Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels This page is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

See discussion Talk Great Expectations and Project Novels. I suggest modifying the guideline for characters to read as follows:

3.3 Characters

If appropriate, a character section would consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. Characters' names should only be indented (though subsections may be used for lengthy descriptions); bold should not be used. Most articles do not need this section. Instead, a finely crafted plot summary is used to introduce the characters to the reader.

I was surprised to see that there isn't a section on the typical order of sections with a novel page. For example, usually the background section comes first, then the plot summary, and afterwards themes, analysis, and then reception and adaptations. Does another page in the MOS address this? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is again up for discussion at Talk:And_Then_There_Were_None#Deciding_which_cover_should_be_displayed_in_the_infobox. Please visit and offer your opinion. External views would be most helpful in attempting to reach a consensus on this long-term contentious issue. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the edits mass-reverted here:

• [1] My first thought was that if the page is ever protected for some reason, the section edit button will not appear for some users. But there is another reason not to mention the section edit button in this manner: we shouldn't encourage anyone to click on it for any reason other than actually editing the page. Because they might end up accidentally making an edit. A third reason not to make this suggestion is that someone who copies an already filled-in infobox might forget to change some of the fields, leaving some of the information for Desolation Island in place in an Infobox for a different book.
• [2] That didn't make a whole lot of sense in context. I'm also not sure that anyone following that advice would get a satisfactory answer.
• [3] There was no need for the "Other Considerations" parent section, and it caused a confusing display, as it was not immediately clear where the Infobox subsection ended.
• [4] There, I partially undid a change I had made earlier. The section was originally titled "Article body", but the first subsection was "Lead section". The lead section is not usually considered part of the body. Thus I initially changed the title from "Article body" to just "Article", but upon further reflection, it seemed better to rearrange things.
• [5] That was a rearranging.
• [6] Since the Infobox from Desolation Island is displayed as an example, I cut-and-pasted that article's current infobox, which had some differences from the one displayed.
  • [7] I blanked the parameter for the image caption, since the image is not displayed here.
• [8] This was another instance of reconsidering my previous revisions. I had previously rearranged what was already there into regular prose, but part of it actually contradicts a statement earlier in the page: "Lists of dates and publishers of unremarkable re-issues, translations and so on should be avoided as they are generally no more than indiscriminate collections of information."
• [9] A distinction had been made between authors and works. While it does appear that one is more focused on authors and the other is more focused on individual works, the former does have an entry for Sherlock Holmes. Between that and the awkward phrasing, it seemed best to just note both resources and let people go from there.
• [10] That had seemed rather wordy, and the page name is self-explanatory.
• [11] Google Images is a search engine, so it's more accurate to say that it will "yield" images, rather than that the images can be found there.
• [12] I had recently seen an article where the plot summary listed all the characters, and then they were listed again in a Characters section. Since most novel articles don't even have a character section, it is difficult to set any kind of standard here, but that might be a helpful suggestion.

183.89.250.246 (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago, making a small edit and seeing if others like the new version is a way to get consensus. I've been watching this IP's slow improvement of this MOS with great satisfaction— their changes have been careful, well explained, and on investigation I have agreed with each one and was glad someone other than me was taking the time to refine the advice here. I assumed the other page watchers felt the same. I don’t think a mass reversion was warranted, so I am restoring the changes. Are there specific changes that you felt were not improvements or don’t match existing best practices on book articles? If so, please edit just those, or raise them for discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of these except No 12. A Characters section, if present, usually follows rather than precedes the Plot. That's the most natural place for it, as a reference-type section. (Although not stated here, recent practice has normally been for the Plot section, which is probably what most readers want to read first, to go immediately after the lead.) MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been watching the edits and haven't seen anything to object to. (I'm undecided on #12, perhaps that one should be discussed more widely.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s fair, I did wonder about the characters section too. I think the rationale for a change makes sense— when characters come after the plot, it does tend to feel completely redundant… but then, character lists often feel very redundant regardless. And I do agree that it’s useful for the plot to be the first section of the article, as the most likely thing someone is looking up. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another reason I found characters-before-plot appealing is because I work a lot on books like The Monk where characters have complicated identities that are hard to gloss in a running plot, and I wondered if a change would help. But maybe nothing can make The Monk simple to explain, haha. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such a re-positioning would represent a huge change to the guideline, as the Characters section so rarely appears before the Plot at present. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, and it doesn’t seem like there’s much appetite for that change. At best I’d describe myself as “tempted” rather than “enthusiastic” about changing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article that got me thinking about that. Another thing is that we currently say you shouldn't include every minor character, but in a detective story like that one, every minor character might be a potential suspect. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strong point against the change. Most (all?) current articles about novels that even have a character section don't have it before plot. I think there would have to be a compelling argument to change the MOS to be counter to current practice by the community. Schazjmd (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there likely is a compelling argument to be made for this. If someone, perhaps an avid reader and fairly well-established Wikipedian, could go through articles with Character sections and point out several where it would clearly be better to list out the characters first. Perhaps actually make the change in the articles and see how much objection there is. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]