. I fully acknowledge that many editors support WP:NOT#PLOT, and the RFC has certainly shown more people supporting it than when it was first proposed. I respect where you're coming from. I respect your interpretation. My interpretation differs, but I wasn't there, and I can only view it in hindsight. Thank you for your explanation. And your civility makes me regret some of my comments of late. --Pixelface (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with an article titled "Plot of...", because I think at times there are possibilities for an article titled such. I'd imagine there's potential for a "Plot of Hamlet" article, for example, because there should be a depth of sourcing from which to work. I think we both agree that there is currently no consensus for it to be on this page, and I think you'd acknowledge that if I can find a way to improve an article rather than delete it, I likely will. So I think we've run this into the ground again. I can understand the idea that this might not be worth the drama, but that beggars a number of questions, doesn't it? For me, I tend to think that if the arb-com did what it was supposed to do and stood up for WP:CONSENSUS, WP:AGF and WP:CIV we wouldn't have half the drama we do, because you're unlikely to get drama when you abide by those three policies. I'll happily concede it was removed 3 months after, and I don't think I've ever reinstated it once I first added it, although you'll likely know that better than me, because my memory isn't what it should be. I don't see my name on your list, so I'm guessing I'm right. I'd rather debate the merits than get into an edit war, because all that seems to happen in an edit war is that the page gets protected and polarisation sets in. It'd be curious to see how often it's been protected without WP:PLOT in, but I'd only get pointed to the wrong version... I'd still like to discuss amendments to User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT, but I'd rather do that there. Hiding T 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So I am going to admit my idiocy here: for some reason I thought the debate was whether or not to add NOT#PLOT, but being new and dumb I did not know it was a longstanding policy. So I do agree it should not be outright deleted. Consensus has to exist for something to be deleted. So ignore my calls for removal completely. However, I still think the discussion should be better focused, since we are going all over the place with the discussions. Angryapathy (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, it's an innocent misunderstanding. And another thing, we shouldn't let a "split vote" lead us to conclude there isn't consensus. See WP:WHATISCONSENSUS##Not_a_majority_vote. If we split down "yes pizza" and "no pizza", maybe the consensus is "less pizza", or "pizza plus burgers" or "pizza without sauce". Similar, we don't have to keep bashing each other over the head with "remove WP:PLOT" and "don't remove WP:PLOT". A quick survey of the comments reveals there might be a consensus to move WP:PLOT somewhere else, or at least soften the language.
- We could start discussing locations. But I have an idea. What if we changed WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT#RECAP? Just as a gut reaction, people wouldn't think we have it out for plot summaries, just overly detailed ones. And we'd say "Although a plot summary is appropriate as part of coverage of a work, it should not be a scene-by-scene recap." I think this might provide a useful starting point. Randomran (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That essay you wrote, Knowledge (XXG):What is consensus?, has to be one of the worst essays on Knowledge (XXG). If there was a split vote to make that policy, do you think it would actually become policy? It's obvious you don't know what consensus is. If you want to learn, I suggest you work on the consensus article and actually look at sources about the topic. Maybe you might learn something after some research. If a vote is "split", chances are there is no consensus. If half the room wants pepperoni, and if half the room wants ham, and the pizza place only has pepperoni or ham and they do not do split toppings, then there is no consensus for what should be on the pizza. I suggested moving WP:NOT#PLOT over a year ago. If someone wants to add WP:NOT#PLOT to some other policy or guideline, they're free to propose it on the talkpage of that policy or guideline. WP:NOT#RECAP is another bad idea. --Pixelface (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There must be consensus to delete an article before it can be deleted, and no consensus to delete the article results in no action (although some people think no consensus to keep a BLP should result in deletion). But this is a policy, not an article. Policies do not work that way. Text within policies must have consensus to be policy. Text within policies must have wide acceptance among editors. The same cannot be said about articles. If there's no consensus for a particular text to be policy, it cannot be policy. Consensus to remove is not required in order to remove something from policy. If it were, someone could propose whatever they liked, see there was no consensus to add it, add it anyway (or just add whatever they wanted without prior discussion). If another editor removed the new addition to policy, saying more discussion was needed, the adder could just revert saying "you need consensus to remove this." Then the adder could just get a bunch of their friends to show up and say it should stay. There would then be no consensus to remove.

