Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 2

message: Please see: Wikipedia:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings.—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-policy proposal 

message: How about this mess-on-every-level (even the TITLE can't get "Spider-Man" right): Spider-man's powers, abilities, and equipment - SoM 03:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you want an article to fix up 

message: as its now a guideline i added it to Template:Style and Wikipedia:Community Portal. Catherine breillat 13:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  now a guideline 

message: We're running into problems at WP:COMICS with people creating articles specifically to detail plots of individual story arcs.  Now, working on the following guidance:
*Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles: Articles about fictional topics should not be simple book reports; instead, the topic should be explained through its significance on the work. The reader should be able to feel like they understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work after reading an article about one. A reader should be able to understand why this person/place/thing/event is relevant to the story.
*Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. Wikibooks, Wikipedia's sibling project, contains instructional and educational texts. These include annotated works of fiction (on the [[wikibooks:Wikibooks:annotated texts bookshelf) for classroom or private study use. Wikisource, similarly, holds original public domain and GFDL source texts. See wikisource:Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks.
*This page: (ensure) fictional passages are short, grounded with real-world language, and do not form more than a small portion of the article.
Can we work something up where we give guidance that articles should not exist solely as a repository for plot summaries, and that plot summaries should be kept brief, and included only where they serve to illustrate elements of a works significance, or events held to be significant to the work or character in question by cited sources? Appreciate thoughts. Hiding Talk 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example:  I think largely based on misunderstanding or ignorance of this guidance , my recent attempt at deleting Runaways (comics) (story arcs) failed.  Was I wrong?  --Newt ΨΦ 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summaries 

message: Would someone please take a look at M.I.B. and tell me what SOP is in dealing with such an article?--Chris Griswold 04:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a suitable article to merge and redirect to. Hiding Talk 07:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIB 

