Talk:Acts of Peter and the Twelve

untitled
The full title of this text is "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.27.53 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Plot CLOP
I know this article has been declared good, but the plot section is a WP:PARAPHRASE of the text. I realize it may seem odd to complain about copious cites, but in this case, virtually the entire story is reproduced piecemeal in the footnote section, a clear case of WP:CITEKILL. A single cite at the end of the plot section w/ no reproduction of original text would be far more encyclopedic and would be supported under WP:REPCITE. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Evidently you need to hear this: no, you should not mass delete the citations from a Good Article that you just discovered after it was featured on the main page. The citations prevent misinterpretations and original research from getting into the summary. TriplePowered (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What does it matter where I found it? Being featured on the main page doesn't exempt an article from editing, nor does being declared Good, and to say it does is pure gatekeeping. I helped make Wicked (Maguire novel) into a GA and that has been edited several times since.
 * I'm aware of why plot summaries are given citations (though per MOS:PLOT it's by no means necessary). My question is more about the sheer abundance of them, as well as the amount of detail involved. At this point, what you have is not a summary, but a WP:PARAPHRASE of the text.
 * Per policy, "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." You've not only cited each individual consecutive sentence, you've gone phrase by phrase and included quotes for each cite, which means that you can pretty much read the whole original text verbatim just by looking through the footnotes. All the footnotes come from the same source, so why not just cite it once at the end? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Xenogears (Good Article), Chrono Trigger (Featured Article), and Chrono Cross (Featured Article) are examples that use the same quoting style. They do not just say "Source: Square" at the end. Stop trying to justify vandalizing the article. If you would like to do something actually helpful like adding more analysis to the article, go ahead. TriplePowered (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Those articles' plot summaries are way too long and full of fancruft. That aside, they still don't show nearly the same level of citation overkill that this one does. There's a cite or two for each paragraph, where you have two or three for every single sentence, all pointing to the same source. That's w/o even addressing the WP:PARAPHRASE issue. Finally, crying "vandalism" when I haven't even made an edit suggests that you're overly attached to this article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

A general comment: I suggested once that WP:RSPSCRIPTURE should say something like "a MOS:PLOTSOURCE approach can work well regarding some scriptural stories." It caused a bit of discussion: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327. Perhaps you'll find the arguments interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Summary Section
Which of the following versions of the Summary section should be used? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A – The existing version in Acts_of_Peter_and_the_Twelve ? B – The trimmed version in Draft:Acts of Peter and the Twelve/Summary ? Enter your choice in the Survey with a brief statement. Do not reply to the posts of other editors in the Survey. You may discuss in the Discussion section; that's what it's for. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Survey
A, with minor changes In articles on religious texts, a high level of detail is important and appropriate, even for an encyclopedia. The existing version could use a minor copyedit for legibility, and the number and density of citations is clearly excessive. However, I don't think it should be substantially trimmed. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

B with more inline citations. I think that the extra details in the longer version could do more harm than good, as their purpose is unclear and they could cause readers to lose interest. If there are a few details missing from the trimmed version that people find especially important, I would not oppose expanding it slightly to find a sort of middle ground between the two. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 15:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Both seem fine. I found it a hard to follow the longer version. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  15:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

B as a basis. The level of detail and the number of citations in A are excessive. I wouldn't even call it a summary, it seems more like a paraphrase. The quotes in the footnotes are unnecessary and I'm wondering whether they really don't constitute a copyright violation: we have a lot of quotes from a very short text. There are some issues with B, too. It takes the number of citations to the other extreme. I think the right amount of citations lies in between (although far closer to B than to A). Some relevant details are left out, e.g. the pearl is mentioned in the analysis, so it should be mentioned in the summary. I'd also like to point out that neither version conforms to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. B is not perfect, but it is far better than A. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A, with minor changes (summoned by bot) As Actualcpscm has said, religious texts warrant a highly detailed summary. The summary does need some citation cleanup, because in its current state, it is hard to read. The number of citations is unnecessary and it is in need of a copyedit, but nothing major. <span style="background-color:black; color:white; padding: 3px; Grumpylawnchair  ( talk ) 18:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

A. The idea that classical texts, especially religious ones, should be described at the same level of detail as episodes of The Bachelor is fatuous and destructive. 104.226.30.18 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Freoh I don't think retaining user attention is a major priority; comprehensiveness is much more important than managing reader interest. Of course articles shouldn't go into absurd technical detail, but there is real encyclopedic value in a thorough summary. I'm also not sure why the purpose of the additional detail is unclear it's there to provide relevant information, and such a level of detail is quite useful for the vast majority of readers seeking out this kind of article. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Re:quotes in footnotes The original has 2210 words. The quotes in the footnotes have 885 words. That's 40%. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The quotes also do not mark gaps in the original and insertions by the translators and therefore does not follow MOS:PMC and good practice and gives a misleading impression of the state of the source. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Question both summaries mention ""endure the trials and difficulties of the storms"". What storms? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the only mention of storms in the text: I responded, saying, "Justly [...] have men named it [...], because (by) everyone who endures his trials, cities are inhabited, and a precious kingdom comes from them, because they endure in the midst of the apostasies and the difficulties of the storms. So that in this way, the city of everyone who endures the burden of his yoke of faith will be inhabited, and he will be included in the kingdom of heaven." Note that "[...]" seems to mark gaps in the original. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Let it be noted that the unregistered IP which made the most recent vote has a history of following me around and reverting my edits. I have reported it to ANI. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)