Forum:Extended plots

Tardis1963 has noted on several story pages, "Is the extended plot necessary? It makes the article nearly impossible to read."

Since speaking to the same point on every single article talk page would be extremely cumbersome, I've created the page so that he can give us an extended rationale, and so that we can have a single discussion in one place. The floor is yours, Tardis1963 ...  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 16:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * All the pages that Tardis1963 left messages on were plot summaries that had been plagiarised from the Doctor Who Reference Guide. Not sure if a forum post was necessary to resolve this / was there anything to resolve? I have rolled back the affected articles in question. --Tangerineduel 16:50, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, his notes were vague. I thought he was implying that all extended plots somehow made story pages hard to read. He seemed to be arguing a point of general policy, not stating a case of specific vandalism. I strongly advocate extended plot details, FWIW.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 20:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what I said on the talk pages was pretty vague. What I sorta meant was that with the plot summaries extended to the length they were, the end of the page was nearly impossible to find. It was just a mass of text everywhere, not to mention that when trying to read them it was pretty easy to get lost in the mass of text. I did think that they would have been copied from the Doctor Who Reference Guide, but wasn't sure and didn't want to accuse.


 * IMO, they should just be relatively short plot summaries, not extremelly long passages that could pass as a short novelisation. Tardis1963 20:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, plagiarism aside, the one section that should be long on story pages is precisely the plot section, IMO. If the plot section were actually adequate, then these other sections, like references and story notes and continuity, wouldn't need to grow into the behemoths they often are. All the linkage could take place within the plot description, as it should really. I bemoan the fact that I can't really turn to this site for an accurate description of the plot of almost any adventure. What people tend to do is just slap the external link to DWRG, as if to say "that's his job, not ours". It should be one of our primary jobs to write decent plots here.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 12:24, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree (and disagree with CzechOut). Plot summaries should be of adequate length to describe the plot.
 * That said the references are useful and I don't think they should be wiped out even if there is a good and length plot description. The references help to call out information in an organised manned that a plot description can't (even a well written lengthy one). --Tangerineduel 14:21, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I reckon they could be a bit longer than they are... but not as long as the ones on the DWRG. Thorough plot description is good, but not to the point where you could print it out and read it like a Target book. Tardis1963 09:37, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tardis1963. The plot summaries on pages such as "The Three Doctors" are way too long. I think they should be revised substantially. Plus, the plot summary on "The Three Doctors" is basically just a paraphrase of the Doctor Who Reference Guide. Bluebox444 02:13, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tardis1963. The plot summaries on pages such as "The Three Doctors" are way too long. I think they should be revised substantially. Plus, the plot summary on "The Three Doctors" is basically just a paraphrase of the Doctor Who Reference Guide. Bluebox444 02:13, May 18, 2010 (UTC)