Template talk:Long plot

message: The template currently states "this plot summary", however, if it is placed at the top of an article, it implies that the entire article is plot summary. I propose that it be reworded to "this article's plot summary" instead - then it would make sense anywhere in the article in which is placed.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Concur; sensible and simple change. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Reasoning is sound. Support. - kollision (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get an admin to make the change? (section vs. article argument notwithstanding)--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reword template? 

message: Please sync with the sandbox to correct the use of bold to cover only the verb phrase regarding the error, as with the rest of the general cleanup templates. No semantic changes, just style cleanup. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix bold placement 

message: I'd like this template to be modified to allow article/section/paragraph to be specified as the first argument, instead of just article. The code below maintains article as the default and is compatible with the date template parameter. I've tested it in the sandbox with the standard testcases.
Can an admin please replace the template source:
:This article's plot
with
:This 's plot
Thanks! twilsonb (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I'll watch these pages so I can then edit the documentation page. twilsonb (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems reasonably uncontroversial and there have been no objections, so I have made the requested edit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It works in Johnny Mnemonic (film), and I've edited the documentation. twilsonb (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allow Article/Section/Paragraph to be Specified in Template 

message: Please replace the current link to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Length in
:This article's plot summary may be too long
with a link to the parent section Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#What to cut:
:This article's plot summary may be too long
Although the piped link name "too long" may imply the "Length" subsection as the closest related target, I believe the parent section's content applies just as much, and by addressing the main challenge in writing succinct plot summaries it provides the more useful bookmark for interested editors. --78.35.214.158 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your rationale seems to make good sense.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested edit: change link target 

message: I see that  redirects here. That is fine for narrative nonfiction, which has a "plot" to summarise -- but not for non-narrative nonfiction, for which the correct term would be "précis" not "plot summary". May I suggest that either (i) we expand the wording of this template to state "This article's plot summary or précis..." or (ii) recreate  to cover that eventuality. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonfiction 

message: The word "overly" is a modern Americanism that sucks and should be changed. It's one of those disputed portmanteau adverbs, like "fastly", that there are certainly more sophisticated alternatives for. "Excessively" is usually better in place of any instance of "overly". "Too" works too, although that's already used for the other parameter, and we don't want to overly use it. Equazcion (talk) 02:47, 22 Feb 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, done. If anyone agrees they can revert (or request a revert) and then discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) Equazcion (talk) 13:02, 22 Feb 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "overly" to "excessively" 

message: Greetings and felicitations.  Would someone please be so kind as to change 
* "refresh their memory — no more" to "refresh their memory—no more"; and
* "Topic-specific guidelines - " to "Topic-specific guidelines—"
per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes).—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bump—this still hasn't been done (please).—DocWatson42 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bump again, for the same reason.—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can add it yourself, that text is on Template:Plot/doc, which is not edit-protected. In future you may want to use the  template. Daß Wölf 18:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks.  I don't know why I didn't notice that. :-( —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: dashes 

message: Edit Request: Adding a second default parameter to determine a plural status - i.e. exclusion displays the normal: 
:"This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise."
- whereas inclusion displays:
:"This article's plot summaries may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve them by removing unnecessary details and making them more concise."
Changes are displayed in bold. Especially necessary for television series episode tables where multiple summaries are too long, if not all, and a single tag can notify for most/all episodes. Alex|The|Whovian 07:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The required edits have been implemented in the sandbox. Alex|The|Whovian 12:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, but there are other changes in that sandbox. Please synchronise sandbox with the live version and then make your required changes. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Alex|The|Whovian 12:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request: Plural 

message: Copied from Talk:Alcatraz Versus the Evil Librarians #Free Kingdomers?
§  Plot summary says
:He later finds out that there is a secret society called the Librarians, whose purpose is to conquer the remaining Free Kingdomers and rule the world.
So, who or what are the "Free Kingdomers"? One might suppose after reading further that they are the freedom fighters mentioned in the  next section, but why leave the reader to wait and be unsure? I'd fix it if I know the series at all.
--Thnidu (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for discussing :Template:Long plot. Please do not post content here that is unrelated to that template. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  plot summary needs fix 

