Forum:Full summaries for novels, audio, etc?

Hello, I was wondering if there was a reason there are no full summaries for novels, audios, etc.? All that is given is the publisher's summary, rather than a complete summary that is given for TV stories and comic strips. Glimmer721 21:39, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Since Glimmer721 brought it up, I'm going to hijack this thread to complain about the mislabelling of the various sectors. 'Synopsis' seems to mean 'teaser' here, 'plot' means 'summary' and 'Personality' frequenttly is 'Actions.' You want to see a synopsis? Take a look at the short squibs in old TV GUIDES or the twelve or fourteen word summary that the NEW YORK TIMES puts in their tv listings of movies. Boblipton 21:48, September 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. I think if the "publisher's summary" is going to stay, it should just be like the "synopsis" on the TV story articles, followed by the full "plot". Glimmer721 00:22, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's just because nobody's written them.


 * If you look at the first NA, Timewyrm: Genesys, it's got a Plot section with the Preface filled in, but the rest of the book missing. Most of the next few NAs have a Plot section that just says "to be added". Most of the later NAs and other novels just don't have the section at all.


 * One easy way to get these started: What's the copyright/license on The Doctor Who Reference Guide? Even if it's not compatible with this wiki, can't we contact Dominique Boles and get permission (and find out how to contact the people who submitted various synopses there)? I don't know that we want to directly import their "Synopsis" section as our "Plot" section and let people hack on it, but someone looking to add a Plot section could wikify and edit one of these synopses much more quickly than writing something from scratch, if that's permissible.


 * Meanwhile, whether we can import text or have to start from scratch, I think the best thing to do is have some volunteer (I'm looking at Glimmer721 here) pick one article and do it, then let everyone else nitpick at it for a while, then present it as a prototype to be used for everyone else to start adding plots. I'd suggest Human Nature as a good first one because it's among the most popular, it's available as a free PDF (which makes searching, bookmarking, etc. a lot easier), and a lot of people re-read it in the last 4 years.


 * As for Boblipton's points: I don't see a problem with calling the plot summary "plot" instead of "summary". As for the others, I don't think it's a problem with the headings, but with the content. If you look at most of the classic stories (e.g., The Invasion of Time), the synopses really are synopses (more than 12-14 words, but I think the length is about right); the problem with recent stories is that people have been writing synopses before the episode airs by combining various website, RT, etc. teasers, and then nobody's rewriting them after the episode airs. Likewise, the "personality" for most classic-series and non-TV characters really does describe their personality, and actions are only given as examples to illustrate personality traits (although occasionally there are a few random actions thrown in, like "Fitz slept with a dark-haired Samantha Jones"). But for more recent characters, the examples have taken over the section. I think in both cases, the answer is to fix the content to match what older articles do, not to change the headings. --70.36.140.19 01:05, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to hijack things even further, but… if you look at most of the other sections on novel pages, most of the entries in the Characters, References, etc. sections are very odd. If you compare them to the Whoniverse Discontinuity Guide entries, the reasons become clear: In many cases, someone tried to shoehorn the information from their "continuity" section into our different format. For example, is "Mentions the Ogri" really a fact about The Doctor from Dominion? But I think reworking these is a lower priority than getting plots onto the pages. --70.36.140.19 01:09, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * We all have our own priorities. Mine is to fix the language, first into reasonably grammatical English and once it's in a form that I can understand, into something approaching what the writers meant to say, instead of what they actually said. I try to choose the right words, and the wrong word at the top of the section is a sign of the lack of clarity. The last poster seems to think that sheer volume is a good thing. I think that one clear sentence that accurately describes something is better than six thousand words of waffling, poorly stated misinformation. I urge everyone to strive for excellence rather than size, and the way to start is to take those headings and write under them the things that they purport to cover.Boblipton 01:21, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that sheer volume is a good thing, but I do think that some information is better than none; a plot section that says "to be added" is completely useless. And again, I think the problem with the "Synopses" and "Personality" section isn't the heading, but the text: those sections _should_ be synopses of the story and descriptions of the personality, and if they aren't, that's the problem. (And, in fact, the problem with the "Personality" sections usually _is_ sheer volume: as I said, the examples have taken over the section.) Likewise, putting "Mentions the Ogri" into the Doctor's section under "Characters" doesn't mean we should rename "Characters" to something else, it means we should scrap that entry (or move it somewhere more appropriate).


