Talk:Cattail Moon

"Plot" vs. "Plot Summary" and "Notes" vs. "Footnotes"
I've seen you make these changes a couple of times, and I have to argue against them.
 * The definition of 'plot' necessarily includes the concept of 'summary' (see dictionary.com or wiktionary.com), so "plot summary" is redundant. Every statement of a plot is a summary, though some can be more summarised than others.
 * 'Footnotes' is a technical term that refers originally only to notes placed at the bottom of a physical page; I would argue it is now archaic for webpages. When in doubt, simplify: is my rule. It's the Taoist in me.--Alwpoe 01:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The Novels WikiProject standard article format is to have a "Plot introduction" i.e. one that is "spoiler" free, leaving a "Plot summary" for a more (slightly more) comprehensive treatment of the plot which may contain spoilers. The notion behind this is to enable a causal reader to taste the flavour of the plot without spoiling the possible experience. Otherwise I would totally agree with you. On the "Notes" front, whilst I see the point, numbers of editors write "Notes" which are clearly just that and are comments unassociated directly with points in the main text of the article. As you say footnotes are a more formal notational form which forward and back-reference to points in the text, which is what they do. I personally believe they are also a more scholarly term for something like an encyclopedia. Just my two penny worth. Cheers :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read the guidelines, and they give ideas about what a "plot summary" should be, not that a section on a plot must be labeled "plot summary". Since this is redundant, I will not use it.--Alwpoe 10:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)