Talk:Childhood's End

Lead paragraph issues
Spoilers in the initial description:

The initial description contains huge spoilers for the whole story. After looking at this wiki page hoping to gain a little bit more info on the book I was met with the basic retelling of the plot line from start to finish, twists included, in the description. Ruined the book for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.125.226 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't spoiler-free. It's Pampas Cat! 03:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * True, but the opening paragraph gives a synopsis of the entire plot, which is just unnecessary. From the wiki style page on lead sections (emphasis mine):
 * | The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific
 * There is too much information in the lead section; users who want a complete plot synopsis can read the section marked plot summary. Also, take the example of the Rendezvous with Rama opening paragraph - it does not include a full synopsis.  Psychlohexane (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, and the example you give is neither a GA nor a peer reviewed article. Our best articles on works of fiction have complete synopses in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't find a single example that backs your claim that the entire plot synopsis is commonly found in an article's lead paragraph. And I think the wikipedia manual of style should probably be followed, unless you have some good reason not to.  I randomly searched popular works of fiction, here are the "good" articles on novels I found, none of which summarize the entire plot in the lead pgph:
 * * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher%27s_Stone
 * * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Chamber_of_Secrets
 * * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game
 * * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit
 * * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She:_A_History_of_Adventure
 * Psychlohexane (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's been a general consensus for years among all the fiction-related wikiprojects that massive spoilers do not go in the lead, but that the Plot section (or individual subsections on specific episodes of things) may contain them as necessary to summarize the plot. Our readers expect spoilers there, not in the lead. It's basically just a WP:DICK move to put them in the lead, because millions of people come to WP every day to get very basic info on a work of fiction (genre, author, cast, etc.) before reading/watching it, and shouldn't have the story ruined for them in the first sentence.  WP's purpose is to be helpful to readers, not antagonistic toward them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That discussion was done over a year ago.

Moving on to new issues with the lead, I've noticed someone with an axe to grind has tried at least twice to push a POV that Clarke is evidently very indebted to Olaf Stapledon. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the comparison, sourced, to Stapledon and others in the body, where it most certainly belongs. But trying to wedge just one influence into the lead of an article about this novel is inappropriate. I've removed it along with some more OR saying that Clarke "accurately" "predicted" the space race--which actually officially started a mere two years later: come on, they didn't just suddenly invent the space programme in 1955 out of nothing and the Cold War was already on. It's not notable. Even sourced, that does not belong in the lead, it's not even the main thrust of the novel, it's just something going on when the Overlords arrive. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

We’re not done with the lead, which per WP, is supposed to be a summary of the article which could stand on its own as a “mini-article”. The plot statement in the lead is a pithy single sentence. Reviewing other Good articles on novels, it’s the shortest plot statement I can find. On the other hand, the Plot Summary section with three subsections, is one of the longest plot summaries. The lead’s statement of what the book is about (i.e, the plot) should enable me to decide whether I want to read the entire article and the book itself. Not a spoiler; more like a teaser, something like the blurb I might find on the back cover or inside jacket of a paperback book. It’s usually a modest paragraph from the publisher. The tone of the encyclopedia is more neutral than that kind of come-on, but that’s the basic idea. It should be no trouble to compress the 3 plot summary sections into two sentences each, and collate those sentences into a nice paragraph for the lead. Sbalfour (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Starcraft
Its obvious that this book provided inspiration for the zerg overmind in starcraft. this should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.213.102 (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not without a Reliable Source stating so. 50.111.50.145 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)