Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels

Character lists and the use of bold

See discussion Talk Great Expectations and Project Novels. I suggest modifying the guideline for characters to read as follows:

3.3 Characters

If appropriate, a character section would consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. Characters' names should only be indented (though subsections may be used for lengthy descriptions); bold should not be used. Most articles do not need this section. Instead, a finely crafted plot summary is used to introduce the characters to the reader.

usual order of sections

I was surprised to see that there isn't a section on the typical order of sections with a novel page. For example, usually the background section comes first, then the plot summary, and afterwards themes, analysis, and then reception and adaptations. Does another page in the MOS address this? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Which cover image should be used in the infobox of And Then There Were None?

This issue is again up for discussion at Talk:And_Then_There_Were_None#Deciding_which_cover_should_be_displayed_in_the_infobox. Please visit and offer your opinion. External views would be most helpful in attempting to reach a consensus on this long-term contentious issue. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Edits

To explain the edits mass-reverted here:

• [1] My first thought was that if the page is ever protected for some reason, the section edit button will not appear for some users. But there is another reason not to mention the section edit button in this manner: we shouldn't encourage anyone to click on it for any reason other than actually editing the page. Because they might end up accidentally making an edit. A third reason not to make this suggestion is that someone who copies an already filled-in infobox might forget to change some of the fields, leaving some of the information for Desolation Island in place in an Infobox for a different book.
• [2] That didn't make a whole lot of sense in context. I'm also not sure that anyone following that advice would get a satisfactory answer.
• [3] There was no need for the "Other Considerations" parent section, and it caused a confusing display, as it was not immediately clear where the Infobox subsection ended.
• [4] There, I partially undid a change I had made earlier. The section was originally titled "Article body", but the first subsection was "Lead section". The lead section is not usually considered part of the body. Thus I initially changed the title from "Article body" to just "Article", but upon further reflection, it seemed better to rearrange things.
• [5] That was a rearranging.
• [6] Since the Infobox from Desolation Island is displayed as an example, I cut-and-pasted that article's current infobox, which had some differences from the one displayed.
  • [7] I blanked the parameter for the image caption, since the image is not displayed here.
• [8] This was another instance of reconsidering my previous revisions. I had previously rearranged what was already there into regular prose, but part of it actually contradicts a statement earlier in the page: "Lists of dates and publishers of unremarkable re-issues, translations and so on should be avoided as they are generally no more than indiscriminate collections of information."
• [9] A distinction had been made between authors and works. While it does appear that one is more focused on authors and the other is more focused on individual works, the former does have an entry for Sherlock Holmes. Between that and the awkward phrasing, it seemed best to just note both resources and let people go from there.
• [10] That had seemed rather wordy, and the page name is self-explanatory.
• [11] Google Images is a search engine, so it's more accurate to say that it will "yield" images, rather than that the images can be found there.
• [12] I had recently seen an article where the plot summary listed all the characters, and then they were listed again in a Characters section. Since most novel articles don't even have a character section, it is difficult to set any kind of standard here, but that might be a helpful suggestion.

183.89.250.246 (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago, making a small edit and seeing if others like the new version is a way to get consensus. I've been watching this IP's slow improvement of this MOS with great satisfaction— their changes have been careful, well explained, and on investigation I have agreed with each one and was glad someone other than me was taking the time to refine the advice here. I assumed the other page watchers felt the same. I don’t think a mass reversion was warranted, so I am restoring the changes. Are there specific changes that you felt were not improvements or don’t match existing best practices on book articles? If so, please edit just those, or raise them for discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of these except No 12. A Characters section, if present, usually follows rather than precedes the Plot. That's the most natural place for it, as a reference-type section. (Although not stated here, recent practice has normally been for the Plot section, which is probably what most readers want to read first, to go immediately after the lead.) MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I've also been watching the edits and haven't seen anything to object to. (I'm undecided on #12, perhaps that one should be discussed more widely.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that’s fair, I did wonder about the characters section too. I think the rationale for a change makes sense— when characters come after the plot, it does tend to feel completely redundant… but then, character lists often feel very redundant regardless. And I do agree that it’s useful for the plot to be the first section of the article, as the most likely thing someone is looking up. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, another reason I found characters-before-plot appealing is because I work a lot on books like The Monk where characters have complicated identities that are hard to gloss in a running plot, and I wondered if a change would help. But maybe nothing can make The Monk simple to explain, haha. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Such a re-positioning would represent a huge change to the guideline, as the Characters section so rarely appears before the Plot at present. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

