Literature Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

Agreed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur; sensible and simple change. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning is sound. Support. - kollision (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an admin to make the change? (section vs. article argument notwithstanding)--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Seriously, guys, this is just ridiculous and sad, letting Wikipedia be gamed and dominated like this by a bunch of people who want to turn Wikipedia into an indiscriminate info dump. --78.34.207.232 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Plot tag was always supposed to refer to "sections" of an article rather than entire articles, which was the job of all-plot. If you claim that the name of the template somehow influences its usage, I would say that articles completely consisting of plot summary are usually deleted rather than being tagged for cleanup.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are almost never deleted. Heck, they are rarely even redirected.

The two things addressed by the two templates are two different and real issues. One is a stylistic issue of minor importance (the current wording of Plot), the other is a core content policy issue (the former wording of Plot which is now only found at All plot).

Of course the name influences the usage when one template has a generic name, has been around for a long time and is transcluded on 2300 articles as opposed to 60 articles. Someone successfully removed the policy issue and replaced it with a minor stylistic issue. Three guesses if they were concerned over the stylistic issue (plot section too long/overly detailed by itself) or whether they wanted to abolish one of our core content requirements (NOT#PLOT). I am sick and tired of this already. Lunatics like Shoemaker's Levi destroy Wikipedia and everybody else sits by. --78.34.194.201 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry, but calling people morons and accusing people of hidden agendas is not the way to prove a point, especially if you remain anonymous. If you have a good reason to 'restore' the plot template to assert that the article is mostly plot summary, delete all-plot and create a new template called, let's say, "plot-section" in order to house this one, then you can argue your point without name calling and accusations. But unless you can prove that people are trying to abolish WP:PLOT, your argument just sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Personally, I am a deletionist and support the deletion of plot-cruft like the articles you describe. However, I don't think template messages on a few thousand pages have a huge effect on the millions of pages in Wiki...--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

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

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article's plot

with

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

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

Oh, and I'll watch these pages so I can then edit the documentation page. twilsonb (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonably uncontroversial and there have been no objections, so I have made the requested edit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It works in Johnny Mnemonic (film), and I've edited the documentation. twilsonb (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article's plot summary may be too long

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

This article's plot summary may be too long

Although the piped link name "too long" may imply the "Length" subsection as the closest related target, I believe the parent section's content applies just as much, and by addressing the main challenge in writing succinct plot summaries it provides the more useful bookmark for interested editors. --78.35.214.158 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Okay, done. If anyone agrees they can revert (or request a revert) and then discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Equazcion ^(talk) 13:02, 22 Feb 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Bump again, for the same reason.—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DocWatson42: You can add it yourself, that text is on Template:Plot/doc, which is not edit-protected. In future you may want to use the {{editprotected}} template. Daß Wölf 18:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daß Wölf: Thanks. I don't know why I didn't notice that. :-( —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

- whereas inclusion displays:

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

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

The required edits have been implemented in the sandbox. Alex|The|Whovian 12:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but there are other changes in that sandbox. Please synchronise sandbox with the live version and then make your required changes. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Done. Alex|The|Whovian 12:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Alcatraz Versus the Evil Librarians #Free Kingdomers?

§ Plot summary says

He later finds out that there is a secret society called the Librarians, whose purpose is to conquer the remaining Free Kingdomers and rule the world.

So, who or what are the "Free Kingdomers"? One might suppose after reading further that they are the freedom fighters mentioned in the next section, but why leave the reader to wait and be unsure? I'd fix it if I know the series at all.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussing Template:Long plot. Please do not post content here that is unrelated to that template. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'd like to request the addition of a |reason= parameter, so that editors might detail the specific problem and relevant guideline. For example:

|reason=Per WP:TVPLOT, this section should not exceed 500 words. Current length is 1260 words.

or

|reason=Per WP:FILMPLOT, this section should be 400–700 words in length. Current version is 1320 words.