message: I think the purpose of this guideline is (as stated on the project page) to discourage 'original research' theories on 'in world' details and encourage inclusion of information about real world connections and relevance... which seem to me like good things that most people agree on. However, I have also already seen some indications of other interpretations which I think could be much more problematic.
For instance, some seem to suggest that plot and character details should be minimized or cut out entirely... possibly including removing many articles completely. Comments calling articles on minor fictional character or excessive detail on major ones "unencyclopedic content" strike me as trouble waiting to happen. Wikipedia is not paper. We have the space to be the equivalent of the combined contents of every 'fictional universe' encyclopedia in existence. What reason would we have to not do that? The standard claims that such details are 'unencyclopedic' ring hollow;
We are working to include articles on every little species of rodent, far more than any general purpose paper encyclopedia would ever contain, yet no one claims these are "unencyclopedic content". Brittannica has articles on New York City and other major metropolises - Wikipedia has articles on every po-dunk town in the United States (and many outside it)... yet no one yells "unencyclopedic" and slaps a dispute template on those either. On every other topic it is simply understood that Wikipedia is not paper and has the capacity, indeed the mission, to include the equivalent of an 'Encyclopedia of rodents' and an 'Encyclopedia of U.S. towns'. Just as we go much further than Brittannica or any other 'general purpose' encyclopedia in covering plants and animals, into the realm of specific encyclopedias on those topics, why would we not do so for fiction?
I'm all for removing speculation and including real world perspective, but I strongly disagree with any attempt to say that fiction should be the one area of Wikipedia which we restrain to remain within the limitations of a 'general purpose paper encyclopedia'. Wikipedia's coverage of U.S. civil war matters should be the equivalent of that in a 'Civil War encyclopedia'. Coverage of mammals should be the equivalent of that in 'Mammals of the World'. And coverage of Star Trek the equivalent of a 'Trek encyclopedia'. Granted, development of information on fiction has actually outpaced that of many other topics to date (towns and schools being notable exceptions)... but that is not a reason to restrict it. Indeed, it is rather an indication of the chaos which would ensue if we tried. --CBD 12:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent of this guideline is not to prevent articles being written about fictional topics, and if people are pointing to it and saying such, they are wrong. The intent is to insure that fictional topics are described from the perspective of the real world and not from the perspective of the fiction. The intent is to make articles like Lord Voldemort look like the article Jabba the Hutt (and the other examples on the project page). Part of this will be the minimization of plot summary; the article should not focus on the "biography" of a fictional character, even if it is framed in the perspective of "In book X he does this; in book Y he does this." As far as your points about exhaustive coverage of fictional topics go, there is a longstanding Wikipedia policy on this at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). — BrianSmithson 12:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a brief response to this bit from CBD: "We have the space to be the equivalent of the combined contents of every 'fictional universe' encyclopedia in existence." - I would point you to the copyright concerns expressed further up the page here. In particular: "writing from an "in-world" perspective will constitute infringement of copyrighted works" (by Postdlf), and also: "Lose that transformative context and you're simply creating a competing product for the Star Trek Encyclopedia or the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe.". The key point is that writing an encyclopedic guide to a fictional universe is a derivative work. Unless the context or dicussion is there, you are just repackaging the same information. Regardless of whether or not there is a market or readership for this, it is still derivative and wholly dependent on the original work. Without the additional text giving context, such a guide would not exist without the original work and derives entirely from it. Which means I am leaning towards thinking that this guideline should in fact be policy, though I agree with those who point out that many good articles have started from such "in-universe" beginnings. Carcharoth 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an excellent point. From my ignorant-of-the-law point of view, it sounds very reasonable. I am still hesitant to act on this, however, as we have yet to hear from a lawyer on this matter. (You're not a lawyer by any chance, are you?) — BrianSmithson 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I can't concur with the 'copyright' argument because it is directly contradicted by thousands of existing works of this sort. When Michael Perry was working on the book eventually published as Untangling Tolkien I had several long discussions with him about the copyright issues involved and the objections raised by the Tolkien Estate (specifically, concerns that he was reproducing the content of the timelines / retelling the story had to be addressed prior to publication). You cannot copy material directly or reproduce the story or some element in such detail that it could replace the original, but other reference works are entirely legal. Our encyclopedia entries clearly fall into the latter category. Keeping with the Tolkien universe - how could The Atlas of Middle-earth, Foster's The Complete Guide to Middle-earth, Salo's A Gateway to Sindarin, Day's various 'encyclopedias', et cetera exist if your copyright interpretation were correct? Ditto for the numerous Star Trek reference works. This is not a copyright issue so long as we aren't actually copying or attempting to produce a work which provides so much information that it would reasonably be expected to cut into sales of the original. Nor do I see an issue of 'encyclopedic' content given that Wikipedia routinely uses standards of inclusion and detail consistent with >specialized< encyclopedias rather than general ones. The six paragraph entry on Bumblebee Bat would be ludicrously large for something like Brittannica (which may not have an entry on them at all), but is roughly the same size as the entry in my Walker's Mammals of the World. Again, why would fiction be the one topic where we don't produce content in the level of detail of the specialized encyclopedias? What is different about this topic? As I said before, I don't have a problem with changing the way information is presented, but I don't think it is appropriate to cut/exclude information simply because the topic is fiction. --CBD 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be more inclined to agree were it just fiction that is treated like this, but it isn't.  Wikipedia's verifiability policy asks that an article have a third party source, something plot summaries, relying on a sole primary source, fail, along with website descriptions and phone book entries.  There are many things Wikipedia doesn't allow, this isn't an attempt to target fiction solely, Telephone directories are specialised reference tools which we again do not replicate. Hiding Talk 19:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phone books? I wasn't saying that we should include everything. General encyclopedias don't include phone numbers at all. They do include info on animals and fictional characters though... just not as many of them or in as much detail as specialized encyclopedias or Wikipedia. As to verifiability... surely the primary source is verifiable. We don't look for a third party source to describe the contents of the Declaration of Independence... we just cite the document itself. In what way is that not verifiable? --CBD 00:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you weren't saying we should include everything then I think we have to let consensus define what we do and don't include, and it's been a long standing rule that original research and overly long plot summaries shouldn't exist in wikipedia. Don't know too much about the contents of the Declaration of Independence, but we shouldn't interpret it without reference to secondary sources, since interpretations are original research.  That applies to fiction as much as anything else. I can't declare Parliament as sovereign, but I can quote numerous sources who explicitly say that.  When using sources, we can quote a primary source and we can summarise a secondary source.  There's quite a few guides on the internet to using sources and when a source is primary and secondary. Hiding Talk 22:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a confusion here between describing and summarising a book, and interpreting a book. Obviously interpretations need to be sourced by referencing the work where the interpretation appeared (this would be a secondary reference). But when you are describing and summarising a book or fictional setting (obviously being careful not to add any interpretation or slant to the description), you often need to cite the primary source. This what I think people misunderstand when insisting on secondary sources. That only applies to interpretations of a book, IMO, not to descriptions of a book. The same would apply to plays, films and other works that can be referred to when writing a descripion of them. Carcharoth 10:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential pitfall 