Policy must have consensus to be policy. Period. And WP:NOT#PLOT is not as "longstanding" as some people would have you think. WP:NOT#PLOT was removed from this policy less than 3 months after it was added, when editors began applying the policy at AFDs.#21 WP:NOT#PLOT has undergone scores of revisions as people argue over the wording.#12 WP:NOT#PLOT is one of the most controversial sections of this policy.#9 And this policy has been protected multiple times over arguments over WP:NOT#PLOT#13 Please look at On NOTPLOT, NOTPLOT threads, and NOTPLOT edits. --Pixelface (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on Dream guy's talk page, in order for this to be considered "long standing policy" it at least needs to have been recently stable. This section simply hasn't. I honestly think that the only thing that hasn't been repeatedly changed is the shortcut. It's a premise that's been fairly constantly been under discussion/revision (and not just here...) So WP:BOLD/WP:BRD applies. - jc37 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not only long standing policy, but it is also common sense as well. If you read WP:INUNIVERSE, you will see that it is supported by other guidelines as well as policies such WP:NPOV which says that a neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. For this reason, you can't provide balanced coverage of a fictional topic without a real-world viewpoint, and it is childish to assume that you can. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"It is not only long standing policy" why? User:Jc37 made a pretty good point, that it is not a stable portion of this page. You say it is long standing policy, but what is your reason? Ikip (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd give more credence to Jc's view after comparitive studies had been done with other sections. Contrasting the shape of the page when PLOT was added with teh shape of the page now, I'd argue it is as stable as anything else, and more stable than the bits which fell off in the meantime. Hiding T 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, weren't you the person who added it to the page in the first place?Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, after gaining a consensus on the talk page. Although if you listen to Pixelface's interpretation, apparently I've just told a bare-faced lie. Luckily, the historical record is there for all to consult and make their own mind up. I have both the advantadge and disadvantadge of having been there. Pixelface has both the advantadge and disadvantadge of not having been there. Both my bias and Pixelface's biases are well known. Pixelface hates WP:PLOT. Me, I'm somewhat ambivalent, the thing I am most concerned about is the copyright concerns expressed by Moonriddengirl, in which I follow that user's lead. What's your bias? Hiding T 08:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't gain consensus on the talkpage.#1 I addressed this nearly a year ago today on this talkpage. (at 12:50, 30 April 2008). Then you replied "Are you actually going to remove it from policy or not? I have the courage of my convictions. Do you?" After that I did remove it, multiple times, and you also removed it. And like I told you before, you have no courage. For a second I thought you might have courage, but later you said you only removed it because you were playing devil's advocate.

I'm willing to accept you thought there was a majority of people (by one) who supported WP:NOT#PLOT when you added it, but that majority went out the window as soon as TomStar81 commented. You're right, it's right here on this talkpage for all to see. WP:NOT#PLOT never had consensus to be policy. Even with Deckiller changing his opinion (by the way, that was one person supporting that wording). It's like your eyeballs are selectively blind to what Leflyman, Will Beback, Badlydrawnjeff, JeffW, Williamborg, and TomStar81 said. It's like your ego will not let you remember it any other way — like Cartman in the episode Fishsticks.

I was on Knowledge (XXG) as of July 9, 2006 when you added WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy. I wasn't on this talkpage though, because I was actually working on articles, not dreaming up new rules for Knowledge (XXG): The Gathering. I began editing Knowledge (XXG) before WP:NOT#PLOT was policy. Knowledge (XXG) existed for 5 1/2 years without WP:NOT#PLOT as policy, and it didn't blow up during that time. You're right, I wasn't in the proposal thread. You were. Know who else was there? Badlydrawnjeff. In the proposal thread, he said "is it worth the drama, and does it really improve anything?" and "are we really improving the encyclopedia if we remove plot summaries?" In February 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."

