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 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.