message: One point about the use of this "out of universe" style, is that it can vary depending on the type of fiction. Off the top of my head I can think of fictional universes in several different mediums: films, books, plays, television, computer games, collectible cards and gaming universes. Some franchises, of course, appear in more than one such medium. On the other hand, it seems that a clear distinction can be drawn between films and books on the one hand, and the other mediums on the other hand. Films, plays, books and serious television drama do have a more respectable, artistic, less fannish side to their fiction (eg. art house films, literature and costume dramas). Televisual entertainment, computer games, collectible cards, and gaming franchises are more in the realm of fandom, popular culture and light entertainment. My point is that it is easier to write in an "out of universe" style for literature (Shakespeare, for example) than it is to write about, say, Pokemon. Both are fiction, but there is a world of difference between them. It would be great if the articles about Pokemon and Shakespeare had the same approach, but the key difference seems to be the following:
*Fans writing for fans ("in universe" style)
*Editors writing for readers of a general encyclopedia ("out of universe" style)
I would encourage those fans wanting to write articles for other fans to consider the reader who does not know anything about a particular universe, but wants to read an authoritative introduction to that universe. That sort of "front page" article could then lead to the "in depth" articles that would be "daughter" articles of the main article, and it is these daughter articles that could be more "in universe" if required. This organisation also makes it easier to transwiki if the need arises. Carcharoth 15:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More excellent points. Part of the intent of this proposal is to say that the Shakespeare method of writing about fiction should be applied to Pokémon, Harry Potter, and He-Man as well. I would caution against even the daughter articles you mention being more in-universe, though; this is where we get into biographies of fictional characters or xeno-anthropology about fictional alien species masquerading as academic encyclopedia articles. I hate to keep bringing it up, but Dmoon1 has done a great job transforming a very crufty Jabba the Hutt article based on this guideline. I don't see why the same can't be done with Crookshanks or Cybertron. — BrianSmithson 16:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The parent-daughter article structure has issues. If you compare, say, a list of minor characters from Star Trek to a category of such characters, the advantages are clear: they can be organized by series, and the context necessary to place each one in its correct fictional universe can be elided. Relationships between them can be described much more briefly by controlling the order of presentation. Because of these and other factors, the list achieves a brevity and integration of concepts that individual articles could not. This is part of the motivation behind the mergist philosophy. Deco 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different types of fiction 

message: I've done a brief example of different styles for Witch-king of Angmar. See here. Is this the sort of thing that this guideline aims to encourage? Carcharoth 02:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of styles 

message: I've seen many cases of articles, lately that suscribe to the usage of using the directive of "you" in summeries, rather than the more accepted prose of "the player", "the reader" or "the character". This is somewhat concerning to me, as it coveys a sense of instructions given to the reader, rather than the appropriate use of encyclopedia, which explains from the third person. I feel this would be suitible inclusion in the guideline page as to help dissalow this. Also see discussion on my talk. Comments...? -ZeroTalk 12:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely. The third person, "the reader", and "the character" is definitely better. I am sure there is already something about this in the MoS in general, but can't find it at the moment. Carcharoth 13:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid the second person. — TKD::Talk 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "you" in that context should strictly be "one". It's similar to using "they" instead of "he or she" - it's basically the English language changing - "one" is considered old fashioned by many. Using a more specific phrase ("the X") gets around this problem quite well. --Tango 16:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context involving the reader 