I don't "hate" WP:NOT#PLOT. But it does not have consensus to be policy. It's obvious you're ambivalent. There are no copyright concerns with an article that is just a plot summary. If there were, why no "Summaries of copyrighted works" section or "Summaries of newspaper aricles" section or a section with a link to Knowledge (XXG):Contact us/Article problem/Copyright, etc in WP:NOT? And there are especially no copyright concerns if the work in question is not under copyright — something people continue to ignore. Not all fictional works are copyrighted. --Pixelface (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have the courage of my convictions. I removed it like I told you I would. The trouble is, you don't support or understand my convictions. My conviction is to live by consensus. Always has been, always will. Yes, in a sense I was playing devil's advocate, because I wanted to see what the consensus was. I don't think you really understand anything about my position or what I want Pixelface. What I want is an end to all this bickering, all this pointless energy expended on useless ideology. I'd much rather people actually put all their effort into the encyclopedia, because then we wouldn't have half the problems we have now. We'd have better articles. So I'd much rather we just made a decision, one way or the other, and then let it be. Not have to constantly second guess each decision made because someone at a later date might disagree, not have to constantly tighten our policies because someone might do x y or z. Just, you know, get on with it and treat WP:CONSENSUS and WP:AGF and WP:CIV as the bedrocks they are supposed to be. You know, if we had an arb-com which actually stood up for those principles, maybe we wouldn't be here. But that's beside the point.

I think you're eyeballs are selectively blind too. For instance, Badlydrawnjeff isn't opposing. I had a lot of time and respect for jeff, had a lot of dealings with jeff, and I think it's fair to say that if jeff opposed it, jeff would have said, I oppose this. He didn't. He said, and I'll quote his actual words: "I don't mind it in theory, to be honest." Now if you want to turn that into a position of outright opposition, then be my guest. I won't, I'll let jeff's words speak for themselves. I'd rather jeff was here to speak up about it, but my memory of jeff is certainly that jeff would have been more vocal in opposition than what was expressed at that debate. Leflyman thinks it's a bad idea but not to the point of saying don't do it, and Will BeBack, um, says "I support the effort". I'm not sure how you turn that into an oppose, but now I understand your maths, so now I understand we just simply disagree. And this isn't about my ego refusing to allow me to admit a mistake: if you wanted to say I was the wrong person to add the thing to not or decide the consensus, I'd damn well agree with you. But that I made that mistake has no relevance here. That's the point I don't think your truly understand. This isn't a mea culpa moment. This isn't a court where you can sit there and say, ah but because the defendant wasn't read his rights... Knowledge (XXG) doesn't work like that. The whole argument you have that PLOT doesn't have legitimacy is flawed by the fact that it doesn't need legitimacy, it needs consensus. Now this poll is doing a far better job of showing there is no consensus for PLOT to be in NOT than anything you or me could say one way or the other, wouldn't you agree? Look, take it from me, I've tried to delete a Knowledge (XXG) essay I created as author requested, only to be told I can't because other people like it. You get nowhere arguing that things should never be the way they are now.

If you want to make a point that I was dicking around in Knowledge (XXG) space, feel free. I'll let my contribution history stand for itself. I'd certainly agree I could contribute more to article space and less to the other spaces, but I'd reject the idea that I view Knowledge (XXG) as some sort of "Knowledge (XXG): The Gathering" whatever that is. It's a cultural reference I'm missing, I guess.