True, and it doesn’t seem like there’s much appetite for that change. At best I’d describe myself as “tempted” rather than “enthusiastic” about changing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the article that got me thinking about that. Another thing is that we currently say you shouldn't include every minor character, but in a detective story like that one, every minor character might be a potential suspect. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a strong point against the change. Most (all?) current articles about novels that even have a character section don't have it before plot. I think there would have to be a compelling argument to change the MOS to be counter to current practice by the community. Schazjmd (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel like there likely is a compelling argument to be made for this. If someone, perhaps an avid reader and fairly well-established Wikipedian, could go through articles with Character sections and point out several where it would clearly be better to list out the characters first. Perhaps actually make the change in the articles and see how much objection there is. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Should some of the text from Major themes be moved into Finding sources? Specifically this part, which seems more applicable to that section:

For so-called "classic" texts, many such sources are likely available, but it may take some time to read through them. You can use the Google Scholar to find citations for these publications online. Sometimes you won't be able to find a full-text version of a source through Google Scholar, but you may be able to find a citation that you can dig deeper into using the strategies listed at "Wikipedia:Find your source".

183.89.250.246 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I see why you think this could move. But it's also important to remind people not to insert their own interpretations of the themes; it seems valuable to describe the kind of research that is expected for a themes section. Maybe move the specific tips about Google Scholar, but make sure there's still something here about the need for research / the warning that it may take some time to read and apply the sources? I don't feel strongly about the exact revision. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a bolded reminder after that, which I would definitely keep in the Themes section. Looking at the page's early history, though, it's apparent that the Finding Sources section was in fact split from the Themes section, and perhaps this part was neglected. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, maybe the bolded reminder is enough -- it's quite strong! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward simply removing the quoted text from the Major Themes section. What I'm not sure of is what to add to the Finding Sources section. Specifically, what to say about Google Scholar. Since not everything it turns up is automatically a reliable source. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about the first item under Less reviewed or studied works. "Scholarly sources on the genre" doesn't tell you where to look. Perhaps the implication is that you should search things like Google Books and see what comes up. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"If you have been active on Wikipedia for six months and have 500 edits" doesn't seem like the best way to begin the Places to start section. Since that won't be the case for some people reading this. Perhaps this could start by mentioning Google Scholar, but note that some things it turns up will not be accessible to everyone. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Media_type in infobox

The guidance (recently rewritten but still saying pretty much the same thing) says it should include only the media types in which the novel was originally available. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this? For much of the 20th century, many books were released in hardback, and then a year later, the paperback would be released. The timeline isn't always that long anymore,[13] but there's still a delay so technically only those books released only in paperback should list paperback in the infobox. Is what we have the right guidance? (I notice that To Kill a Mockingbird, a featured article, doesn't list media_type at all.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I wondered about that also. This edit introduced that wording, but sadly we can't now ask the editor what her reasoning was. I would be fine with just deleting this subsection and leaving the Media Type field up to editors at each article. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. And that edit was made before there was a talk page, so if there was discussion, it didn't happen here. The infobox documentation doesn't say anything about that field except what the options are.

Before that change, the guidance read:

The exception to recording only the "first edition" information about the novel, this records the main formats the novel is available in. This gives main types (i.e. Print, AudioBook, e-Book) each followed by bracketed sub-types.

Print sub-types (Hardback, Paperback, Periodical)

AudioBook sub-types (Audio CD, Cassette)

Of course now we would also add ebooks, and digital for audiobooks. Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Such information almost seems like trivia. I removed "periodical", because the Publication Date subsection specifically says that it should not give the date of an earlier serialization. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed this subsection. This is a matter best left to editors at each individual article. I guess the mere fact that an infobox template includes a particular parameter doesn't mean much. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. If anyone else shows up to object, it's easy enough to restore and then we can also discuss what it should say (original only vs. available). Schazjmd (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for scrutinizing this, I agree removal makes sense. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Plot summary length

These featured articles on novels currently have a plot summary well over 700 words:

• The Bread-Winners: 851
• Brother Jonathan (novel): 872
• Candide: 2,000
• The Diary of a Nobody: 1,000
• El Señor Presidente: 1,027
• The Fountainhead: 809
• The Fox and the Hound (novel): 820
• The General in His Labyrinth: 811
• The Green Child: 907
• The Historian: 1,111
• The Hunger Games (novel): 853
• Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell: 1,551
• The Left Hand of Darkness: 881
• The Man in the Moone: 809
• Maus: 936
• The Phantom Tollbooth: 905
• Uncle Tom's Cabin: 946

