User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-2378-20131205232125/@comment-188432-20131206025043

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-2378-20131205232125/@comment-188432-20131206025043 Well, I agree on the naming. Who Killed Kennedy should be the in-universe novel. But I don't dunno that I agree with the third graf there.

It's an in-universe article. Therefore we're bound by only what the story tells us about the topic. I don't think a section called "plot" is at all appropriate.

The article is about what the thing is. Yes, sure, you'll give a brief overview of its contents, if known, but it's not like a book report or anything.

I'm unaware of a formal "plot" section on any of our pages about fictional books. There's not really a way to write a plot section using the past tense voice that we have to employ in in-universe articles.

What you do, practically speaking, is something like this:

''Who Killed Kennedy'' was a book written by [whoever]. It was a non-fictional account of [whatever].  Published by [whoever], it [did whatever else].  Its popularity and influence weren't well understood, although [whoever] had a copy of the work in his/her library. ([[PROSE]]: ''[[The Dying Days (novel)|]]'')
== Behind the scenes ==
''Who Killed Kennedy'' was the fictional book-within-a-book of the [[Who Killed Kennedy (novel)|novel of the same]]. Most of the events of the novel can be assumed to be within the fictional book, but the novel certainly contains things that weren't in the fictional book.  It's a bit hard to separate the two with any degree of specificity, however.