Wikipedia:Source your plot summaries: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:59, 19 April 2022

Revision as of 03:53, 22 April 2022

Line 2:

In Wikipedia articles concerning fiction, there are frequently very long plot summaries that go into excessive detail. While any plot section can be trimmed, it can be hard to know what to cut if one hasn't consumed the relevant media, and 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: '''source plot summaries'''.

==Reasons to source plot summaries==

On Wikipedia, editors are not required to source 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===

Articles on fictional works often cover something a future article editor would never read; novels in genres they have no interest in, TV shows on streaming platforms or channels they don't have, movies in languages they can't speak or translate. Given this, while any editor can ''in theory'' verify a plot summary by gaining a detailed understanding of a work in order to find out what's important to the plot, this isn't a widely-utilized solution in practice. Basing plot summaries on [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]] allows the next reader to reassess and re-evaluate the length and content of the plot summary with the same agreed-upon and widely accessible yardstick, thus minimizing the risk of original research slipping in.

===Minimalism===

===Interpretation===

==Other media==

A strict reading of [[WP:OR]] would dictate that even though a source isn't needed to relay events of the plot, even the most basic facets of ''interpretation''—motivations, themes, depth—require reliable sourcing to back up the claims. It's easy to say, for example, that [[Josh Lyman]] blows up at President [[Josiah Bartlet]] while in the Oval Office in ''[[The West Wing]]''{{`s}} second-season episode "[[Noël (The West Wing)|Noël]]"; to say that he did so as part of the episode's portrayal of his breakdown due to yet-undiagnosed [[post-traumatic stress disorder]] without sourcing, that's a murkier call. Using reliable sourcing gives you access to a richer interpretation of the characters and setting that can bolster your ability to give a nuanced summary of the plot.

===Fictional characters===

==For non-fiction, too!==

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 appeals to all readers, and not just fans.

This problem isn't limited to works of fiction; political books, documentaries, scholarly articles, and history books all have lots of content that might need to be summarized if the work qualifies for a Wikipedia article. However, for political books especially, the main idea should not be to summarize every point and argument made, or the ones that stood out to you.

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

This problem isn't limited to works of fiction, either; political books, documentaries, scholarly articles, and history books all have lots of content that might need to be summarized if the work qualifies for a Wikipedia article. However, for political books especially, the main idea should not be to summarize every point and argument made, or the ones that stoodstand out to you.

==Notes==

{{notelist}}