message: Hi there, I'd like to request the addition of a  parameter, so that editors might detail the specific problem and relevant guideline. For example:
:
or
:
Generally speaking I think it's a good idea for templates to have reason parameters for greater clarity and tailoring to specific articles, and adding one will bring this template in line with many others. Thanks in advance, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with it as long as it's not required (not that I think I'd ever personally forget to use it...). Alternately at that point I'd say there should be different versions of the template for different types of articles that could have the appropriate message hardcoded. DonIago (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree  should not be mandatory. The default phrasing should remain the same with some alternative phrasing to introduce the rationale. "The specific concerns are:" or similar. I thought about the hard-coding, but there are variables like in the example above where it might be important to note the word count or other info. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was (naively?) hopeful that hard-coding might be able to include a variable to capture the word count. :) DonIago (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

text: How about something like  or , producing links to the appropriate WP:xPLOT page? I'm in support of , but there isn't a whole lot of reasons why one would put up this template. Daß Wölf 23:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't a lot of reasons to use the template in general, but there might be very specific issues to address when this template is used. If in a TV article, editors are focusing on episode-by-episode revelations instead of focusing generally on the overall shape of the series (as often happens with soap operas), it might be beneficial to quickly note the issues. I'd also say that film and TV articles aren't the only places this might be used. Books, comics, video games or any place where (shall we say) "enthusiastic fandom" could take over and encourage someone to go overboard with the detail would be intuitive spots for this. I think it would probably be easier just to incorporate a flexible  than create multiple parameters hardwired for specific needs. I generally feel flexibility is a better approach. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  REQ: Addition of "reason" parameter 

message: Oops! I just started this and I can tell my capabilities are temporally limited. I may have the precise template wrong. Also, the following removed template might have some bearing on this issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_14#Template:Nonfiction
My real life limitations, as seen on my user page, might not let me make it back here. Also I have to use a dictation utility at the moment to data-dump without much correction, so there may be weird errors in this post.
What I intended to do was:
* verify whether the template used was this one or similar one, and cross notify the related templates' talk pages of this discussion
* notify people (the two editors with Andrew-related usernames who are involved in this issue on that article's talk page and those who have worked recently on this template or whatever the main template under discussion is) about this new section via Template:To
* lay out ideas on fixing this issue to initiate discussion
Ideas include:
# Adding a parameter to this and related templates to allow the focus of the template, not the reason of the template, to switch from fictional plot to non-fictional content summaries. A more concise term should be found for the latter.
# Having a parameter OR a note in the documentation of an existing parameter to clarify what type of content should be added after the plot or summary.
# Having a parameter that uses the text from the merge / split template group or briefly suggests a merge or a split, or just a split, while the documentation has a note to suggest using the other template, either instead or along with this one. In the article in the title, for example, there could be an article that discusses the history, relevance, criticism, and the effects in general history and/or in current or popular culture, along with structured Linx 2 Lisa Marie of each book or scroll. ... (Too funny. Uh, I think I meant "links to the summary," as in links to the articles that contain the summary of each book.)
Sorry this is all I can do now and possibly ever on this issue! Sorry that I left the time and wherewithal to make this post shorter (with apologies to Pascal). Thanks in advance to anyone who might pick it up. Don't wait for me, go ahead! You might want to restructure this discussion in a new section or a subsection to encourage better participation. —Geekdiva (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Jarring'' use of this template at ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'' 

message: Under "issue", change too long or excessively detailed to too long or excessively detailed. It's stupid I reckon to have two separate links next to each other to the exact same page, why not make it one link? 86.170.13.28 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Primefac (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you 86.170.13.28 (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 31 May 2018 

message: Where the tag is used where we know there is advice to give word cout (such as with film plots and TV plots) would a additional  parameter be helpful ? 
For example, let's say we add a "type" parameter. "Type" can then be "filmplot" which should produce something like "Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries of feature films should be between 400 and 700 words.", or for "tveplist" "Per MOS:TVPLOT, individual episode summaries in a list of episodes should be under 500 words per episode if there are no individual episode articles, or under 200 words otherwise."    I'm not sure how many cases we'd have but this would help when the plot template is added so that people know actually what word count to shoot for. --Masem (t) 16:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is general, I'm not sure how we should go about that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are if or case-style codes in the template language so that only if the parameter is added, this added text would be included. I could sandbox a few example cases to show what I mean...--Masem (t) 01:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a param to give suggested word count