Wikipedia:Source your plot summaries: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:10, 22 April 2022

Latest revision as of 11:35, 12 April 2025

(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{essay}}

Wikipedia articles concerning fiction, frequently feature overly long or excessively detailed plot summaries. While any plot section can be trimmed, it can be hard to know what to cut if one hasn't consumed the relevant media, while those who ''have'' might be tempted to explain any intricacy that arises to give the reader the full experience of the show. This essay offers a solution: '''sourced plot summaries'''.

==Reasons to source plot summaries==

On Wikipedia, editors are not required to sourceuse secondary sources for plot summaries per [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]]; the reasoning goes that {{tq|it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary.}} However, relying on this can lead to [[WP:No original research|original research]] and [[MOS:TVPLOT|overly long summaries]]. Sourcing plot summaries provides clear benefits in terms of overall encyclopedic value to the reader.

===Verifiability===

Line 9:

===Minimalism===

It seems not unreasonable to speculate that articles about fictional works have a tendency to be written by fans of the work, and that the in-depth knowledge of a work's plot possessed by a fan [[:Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention|tends to lead to plot summaries stretching for too long]], giving too much detail. Pieces of trivia and other [[cruft]] can frequently work their way in, and without having read or watched the original, it can be difficult to know whether the relevant piece of cruft is actually important. By referencing sources for a plot summary, editors can check whether a given fact discussed in enough detail to be relevant, or if it's even mentioned at all. Relying on organizations that have more rigorous editorial processes helps keep the information presented by Wikipedia minimal, relevant, and encyclopedic.

==Other media==

===Fictional characters===

Articles on fictional characters arguably suffer from long and irrelevant plot summaries ''more'' than their parent works. Characters can build up long, complicated backstories over years in their movie franchise or book series or television serial; and in an absence of abundant coverage, editors may be tempted to revert to writing long "character biography" sections as a substitute for real-world encyclopedic content. There is a better way; character articles are prime targets for mixing real-world, reliably sourced interpretation with canon. Instead of giving a complete history of the character's appearances and little details found in flashbacks, consider using reliable sourcing to talk about the character's personality, their strengths and weaknesses, how and if they evolve, and if there are weak points in the character's writing or portrayal.{{Efn|This, of course, could no longer go in a section labelled "character biography", but perhaps "character role" would substitute well.}} Utilizing reliable sourcing in a character's article can provide a clearer, broader set of topics that appealsappeal to all readers, and not just fans.

===For non-fiction, too!===