Generally speaking I think it's a good idea for templates to have reason parameters for greater clarity and tailoring to specific articles, and adding one will bring this template in line with many others. Thanks in advance, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with it as long as it's not required (not that I think I'd ever personally forget to use it...). Alternately at that point I'd say there should be different versions of the template for different types of articles that could have the appropriate message hardcoded. DonIago (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: I agree |reason= should not be mandatory. The default phrasing should remain the same with some alternative phrasing to introduce the rationale. "The specific concerns are:" or similar. I thought about the hard-coding, but there are variables like in the example above where it might be important to note the word count or other info. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was (naively?) hopeful that hard-coding might be able to include a variable to capture the word count. :) DonIago (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like |type=film or |type=season summary, producing links to the appropriate WP:xPLOT page? I'm in support of |reason=, but there isn't a whole lot of reasons why one would put up this template. Daß Wölf 23:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't a lot of reasons to use the template in general, but there might be very specific issues to address when this template is used. If in a TV article, editors are focusing on episode-by-episode revelations instead of focusing generally on the overall shape of the series (as often happens with soap operas), it might be beneficial to quickly note the issues. I'd also say that film and TV articles aren't the only places this might be used. Books, comics, video games or any place where (shall we say) "enthusiastic fandom" could take over and encourage someone to go overboard with the detail would be intuitive spots for this. I think it would probably be easier just to incorporate a flexible |reason= than create multiple parameters hardwired for specific needs. I generally feel flexibility is a better approach. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I just started this and I can tell my capabilities are temporally limited. I may have the precise template wrong. Also, the following removed template might have some bearing on this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_14#Template:Nonfiction

My real life limitations, as seen on my user page, might not let me make it back here. Also I have to use a dictation utility at the moment to data-dump without much correction, so there may be weird errors in this post.

What I intended to do was:

• verify whether the template used was this one or similar one, and cross notify the related templates' talk pages of this discussion
• notify people (the two editors with Andrew-related usernames who are involved in this issue on that article's talk page and those who have worked recently on this template or whatever the main template under discussion is) about this new section via Template:To
• lay out ideas on fixing this issue to initiate discussion

Ideas include:

1. Adding a parameter to this and related templates to allow the focus of the template, not the reason of the template, to switch from fictional plot to non-fictional content summaries. A more concise term should be found for the latter.
2. Having a parameter OR a note in the documentation of an existing parameter to clarify what type of content should be added after the plot or summary.
3. Having a parameter that uses the text from the merge / split template group or briefly suggests a merge or a split, or just a split, while the documentation has a note to suggest using the other template, either instead or along with this one. In the article in the title, for example, there could be an article that discusses the history, relevance, criticism, and the effects in general history and/or in current or popular culture, along with structured Linx 2 Lisa Marie of each book or scroll. ... (Too funny. Uh, I think I meant "links to the summary," as in links to the articles that contain the summary of each book.)

Sorry this is all I can do now and possibly ever on this issue! Sorry that I left the time and wherewithal to make this post shorter (with apologies to Pascal). Thanks in advance to anyone who might pick it up. Don't wait for me, go ahead! You might want to restructure this discussion in a new section or a subsection to encourage better participation. —Geekdiva (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under "issue", change [[Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#What to cut|too long]] or [[WP:How to write a plot summary|excessively detailed]] to [[Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary|too long or excessively detailed]]. It's stupid I reckon to have two separate links next to each other to the exact same page, why not make it one link? 86.170.13.28 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Thank you 86.170.13.28 (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template is too-frequently used mechanically. If a plot summary is even one word over the limit (often 200) some zealous editor immediately slaps this sucker onto the article, where it will stay forever or until somebody cuts off something to make the summary come under the limit.

If this is the intended encouraged usage, we need to say so (in template help). As it is, this is a favourite template to use by wikinazis who doesn't listen to reason, since nobody can say they're wrong - if the script says we're over the limit even by one word, this template SHALL be applied no matter what.

If some friendly soul takes it upon himself to contribute to the project by reducing a massive 540 word summary to something like 225 words... getting this template slapped back immediately as if that work meant nothing is like a slap in the face. Is that what this template is here for? To slap people in the face?

If, on the other hand, the template is meant for egregious cases where article balance is truly disturbed, we need to say that. I'm hoping we can have a sensible discussion ending up in "don't just mindlessly slap this template onto each and every case where limits are exceeded by trivial amounts, that wasn't the intended usage when created".

In other words, this template can be abused too. CapnZapp (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a plot summary is even one word over the limit (often 200) some zealous editor immediately slaps this sucker onto the article - The script used to check episode summary lengths doesn't enforce a strict limit. At Lost in Space (2018 TV series) 6 episodes are overlength but the script only identified 3 as needing identification. Episode summaries are supposed to be 200 words or less so, whether you like it or not, 225 words is still over the limit and use of the tag is appropriate. When you have 10-25 episodes in a season, 25 words for each episode adds up to a significant amount. Season articles are generally transcluded to a "List of episodes" page. Transcluding copies the entire article, but only displays what is inside the transclusion tags making some editors unaware that huge amounts of data are being transcluded. Transcluding too much information can break the "post-expand include size" which breaks the article. This is why List of The Simpsons episodes and other articles have had to be split into multiple pages. Enforcing a limit through the use of this tag prevents this problem at most articles and stops editors from creating ridiculous size summaries, some of which can be longer than the episode itself. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To concerned editors: I did not have my recent spat with AussieLegend in mind when I started this talk section. I did not intend it to be a veiled attack on him. Please let's not make this personal, and not about any specific article. CapnZapp (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, your post seems to be written with the intent to polarize, especially when you use phrases such as "wikinazis who (don't) listen to reason". I would have suggested you phrase your concerns in a more neutral (and potentially more civil) manner.

