Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 6

message: After coming across EverQuest timeline on AfD, and poking around found :Category:Fictional timelines, a few of which are also up for deletion. Poking around, I saw the usual backstory/plot summaries, a few lists of episodes, and one truly bizarre instance of left hands apparently not knowing what the right hands are doing.
Narnian timeline is a featured list. The hell? Nifboy 12:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline articles? 

message: :::::::::I don't mind a mention stating that in-iniverse description may tend to present a story in a way which seems more like a substitute for the original work, and thus may make an issue of copyright violation worse. But it seems to me that you agree with me, that the issue of in or out description is largely a fig leaf which would not protect anyone from copyright problems. Pretending in the guideline that it does, is a serious mistake. Worse, by attempting to blame everything at the door of in-universe writing the whole guideline is undermined. In-universe writing is an entirely natural way of presenting story, when that is appropriate. This whole business of in/out is a completely unnatural concept to a passer-by. First time I met it was when someone posted something on a talk page, and I wondered what rubbish he  had just invented and was pushing. It is an unknown concept to most people, so writing an entire guideline that way reads completely like pushing an idea which no one respects. I think the nutshell also needs revising, because its meaning is not self-explanatory. Sandpiper 06:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, I was unfamiliar with the concept and distinction. It seemed to me entirely natural that an article discussing a fictional topic will intermix the two styles as appropriate.  Even the examples given here continue to intermix examples of in-universe description, eg. ...the Slibvorks of Blastio are infected with the Kroxyldyph virus by a bio-warfare special operations unit on a clandestine mission. Now, the writer of the example may argue that this is preceded by The story tells how..., but this is a very short example. If the piece contained three or four sentences of description, then it becomes ridiculous to start each one The story tells'...Then it says... It goes on with...And later says... And a bit more about.... Similarly, the example introduction about Wolventongue is somewhat contrived. It introduces valid real world information which ought to be included, but that is because the next section of in-universe comes from a different book. If it were all from one book, then the reasons for the interruptions of the narrative disappear, and it becomes entirely artificial to just invent some.  Sandpiper 08:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I think what's happened is there is an out-of-universe writing style ("The author introduces . . . ") and an out-of-univere article style (one in which background information such as creation and influence are examined alongside character biography or plot synopsis). Perhaps the guide is conflating the two too much? In my opinion, this guide is much more intended to prevent Fictional biography of Batman from masquerading as an encylcopedia article on Batman. This is more important than whether certain sentences are written "Batman kills the Joker" or "Bob Kane has Batman kill the Joker." — Brian (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blimey, someone else sees the point. (no, thats not sarcasm). I have amended the article a bit to make it clearer, but it still needs work. Particularly the 'what is wrong' section. 'Sources' starts with an incorrect quotation of sources required for articles, and is a general point about all styles of writing. It has no business being a subsection there, but probaly ought to be amalgamated with the section lower down suggesting sources. Sandpiper 22:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with Brian. I think the core point of the guideline is to prevent entire articles from being written in-universe, rather than individual sentences or even paragraphs. In every case I can think of, in-universe is the most natural way to write a plot summary or to discuss character development. In virtually every case, it's the most convenient format for the reader as well. I think previous drafts of the guideline did pointlessly discourage that. I don't think the current version can be fairly read to make that mistake. That said, I like most of Sandpiper's tweaks. DCB4W 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, often times even character development, and many other things, can be written OOU if you have additional real world info. If the creators of the work say that character X was inspired by something or a real life person, working that into a character development section would basically be giving it an OOU perspective for that note. I would like to encourage editors to seek out and find such information, to find things we don't just learn by watching the show itself. OOU perspective isn't really about reformatting plot summary, it's about encouraging real-world information where it makes sense. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OOU perspective isn't really about reformatting plot summary, it's about encouraging real-world information where it makes sense. Can we add this to the MOS? Dr Aaron 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure 'add' is quite the right word,  but I think it seems to be the intention that it ought to mean what you are suggesting. Sandpiper 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ned, I dont necessarily disagree, but I feel it depends on how long the article is. In a short article, things wiill be mixed together more. In a longer one, they may get sectioned apart. Sandpiper 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have a related note to a plot element then it should be placed with the description of that plot element. Think of it like in-line ref tags. Aside from basic background info, plot summary that has no such related real-world notes probably shouldn't be in the article. -- Ned Scott 20:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you on this one. Certainly there's no copyright or philosophical reason not to have a detailed synopsis of Hamlet in its article, for instance. And I think it will often be more readable to have a distinct plot summary section, followed by development as a separate section or subsection.DCB4W 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AGAIN, no one is saying one size fits all. Note the last part of my message that Dr Aaron likes, "..where it makes sense". Hamlet is one thing, we don't have a problem with people adding "Hamlet-cruft", and it's freakin' Hamlet, which has major significance. Hamlet has inspired other works and people, and has a very significant impact on the real world, so including more detail there makes sense. I really doubt we are disagreeing at all, but just that what we think the other person is talking about is getting confused. -- Ned Scott 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: speaking of Hamlet, it should be mentioned that some works are out of copyright, so fair use issues would not apply. 86.129.67.106 17:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another arbitrary but necessary section break