 * Maybe it's better to pick specific examples than to talk in generalities. I think The Invasion of Time has a decent (but not perfect) synopsis, while Let's Kill Hitler has a teaser masquerading as a synopsis, and the solution is to replace that paragraph with a new sentence or two that actually briefly summarizes the plot. If you'd prefer to rename the section to "Teaser" instead, and add one for TIoT, that's also reasonable. --70.36.140.19 01:32, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * We can link to the DW reference guide but not copy his work, I recall there was a discussion to this effect very early in the wiki's creation.


 * Aside from this, we're aiming to create a unique wiki with unique information, which is different from Wikipedia and other sites out there.


 * It is because no one's written them, writing plots for novels is harder than for TV stories, because you need to read the 200+ page things to do so.


 * 70. Telling people to choose an article and then everyone else can work on it isn't exactly in the spirit of how Wikis work. You could sign up and create a page for groups of editors to work around. Things like that have shown good results in the past, the Tardis:BFA To-do List was one such example that yielded a good deal of substantive edits.


 * But I'm not going to order anyone to write articles, you need to have a passion for something. Boblipton for example I think is an especially good, valuable and patient editor. Ordering people do do something kills passion very easily. The Game of Rassilon (formerly known as Achievements) gives some editors motivation if that's what they want, but people will come here because they want to read about something, want to add to it or want to contribute.


 * For me, one of my interests is all the little references in the stories be them novels, audios, comics etc. The reason not all the NAs have the plot section is that I'm working my way through doing other layout and content edits and adding the plot section as I go.


 * Again the character sections that have little tidbits of information below the characters is another result of editing not catching up with editing. It was discussed and decided on that this information should be wrapped up into the references sections on the novels/comic stories articles. The characters section is now just a list of the characters in that story.


 * As for plots specifically, they weren't a priority for the novels, comics or audios until about a year ago. The Tardis:Layout guide for the novels, audios and comics have been updated to reflect this change in policy.


 * Yes, we do do things differently here, which is kinda the point, if you want to read the Whoniverse's information…go there. It just illustrates why we can't copy and paste from other sources, including the DW reference guide. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:01, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

The main reason I created this thread was because I have been interested in the novels (NSAs, mostly) but, living in America, they are not really avaliable to me in bookstores and libraries--the only book my local library system has is The Coming of the Terraphiles, which is currently checked out and due back the 21st; I have put it on hold and should receive it in a few days. So, basically, I was wondering whether it would be okay to add a plot summary when I read it and why this was not present with any of the other books. I also want to point out that Wikipedia has pages on many of the books, some with plot summaries that are completed and could be used as a guide for an rewritten summary. (Take The Clockwise Man for example: it has a plot summary, but it is way too long and the grammar looks atrocious as I'm skimming it, yet it could be used as a guide for a rewritten synopsis). Glimmer721 01:29, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

Although I have been doing extensive editing on all the articles that will bear it -- some of them take four or five sweeps between lack of clarity due to poor grammar and scads of blather -- I have not touched the "publisher's summaries" because they strike me as inherently factual, reprints of what someone else has said. I'll take a look at THE CLOCKWISE MAN and see what can be done under those strictures. However, once you've read the book, by all means produce a summary on your own. Boblipton 01:53, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

I only nominated Glimmer721 jokingly, because he brought up the lack of Plot sections. Re-reading what I posted, it's not nearly obvious enough that I was joking; sorry about that. I would of course be glad to do the first one if nobody else is willing. And I'd pick something like Human Nature, because I don't want all of the best editors on the site to say, "Well, I haven't read that book since 1994, so I won't bother looking at it." Also, I am serious about the idea that maybe whoever goes first should actually go first, then we can all look over it and decide if it's what we want. As mentioned, it's a lot of work to summarize a novel, so let's make sure we don't waste any unnecessary effort.

Anyway, I'd guess that the situation with Wikipedia is much like with the DW Reference Guide (maybe not the legal/license issue, but the other reasons). But maybe it's reasonable to read both of those sites, then put them away and pull out the book and start writing a summary of it, as long as you're not copy-pasting (or copy-paste-editing) directly from those sites?

Finally: "The reason not all the NAs have the plot section…" Do any of the NAs have the Plot section, other than the Preface in Genesys and the "to be added" stubs in a handful of others? If we had a good example to go by, I think it would help. --70.36.140.19 05:16, September 20, 2011 (UTC)