Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 3

message: Can I ask your indulgence on reviewing this article about a TV show and let us know if we struck a good balance in regards to in and out of universe? We are a new project and this is our first article that we've achieved GA on and want to really make it a great example. Anyone willing to take a look and see how we can improve/reach this goal? Thanks! -plange 04:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty please? I really desire to know if this article is meeting the standards you have set here, thanks :-) -plange 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request? 

message: I write, flail in hand, eyeing that dead horse for one more flog.  I think that the "in a nutshell," above, was probably closest to an accurate recommendation commensurate with professional writing on fiction.  My own fiction summaries have been moderately successful in Wikipedia (e.g. A Tale of a Tub, Oroonoko, and some non-featured ones like The Rehearsal (play), Glumdalclitch and The City Heiress).  These all contain "in-universe," but they are primarily "out of universe."  It is customary, when providing a summary of action or recounting the text itself, to go "inside" for a time, so long as the article is outside from its perspective. 
An article must be about the thing and must never be the thing.  It must identify itself in its summary sentence first and foremost as a fiction.  It must identify its author.  It must identify whatever series it is in.  Furthermore, it must step back after any summary to discuss the work.  Recapitulation is the work of fans, and it is the best way to make "fancruft."  The tendency to recreate, over and over again, is the impulse behind sharing an experience rather than discussing a cultural phenomenon.  After watching a movie, teens might say to one another, "Hey, 'member when the space ship blew up, and you saw a head spinning in space?  That was cool!"  The obsessive fan is beyond that, but she or he may well write articles that are born in that same impulse: they seek to share an experience, to recreate and re-experience the joy.  Such things are not wrong.  They are not to be denigrated.  They are, however, not encyclopedic.
The special fear is, of course, the manufactured universe.  Given that major corporations have figured out that fictional universes are a spigot they can put on their fans' wallets, it is in their interests to keep new items and stories coming.  Because these things are commercially designed to be self-perpetuating, from their inception, the amount of cultural dissiderata they generate is fathomless.  What we cannot do is paddle our little boats in that whirlpool.  If you can't step outside of the fiction, can't place it in context, then you can't write encyclopedically.  If your reader gets lost in the neat details with you, then you have basically said, "Hey, 'member when?"  Geogre 19:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know plenty of encyclopedic practice which recapitulates. The edition of the Britannica I last checked recapitulates some of the possible founding sagas for "Hamlet", and the major German encyclopedia in fact recapitulates the play itself. Yes, you are right, a good article must step back, but that does not mean that the overwhelming part of the article must be from the outside. Such an article would be bound to be unintelligible for the reader unfamiliar with the subject of the article. The key point is not the least simply NPOV. NPOV brings with itself a cold-blooded analysis of what's chaff and what's wheat. A fannish article will be lost in minutiae, a good article will still include details, but it will include those details that count and most importantly, show why they count. --OliverH 19:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innies and Outies and other thoughts 

message: I think that it's crucial that WP's articles be written from an out-of-universe perspective, and that's why I'm concerned that the out-of-universe idea is getting confused with other, separate ideas, like the use of primary vs. secondary sources, and the value of plot summaries in an article.  Those are not what out-of-universe is primarily about.  Here's in-universe:
:Flamemonster the dragon looks like a big pink worm.
Here's out-of-universe:
:In Dragons of Doom, the dragon Flamemonster is introduced as looking like "a gigantic pink worm".
This is out-of-universe because you're treating the dragon as a character in a book, not as an entity in an imaginary universe that we're pretending is real.  The key, I think, is citing your source, which is not an optional thing that fiction-article writers can vote on, but a mandatory part of the overall WP plan.
I want to stress that it's not anti-fan or anti-[fill in beloved fictional universe here] to insiste on an out-of-universe perspective.  Speaking as a fan of various things, an article is much more useful to me in my fandom if it tells me specifically which work of fiction contains the particular fictional information that I'm reading about.  It makes the information useful for fan readers, not just entertaining for fan editors.
The primary vs. secondary source thing cuts both ways--using a secondary source can actually detract from the out-of-universe perspective.  Take The Guide to Middle-Earth, for example--if you cite it, you're incorporating that work's in-universe perspective.  I would much rather see an editor quote how Tolkein described Shadowfax than read The Guide to Middle-Earth 's paraphrase--or, in many cases, a WP editor's paraphrase of the GME's paraphrase.  The former is just so much more useful than the other--for students, for fans, for whomever.
Secondary sources have an important role in fiction articles, of course.  Opinions about and interpretations of the work should be from secondary sources, rather than from our own impressions.  And descriptions of visual works are often better quoted from a secondary source.  But particularly with written texts, the best articles will incorporate a fair amount of primary material as well. Nareek 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your example is good and fine, but it does not constitute an article. If you say or cite someone saying that protagonist XYZ is presented as a nihilistic terrorist, you will not be able to support that in a cogent and legible fashion without looking through the eyes of the character. No doubt reading about Tolkien's describing of Shadowfax can give you a lot of information linguistically, but it will give you very little information on Shadowfax as a character and its use as a literary figure. If you take a look at "Cliff Notes" etc. all of them include summaries and characterizations of key figures including their in-universe viewpoints. I'll give you an example from here: The characterization of Huck Finn starts "In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain created a character who exemplifies freedom within, and from, American society. " This is "out-of-universe", but then it continues "Huck lives on the margins of society because, as the son of the town drunk, he is pretty much an orphan. He sleeps where he pleases, provided nobody chases him off, and he eats when he pleases, provided he can find a morsel. No one requires him to attend school or church, bathe, or dress respectably. It is understandable, if not expected, that Huck smokes and swears. Years of having to fend for himself have invested Huck with a solid common sense and a practical competence that complement Tom’s dreamy idealism and fantastical approach to reality (Tom creates worlds for himself that are based on those in stories he has read). But Huck does have two things in common with Tom: a zest for adventure and a belief in superstition." This pretty much compares the two as if they were real people. And how do you want to show how detailed the characters created by Twain are, if not in such a fashion? Etc. --OliverH 10:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A professional information source like Sparknotes can claim that it hires experts to summarize and analyze fiction--so we're supposed to take their word for it that its summaries are correct.  Because WP is edited by anonymous volunteers, we're required to cite sources, so that readers can verify that our accounts are accurate.  If we're summarizing descriptions and events, we can cite primary sources; if we're dealing with interpretation, we need to cite secondary sources.  The passage you quote does neither, and so would not make for a good WP article. Nareek 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources being the original text, per definitionem written in-universe. I don't think you got the point of what I said. --OliverH 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say, "In The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkein describes the character Gandalf as a 'wizard,'" that's an out-of-universe perspective, citing a primary source. Nareek 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. It's also NOT a characterization, but a piece of trivial data that likely anyone reading the line will already know. --OliverH 17:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The essence of out-of-universe 

message: As Brian pointed out earlier in this talk page, we need some more examples of fictional elements other than the works themselves or characters. If you've been following AfD the last month or so, a lot of "gamecruft" has been deleted. It's hard to sympathize with the "keep" proponents when these articles are roughly 99% in-universe, but what's been irking me is that some of these are potentially encyclopedic topics. To iterate what Brian said, we need some good articles on fictional weapons, locations, technology, vehicles, philosophies, species, etc., to hold up as an example of how to do these things correctly. Furthermore, many of the current articles on these elements fail to assert why the fictional element is itself notable (when in fact it probably is, by reason of novelty or being a key to the overall work's success). Again, it's not the loss of truly minor, one-appearance things that bothers me; it's the stuff that's been deleted for WP:NOT game guide violations when a total rewrite could produce a good article.
Fortunately, at least as far as video games go, I'm beginning to see more serious ludology. http://www.gamestudies.org/ appears to be an online peer-reviewed journal, which contains papers on Counter-Strike, Halo: Combat Evolved, Grand Theft Auto 3, Lara Croft, The Sims, and others. Some of these go into depth about various elements of gameplay that traditionally have not been well-sourced on Wikipedia. — TKD::Talk 00:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really involved in these, but I've seen WikiProject Stargate discuss and are preparing DNA Resequencer (Stargate) and Stargate (device) as possible featured article hopefuls. -- Ned Scott 00:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's encouraging. I saw the original failed nominations a while back. — TKD::Talk 00:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, and just found TARDIS (which was mentioned on the first FA candidacy of DNA Resequencer), Doctor Who's fictional time machine, which is a featured article. -- Ned Scott 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have my Ph.D. exam in a bit more than a week. After that, I plan on digging out some secondary literature on Tolkien and his work and rewrite some of the de:Wikipedia articles. I can just as well double-up and improve some of the en: articles as well. --OliverH 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone is up to it, we need some well-written articles on fictional elements 

message: Someone might want to round up the outline and style guidelines from other WikiProjects as well to get a better over-view. I'll list some that I'm aware of to start off: -- Ned Scott 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structures from WikiProjects

message: Do we have a template to tag articles that need to be revised into accordance with this policy? Phil Sandifer 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, . — TKD::Talk 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I thought I'd let editors here know that revisions are being proposed and discussed for WP:SPOILER and its templates at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines. This is a result of the (still open) RfC going on at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. Any input and collaboration between fictional guidelines is welcome and encouraged. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler tag usage 

message: Although the "fiction-as-fact" template was created to emphasize the need to focus on an out-of-universe perspective, I don't think it does this effectively. The language in the template suggests that the article is misleadingly presenting a fictional subject as a real entity, which is a stronger accusation than the intention. For example, when I added this template to Killer Bebes, the response from its author was "the intro clearly states that the page is about fictional characters," which this guideline clearly explains isn't good enough but the template does not. Do we need a new template, or to revise this one? Thanks. Deco 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you considered? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same template.  It was moved from "in-universe" to "cleanup fiction-as-fact" (though I preferred the former).  But I agree, it could do with a rewording.--ragesoss 23:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is to replace it and explain on talk. It's what's worked for me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The template doesn't work 

message: I don't understand this section; isn't it largely going to become a web directory? There's HUNDREDS of wikis out there about fictional subjects... many of them over at our sister project, Wikia! I'm confused as to the purpose... -- nae'blis 02:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles 

message: I've noticed that a lot of the examples given on this page focus more on revising in-universe plot summaries than on what I see the biggest point of this guideline, which is the focus on out-of-universe information. Our examples are usually things like chaging "X was born in 1943" to "In Issue 34, it was revealed that X was born in 1943." The problem is that neither is really the sort of information we're most after. Phil Sandifer 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. To summarize: We shouldn't just reduce in-universe info but add out-of-universe info. Very good point. I'm creating a new comics collaboration to clean up specific articles and try to promote some of them to Good Article status. This is one of the things we will be working on. --Chris Griswold 01:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This helps a little with my dissatisfaction over this guideline, but not much. It seems to me that all this MoS is asking us to do is obfuscate text with in-line references, while still repeating the same information in a different style. The actual value of the article is no different whether its references are quoted later or inserted inline, as long as they're accurate and comprehensive. Any person reading an article specifically about a certain subejct (,timeline, plot arc, character, organisation etc) already knows it's fiction - and most likely, would like to read about that fiction in a smoothly-progressing, natural way. I think people are underestimating a reader's ability of suspension-of-disbelief. Sojourner001 13:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hugely, hugely agree with Sojourner.  When I read articles on fictional characters it's usually to fill in holes in my knowledge, for example, after watching the X-men movies to learn more about the characters backgrounds.  Constantly saying "in issue 47" adds nothing useful and makes for disjointed and tedious reading Jerdwyer 01:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples given 

message: I also think we need to fairly clearly state the problems with "detailed plot summaries" for episodes/books/movies/etc. They've increasingly become the last bastion of fancruft, and almost without exception read as lengthy in-universe chunks that people are reticent to get rid of. A few specific sentences to this effect would be useful - any objections to my adding them, along with trying to rework the examples as above? Phil Sandifer 15:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean about the plot summaries? I think Oroonoko is an example of a good one. What kind of plot summary are you trying to prevent? — BrianSmithson 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Genesis of the Daleks seems egregiously long, for example. Phil Sandifer 22:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to agree with Phil. I wrote a series of "synopses" for Firefly (TV series) episodes that I'd meant to provide a detailed flow of the episode, and asked folks to trim them to essentials based on those details. Instead, they've mostly expanded on them, and I have only myself to blame for encouraging this. Perhaps we can suggest a rough guideline of X paragraphs per hour of show or 100 pages of book, so folks have an objective indicator to suggest when they're wandering into narrator territory. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Dragons of Winter Night and Dragons of Spring Dawning are examples of extremely long plots. Some people have already began working in the first book, Dragons of Autumn Twilight, which has a much nicer (one page long) plot. We are talking about plots, not article layout, remember that when checking those articles ;-) -- ReyBrujo 05:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: All of the articles associated with The 10th Kingdom, a minor Hallmark-produced telefilm, seem to be heavy on plot and deeply in-universe. Take Christine Slevil-Lewis-White, for instance. Her entire life story and little attempt to put her in context as not being real. --Chris Griswold 05:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Clarification of "notability" for fictional characters and its subsections contain some discussion about revising the WP:FICT guideline to require secondary or tertiary sources for standalone character articles, and to require that such artcles contain no more than half plot summary / backstory, in order to ensure an out-of-universe perspective. Comments are welcome. — TKD::Talk 10:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character notability 

message: Can this MoS entry emphasise the normal encyclopedia practices, such as mentioning key facts in the lead section or first few sentences? Articles suffering from in-universe persepctive tend to suffer from lack of this information anyway, so it is worth emphasising. The example texts of good practice give the name, date of publication and author of the fictional work, but many articles miss one or more of these points. How about an entry in this guideline saying that all articles must start by introducing the real-world historical, geographical and authorial context? ie. Say when a character or work of fiction was created, who created it, and give some cultural context (country, nationality of author, languages published in). And for a character, say in the first sentence the name of the books/movies/series/comics they appear in. Seems obvious, but you would be surprised how many articles leavve this kind of stuff out, or only mention it a long way into the article. Carcharoth 10:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasise standard encyclopedia practices 

message: These changes (in bold) to the example text illustrate what I was talking about above:
"Ludgar Wolventongue is a fictional character in the universe of RPG Co.'s Lands of Lustre series. (explain what Lands of Lustre series is)  Introduced in the Mysteries of Tympania trilogy  (give a set of dates here and give more precisely the title of the book and date of publication where the character first appears) by Amanda Karbowski, (explain who Amanda Karbowski is: nationality, other works, when she was born, what language and genre(s) she writes in) the character plays an important role in many Lands of Lustre novels. (name the novels) Karbowski's trilogy describes Wolventongue's birth into a powerful Tympanian family as the son of King Rodgast Horseheel and Queen Gebellynde of Hyrax; he ascends to the throne in 838 Age of the Mystic River, as described in the second book. (name the book) Various characters describe Wolventongue as "caring and magnanimous" (provide references and name the 'various characters'), and Karbowski offers numerous examples of these traits. (cite the examples) However, the king shows a temper from time to time, as when he berates a young Sir Gyroban after the Battle of Rynsoth. (give a reference here to the book and pages where this happens) In the later stand-alone novel Death in Tympania (1995), Wolventongue dies in 872 Age of the Mystic River during the Battle of Ganzon Gulch, a victim of Grufius the Gargler. The fact that Karbowski killed off the popular character shocked fans and prompted many negative reviews in science fiction magazines." (cite negative reviews and provide quotes to justify use of the word "shocked")
At the moment, the example text, though only intending to show how to avoid in-universe style, does a dis-service by not showing how an article should be fully referenced and placed in the appropriate context. Carcharoth 10:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph in question was intended to be a lead paragraph. The details you mention would most defintely be in the main body of the article, but most of them would be information overload for a lead paragraph I think. — BrianSmithson 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Brian. These are details best left out of the lead and explained in the main body. A lead section that had all of this information would be too bloated. Dmoon1 23:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh! I should have realised it was an example of a lead section. I've now added something explaining that. Carcharoth 10:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to example text 

message: Somewhere above someone requested examples of out-of-universe style article. I've recently started a major revamp of Middle-earth. It is still a work in progress, but the lead section and the first two sections give an idea of where I am heading. The geography, history and culture sections need major pruning and recasting towards an out-of-universe perspective, and I intend to do that over the coming week. The adaptations and games section also need to be turfed out to their own articles and very brief summaries put in their place, maybe combining them into something like Middle-earth in popular culture. Are these kind of changes what this guideline is meant to promote? Carcharoth 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested examples (Middle-earth) 

message: Are family trees really necessary for fictional characters? In example, this one. I would like to hear opinions or precedents about this matter. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason why not. I'd have more objections to a particular artwork of a fictional character being used to illustrate that character. Why that artwork and not another one? Carcharoth 23:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It illustrates character interconnectedness, so helps convey information useful for the understanding of the book. We should be lucky if we can actually give one specific family tree, a lot of Tolkien's stuff isn't that easy, e.g. Fingon or Orodreth. --OliverH 12:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think details of relationships are significant, and if there are too many to be described in prose, a family tree is the best way to show it. --Tango 14:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's a problem where family history is significant (usually when the other family members are actual characters, not cameos/unseen characters). -- nae'blis 21:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family trees 

message: In regards to , maybe we should rename this template, since there are many articles that do an "ok" job at separating fiction and fact but still need to follow other guidelines from WP:WAF. Not that it's a totally different issue, but it would make it clear to not remove the template just because someone said "ok, this is fiction". Or maybe just a redirect (that would be shorter to type, too). Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this tag has been put up on many articles that don't need it; articles that make it clear that the object in question is a fictional thing. Me, I'll remove the template on articles if the word 'fictional' is located in the first line, since that tells the reader that, indeed, the thing is fictional. Scumbag 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with this is that just because it says "fictional character" in the first line does not mean that the subject is treated as a fictional character in the article. For example, see Michael Myers (Halloween). The only out-of-universe information about this character is in the lead, the rest of the article treats Michael Myers as if he were a living person stalking the streets of some small town in Illinois. It needs to be plainly stated that inserting "fictional character" into the first sentence of an article does not mean the article meets the criteria of this guideline. Dmoon1 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, it's not just if it's mentioned to be a fictional character, but if the over-all treatment is mostly out-of-universe. -- Ned Scott 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This was addressed some time ago by updating the  template, but this article was not updated. Should be better now. Deco 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! I'll remember to start using that one from now on, thanks! -- Ned Scott 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template name 

message: is up for deletion here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 8#Template:Myst fiction. You are invited to share your thoughts in the discussion. — TKD::Talk 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A TFD discussion that pertains to this guideline 

message: At time of writing, this article presently says: "succession boxes assume continuity, which may not exist. Even if it does exist, the fiction's creators may choose to rewrite it later, invalidating any previous canon. In-universe succession boxes cannot adapt to these situations."
If continuity does not exist then fine, don't use succession boxes. But I don't think the second objection makes any sense. If a sequel to a piece of work is written which changes or retcons something, then any Wikipedia article on the subject can always be updated to reflect that. The fact that it is about fiction makes no difference: for example, the nonficiton articles about popes have succession boxes in them. If the Vatican one day decides that an antipope will henceforth be recognised as an official pope, then the succession boxes can be changed to reflect that. (I don't think that's a likely scenario, but it demonstrates that this is not a problem confined to fiction, and need not be a problem at all.) Going back to fiction: unless and until a sequel is written which changes something, it's ridiculous to say that you can't have a succession box because the succession might change one day. (Especially if the work of fiction is finished and complete, and there is no likelihood of a sequel, eg the author is dead. This policy seems to be aimed exclusively at comics.)
Anyway, the whole point of succession boxes (if I understand correctly) is not simply to make assertions of fact (eg. "A was followed by B") but to help the reader to navigate from one article to another relevant article that he might be interested in. So if, for example, someone has just enjoyed reading an article about President Bartlett from the West Wing and wants to read about the next fictional president, a succession box is an easy link to find, instead of having to scroll up several paragraphs of text to find the right link. It's a bit unhelpful to say that you can't use a succession box to find your way around connected articles just because there is a chance that years from now a writer might or might not change something.
I would suggest that succession boxes be allowed, but perhaps with some guidelines on their correct use, like we already have for infoboxes. Richard75 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, would like some clarification about the exact rules regarding succession boxes. There was a debate about their use in Star Wars articles a few months back, and we ended up deleting them all (the rationale being that it encouraged fancruft). I was just about to purge them from several articles before I saw this, actually. EVula 18:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Richard75 is right that "it may be changed later" is not very solid reasoning for disallowing succession boxes. I personally think it's foolish to add them to articles on fictional topics since it is fancruft, and it's likely that the predecessor and successor of a given fictional character are not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about them. It also encourages treatment of the topic as if it were real, when Wikipedia's goal as laid forth by this guideline is to approach fictional topics as cultural artifacts from the real world and not as real things in a fictional world. — BrianSmithson 22:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to using succession boxes as a leapfrog into similar articles, I think that argument is rendered moot by the fact that a well-written article will make reference to such characters in the body of the article. Making a link easy to find isn't really the point of the project, though the ability to quickly navigate between topics is important; perhaps characters that would otherwise be in such a box should be listed in a "See also" section instead, with a slight notation that clarifies the relationship (ie: "Person Y succeeds Person X in the Unnamed People Chronicles storyline"). EVula 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is exactly what a succession box does. Why reinvent the wheel? Richard75 16:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wheel was nice, but it is so twentieth century. We need something edgier, that really connects to today's "get it done" editor-on-the-go. EVula 16:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree completely. Succession boxes are something I think we should discourage for all articles, even non-fiction, for these same reasons. -- Ned Scott 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it would be tricky creating hard and fast rules on this. Sometimes a fictional succession may be solidly established with notable figures on it. Something like this might be a better guide line: "Before adding in succession boxes make sure the entries in the whole chain are notable ot there is little point in the succession (this goes double for fictional works where you should also establish how strongly canonical this succession is". Would it be possible to have some setting on succession and info boxes so that it can be clearly marked as fictional? You could give it different formatting and/or not allow or show specific information (like eye colour for fictional characters). (Emperor 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess I can just barely imagine a case where a succession box for fictional characters would be not only justifiable but helpful to the reader.   Something sort of like Dr. Who incarnations, except that I imagine those are separated by actor who are an out-of-universe feature.  Maybe it's not worth allowing that rare exception because it would inevitably bring in a lot of uses where it's inappropriate. Nareek 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Missed this new discussion, but the exception that you describe is already allowed because this guideline only prohibits in-universe relationships from being described with succession boxes. — TKD::Talk 07:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sucession boxes

message: has been restoring the original case that brought all of this to my attention; use of  in fictional corporation articles.
Some of the relevant articles:
*Shin-Ra
*Omni Consumer Products
*Union Aerospace Corporation
*Weyland-Yutani
*TriOptimum Corporation
*Kaiba Corporation (not Grandpafootsoldier, but relevant)
Just to be 100% clear,  doesn't belong in these articles, correct? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy. Yes, we shouldn't be using infoboxes designed for real-world entities on fictional ones, mostly because it tends to put undue emphasis on trivial details (i.e., what's important for real-world companies tends not to be for fictional ones). It's not verboten to use infoboxes specifically designed for fictional entities, but I'd be hard-pressed to come up with one for fictional companies that would be generally useful. — TKD::Talk 06:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to see four months of me arguing fruitlessly to that effect, see Talk:VersaLife. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: He missed Acme Corporation! — BrianSmithson 08:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The original case is back again

message: I propose this merge per KISS principle, per Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Both MOS and guidelines are growing and growing. This means less and less people will bother to read it at all. I think some effort is needed to make these newbie-friendly again. --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple answer: absolutely not. The anime and manga MoS is a topic specific MoS just like WP:FILM and the TV MoS (which is becoming a real MoS as noted in the message below). It deals with aspects not just related to "fiction", including quite a few industry specific topics. It is a well used, well understood project specific MoS. And unlike this thing, it hasn't had any real issues with disputes or the like. Our MoS is stable and works well. Every good project has a MoS. There is no reason at all to merge them. Will you also be proposing every other topical MoS be merged into WP:MOS? I'm going to presume you aren't in the Anime and manga project that you would even make such a suggestion, as you don't seem to have a clear grasp or understanding of what the project does or its full scope. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kubanczyk has generally done a good job on style guidelines when I've noticed, but I agree with Collectonian on this one.  The key is that you're either working on manga or you're not; for the people who aren't, there's no point in making them read manga-specific guidelines, and the existence of manga guidelines doesn't create any extra work for them.  However, I very much welcome Kubanczyk and anyone else joining the current push to make sure style guidelines are just as tight as possible, so that we minimize the amount of material that people read that they won't actually need. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. The MoS for anime and manga-related pages is ok on its own, and does not need to be merged with this controversial guideline. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:WAF and WP:MOS-AM have different aims: the former is guidelines for the microwriting (to use a jargon term) about all fiction and fictional topics, while the latter is about the structure, that is macrowriting, for a specific genre of fictions. I can't see them fitting together at all neatly. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Such a merge wouldn't even make sense. I fail to see how the guidelines provided support the merge - could you please elaborate on the matter? --Eruhildo (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with not merging. WAF isn't really about article structure and what to look for, but more about how you should go about writing your information when you attain it, appropriate sources, when to leave trivial details out of an article, and outlets for information that is relevant to the show but not to an encyclopedia. If you look at the Manga MOS, the FILM MOS, and the one that I'm working on for the TV community, they are more about article structure and what info you need to look for.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree that these two should not be merged. While I understand the nominator's reasoning, I think it has been misapplied in this case for the reasons already expressed by others above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm also opposed to merging. MOS-AM is a project/topic specific page, while WAF is a very general style guideline. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with anime and manga