Wikipedia talk:Source your plot summaries

A friendly question
I too have long felt that the way we handle plot summaries could be improved but I don't know how. Relying so heavily on primary sources does encourage original research, but relying only on secondary sources for plot summaries is likely to leave many articles with holes. I'm curious what you mean by "sourcing" plot summaries – do you mean sourcing them to e.g. specific pages of a book (still relying on the underlying primary source), or sourcing them to secondary sources (e.g. other reviews that summarize the plot)? Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, KevinL! I do mean with secondary sources – over time, I've come to feel that the best way to prevent cruft is to look to sources to see what's important, what's discussed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion from someone who thinks this would really impair our coverage of topics
For me, there is a reason that we don't ban primary sources and those reasons apply to plot summaries as well. That said, I would be intrigued to see how Game On (The West Wing) would look if written according to the style advocated by this essay. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Barkeep49: I would actually be fine with a mix of primary and secondary – but I've been told that if something relies on PLOTSOURCE, it can't then mix in secondary sources. If it's all one or the other, I think that many articles would benefit from switching. A lot of my old West Wing articles are suuuuper crufty – see The Supremes (The West Wing) for this at its unabashed worst :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This essay suggests using 100% secondary sources so yes I would be curious to see how you actually apply it at your highest rated article with a plot section especially because in this case we could have a before and after comparison. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

A heads up
Hi. Just to let you know I just made a tweak in MOS:PLOTSOURCE. I've removed the link to this essay (which I have some issues with, at least if it links to the MOS rather than just being a user essay). If you'd like to add the link back I won't strongly object, but I'd like you to consider some of the following points: The laudable goals above are only achieved with adding secondary sourcing that is both comprehensive (otherwise it doesn't assist the reader with verifying everything that is written) and also from a secondary source that has the same objective that we do, to summarize the events of the narrative. Let's use films as an example, but I think this applies equally well to most other media. In terms of quantity the most easily accessible secondary sources would be reviews. The reviews will mention plot points, but will naturally avoid spoilers or major twists. These will neither cover the entire narrative (so readers can't verify it all), or allow editors to identify which plot points are important when writing. Then we have academic works or comment pieces. These are far fewer of these (particularly the academic) and when they do exist again, they will often fail to be comprehensive. They are usually written on the basis that the reader has seen the film, but will usually focus on particular elements or themes (racism in the films of x, free will vs determinism as seen in Y, the decline of franchise Z). We might be able to cherry pick some "facts" so readers will know that the event we describe in the film happened, but again, basing our summaries on such sources will lead to certain elements being over emphasized in the narrative. (I would stress that such sources are excellent for other parts of the article and should absolutely be included). The point I am trying to make is that this essay identifies problems with how some editors write plot summaries, but doesn't define what adding sourcing is, what is appropriate and when, and so any of the proposed benefits are not proved. An unqualified encouragement to add secondary sourcing in the vast majority of cases would at best litter plot summaries with citations for individual events, and at worst lead to incomplete summaries that are weighted towards what a few critics have found most interesting. The MOS exists to tell people what they should do to write good and consistent articles. Before restoring the link I would urge you to consider adding more information for editors who click through from there, and to at least try to define on a high level what kind of secondary sourcing is helpful and when. Otherwise in my opinion you're just making the case that wikipedia would be better off without plot summaries at all (which is legitimate but I don't agree with). Scribolt (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The wording used throughout this essay refers to sourcing your plot summaries. Every plot section on Wikipedia is sourced, to the primary source that is the subject of the article, and are usually not cited. You are advocating adding secondary sourcing, I would request that this is made a little clearer as the difference between sourcing vs citations vs primary vs secondary sourcing lead to people talking past each other in several of the conversations I've seen on this topic.
 * The sections on titled verifiability and minimalism in my opinion mix a few different topics together and I don't think that as written it really makes the case as to how adding secondary source helps matters, at least without describing the type of secondary sourcing used. "Can a reader verify that the events described in Wikipedia occurred in the fiction?" = verifiability (which can be achieved using either primary or secondary sourcing) & "Are the most important elements of the narrative emphasized correctly and succinctly so that the reader can understand the work" = NOR & encyclopedic writing. Minimalism in itself isn't a goal.