Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 1

message: :"All characters of this species that have been introduced to this point are blue-skinned humanoids from the planet Blastio."
That sounds like weaseling to me.  The first part of the sentence doesn't add anything that wouldn't already be assumed by anyone reading it. --Tango 18:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be phrased better, sure. But weasel words are things like "Some people claim" and "Some fans believe that" kind of phrasings. The phrasing you are taking issue with cites its source (or can be assumed to be from the source made-up TV show). I'll try ot clarify the example, though; thanks for the comment. — Amcaja 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weasel words are any words added purely to get around a policy rather than to actually add information.  It doesn't have to be about citing sources to be weaseling, that's just the most common use of the term. The phrase I'm taking issue with adds nothing to the article, so it is weaselling. --Tango 18:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I disagree that it's weaseling then. Someone who watched Star Wars and wrote that all Wookiees are brown would be flat out wrong, as anyone who has seen other Star Wars movies can attest. That's the kind of logic-leaping I'm trying to warn against. Like I said, it should be rephrased, but this thing is still in the draft phase. — Amcaja 20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: @Amcaja AKILLBILL (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

text: However, would they be wrong if they said it before the other films were released?  Films that haven't been released yet are not considered canon, so you could say you're not finding out more about the universe with each film, but rather the universe actually changes. (That's a rather convoluted arguement, but hopefully you can see the point I'm trying to make). --Tango 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point (and actually the Wookiee example was a bad one, since I think the Wookiees in Revenge of the Sith are all brown). I still say it's leaping to conclusions based on scant evidence. To take it to an absurd extreme, after A New Hope, would it have been logical to say that people from Alderaan have brown hair and brown eyes based solely on Princess Leia? I'd rather see the prose acknowledge the small sample size: "Princess Leia is the only person from Alderaan introduced in the films so far. She has brown eyes and brown hair." But that's the type of prose that requires stepping out of the source material and viewing it as an element of a film/book/TV show/whatever. — Amcaja 21:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You make a good point - deciding if the sample size is enough to assume it's typical of everyone is original research.  It's in that kind of matter than 2ndary sources would be very useful, but in many cases there aren't any authoritative enough to really use.  Fan sites are of limited use.  Prehaps a disclaimer saying what information is being drawn from ("This article uses information up to season X") would be useful (in addition to citing specific episodes or films - the disclaimer would basically be a citation for the lack of information on counter examples). --Tango 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be a secondary source. If there's a canonical Field Guide to the Firefly Universe, it's a primary source, but such a book is more likely to make broad statements like "The Hyluks are purple, doglike beings from the planet Yluk." Your disclaimer idea isn't a bad one, provided we decide that writing an article form a primarily in-universe perspective isn't a bad idea. Incidentally, the problem with this OR is that many of these canonical sourcebooks do just that — the author sees that C-3PO is gold and that he has a British accent, so he writes that "Protocol droids are gold in color and speak with prissy, upper-class accents." Reasonable assumption, but still OR. The difference is that this sourcebook author is being paid to write about a fictional universe, and he or she has carte blanche to make up facts like that, which then become canonical. We, as fans and outside observers, are not in the same situation. However, people want the wikipedia article on protocol droids to be as good as something they read in a Lucasfilm sourcebook, so they mimic its writing style and, likewise, leap to similar logical assumptions. Unfortunately, our assumptions do not have the weight of canon and paychecks behind them. :)  Thus, I still contend that it's more scholarly and generally useful for an encyclopedia to avoid such writing altogether. ;) — Amcaja 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Most books like that aren't considered canonical.  They might be in Dr Who - a lot of things are there - but I know they certainly aren't for Star Trek which has very strict rules about canon, it has to have actually appeared in a film and TV episode, even the animated version isn't canon.  The various Star Trek encyclopedias only include things that are already canon (with a few comments written from our universe's perspective about scenes that were never broadcast, etc).  They're a useful source, but only because they're more convinient than watching all the shows, not because they're more precise. --Tango 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only corner of fandom with which I have much familiarity is Star Wars. Lucasfilm considers all the encyclopedias, "essential guides", roleplaying supplements, etc. to be canonical, so they are good sources for in-universe articles. They seem to be used extensively at Wookieepedia, for example. Interesting that Star Trek doesn't do the same. — Amcaja 04:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: This crystallises exactly what I've thought about writing about fiction into clear, concise wording, splendidly!  Woot.  Morwen - Talk 19:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! — Amcaja 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About time 