I see this was discussed long ago. I realize that in some cases the plot summary may have been expanded after the article was promoted to FA, but it appears that there have always been a significant number of Featured Articles with plot summaries decidedly longer than 700 words. This was the Plot section prior to the recent round of revisions. It said 400 to 700 words are usually sufficient for a full-length work, although very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more. That is probably better than saying A plot summary over 700 words may be challenged for length. I never liked that wording, but I understood that we might want to deter very long plot summaries. However, I think the other wording now does the job well enough, between noting that a plot summary should not follow every twist and turn of the story, and suggesting that you look for things that can be shortened. If editors remain at an impasse regarding a plot summary, they can seek more opinions. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I find the current wording "may be challenged for length" to be a bit ambiguous, personally...though I feel the same way about "a bit more", which is highly subjective. I also feel that it puts the onus on the person 'challenging' the length, when the onus should be on the editors who want a summary in violation of the guideline to gain consensus for keeping the longer summary if and when other editors try to shorten it. WP:FILMPLOT says, "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed this range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the recommended range." I like this phrasing, as it makes it more clear, in my opinion, that the 700-word maximum should be respected until there's a consensus that it's insufficient. DonIago (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with subjectivity here, because each situation is different. So "a bit more" seems reasonable to me. Also, I'm not sure the onus should be on anyone. Someone who thinks a plot summary has gotten too long is free to try to shorten it, or suggest ways it can be shortened. The 700-word cutoff is a rule of thumb, but a substantial percentage of the Featured Articles on novels exceed that by at least 100 words. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether they exceeded 700 words at the time they became FAs, or how the guideline read at the time. At the risk of repeating myself, I feel if there is a guideline then the goal should be to adhere to it; the people who wish to disregard it are the ones who should need to make a case for doing so, not the ones who wish to bring the summary within compliance. Is "a bit more" 20 words or 200 words? I don't see a reason to create a situation where editors can quibble over something like that. DonIago (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The existence of longer plots in some featured articles is neither here nor there. Many were written under previous versions of the guidelines (often with exceptionally long paragraphs), and of course there's a natural reluctance for editors to fiddle around with featured articles without compelling reason. In any event, WP:OTHERCONTENT.

Prior to Special:Diff/949746733 by Scribolt in 2020, the guideline was hopelessly vague, and said "Three or four paragraphs are usually sufficient". That caused lots of disagreements and wasted time. Things are better now, due to the fairly definite wording. I do a lot of plot summaries, and it would really harm my and other editors' ability to work effectively if the guideline were to be softened, normalising an expectation that editors working to keep the plot within the agreed range should have to prove their case.

Being able to point to some fairly definite figure is tremendously helpful to an editor who is actively trying to trim the plot to below 700 words against resistance from another editor who has really, really strong views about their deathless prose being trimmed. Where there is a real need to go beyond 700 words, the guideline should allow for that, but it should be for the editor who is arguing for an exception to make the case for doing so.

If that general approach can be agreed, I'm more than happy to discuss detailed drafting. Based on what's been suggested above, perhaps this would work:

An article about a novel should include a concise plot summary which highlights the most important events and developments without attempting to follow every twist and turn of the story. A summary for a full-length novel should be between 400 words (for a simple plot) and 700 words (for a more complex plot). If you find yourself writing or making edits to a summary that will take it over that length, look for things that can be trimmed without losing anything important. If you feel there are exceptional reasons for the summary to exceed 700 words, open a discussion on the talk page and seek the opinion of other editors, explaining why you consider the novel to be a special case.

MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm generally happy with this wording, but I'd suggest either losing the parenthetical remarks entirely or at least losing the parentheses themselves; they're not needed. In the later section of the text you might link to CONSENSUS to establish that involving other editors is the norm and that we're not making some sort of special allowance here. Lastly, where you say 'novel' at the end, I'd probably say 'plot summary' or such, since it's the summary of the novel that's in question, not the novel itself. All in all though, I think this is a good attempt at better wording, and if other editors agree, I'm happy to take a more micro pass at it. DonIago (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's even a need to specify a minimum length. There are featured articles with plot summaries shorter than 400 words, although maybe the books were novellas. If you can summarize the important points in less than 400 words, there's no need to add more. I would thus change the second sentence to Even for a full-length novel with a complex plot, a plot summary normally should not exceed 700 words. I think we do need "normally", since it clearly isn't always. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both. I wonder if Scribolt might care to comment, too? I do think it's worth keeping in the lower figure, not because people will argue about it but because it encourages editors to have a go at fleshing out articles where the summary is just a sentence or two. Amended proposal:

An article about a novel should include a concise plot summary which highlights the most important events and developments without attempting to follow every twist and turn of the story. A summary for a full-length novel should normally be between 400 and 700 words. If you find yourself writing or making edits to a summary that will take it over that length, look for things that can be trimmed without losing anything important. If you feel there are exceptional reasons for the summary to be longer or shorter than that, open a discussion on the talk page and seek the opinion of other editors, explaining why you consider this summary to be a special case.

MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Even if we do mention a minimum, that would not need to be discussed right away, as a plot summary might be expanded later. So I would remove "or shorter" from the last sentence. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)