Forums: Helping Hand > Detail in novel summaries, etc.
Use the following template for a nicely presented post:
{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}
Question: How much detail should summaries of novels (as well as short stories, adventures, games, etc.—really anything with a storyline) have on the wiki? We could either have summaries that are condensed but contain the most relevant information (good for overview) or we could have very detailed summaries that include every action that occurs in the novel (good for reference purposes).
Consider the page for Night of the Hunter as it is currently (detailed summary) and its last revision (concise summary, relatively speaking). (I tried to provide direct links to the versions, but they made all the text disappear, sorry O.o) The more concise summary has been replaced with the detailed summary, which is why I'm asking this question.
I can see it going either way. On the one hand, it's nice to have a relatively concise summary to skim through. On the other hand, sometimes I've forgotten specific points and appreciate a detailed summary that reminds me of exactly what happened. I know not all of you are big on the novels, but I'd love to hear your input.
My own opinion is that "detailed summaries" don't belong in an encyclopedia, but I do not think we yet have a policy for this, so it's a great question to ask. (I almost reverted the edit you mention, because I did not like it, but I could not justify it. I'm suspicious that it was copied from somewhere, but I could not confirm it.)
As you say, I can see the benefit of both ways: a short summary is good for quickly getting the gist of a story, while a long summary is useful for research. Personally, I won't read the wall-of-text of a lengthy summary, and I don't want the spoilers. It also feels kind of infringing, like "here's the whole story so you don't have to read/buy it". It's also overwhelming and discouraging, drowning a page out in words and obscuring easier content.
But Wikipedia, Wookieepedia, and many other Wikia wikis also present lengthy detailed synopses of stories. So, meh. I don't expect any editor to write up the sheer volume of wordage this anon's been putting up. I'd rather editors used their time to make proper articles on the lore. But each to their own.
If there are competing summaries as here, I think there is a place for two: a short summary only one or two paragraphs long, and a detailed synopsis. Some formatting may be required to make a page appear balanced and readable; perhaps the synopsis could be placed in an expandable box or a subpage? Still, even a detailed synopsis should be as concise as possible, not over-written, for the sake of readability. (Though as Pascal said, "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it shorter.")
On
Night of the Hunter it looks like someone simply restored the wall-of-text you condensed last year, making for a very slow edit war. I don't want to see users deleting and replacing text wholesale. I also don't want to read it. If you say your summary is a decently condensed yet still detailed account, then keep that one. If they're different, then have both. We don't have a set policy or consistent style for source pages yet, so feel free to come up with your own way of resolving this.
I noticed an anonymous user posting large summaries a couple weeks ago and wrote on their talk page (who knows if they ever read it) about unsourced edits, plagiarism, etc. I searched the web for key phrases in their posts and was not able to find anything that could be considered a direct quote from another source. It appears (for the one or two I checked) that the work is original, but it's hard to prove definitively. I don't want to discourage folks from writing, I want to encourage it, so I don't think we should delete or revert these detailed summaries. They need cleanup, and could use chapter references, but more is better in this case, IMHO. As for Coswig's brief summary that apparently got clobbered, read on.
If people don't want spoilers, then they don't have to read the long summary. A one- to three-sentence intro to the article (like what you might read on the back cover of a paperback novel), would hint at the plot, the major characters involved, etc., and then people can decide if they want to read the novel or read the long summary. If a short summary already existed, I have no problem with putting it just after the intro under the heading "Short Summary" and then adding a "Detailed Summary" heading to the long one. Let the reader decide what they want to read and let the authors take pride in their work. Win win.
Interesting forum... yeah, I agree with the "too much" information put into our summaries, but I also agree with not discouraging unreg user edits, so I feel a clean up tag is appropriate
