Forum:Cliffhangers in Plot breakdown
I am the principle editor of the Colony In Space page. I have opted to write the plot summary as a single essay, not breaking it down episode-by-episode. Consequently, on more than one occasion I have added a description of the cliffhangers at the end, only to have this cliffhanger list removed by other users. Am I running against established Wikia policy?
It seems up to the discretion of the writer whether to summarize the plot as a single essay or in episodic format. If they opt for the former, it would be useful to include a list of the cliffhangers. If policy doesn't allow for this, can/should it be changed?
Glimmer1971 talk to me 17:01, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
- We do have a policy at Tardis:Format for television stories which specifies that the plot should be done episode-by-episode, which makes sense as you can include the cliffhangers there and it'd be the closest possible match to the action as it unfolded on-screen. — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 21:08, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Glimmer1971, it seems to me that there might be reasons to prefer a single essay to the policy-dictated format. Is it your general feeling that this is superior or are there specific reasons why Colony in Space should be set this way? In any case, your reasons would be helpful in determining whether an exception to the standard -- or, indeed, a recasting of that standard -- is warranted. Boblipton talk to me 21:15, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, Bob & Rob. I side with Shakespeare in that I believe brevity to be the soul of wit. In certain cases, one could argue that some Dr Who stories tend to plod along, and a Plot summary of the action episode-by-episode (and subsequently scene-by-scene) would make for rather long and uninspiring reading (i.e. "The colonists take arms against the miners and take over. Then the miners take control. Then the colonists. Some primitives shake some spears. Then the Master arrives."), and that story is arguably better-served by a summation that spares the minutia in favor of a generalization. Colony in Space is one such story. I did the same with The Monster of Peladon; I gave what I believe to be a more effective summation of the plot than were I to describe long passages of characters wandering up and down corridors and mine tunnels. Is it objective? Probably not. (I note that other stories' Plot summaries are so detailed that a transcript of the dialogue would be shorter.) In Colony's case I intended to at least honor the structure of the televised story by adding the cliffhangers. Glimmer1971 talk to me 13:49, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Glimmer1971, I am in general agreement with you. I also believe that the headings are mislabelled. "Synopses" are usually teasers and plots are outlines, with far too many details and personalities are what people do, not what they think. I spend a lot of time cutting out not just pointless words (chopping "He eventually manages to be able to do such-and-such" to "He does such and such") but endless blather. We are blessed/afflicted with a lot of enthusiastic people who fail to understand that brevity is the soul of wit.
- Nonetheless, things are as they are. I look upon the plot section as an effort to mention as many of the relevant/linkable pages in the context of a brief recounting of the story. I think this is worth pursuing, but in a larger context. Please consider doing a blog post with the older Plot section and the one you propose replacing it with. It would let me see exactly what changes you propose and permit me to appraise it better than the inherently vague discussions that go on here permit.
- If you do such a thing, I would take it as a kindness if you sent me a private notification, perhaps on my talk page or in this discussion, which I do follow. Boblipton talk to me 14:12, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
I agree regarding the Synopsis - many authors don't seem to agree what the purpose of the Synopsis is; I agree with you that it ought to be a teaser, as opposed to a short version of what ought to be included in Plot. Glimmer1971 talk to me 15:23, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
Archivist's notes[[edit source]]
I have to think that this discussion failed to prov its case. As Rob T. Firefly pointed out, there is existing policy. Thus, if you wished to change that policy, you'd have to prove a case against it. And I don't think you really have.
Having a section in which you list the cliffhangers is definitely not on. For those who wish to know the cliffhangers only, there is the page cliffhanger. But we're not going to change story page format to include that information separate from the plot description. It is a part of the plot, so there it shall remain.
The question of whether it's absolutely necessary to have the plots broken down by episode is an interesting one, but you've failed to explain how the advantages of your proposal outweigh the disadvantages.
I'd point out that it's absolutely essential for Hartnell stuff, since the episode sections give us a hook for the episode names, which are sometimes used for more specific citation. "Bell of Doom" for instance is an incredibly useful link to make, since it is more proper to cite this individual episode as the first appearance of Dodo Chaplet than The Massacre.
Likewise, The Stones of Blood are two stories joined at the halfway mark, Talons are four episodes joined to two final ones, and even Colony gives us a long wait until the Master shows up. There are many good reasons why you might wish to link one part of the plot, rather than the whole section. If we were to allow plots handled as one big thing, we'd loose the ability. Episodic division also gives a common structure to each story page, on which we can hang a standard illustration pattern.
Thus, as far as I can see, you have interesting idea here, but one that has ignored some key factors. Existing policy remains in force: plots of televised serials shall be broken down episodically.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 20:31: Tue 01 May 2012