message: I proposed a little while back that it be made a guidelines that plot summaries be written in present tense. It seemed to get some support, and then was moved to an archive. Could we include it in this style manual? DJ Clayworth 02:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's already guideline, at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction. If we want to expand this guideline into a general-purpose one (rather than focusing on the in- versus out-of-universe stuff), it should definitely be included. — BrianSmithson 03:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. DJ Clayworth 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: are you saying thatpeople are already expected to look in more than one place to find guidance on how to write a fiction article? sheesh! Sandpiper 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are expected to look in several different places. Check out :Template:Style for the complete list. But more specifically, creating an all-inclusive style guide for fiction-related articles has been under discussion and is a definite possibility. Welcome to the wiki, where things do not just spring fully formed from the forehead. -- BrianSmithson 00:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When people come to wiki thay have a choice: they can spend all their time reading the rules and discussing  how they can be improved, or they can go off and edit an article. I suspect that these two tend to be mutually exclusive. Hence my comment. The longer, more complex, and spread about in different places this guidance is, the remoter the chance that people actually editing will read it. Sandpiper 13:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would it be bad to put a guideline in several places; to say "use the present tense" both in this guideline and Check your fiction? I know that if, like me, you're a software developer then you probably have nightmares about data integrity, but that isn't really an issue here. DJ Clayworth 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an issue, becaus two different sets of people may well be altering the two versions into entirely unrecogniseable forms. But my own gripe is with placing related info on different pages, which means that people with less than a lifetime to spare researching all the advice, will miss half of it. Sandpiper 01:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: Ugh. Check out :Template:WBToonChar. People have been slapping this on everything from Bugs Bunny to Witch Hazel (Looney Tunes), and it's horrible. The top portion isn't bad; it provides information concerning the character's first appearance, voice artist, etc. However, the bottom half lists such information as "known aliases", "known rivals", and (worst of all) "known relatives". This is ludicrous, as these characters are 1) not real people, and 2) change aliases, allies, enemies, and relatives from cartoon to cartoon. Bugs and Daffy can be allies in one short and rivals in the next.
At any rate, this template has led to a dispute at Daffy Duck. An anon is trying to add a "son" to Daffy's "known relatives" based on a one-liner from an episode of a '90s TV cartoon. I'm trying to argue the same points that I've raised here (that Daffy has no relatives, since he's not real), but they aren't buying it. So, my question is what tactic do folks here recommend for combatting this template and this dispute? Would I be right to request that the template be changed? (The one level-headed animation editor I could call in on this seems to have left the project.) -- BrianSmithson 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, then I guess you probably wouldn't like the  template I made :-) I was pretty new then and posted it on the Novels project and didn't get any objections.... Should I yank it? I've only applied it to Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bennet. plange 03:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess you could let him add the relative with the , call for consensus, let the editors state what they think, and decide whether or not to include it. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a "Relatives" section since it is separated from the "real" section. -- ReyBrujo 03:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that, if you remove the "Background" part of the infobox, all that information will flow into the article (which I guess is much worse than having all collected in a small section inside the infobox). Unluckily, it appears that the folding method does not work with other skins, only with the classic one, so there is no way of hiding it for some users and show it to others. That is why I (for now) do not want to edit articles with numerous fans ;-) -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference from Jane Austen is that her "universe" has a finite beginning and end, and she makes an effort to keep things consistent and logical. The WB shorts are quite the opposite. Daffy Duck has gone from being an insane enemy of Porky Pig to a sidekick of Porky Pig to a rival of Bugs Bunny to a mentor of Plucky Duck. Bugs Bunny destroys the moon in one of the Marvin Martian cartoons, yet later shorts show that the moon is, in fact, still there. Assuming that this happened in one consistent "universe" is absurd. -- BrianSmithson 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha plange 20:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking on a template 

message: Can we have a specific template for pointing out that something needs to be cleaned up to meet these guidelines?  I just kludged one together in a two-step process at Edenborn, by subst:'ing the  template and adding a clause pointing here.  If whomever tackles this task doesn't have a better idea that approach could be used. GRBerry 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: can you provide a link to what you've done so far? plange 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you are using classes messagebox, cleanup and metadata to keep consistence with the other Cleanup sections, it is fine. We created the  one, with the date as optional parameter (having two, one with date and one without, is a bit nonsense, especially when you have the bots running around replacing one with the other). -- ReyBrujo 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like there's . — TKD::Talk 07:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Request 

