Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate

message: Someone is suggesting that in the interests of standardization, the WHOLE section heading above must be used in the article about Scott Turow's novel Presumed Innocent, even though the information that follows it is only about a film adaptation, with no mention of TV or stage drama.  This template should be USEFUL; it should not be a straightjacket or a Prucrustean bed or a totalitarian dictator, that supercedes the user's intelligence. Michael Hardy 22:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now, please be kind. It is just that the intention of a common heading is different that you are expecting. Please notice the small word "or" in the heading. In other words it does not mean that "all" have to be present for the heading to be appropriate. It is a home in the the article for any such adaptation that exists (or even will exist). I do agree it shouldn't be a straightjacket, and I personally am leaving the particular article quoted alone. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should definitely be "Adaptions into other media" or some such... not only due to the issue set out above, but also because many books have been adapted outside the rather limited scope that the header gives; Novels have served as the basis for comic books, concept albums, video games, radio dramas, and so on. If no one objects, I will change the header.--SB | T 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave as is with the dramatic basis. What you are suggesting refers to all manner of adaptations and associations, which can be included in the "==Allusions/references from other works==2 section. Their is perhaps room for improvement in the naming of these sections, or even addition sections to fill in gaps, but please let is consider this carefully. I'm not against change, but let it be carefully thought out. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem with that is that adaptations are not allusions. Also, it would seem to be best to err on the side of inclusivity for a standard across all articles. I don't think anyone is assuming that all novels will have film, TV, and theatrical adaptations. "Adaptations" is fairly clear, and the section can go on to explain which media it's been adapted into. --Keitei (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But why do we have to make the distinction at all? Adaptions are adaptions; I see no practical purpose in distinguishing between "normal" adaptions and the less common ones. Having said that, there are certain works which have been adapted so many times, and into so many different media (eg Hamlet, Journey to the West) that subsections of an "adaptions" section would work well.--SB | T 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Video games, comic books, and concept albums are (usually, and certainly when being an adaption of a novel) dramatic mediums. There's absolutely no reason to seperate them.--SB | T 03:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an extraordinarily broad definition of "drama". The usual form is for anything with actor's on a stage (or modern version). There is a reason to seperate them - it's is just a view on it's importance. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Film, TV or theatrical adaptations

message: I saw discussion about changing category:~year~ books to category:~year~ novel. Can the template be updated to reflect this? PeregrineV 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - Do it - oversight on our part. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:~year~ book vs. ~year~ novel

message: The use of a slash in "allusions/references" in several of the headings is unattractive.  Why not use words instead of punctuation to convey the point: "allusions and references", or just one or the other where appropriate? —Michael Z. 2006-10-03 18:45 Z
:This is an appalling section. It leads to trivia-like lists. I would suggest its removal from the template. Awadewit 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree, and have just removed it.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I disagree with this removal. If this section is correctly used (and as editors we can all ensure that it is) then meaningful and important allusions can be created which explain obscure references in novels. The removal of this section is, in my view, just going to encourage trivia sections.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree with the removal of this section.  The allusions section can be very informative and provide very useful information.  How about we add a line in that section of the template saying something like "This section should not be used to list items of trivia."  I also think that in the spirit of consensus that this section should not have been removed without a full discussion on this talk page, it should probably be reverted until a consensus is reached.  --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For such a long standing part of the template such a removal "before substantive debate" is not really appropriate. I have replaced it with a slightly greater emphasis on formal "references" and a note to avoid the trivial. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kevin, thanks for your input, especially as I know that you're not contributing much at present.  I think your change is a useful compromise.  For now, at least, I'm happy with it.  --08:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allusions/references 

message: I've redone Kusma's edit which has the effect of removing bad advice on spoilers.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this means amongst other things that important plot elements may have to be dealt with in the lead.  For instance the lead of an article about Brave New World should probably mention the Savage's failure to integrate with the culture of his mother, and his eventual suicide.  It most definitely is not in order to recommend that spoilers should be confined to as single section marked with a warning tag. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This also seems to reflect at least one consensus that has become clear on Wikipedia:Spoiler.  Most people seem to agree that concerns over revealing 'spoilers' should not influence an article's overall structure. Those interested in discussing the topic (who don't somehow know already) should head to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning.  --Aquillion 14:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Bear in mind that this is not a "Plot summary" it is a "plot introduction" it's specific purpose to to have a "spoiler free" intro to the plot for those wanting to see what a novel is roughly about. With no guidance like this then "spoilers" will creep in anyway. Also don't assume the results of a dabate before it is in and unless this becomes a major plank of Wikipedia I can't see agreement meaning a great deal in the longer term. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: This template seems to be encouraging the creation of trivia sections, listing them as a key part of a novel-article's structure.  Do we want that?  I thought we were trying to phase them out by incorporating relevant information into the rest of the article and eliminating the rest. --Aquillion 14:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least if a trivia section exists it can be micro managed - rather than constantly scaning the whole article considering if the "trivia" is too trivial ! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Avoid trivia sections in articles is a relevant guideline. I have removed the section. Kusma (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia sections 

message: Has this been fixed up so someone can start a new page by just substing the template into their new article page? Would suggest that be an option for all project templates, and the usage can be gotten out of the way following the WP:DPP guideline. Noincludes don't come along on subst operations, so should be fairly simple. The current pre block goes to the /doc page, etcetera. If that's not clear, get a hold of me! // FrankB 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has attempted something along these lines at :Template:Skeleton novel. however that was a while ago and there is room for a different approach and work here. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Substability