message: All the character articles listed (e.g. Jabba the Hutt are for characters who appear in a large number of titles. It's quite easy to write a very detailed, very thorough, very organized and very strongly out-of-universe-tone article for such characters.
Characters who appear only in one medium, (like Hank Hill, which I'm currently trying to clean up), on the other hand, are much more of a challenge. I'd like to see more "role models" for how the "biography" sections got turned into, presumably, a more respectable season-by-season account of what was said of the character. Or however these things are supposed to be organized.209.59.32.53 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there are some comic book character articles that might work as a model. Captain Marvel (DC Comics) for one. — Brian (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more examples of "good" articles 

message: Another thought: Of all the complaints that might be made about the practice of in-universing, one has always struck me as the most in need of attention.
There's a bizarre tendency on Wikipedia to follow the usual fan wiki practice of sketching out a coherent fictional universe, if necessary by including a little straightforward extrapolation in order to respect all details presented (e.g., reconciling Star Trek series by saying the USSR reconstitutes itself sometime after 2000). This should be unnecessary in any truly out-of-universe description (and it's a good alarm bell that deeper changes need to be made). But it's unencyclopedic, annoying, and absurd to see this done in articles on joke-oriented series like Futurama and Family Guy, where disrespect for continuity is frequently part of the absurdist humor.
Check some of them out, especially the articles on characters; these articles, while usually containing some out-of-universe elements, often seem to stop just short of speculating on the layout of Bender's body compartment. I'd like suggestions for how to take a hatchet to some of these articles; if nothing else, I'd like to encourage everyone to work on one of the most profound manifestations of inappropriate "tone" in fiction articles.209.59.32.53 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me about it. I've even seen people try to create "canon" for Looney Tunes characters, arguing, for example, that Daffy Duck has x number of children because they were featured in this that and the other short from 1943. It's ludicrous to create canon when there isn't any. I thought this MoS said something about not discussing canon unless the universe in question has specifically indicated what is and is not canon, but I can't find it now. The best thing to do in the cases you mention, though, would be to remove the offending material on WP:OR grounds; if there's never been an official source declaring some minor factoid canonical, any assertion in Wikipedia that it is or isn't is original research. This goes doubly for fan speculation about Bender's body compartments, etc. — Brian (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion: Greatest need for cleanup

message: Please take a look at my second round draft. —AldeBaer (c) 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that my draft is written with the intention to make the guideline more to the point. I incorporated aspects covered at great length in sections 4 Reliable sources and original research, 5 Notability and undue weight and 6 What's wrong with an in-universe perspective?, and I'd suggest dumping those sections if my draft or a version derived from it finds consensus here. —AldeBaer (c) 17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. I want to do a side-by-side comparison of the current draft and your revision before I fully support the changes, but I'm leaning toward the belief that we should replace what's here with your version. I do have a few suggested changes, though. Do you mind if others directly edit the draft, or would you prefer we propose changes here first? — Brian (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I'm assuming you're not proposing dropping sections like the list of sample articles or the list of suggested sources for real-world information? — Brian (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd only drop the sections named above, as I've tried to incorporate their content into my proposal, the rest should definitely stay. I don't mind anyone editing the proposal at my sandbox at all, you're welcome to edit at will. —AldeBaer (c) 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll take a look at it this weekend and possibly merge in the remaining sections so folks can more easily make a side-by-side comparison. — Brian (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the rest of the sections over to my sandbox. I put those I suggest dropping into a separate section at the botton. Please note: Anyone is invited to edit the proposal. —AldeBaer (c) 11:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Having looked more at AldeBaer's version, can't say that I'd support it. While it's true that some sections aren't technically in the realm of what WAF is, they add greatly to the guideline, and I think they're being used in proper context. (such as the "Notability and undue weight" sections)-- Ned Scott 06:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any specific suggestions, you're welcome to edit the proposal. —AldeBaer (c) 12:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of this I replied to on my talk page: I was thinking more about this today. It might simply be that we need to drop the sections for WAF, like you said, but maybe make some kind of glue / in-between pages for WAF and FICT. Like a guideline series for fiction that flows well, with pages leading into other pages. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (You're right, better to keep the discussion in one spot.) I think the idea sounds promising. To a certain extent, it is part of my proposal - although I hadn't thought of the possibility of multiple pages, instead I made extensive use of intra-page links, so as to mirror the actual interconnectedness of the aspects involved in writing about fiction by linking from and to the different sections wherever appropriate. The question is, which seperate areas/topics are to be covered? —AldeBaer (c) 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AldeBaer, I like your rewrite. Unfortunately, this talk page doesn't seem to have the eyes that it used to. Perhaps the best way forward is for you to just be bold and instigate the rewrite. That'll at least garner some attention, even if it's from someone who reverts and then comes to complain here. — Brian (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: rewrite, second round

