Carcharoth wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Surreptitiousness wrote: > >> FT2 wrote: >> >>> The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost. >>> Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good >>> quality sources. But what kind of sourcing is appropriate to its plot >>> summary? Many well-read books don't have plot summaries in reliable sources, >>> and yet "anyone reading the book can see what its basic plot is", and we >>> have hundreds of editors to reach consensus on what it says. >>> >>> (Key issue: any book is a primary source on its own contents.) >>> >> You've misread me. The key question is, why should we summarise this >> plot. That's what's causing the problems with fiction on Wikipedia at >> the minute. Although having said that, the drama does seem to have died >> off a bit lately. Which kind of suggests a consensus of sorts exists. >> > I think plot summaries are OK, as long as there is some real-world > context and analysis. Just a description of what the book is about is > not enough. Links to reviews and criticism is a must, in my view. Some > examples would help here, from stubs, to "only" plot summary (more > like a directory of books), to "mixtures" to "featured articles about > books" (we have a few of those). Why shouldn't a plot summary or book description be enough? It's a fundamental building block for any article. While it would be nice to have reviews and criticisms a simple tag that we would like these added should suffice to alert someone else to add them. The people who write a good summary are often not the same people who condense reviews and criticisms well.
Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l