message: As opposed to making this policy, I would much prefer to see this added to the Manual of Style.  Once there, FA reviewers could easily point to it as part of the FA criteria. I think making this policy might have the unfortunate side effect of stifling article growth... fictional topics almost always have a period of time in which they write from an in-universe perspective, but if this were policy, such additions would likely start being reverted as vandalism, instead of being improved as per style... Fieari 07:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I'd like to see this adopted as a style guide, not as a hard-nosed policy. I need to investigate the procedure for that, but I've been really busy lately outside Wikipedia. It's probably time to move this to a larger forum. Where is the proper place to move this thing? — Amcaja 12:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move it onto the Community Portal, right above the misguided Wikipedia:Articles about fictional concepts that was added today.--ragesoss 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a proposed tag on it now.  We should move it to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (fiction-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (articles about fiction).  There are several other MoS pages for something-related articles, but I think keeping "writing about fiction" is better for this.  For there, it can be discussed more, and either accepted or rejected; in any case, that would be a permanent home for it.  I'm going to make the move... if someone else disagrees about the naming, we can discuss subsequent moves.--ragesoss 22:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy vs. guide 

message: I like this guideline. I think it does a good job of cutting to the heart of what annoys people about badly written fiction articles: they focus too much on regurgitating the fiction itself in summary form instead of adding insight and broader perspective. I also think the terminology you introduce here will be very useful for providing constructive criticism on these articles. On the other hand, I think there's certainly a use for summaries of the fiction, especially when they're drawn from many sources and reordered. I would have no objection to a purely "in-universe" section describing the plot of a book in an otherwise "out-of-universe" article. Likewise, a developing article may consist entirely of "in-universe" information without meriting its deletion - it may serve a valuable role as a portion of the final product.
As for why we have a problem with articles containing too much in-universe info - I think that's just because often contributors to a fiction topic often have done little more than read/watch/play the fiction before visiting the corresponding article. Fanatics or scholars who really dig into the background, watch related documentaries, participate in newsgroup discussions on the topic, etc. tend to have a little deeper knowledge. Deco 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it say anything about deleting in-universe articles?  That definitely shouldn't be in there; it's just a style guide.  As for an in-universe section for summaries, summaries can be done well without be totally in universe (though out-of-universe references might be few and far between).--ragesoss 23:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't - sorry if I implied that. I agree with your comments. Deco 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think most often we have contributors who have relied on fan references, and who haven't actually viewed or read much of the relevant works of fiction.  That's probably why so many articles have so little context; no one has a clue where any of the fictional details were actually depicted (such as Darth Vader's years of birth and death—not given in the movies...and horrible to start an article with...gah!).  I remember an AFD discussion for a highly detailed article on a character that only appeared in one Star Wars video game.  The whole article was written as if it were based on a novel rather than an interactive game, and the article's author couldn't even explain how the game communicated the information about the character to the player.  Postdlf 06:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To respond to Deco's comments: I agree that short in-universe sections are perfectly fine, and the guide even mentions this. Perhaps the guide should have a bit more to say about this? I see these in-universe sections as most useful in the situaions you describe, "when they're drawn from many sources and reordered." For example, Darth Vader (which needs a complete rewrite) might do well to keep a short "biography" section that begins "After six films and 9,303 novels, Darth Vader's official biography places his birth in . . . " and then go on from there. My fear would be that this section would get way overlong, but then those interested could split if off per Wikipedia:Summary style. So, the main Darth Vader article is out-of-universe with a brief in-universe bio, and we have a daughter article called Biography of Darth Vader. — Amcaja 14:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good guideline with a couple caveats 

message: I like this as a guideline, but would like it to have some more "teeth" as a policy. We have too many nonencyclopedic articles on Wikipedia, and hoisting this to the level of policy would do a better job at improving the quality of Wikipedia than leaving it as style. However, even as part of the MoS, it will still have a positive impact, and I would love to see every article that this is talking about rewritten by a group of people to chop out the current content and replace it with this suggestion. Note that it would be a wonderful thing to find an alternate wiki for the current content -- while the stuff that's there now is quite interesting and in many cases carefully researched and quite neat, it's not within our scope. Something akin to transwiki/rewrites would be the best way to handle things, I think. --Improv 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past some of the game fiction details has been moved to game guides at Wikibooks, I believe. Something similar might apply for other types of fiction. Deco 02:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the place to note one's approval? Well, consider it noted. This standard is a great idea, whether as policy or as a guideline. Sandstein 05:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this proposal a lot. In my role as FA director, I see lots of issue pertaining to articles dealing with fictional universes and I think this page does wonders to addresses common problems. Raul654 23:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely agree. Both that this should be policy and that as a MOS entry it's better than nothing. In-universe perspecitve needs to be kept to a minimum only as part of brief plot summaries. See the Lost TV show episode guides for another example of what we should be avoiding. - Taxman Talk 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea, better as policy 

message: If this is to be part of the Manual of Style, would it be a good place to remind editors to cite page numbers from fiction books? Imagine, for example, that I was writing a list of computer passwords to avoid, and a portion of the list consisted of important objects from Lord of the Rings. A small part of my list might look something like this:
*Glamdring (Tolkien 1994: 971)
*mathom (Tolkien 1994: 5)
The article of course would contain a suitable Reference section. The detailed discussions about in-universe aspects of various characters, objects, etc. can seldom be justified in an encyclopedia, but on the rare occasion when subtle details are important in the real world, a precise citation to the primary source is very helpful.
::This could be problematic, as I can foresee that each editor may have a different edition of the book. Maybe chapter numbers might be more appropriate. Kevin 10:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page numbers should be included, with the specific version listed in the references (in traditional lit. crit., that's how citations are done), but chapters might be a good idea also in Wikipedia's case.  Citations in the examples is a good idea, definitely, whether or not there is an explicit reminder on this page.--ragesoss 11:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I believe this policy is solid, though it could use some common sense within reason clause. What I mean is, for example Stargate (device)#Complexities of function contains a bunch of sub-sections about complexities to a fictional device. The device has already clearly been labelled as part of a fictional universe and continually calling back to make it clear these effects are fictional would make the whole thing unreadable. What I mean by this is, I agree Wikipedia should be written from a reality POV, but once a [something] has been labelled fictional an article should not need to remind readers that factors or features of that fictional something are fictional as well (Once it's clear the Stargate is fictional you don't need to say the wormhole it generates is fictional). Staxringold talkcontribs 17:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Stargate (device) is a perfect example of the sort of article this guideline is meant to warn against. So, the short answer is that the "Complexities of function" section is simply more fictional information than is needed for a general-purpose encyclopedia about the real world. — Amcaja 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I take that back partially. Stargate (device) does include some out-of-universe stuff, but I do think it is too heavily slanted toward in-universe material. The long sections about how the devices work could use some heavy pruning. To address your specific comment that "continually calling back to make it clear these effects are fictional would make the whole thing unreadable", I disagree. There are several articles linked to on the proposal page that do exactly this, and most are featured articles. — Amcaja 17:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The intent of the essay is not to prohibit in-universe writing completely. In fact, it says, "Giving plot summaries, character descriptions, and direct quotations in articles about fictional elements is certainly proper in many cases. For example, articles on works of fiction often benefit from a brief plot summary." The point is to keep them short and to (preferably) properly ground them in real-world language. As for the virus made-up example, your version is fine (though I still prefer the one given in the proposal). But it shouldn't be seen as an all-or-nothing thing. Small bits of in-universe are okay, but out-of-universe should be preferred whenever possible. I'll offer Darth Vader again as an example of an improperly grounded, almost fully in-universe article. It reads as a fan page rather than a scholarly look at the subject. And Stargate (device) is an example of an article that could be made a lot better by simply reducing the in-universe, fictional descriptions to give more information about why the producers did the things they did, how the art directors created the look of the gates, etc. As for Postdif's reasoning below, I am not a lawyer, so cannot comment. — Amcaja 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Within reason 

message: I would change "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective."  in to "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should primarily take an out-of-universe perspective."
This would allow some in-universe information as long as there is a proper out-of-universe red line to the article. If you don't include this, then before you know it you will have ppl removing every "plot synopsis" in wikipedia, which seems a bit over the top if you ask me. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 10:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change as you suggest. I had wanted to avoid mincing the words, but some of the negative comments above seem to be from people who believe the guideline would be applied too stringently in its previous form. Hopefully this will ease some of their reservations. — Amcaja 12:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that wording is too soft. It should be the former and only explicitly state an exception for plot summaries. - Taxman Talk 14:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason some people have reservations about this proposal is that they fear that folks will point to the summation (the "in a nutshell" part and later the bolded line) as the sum total of the thing. It would definitely be best to keep these two items as short and punchy as possible, so as to avoid something like "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and, with the exception of brief and judiciously used plot summaries, all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective." I have no problems about changing it back, but I was just trying to woo some detractors. I'm not sure what the standard practice is on these things as to whether the "in a nutshell" stuff has to cover all possibilities. I suppose it shouldn't. — Amcaja 15:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure you need to worry about the detractors unless they bring up some new bombshell point no one has thought of. Plain and simple Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles and except for the plot summary should be entirely out of universe. Whatever the shorter way to say that is is fine. You laugh at the quoted wording, but it's just fine unless someone can make something shorter and just as clear. - Taxman Talk 18:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: agree with taxman - be harsh! the nutshell should just give the essence of a policy and not mince words. Zzzzz 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How's the current wording? I also don't want to water down the "exceptions" section to make it too permissive, but a lot of people seem to be arguing that, say, Darth Vader could use an official biography since he's been developed over so many movies, books, comics, games, etc. Provided this "biography" stays very short (one section of a few paragraphs in a long article), I don't see why this would be a problem. — Amcaja 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wording is now a redirect to the exceptions. i'm not much for that personally. Also i think the "out-of-universe" focus is a bit too strong troughout the proposal (for instance the exceptions). You just can't get away without some "in-universe" biographical information on characters for instance. You have to explain something about Darth Vader representing Evil within the StarWars universe. There is a difference between "in-universe" writing and "in-universe" information. I think the proposal misses that distinction at several places and should be a bit rewritten to "avoid in-universe writing". - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand the distinction between avoiding in-universe perspective and avoiding in-universe writing. — Amcaja 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The wording is not too strong. We're an encyclopedia, not a fiction work or fan magazine. Those things you mention should be written about entirely from an out of network perspective. - Taxman Talk 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I didn't make myself clear enough. What I intended to say is that the focus of SOME areas of the proposal is too much on "not using information out of the universe", instead of focusing on "writing from an out-of-universe perspective". You cannot explain the usage and representation of the iconic figure Darth Vader, without explaining that within StarWars the character embodies the role of "The Evil Badguy". This is universe information that is required to explain the usage of the icon within culture. Listing pure data (actor, time, movies) is useless, dare I say even without meaning, without describing the FUNCTION of the character within the universe. Saying something about Batman (which no one would argue doesn't belong in Wikipedia) is useless by not mentioning that he is a "selfmade superhero deeply scarred by the murder on his parents" and that this selfmade + vulnerability combined are the aspects that makes him one of the more loved comic heros, because people can easily identify themselves with that. Without some of that context of the story, the explanation of why he is "easily identified with" is useless. Ergo, universe information should be used as context to the out-of-universe events, popularity, reaction etc. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That same information can be conveyed from an out of universe perspective. And cited. If there isn't a reliable source to cite for that (there would easily be in this case) then your characterization of Batman as that is original research. You're misunderstanding what out of universe perspective means. It's not that we ignore important elements of the story, just that we don't talk about them from the perspective of the story. - Taxman Talk 12:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  i made some small changes to ensure its not a "redirect to the exceptions" anymore. also, would it be a good idea to include a "replies to common objections" section? Zzzzz 10:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Excluding specific examples is not sufficient. There will always be found new cases in which an in-universe perspective is eminently suitable that you can't predict. Better to be too "soft" than to be too hard and exclude well-written content as a matter of policy. Although, MoS is rarely interpreted as obligatory. Deco 12:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own universe. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. This is not inherently bad, provided that the fictional passages are short, grounded with real-world language, and do not form more than a small portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Note that when using the fictional work itself to write these descriptions the work of fiction must be cited as a source.
I think this addresses both The DJ's and Zzzzz's concerns. — Amcaja 12:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YES, this I like. That's 100% what I intended to point out. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wording 

message: I looked at some of the articles featured in the
Example articles section
and noticed that some articles had good footnotes, for example, Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Others, for example, Jabba the Hutt, often did not rely on formal footnotes, but rather mentioned the name of the movie, or for television, the date the episode aired. Considering that one would usually have to buy a movie DVD or an entire season of a TV show to check the article, I suppose these references are adequate.
I do think that by having the list of example articles concentrate on movies, TV shows, and video games, the "Manual of Style" readers are not exposed to citations that give a page in a book, and so do not become accustomed to the idea of being able to check a fact in an article by reading a small amount of text (as opposed to having to watch an entire season of a TV show to check a signle fact.) Gerry Ashton 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Donkey Kong, Krazy Kat, and Felix the Cat rely primarily on print sources, so those provide examples of using print sources and good footnotes in articles on fictional subjects. (And, yes, Felix does not have inline citations. I and others wrote the article long before such were standard, but I do intend to add them, hopefully soon.) However, I agree that it would be nice to see an example article on something from, say, Tolkien or Douglas Adams. If you know of a good article about a fictional element from a print source, please add the article to the list. — Amcaja 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added The Lord of the Rings to the list of example articles. It has a good variety of secondary sources. Gerry Ashton 21:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good addition. Now if only we can find an article on some character or location or monster from science fiction or fantasy literature that meets the criteria. — Amcaja 12:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Frankenstein's monster?  The plot summary is a little bit long, but everything else has the right perspective.--ragesoss 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has an out-of-universe perspective, and appropriate amount of detail. However, it has no footnotes or references. Gerry Ashton 22:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example articles

message: fyi, you may be interested in the wording of the WP:WIAGA:
Articles dealing with fiction:
For articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, or locations, significance outside the "fictional universe" must be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship. The focus of the article should remain on discussing the subject as fiction within the context of "our" universe, not on establishing it as a "real" topic in a fictional universe; otherwise, the article may be better placed in one of the many fictional-universe specific wikis.
Zzzzz 10:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a good article criterion 

message: There's some useful stuff on the project page. I think that it needs to deal with the particular grammatical and lexical pitfalls of the register. For example, there's a tendency to overuse temporal and sequential markers, such as "then" (= "next"). Care is required to achieve consistent and logical tense. And lots more. Tony 13:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that such information would be useful, especially some discussion of the literary present tense and when to switch to past. (I still have problems with this myself.) However, the guideline at present is mostly about how to approach the fiction, not the nitty-gritty of what words to use or not abuse, literary present, and the like. Perhaps once we get the kinks in this particular proposal ironed out, it would make sense to create one all-inclusive style guide for fictional articles that would incorporate this, your suggestion, WP:FICT, and other guidelines? In the meantime, perhaps someone should do a more style guide-style style guide per Tony's suggestion for later merger with this proposal. — Amcaja 13:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Edited to add: Some of what you are talking about is already at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction. I like the idea of bringing all the info on writing about fiction into one place, but, like I said, we should probably iron out this particular policy/guideline first. — Amcaja 13:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks, Brian; I'll check it out. Tony 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the grammar and lexis of writing about fiction 

message: Should we change to all external links for the list of fictional-universe-specific wikis? The hodgepodge of Wikipedia articles and external links we have right now bothers me, and it seems that a direct link to the wiki in question would be more useful to someone interested in writing the definitive biographies of Bebop and Rocksteady. Or should we include the list at all? We could conceivably get away with a link to List of wikis. — Amcaja 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: adding a link to list of wikis underneath the existing examples is a good idea. if you do, then you can also change all the wikilinks to external links (as gtheir relevant wikilinks can be found in list of wikis). Zzzzz 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional-universe-specific wikis 

message: Just to say I totally support this initiative. Let's get this adopted as part of the style guide as soon as possible. DJ Clayworth 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In its current form, it is quite well written and gets its point across admirably with copious examples and suitable discussion of exceptions. Deco 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do a straw poll to get this formalized.--ragesoss 22:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: Since we can't realistically guarantee that each article in the list of example articles will continue to demonstrate the qualities that the guideline proposes, wouldn't it be a lot easier to link fixed revisions? Deco 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be fine to leave it as straight links. Like the list of Featured Article Candidates, the articles will change. If someone notices that, say, Jabba the Hutt has been totally rewritten as a biography in a month's time, it should simply be removed from the list. (Incidentally, this guide will hopefully inspire scores of more examples so that the totality of good fiction articles will not even fit on this page.) — Amcaja 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with deco - these types of articles have a tendency to deteriorate towards fancruft, a fixed revision link would be better. Zzzzz 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link fixed revisions 

message: For the poll see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/straw poll. I've closed it, it's been running for a little over a week and the consensus in there indicates fairly strongly that people see this as being implemented first as a guideline, although there were a number of people who felt it could or should be upgraded to a policy were it to be disregarded.  For those keeping score, there were 18 confirmed votes, of which 16 saw it as being formalised and 2 rejected it. The majority is a strong consensus, and within that consensus 13 favoured guideline as a first step, again a strong consensus. Hiding Talk 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't there be a method of opening this up much more widely for comment? Given the number of WIkipedia editors out there, is there really no procedure for making this more widely known before it gets officially adopted? DJ Clayworth 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was announced at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and What links here shows that it has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?, Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia talk:Articles about fictional concepts, and the following WikiProjects: Avatar: The Last Airbender, Comics, Computer and video games, Digimon Systems Update, Doctor Who, Halo, Machinima, The Simpsons, Star Wars, and Television. In addition, numerous specific articles, peer reviews, and featured article candidacies have mentioned the guideline or suggested its implementation. It seems fairly widely known; if people opposed it or had suggestions for changes, I'm not sure why they wouldn't have come here to comment (as two did). — Amcaja 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I thought a week was an acceptable period given it was a straw poll rather than an official poll, and there was such a strong consensus.  I admit it wouldn't have harmed to leave it open longer, but also that it wouldn't even have been necessary to have had the poll, given the discussion it could have just been adopted. Hiding Talk 21:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that you need to apologize. As Brian mentioned, a lot of people writing about fictional subjects were made aware of this in one way or this proposal. — TKD::Talk 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items, which I saw when I first started editing, I assumed that the middle earth articles had a problem with in-universe perspective, but based on your recommendation, I'll have to take a look for myself. --Chris Griswold 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: Perhaps we should make a note somewhere that writing elaborate plot descriptions also most likely does not qualify as "Fair use" and therefor constitutes a copyright violation? - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a lawyer, so don't know if that's true or not. But if someone with a law background can confirm that this is, in fact, an issue, it should definitely be addressed. — Amcaja 17:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not a lawyer, but plot summaries are almost certainly fair use, within reason.  Large amounts of quoting might not be, but a plot summary in your own words, as long as it doesn't end up being nearly as long as the original should be fine. --Tango 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think  it's fine as long as we are not passing the article off as a substitute for the original work. DJ Clayworth 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) PS:  uses plot summaries of a tv show as an example (just above the conclusion at the bottom). The determining detail seems to be "Could the summary be used as a substitute for the original?". As long as it really is a summary and not a complete rewrite, we should be fine. --Tango 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use