If you want to argue that there are no copyright concerns with an article that is just a plot summary, let's just say we disagree, and so does the law. Where a work is in copyright, if you summarise to the point that you replace the need for someone to actually buy the work itself, you've breached copyright. That's a law, and you may disagree with that law, but it is a law none the less. Moonriddengirl does a better job of explaining it than I ever could, though, so read their posts up above. I've got no issue with out of copyright works, we've got WP:NOTREPOSITORY to cover that. There's no point summarising the work if that's all that's going to happen, because then you might as well dump the whole text here, and we don't do that. Hiding T 12:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I tell you what does annoy me though. We've made it too hard to edit the damn policy pages. You talk about predating WP:PLOT, I predate WP:V and a whole load of other stuff. I don't think I'd say Knowledge (XXG) didn't blow up before all those policy pages were added, because there's always been division on Knowledge (XXG), but I agree with you that we probably don't need half the policy cruft we have right now. And I regret the fact that someone who opposed WP:PLOT didn't remove it after I added it, because we'll never know what would have happened next. You'd never get away with it now, and I don't know if that's better or worse. I don't think it's helpful for Badlydrawnjeff to turn around six months later and make the statement he did, because that's what he should have been doing at the time. See, at the end of the day, I can't help but ask myself why, if it was opposed as widely as you suggest, it wasn't removed immediately, rather than after what, 3 months? But there you go. Maybe it'll finally go from here now? Personally, I support the idea it espouses, just not the implementation. Leflyman was right and wrong after all. It was never supposed to be about deletion, it was supposed to be about setting a standard. If there's no consensus for that standard, that standard isn't worth espousing here, is it? Hiding T 12:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this RFC has been plagued by a widespread assumption that it is not possible to find a consensus wording on the plot issue within this policy. I personally reject this assumption, and I think that we should use this space to try to find a wording that would achieve a consensus. This does not mean that it must be acceptable to the most extreme proponents of each position. Hopefully this is a place where people with moderate views on the issue can come together to form a central consensus. Let me propose a few principles that might be promogulated by a wording that could achieve such a consensus.

1. Coverage of fictional works must demonstrate real world notability.
2. It is preferable that coverage of fictional works contain extensive coverage of real world impact.
3. Overall coverage of fictional works rather than individual articles should be the issue here; in other words, if coverage of a work includes daughter articles (such as those for individual episodes of a tv show), they should not be considered separately by this policy. It should suffice if the real world coverage is concentrated in the parent article and the daughter articles contain mainly summary.
4. The present wording risks implying that Knowledge (XXG) is never plot summaries. The wording should be readjusted to make clear that while Knowledge (XXG) may include plot summaries, its purpose is not to become a raw collection of plot summaries. This should help clarify that this is a long range big-picture goal and not a basis for deletion of individual articles.
5. Remember, we need not satisfy those with the most absolute or extreme views; we simply need to find some statement that would achieve consensus majority support.

With these principles in mind, I'll being by proposing a new wording that I hope will form a starting point for finding a consensus wording. Its a bit long right now, but I think that given the debate over the topic its acceptable to go into a bit more depth if it means we can reach a consensus.

Locke9k (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggested something above... But maybe the language against plot summaries would be softened if we stated that "Knowledge (XXG) is not plot recaps"? A recap has a connotation of "scene-by-scene, detailed coverage". Most people agree that's too much, but have nothing against a solid summary. Randomran (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to minimize the contribution of other people who have made some wording suggestions. Its just that, given the massive length of this RFC, its presently very hard to find and consider suggestions that have already been made. It seemed worthwhile to create a new section explicitly for the purpose of seeing if a consensus wording could be found. Locke9k (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Locke is on to something. As he said, his suggestion is a little wordy, so here's my tweaking of the wording to remove redundancy but keep the same content:

That's my two cents. Angryapathy (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to bring up notability, it's going to make it hard to keep this in policy - notability is clearly only a guideline. If that's the way it should go, then that's one thing; on the other hand, I would suggest working along the lines of "addressing the real-world context of the work, including development, reception, and impact". --MASEM (t) 17:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully, if we're going to address the concerns of the group who think "NOT#PLOT" sounds too strong, we need to water it down. Hence my suggestion to focus more on "NOT#RECAP", to signify that we're not banning plot information. (Kind of the same way that NOT#FAQ doesn't mean we can't answer important questions.) Randomran (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: Policy doesn't have a magic status above guideline. No-one would think of ignoring RS because "it's just a guideline". Sceptre 12:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you raise that at Knowledge (XXG):Policies and guidelines which disagrees. Hiding T 12:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between policies and guidelines. Knowledge (XXG) has over 50 policies and over 250 guidelines. And WP:RS *is* just a guideline. WP:N is also just a guideline. There is a reason neither are policy. Oh, and WP:ATA is just an essay. --Pixelface (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. this RFC is "plagued" by the fact that discussants on either side of the issue don't all necessarily want to find a compromise wording. Some are interestested in keeping it as is, some want to move it to WP:N, some want to abolish it. I'm all for finding some compromise wording, but I don't think that you are going to get far by replacing what is in PLOT with hints toward "real world" elements and notability. And, honestly, unless we proceed from the premise that wikipedia isn't a repository of plot summaries, what is the point of this wording? Why should PLOT recapitulate and enshrine wording from N and the failed FICT if not to articulate the borders of the encyclopedia? How does this new wording quiet the protests about PLOT generally? Protonk (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. At least not this wording. If this is going to be solved by wording, it has to be more than a copy-edit or re-statement. It has to be a change that says "plot summaries are generally okay", which is what most people agree with. Rather, I think what we've meant all along is "Knowledge (XXG) is not a repository of scene-by-scene plot recaps. A concise summary is generally acceptable as part of the coverage of a fictional work's development, reception, and legacy." In other words, axe NOT#PLOT, but go with NOT#RECAP. It probably doesn't go as far as what many of the detractors want, but if they can agree that it's an improvement, then we'd have found a consensus on something. Randomran (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with refocusing this on 'recaps', as Randomran suggests (although perhaps some other more clear word could be found). In essence, what we are trying to say is similar to the prohibition against step-by-step game walkthroughs, but for movies. As he points out, the problem is not with summaries, but with something more like walkthroughs. Maybe we could use the phrase "plot walkthroughs"?Locke9k (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are going the "recap" I'm going to plug the fact that we can deburr the apparent bias this has against fiction by description the treatment of any narrative work:

Content reiteration: The coverage of narrative works, both fictional and non-fictional and in mediums such as books, films, and television shows, should not be solely a detailed reiteration of the content of the work. A concise summary of the work's content is appropriate to help establish the context of work to the general reader in addition to information such as the work's creation, influence, reception, and legacy. (This is the version for NOT, but take off the first sentence if it goes elsewhere).

This basically means that on articles about works, we (ultimately) need to talk about more than what is in the work. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "content reiteration" is kind of technical and unclear in general. Also, it's not a clear improvement on what we have now. People are worried that NOT#PLOT bans all plot, when really we just want to be able to point to something that takes a bite out undue detail. A good wording would ease that worry from the get go, right in the first few words. Drop "not plot" -- which suggests we hate plot, when we don't -- to something more uncontroversial like "not total and exhaustive scene-by-scene detailed plot recaps" -- which most people would agree with. Randomran (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the word "recap" works better than "summary." I think recap could be subjective; I personally think of the word to mean a, "short, concise overview of what happened," and wouldn't associate it with an exhasutive scene-by-scene summary. Angryapathy (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To me, recap has always meant something more detailed than a summary. But maybe that's too ambiguous. Whatever the word is for a detailed scene-by-scene breakdown, that's the word we want, so we can say "not that". Randomran (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this might be the wording that you are looking for. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping to get the idea across in the bold text. "Not plot summaries" sets up an expectation that we don't have plot summaries, when we do. I wish I could find the right words. But I'd say "not plot directories", just as a statement of the kind of detail that's inappropriate. Randomran (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Gavin Collins, what you have written is specifically not the wording I am looking for. It is going back to a very-strong wording that even more than the previous wording would seem to serve as a basis for deletion, due to the use of the word "created" among other things. I am aware that you believe that such a consensus exists; however, this RFC seems to have demonstrated otherwise. The point is to find a more moderate wording that makes clear that inclusion of plot summaries is acceptable or even encouraged, but that we do not want Knowledge (XXG) as a whole to become just an archive or directory of plot summaries. Locke9k (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Any inclusion of advice about plot summaries here, at such a top-level policy, gives a strong discrimination against them. This is "What Knowledge (XXG) is not" not WP:WAF. Unless we really mean to say that something is NEVER appropriate, we should not include it here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since plot only articles are never apporpriate because they lack any coverage of the real-world in which a work or element of fiction is embedded, I think WP:NOT#PLOT is on the right track, and definely worth including. I don't think Shoemaker&'s Holiday has to worry about discrimination against plot as part of the balanced coverage of a ficitonal topic - there is just no evidence that such discrimination exists, so this issue can rest peacefully. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's holiday, we are aware that you oppose any inclusion of a statement about plot in this policy. You have made this clear in the debate above. The point of this section is to try to find some more moderate wording that could possible achieve consensus. If you'll take a look at the wording proposed above, it explicitly endorses certain individual uses of plot summary, while simply stating that Knowledge (XXG) as a whole should not become an archive of plot summaries. Saying that Knowledge (XXG) is not an archive of plot summaries is quite different than saying that it is just 'not plot summaries'. I feel that this has at least in part addressed your concern about making an excessively strong statement about individual plot summaries. If you'd like to propose a clarification of the wording to more effectively make that point, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, lets not derail this attempt to find a consensus wording with more debate of the style above.Locke9k (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, the "compromise" wording is just saying the same exact thing, with the same problems, the same lack of subtlety and clarifications - indeed, if anything, it's a far stronger statement than at least a couple of the ones listed at the start of the poll. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's say I start an article on, say, The Devil is an Ass, saying it's a play by Ben Johnson, perhaps giving the date of the premiere, then giving a plot summary. It's certainly better having this than having no article at all on a notable play, but according to you, despite it being a new article, it's inappropriate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If the topic is notable, as you assert, then it is possible to improve the coverage of this play that includes more than just plot summary. I am sure we are both agreed that articles should and can be improved; I am sure we both agree that articles that can be improved should not be deleted. I think you might agree that balanced coverage of fiction is better than plot only coverage, but if you don't, then I recomend you read an article that is comprised of both plot summary as well as commentary, context, criticism and analysis so you can understand why it is beneficial to improve articles so they are not comprised of plot summary alone. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is better, but "better" is a far cry from "one is fine for on Knowledge (XXG), the other is What Knowledge (XXG) is not". "What Knowledge (XXG) is not", by definition, should only cover things are never acceptable. I don't think anyone thinks that plot-summary-only articles should not be expanded with more information, but that doesn't amount to a bright line policy against plot summaries. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In the same way that a sprinkling of salt on your dinner is acceptable, an all salt dinner is not. You have to remember that plot only articles don't contain any encyclopedic coverage, so why have them in the first place if they fall outside the scope of Knowledge (XXG)? It makes sense to have a prohibiiton against them so that they have to be improved, or merged into articles where the plot summary forms part of the balanced coverage of fictional topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out above, some encyclopedias DO have all-plot-summary articles. Hence, it would seem that plot summaries are encyclopedic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Its true. Wookieepedia does have a lot of plot-summary articles. Perhaps you should consider emigrating there :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And Gavin, I hear Britannica 2.0 is quite "encyclopedic." Perhaps you should go there. Or stop trolling. Either one would be nice. Have you always been a useful idiot or just since you started befriending trolls? --Pixelface (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article, Pixelface. Would you like more salt with your plot summary? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Would there be vociferous objection to changing the current wording from "The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary" to "The coverage of a fictional work should not solely be a plot summary" or "The coverage of a fictional work should not merely be a plot summary"? In the interim, I think this ever so slightly conveys that coverage shouldn't ONLY be plot summary -- whereas the current phrasing might be a bit ambiguous, i.e. mis-readable as suggesting the plot summary should not be "mere"/small/limited. I prefer the first suggestion, since it avoids the negative connotation "mere" has. (Yes, I know there's a huge RFC above me -- TLDR -- and if this question is either repetitive or ill-timed , just let me know.) --EEMIV (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's certainly an improvement and one I support. But I greatly dislike the notion we are addressing something in WP:NOT the majority think shouldn't be addressed here at all. So while I support that change, I still believe we have more than established the case that WP:PLOT doesn't belong here. Not that it should be fixed, but that it should be moved. I'd say to a style guideline (WAF I assume) but I'm certainly open on the destination. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• I support that. I think we're much more likely to make progress on WP:PLOT by proposing incremental changes like this, rather than trying to battle back and forth between keeping it exactly the same versus dropping it entirely. Randomran (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)