message: I think we have to seriously think about the "Sources, references, external links, quotations" section as quotations seem awfully close to Trivia.  Quotations don't seem necessary.  I think if an article will include quotations, it should include them as part of a discussion about the novel: for instance, a scholar's take on a particular quotation, or a quotation that seems to tell us something about the novel.  See the quotation I included from the opening chapter of Slaughterhouse-Five in a recent edit.  It seems clear that the quotation is serving a larger point in the article.  Unless someone can justify the quotations section, I think it should be deleted. Victorianist 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: Can we get a blank infobox template on the page, so we can cut and paste without having to erase every line of instruction? (Like the Template:Infobox_Writer page has.) What's the best way to do it -- post it inside NoWiki markers? Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. I never use this template as a copy/paste job, in large part because of the annoyance of having to clear out the instructions. Maybe a blank template for experienced editors? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  create clean infobox template 

message: Hi I'm just passing thru, but it seems to me that the template ought to inlcude links to source text, where they exist? eg. the project gutenberg (or other) etext? (and, while I'm at it, i'll put a pitch in for links to the free/public domain librivox audio recordings too, but i'll recuse myself from that question, as i am a volunteer there). Mackinaw (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to source text? 

message: For some categories of novel, notably genre mysteries, a character list can be highly appropriate and should precede the plot summary. It was fairly common for genre mysteries published in the 1930s and 1940s to include a character list before the beginning of the narrative.
In many other mysteries, an early passage in the narrative is little more than a catalog of characters, so that the reader has a list of suspects and witnesses in hand.
Putting this list in an explicit section section may offend some purists, but it offends me to interrupt narrative text for what is de facto a bulleted list, and which is far easier to compose as such than as narrative text.
--Rich Rostrom (Talk) 21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters list 

message: I notice that "~Stub notice, if necessary~" appears before the categories.  Stub tags should go after categories, so that the stub categories are listed last - see Wikipedia:Stub#How_to_mark_an_article_as_a_stub.  PamD (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted - I have thought this stipulation a little picky though as categories "always" appear at the end of the article by WikiMedia design. Anyway changed! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The idea is that the stub categories are listed after the other categories - sorry I didn't make that clear! PamD (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of stub tag 

message: I've boldly rearranged this template to more closely match what is actually being seen in novel FAs and GAs over the last year or so, removing a lot of excessive sections, the double plot section, and rearranging others. If you disagree, let's discuss. I also cleaned up the instructions some. One thing I did not address was the need for alt text in the infobox, which should be handled by the infobox. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The double plot section was specifically to avoid the spoiler element of "full summaries". Enabling a "teaser type" plot introduction to be added in circumstances where a fuller summary would actually give away too much. The introduction gave a home for a distributive which gave the colour and flavour of the narrative without ruining the book for those who wished to read it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That goes directly against WP:SPOILER and what is done with all other media works. In GA and FA reviews, its also one of the first things stated as needing removed. The "teaser" type summary belongs in the lead, rather than a stand alone section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - that related to specific spoiler warnings which are not used now. It is a response to the lack of such a warning and allows a brief plot taster that means that readers can review a book's character without reading a full summary. Other wise "any" plot information would have to be avoided. But that reduces the value when reading wikipedia. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus has shown otherwise, and again no other media articles use this type of split plot and it has been rejected in peer reviews, FAs, and GAs. If people do not want to be spoiled, they should not read Wikipedia. Spoiler also relates to trying to hide or avoid spoilers in a manner such as this, which is just not appropriate and only bloats the article with excessive sections. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldly Redone 

message: I've noticed that since this page has been redone, the 'Character List' section was removed. As I remember it, it was considered optional, as long as it was well written. I never really was a fan of character lists, but I would like some clarification as to whether a character list is now discouraged from being in an article, whether it is up to the editor, or what. 74.95.169.158 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are generally discouraged unless they are sourced to reliable, third-party sources and that focus on discussing character motivations, personalities, etc. Just a list of characters and a summary of their role in the story from the work itself is unnecessary. As most fall in this realm, the section was removed. Adding an optional characters section (rather than character list) that meets the sourcing/focus guidelines, can still be done at editor discretion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character List 

message: I am finding difficulty putting The Shobies' Story , a novella, into either the Novel Infobox because it is not an independent book, or the Short Story Infobox template because that infobox is precoded to put double quotes around the name.  Can someone create a novella infobox to use, or perhaps enlighten me if novellas or novelettes should go in double quotes?  I would just classify it as a short story since the dividing line between a short story and a novella is probably subject to debate, but this work has won awards specifically for the novella.  Cheers --Npd2983 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novella Infobox Needed 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_14#December_14 that I nominated Template:Skeleton novel fro deletion. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template nominated for deletion 

message: Does anyone else think that a publication history is relevant before a critical response or analysis or major themes section? It seems to me that showing when the work was first published should come before anyone has a chance to offer analysis or response. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the publication history is generally of much less interest to the average reader than a discussion of themes and critisism. And where the publication history is important it's often quite a long section. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article order 

message: Greetings Wikipedians! I've noticed a number of articles that contain elaborate plot summaries which are completely unsourced. Example: Seventeen by Booth Tarkington and Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Henry Dana. Shouldn't the plot summary (which the article template calls for) be supported by citations to reliable secondary sources? If none are readily available, one could use a brief summary of the publisher's plot summary and cite the publisher's website. Thoughts? Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See MOS:NOVELPLOT: "A novel is a primary source for its own plot summary. Citing the novel explicitly in a plot summary section is not necessary provided that [...]" Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: Should the article template reflect this?
In case it's helpful, the following is a quote from Template:Infobox book/doc:
; published: Alternate parameter, using the following composite format: year (publisher) (language, when originally written in a foreign language); use  when there is more than one notable edition
:Note:  is acceptable, but no longer preferred to  and , which have been restored to common usage.
 – spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: book template states preference for pub_date + publisher over published