message: "Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source." -- wouldn't the fictional stories a character appears in be the primary source for information on that character?  Or, to put it another way, why aren't (for example) the Superman comics useable as a primary source for an article on the character Superman, or why can't/shouldn't they be used as such? Dr Archeville 01:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Superman comics are primary sources for the article on Superman, you are correct. This is not a problem, as Wikipedia has no problem with primary sources. The problem comes when these are the only sources used or the principle sources used. The best articles will rely most heavily on secondary sources. -- BrianSmithson 01:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) They are allowed as primary sources.  Overly reliant is the operative word here; the most useful articles about fiction will have analysis and context, rather than simply plot details.  And going beyond plot details into analysis based on the primary sources is, by the Wikipedia definition, original research.--ragesoss 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see, I see... thanks! Dr Archeville 12:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "saves" --Chris Griswold 08:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Mustn't forget those tenses. Carcharoth 10:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something I've always wondered (primary sources) 

message: I added a sentence into the lead about an award the actress won for playing the role of the character the article was about (my attempt to try and add some out of universe perspective) and someone just reverted it saying the article was about the character not the actress. Was about to reply back about my reasoning, but thought I'd check here first. Here was the edit. plange 20:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say as pertaining to this styleguide, that whole article is on notice. It's entirely in-universe.   --Newt ΨΦ 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I TOTALLY agree, not a news flash for me I assure you-- this article is lower priority for us on our project; we're working on the higher profile ones first (our project is only a couple of weeks old). It was just that during the course of things if I notice something to add, I add it so that later when it's re-worked I'll have some out-of-universe things to expand on. That was the case with this one, but someone just reverted it, so hence my question. Should I revert back and cite my reasoning? plange 21:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character question 

message: An editor has brought to my attention the fictional writing style implemented in these articles. As a fan of the series and one that does not specfically posess a style inherent consistently writing from a point of view outside of it, could some one assist composing these articles to the MOS quality....? I'm currently going about adding references and clean-up attempts. -Randall Brackett 12:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant articles are contained below: 
-Randall Brackett 13:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mega Man Zero character articles 

message: I am proposing a hypothetic case of what would be covered in an article of a notable work of fiction assuming no size restrictions but also lacking any notability for the universe within that work of fiction, as to try to bound issues for spinouts and other aspects, as well as likely creating language to be re-inserted in here on how much to discuss a fictional universe.  Please see this discussion thread if you would like to provide input. --MASEM 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the case cannot arise. How can a work be notable independent of its subject, unless it is notable primarily  as an example of fine printing, or cinematography? 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input requested at WT:FICT 

message: Can someone provide some guidance regarding the make-up of Character lists in Play articles? There is some dispute on this and no clear guidelines. (Unfortunately, we have very clear guidelnes for Film, books, even toys and games, but not for plays.)  I see that in your "exemplary articles" list you have several tv series and one film, but no plays. Should character lists be in list form (like in a theatre program or playbook) or in prose (like in the exemplary tv series articles that are listed)?  And in complex plays (like Shakespeare) should the character lists be fairly complete, or just the main characters?  Or should character sections be placed in a separate article completely and deleted from the main play article? Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Lists in Play articles 

message: This page is one of the 6 style guidelines specifically mentioned at WP:WIAGA, and it says it's a style guideline, so I stuck the style guidelines cat on it.  Feel free to revert.  Ignore my comment in the history about it being "commented out"; turns out that was a HotCat bug. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just added this to style guidelines cat 

message: I couldn't find anything explicit along these lines, so I'm suggesting adding it, or something similar, in "Notability and undue weight" and "Plot summaries":
If there's any concern that this would lead to removal of things that shouldn't be, especially as wikipedia isn't finished and there is no deadline, it might be worth adding
Of course, if this is said, it might be worth reinforcing that good articles (including GAs and FAs) shouldn't have such coverage, along the following lines:
(probably with GA and FA links).
So, what do people think? If WP:FICT settles in the direction it seems to be moving, I think this would be very useful in discouraging over-inclusion in lists. If we can only cover a list item with plot summary and in-universe information, should we be covering it at all? SamBC(talk) 14:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly sounds a good idea - I wouldn't bother undermining it with the However... paragraph.  I also think that a lot of what's in the Depth of Coverage section there would find a better home here.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition