Anyway, what about the requirement for sources for plots? Is there such an official policy? - Kumarules 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Ah yes. Mdsummermsw 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Yes, it must require a whole conspiracy to take a quick glance in your history.
![harold and kumar go to white castle netflix harold and kumar go to white castle netflix](https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/1578001/everything-leaving-netflix-april-2020.jpg)
By "interesting", of course, I mean suspicious. Interesting that you suddenly appear out of nowhere and your first three edits are hitting me here and on my talk page, referring to what I've done elsewhere. "Right now there's no site." So what? There's no site that is this one thing that wikipedia is NOT. It does have to do with the plot length tag you ignored. Kumarules 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC) The plot length has NOTHING to do with the needs sources tag. Again, you may got the rules right on how long can a plot be, but if you demand sources, you'd end up deleting just about every plot description in Wikipedia. If your plan is to eventually delete every single plot in Wikipedia - even the short ones (since they have no sources), then the entire world would lose its only source for detailed plot descriptions, simply because one person out there likes deleting stuff. Yes, Wikipedia became not just the primary but about the only source with detailed plot descriptions of movies. Well, I know one spoiler site (and suprisingly there aren't a lot of those sites either) that occasionly gives whole plot descriptions, but its total list of movies takes just one page. Right now there's no other site in the entire world (well, at least in English) with detailed plot descriptions. And do you know why is it like this? Simply because Wikipedia is the source for plot descriptions. I don't say 100% just so you won't pull out an exception out of nowhere. Mdsummermsw 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC) But what does it have to do with the "needs sources" template you've added? 99.99% of the plot descriptions in Wikipedia have no sources. I'll be cutting it down considerably over the next few days. "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words" Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#PlotĬurrently, the plot section is over 2,400 words. Mdsummermsw 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Plot length Mdsummermsw 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC) No sources. Tendancer 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Barring a miraculous appearance of reliable sources for that section, I'll delete it wholesale (again) in the next few days. However as-is it was obvious synthesized original thought borrowing from a non-reliable source, and must be deleted per WP:NOR.
![harold and kumar go to white castle netflix harold and kumar go to white castle netflix](https://occ-0-2794-2219.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/LmEnxtiAuzezXBjYXPuDgfZ4zZQ/AAAABV82Xt7l-W7DJxAj3Yhf2gAfCBs3rWCMfLzi2evoIKU50eZKWlCTo4zdGlTnT6NoeETQJYyv3pZF1Un-HBb1Gcj4iVUWSSoUwRIY.png)
If the opinion/analysis was published by a WP:RS-conforming source, then it's a keep. However it was written (stylistically and content-wise) like an editorial, while citing a "community input"/message-board type opinion piece as a source which cannot be used per WP:RS. I realize the section was written in good faith. Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.
![harold and kumar go to white castle netflix harold and kumar go to white castle netflix](https://www.denofgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Netflix-New-Releases-April-2020-Extraction.jpg)