Wikipedia talk:Articles about fictional concepts

message: You say "Verifiability would not be stressed as a major factor, as there are little outside resources to corrobate information obtainable from works of fiction. Articles would need to describe how the character or concept works in its own universe." I am sorry, but WP:V is one of the central policies we hold to be important when considering articles. Any proposal that explicitly rejects it cannot, I am afraid, have my support.
Incidentally, there are FAs about fictional characters; and they are FAs precisely because they stick to WP:V et al. For example, see Batman, Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Dalek, Felix the Cat and Superman. Batmanand | Talk 20:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very important that articles about fictional people or things be about facts not the story behind them. I've seen a lot of articles about fictional people and things that describe them like they are real things. Articles like these should be avoided. The main focus of articles on fictional things should be about delvelopment, design, meaning and the history behind those topics. Since that is the kind of information you need to research, this sounds to me like a way to get around it and still be "reconigized" in some way. Medvedenko 21:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Batmanand; if an article is not verifiable, it should not be showcased but fixed. Period. If FAC doesn't accept articles simply because they are on fictional topics, the problem is within FAC. Again, if an article is not verifiable, it is not encyclopedic. -- Rmrfstar 21:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed... There is another policy proposal under construction advocating just the opposite policy.  See User:Amcaja/Writing about fiction, which advocates writing from an explicitly out-of-universe perspective, which is essential for any encyclopedic treatment of fictional material.--ragesoss 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Having spent the majority of my effort on Wikipedia on articles on some form of fiction, I agree with Batmanand, Medvedenko, etc. I can say from experience that cleaning up articles written from an entirely in-universe perspective entails a good deal of work, especially when the plot or character summaries are full of generalizations that may or may not be recastable as concrete, verifiable examples and/or supported by commentary from the fiction creators. This is not to say that a lot of effort doesn't go into preparing plot and character descriptions, but, if those descriptions are riddled with original research, they're not as good as they can or should be. — TKD::Talk 22:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did I read right? 

message: This is actually a good jumping off point to enact some guidelines for articles on fiction.  Amcaja has been too busy to continue pushing his well-formulated guidelines, User:Amcaja/Writing about fiction, but I (and others) think it should be incorporated into the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (rather than policy).--ragesoss 21:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a great, well written guide. Medvedenko 22:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to the style guide, regarding fiction

message: Due to your comments, I understand that such a project is inappropriate and contradicts the established procedure. Is there a set limit of time or may I immediately move it to ex-proposals?--Lkjhgfdsa 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; actually, I just added the above proposal to announcements, so it will be more of a replacement.  Cheers!--ragesoss 22:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might redirect it to the other proposal, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), if you so desire.--ragesoss 22:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You're right