That said:

• Do you have examples of editors tagging summaries for being, as you claim one word over the limit? If so, have you talked with such editors to get their perspective?
• Yes, the goal of maintenance templates is to bring issues to editors' attention so that they will be resolved at some point. That's kinda how they work.
• I'm not sure what exactly you find to be unclear about the template wording. "This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise." seems fairly clear-cut to me. Or are you referring to the possibility of editors being over-zealous in the application of the template, in which case, see my first point.
• If an editor has worked to reduce the summary but it is still over the recommended count, then leaving the template intact is appropriate as the issue hasn't been resolved. I've done this myself on occasion; I did what I could to fix a summary but couldn't bring it within guidelines.
• Unfortunately every editor is going to have their own definition of what a "trivial" amount is, hence the need for a specific figure. In my experience most editors provide for some leeway left to their own discretion. DonIago (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. My question is if this template is appropriate to use a) "semi-automatically" (without nuance or discussion, either its over 200 words or it isn't) or b) if the intended usage is when the summary actually unbalances the article? The documentation doesn't say. It uses vague language that doesn't conform either how a) I see it being used (on occasion, far from always) or b) how I personally would like it being used. I want the documentation to take sides. There are questions that - if answered - isn't reflected in the documentation. Do we want every summary > 200 words to have this template? Would that do any good?

So what is it? A or B? Is it just B) like a regular cleanup template, or is it A) special because numeric data (word counts) can and should be used? I want the documentation to be updated to either A) state outright (trying to phrase this in a positive way) "you can help - apply this template as soon as you spot a summary over the policy-mandated limit" or B) "use this template when actually needed and not in trivial or unproblematic cases - use your own judgement just like how other cleanup templates work". I hope I was clearer this time around. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My response would be that you have the ability to apply the template to any plot that exceeds the guideline, but that best practice would be, in cases where the violation is minimal, to either fix the summary yourself or refain from tagging it. In the end it's a matter of editorial discretion. What I don't think we should do is make the template overly-bureaucratic by suggesting it must be applied to any summary that exceeds the guideline. Especially given that, in the end, it is just a guideline.

That said, I also don't feel one should remove the template if it's in place on a summary that does violate the guideline. If an editor feels a particular usage isn't warranted, they can start a discussion at the appropriate Talk page to get a consensus. I've seen this done before, and typically other editors will then work on summary in question. Granted I mostly work on film articles, but in my experience a summary that can't be trimmed to fit within guidelines is a rare occurrence, and it doesn't break anything to leave the template in place, especially when there's no deadline involved.

TL;DR I don't feel this is an instance where the template should be written in absolutist terms, but rather that usage should be left to editorial discretion and consensus. Hope this helps; sorry if it wasn't the response you were hoping for. DonIago (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since editors at times adhere to WP:Film plot strictly, I am not surprised that this template is being used in a strict way. In such cases, it is usually sufficient to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Of course, the section might still be tagged by a drive-by editor. But a WP:Hidden note regarding consensus for the plot length could be inserted, as long as the plot length is not too far over the limit and the hidden note is not worded too strongly (such as telling editors not to change anything). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's any coincidence that this discussion was opened only 15 minutes after this edit in which CapnZapp took exception to individual TV episodes being tagged, rather than its use in film articles. The TV project uses a script that gives, IIRC, 15 words leeway, so a 215-word plot summary won't be tagged even though it should be 200 words or less. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have already told this editor there is no relation. Don't conflate the two issues. Start a new section if you need to, but don't muddle the issue discussed here! Believe it or not, this is about editing the template's documentation on criteria for usage: a strict word count or editor judgement. CapnZapp (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where the tag is used where we know there is advice to give word cout (such as with film plots and TV plots) would a additional parameter be helpful ?

For example, let's say we add a "type" parameter. "Type" can then be "filmplot" which should produce something like "Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries of feature films should be between 400 and 700 words.", or for "tveplist" "Per MOS:TVPLOT, individual episode summaries in a list of episodes should be under 500 words per episode if there are no individual episode articles, or under 200 words otherwise." I'm not sure how many cases we'd have but this would help when the plot template is added so that people know actually what word count to shoot for. --Masem (t) 16:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is general, I'm not sure how we should go about that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are if or case-style codes in the template language so that only if the parameter is added, this added text would be included. I could sandbox a few example cases to show what I mean...--Masem (t) 01:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]