message: I've adapted the Template:Infobox Military Conflict so it is more appropriate for fiction articles. I've trialled the new template on Battle of the Pelennor Fields. The two changes are a depictions section and labelling the in-universe information. One small glitch is that it adds a blank line to the article.--Nydas(Talk) 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bad idea. Fictional battles should not be treated like real ones. For a less in-universe approach, see Template:Infobox Me battle. Carcharoth 21:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Infobox fictional conflict]]

message: I'm not keen on Characters of Final Fantasy VIII as an example article. It uses fragments of dialogue to establish character traits, a practice which we should probably not be encouraging. Some of the paragraphs are heavily in-universe. There is almost no indication that these are video game characters, for example, there are no screenshots. The article relies heavily on a single source for much of its out-of-universe information, an article written for a female gamer website.--Nydas(Talk) 08:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could list it on WP:FAR. —AldeBaer (c) 09:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See the responses on the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII talkpage. If you want to ditch the best example we currently have for that type of article, go on ahead. I find it quite ironic that an article worked on by one of the heaviest advocates of WAF and FICT is being considered too "in-universe" by another user. Also, the dialogue system has been used for numerous FAs without anyone else complaining; it's better than the alternative, which is no sources for these summaries (and even this is accepted in plenty of articles), which would mean that we couldn't tell if it's speculation or not. — Deckiller 05:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with dialogue fragments is that they can be used to misrepresent plots by cherry-picking the 'right' fragments. It's not unusual for fans to have unrealistic views of certain characters, for example, thinking villains are misunderstood. Take a look at Nelson Muntz, a blatantly one-sided article. Most of it could be 'sourced' with dialogue fragments, even though it would still be completely wrong. More generally, there is no way to know if the dialogue fragments have been selected appropriately. There may be important plot points which aren't specifically mentioned in the dialogue. The only way to tell if dialogue fragments are an accurate representation of the plot is to watch/read/play the work of fiction itself.--Nydas(Talk) 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, I think it's a good tool to use because the other option is no dialogue fragments, and then it's completely in the dark. It can also make certain questionable statements stick out like a sore thumb (statements that aren't made clear in dialogue or other sources), while showing that the information derived clearly from the (without speculation). — Deckiller 18:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondary sources are a preferable alternative to dialogue fragments. The guideline should explicitly state this.--Nydas(Talk) 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but not mandatory for a decent article (especially since plot summaries in secondary sources are rare). — Deckiller 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be mandatory for exemplary articles, though?--Nydas(Talk) 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not. Preferred if available, but not mandatory. — Deckiller 08:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not mandatory for the very best articles, then it's not really preferred, is it?--Nydas(Talk) 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Preference does not equal mandatory in any scenerio, even the very best articles. Especially when the preference is something that is unavailable for some topics. If it's something universally attainable (like concise prose and inline citations), then it becomes extremely important at the high levels. — Deckiller 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The quotes are more a matter of good sourcing. For lack of reliable secondary sources, I think dialogue is a good way to source things, as long as not much interpretation is being applied (which could lead to OR; the article text should read essentially as a rewording or summary of the dialogue itself). Whether text is in-universe or out-of-universe though is a separate matter from whether it's sourced using primary or secondary sources - you can source in-universe material with secondary sources as well. I see this type of article as difficult to write about in an out-of-universe way because games, much less their characters and plots, often aren't a subject of serious research or critical review. There are some notable exceptions, like Lara Croft, who pops up in research as a symbol of the sexualization of women in games, but minor characters in Final Fantasy games are unlikely to achieve that kind of prominence. I think in the long term, unless more people begin to study these subjects, the only hope might be to condense, merge, or move such character material to another wiki. Dcoetzee 08:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: I'm proposing a rewrite of the guidance offered by the WikiProject Comics, and would appreciate input from the wider community.  Thanks. Hiding Talk  15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could you possibly comment at... 

message: I've made a proposal to expand the review process of the television wikiproject into a fictional article notice board, to better clean up articles in line with this guidance and that at WP:FICT.  I think we need an area where we can bring issues within articles to the attention of the wider community, and this seems a useful way of doing it.  It would mirror notice boards implemented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.  Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process#Expansion. Hiding Talk  15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Television article review process]] as a fictional article noticeboard