Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 7

message: I had a look at some of the many links to pages with "succession boxes" and they are not really what I would consider succession boxes in the classical sense (see Template:Succession box.
Succession boxes involve fitting a character or event into a link in a chain - as in a list of succession (something coming before and something coming after). An example would be Edward the Elder as King of England - he has a succession box (see the Wiki-code) listing the monarchs coming immediately before and after and a general template listing all the monarchs.
Along those lines, the Template:Lotr isn't really a succession box - it is a template summary of material falling under the "lord of the rings" fictional area.
I think this confusion means that many people who are supporting removing a ban on succession boxes are actually just ratifying the exiting support for the use of templates.
Dr Aaron 11:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the histories. They've by and large been removed now. Nifboy 15:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not touched any custom made Project tamplates, if I did, it would be ones that specifically involved a succession.--Dr who1975 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you're the one arguing to keep certain succession boxes, your making a WP:POINT by removing them.  Drawing attention to the issue this way isn't right.  You should put them back. - Peregrine Fisher 16:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on your side in this debate, it's just that you shouldn't apply a guideline to show that it's broken.  Per POINT, "This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in Wikipedia itself." - Peregrine Fisher 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should the boxes be put back right now? Even if I was breaking a rule (which I'm not), what does that have to do with the issues being brought up? Why shoulod the boxes be put back, so that somebody can quietly remove them a few at a time later on. Putting the boxes back would be breaking the guideline. I think people use WP:POINT in this way to game the system so that the issue isn't brought to the attention of people who care about it. This thing needs to be discussed and hashed out. Wikipedia should not be solely controlled by the computer nerds who are savy enough to artfuly navigate its rules.--Dr who1975 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me also state that it is not my intention to disrput wikipedia. I plan on giving this a few more hours (or a bit longer, depending on how many people feel the need to chime in) to germinate on its own and then I will start talking about compromises.--Dr who1975 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Template:Lotr was never a succession box. It is a footer navigation template, giving an overview of a subject area. Kind of like a list of contents. I prefer the slimmer sidebar navboxes myself (arranged vertically at top right of an article), but many people seem to prefer the bloated big "contents" footer templates at the end of an article - performing the same function as a "See also" section. As for true succession boxes? When writing about fiction, burn most of them. Some succession boxes are useful, but only a very few. They simply repeat information that should be presented as prose in the main body of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles that people should read, not a database that presents information in neatly packaged infoboxes for people with short attention spans to skim. Carcharoth 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Template:Lotr is not a succession box. I don't even know why it has come up.--Dr who1975 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifying what a succession box is

message: Hi, I briefly got into the debate concerning spoiler warnings and have been referred here.  It's a thorny problem because, on the one hand, (a) full plot synopses do have a place on wikipedia (b) the disclaimer page states that wikipedia contains spoilers.  However, on the other hand, the wikipedia page often shows up as one of the first hits on a search for e.g. a movie, and those who are not indoctrinated into wikipedia culture will have works spoiled for them.  They may be googling for reviews to judge whether to spend their money, for instance.  These people cannot be expected to first click the disclaimers link at the bottom of the page, then read the article.
This clearly requires some sensitivity if wikipedia is to deliver on its goal of being a comprehensive, academic-quality reference work whilst at the same time being a responsible 'netizen'.
I have a couple of suggestions:
# When the plot of a fictional work is explained including spoilers, the section should be called "Plot" or "Synopsis", not "Plot summary".  The inclusion of "summary" allows for the possiblity that spoilers have been removed from the summary, whereas "Plot" is stronger, and sounds very final.  Here is the plot, period.
# There is a place for a "Plot Outline" in the IMDB style, i.e. that recite the setup but do not spoil the conflict-resolution plot points.
# If such a section is included it should appear before the Plot section.
# Spoilers should be kept out of the article lead.
# It is usually unnecessary to recite the entire plot of a work without adding information.
I believe these will allow wikipedia to combine the functions of (a) an imdb-style resource for those considering whether or not they would be interested in a particular work, (b) a more complete academic-style reference work (c) a responsible netizen.
I would like to see something in the guidelines that encourage editors to be sensitive to the casual visitor regarding spoilers, given that the Spoiler Warning debate seems to be settling down on the answer that spoiler warnings are usually not appropriate.  Opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweavo (talk • contribs).
:You make an excellent point. Dr Aaron 14:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, and sorry about not signing.  What's the protocol here?  I feel too shy to go ahead and update the policy, though I might feel braver another day.  I'd like to see some dialog here first.  Any other takers? Sweavo 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good idea for this guideline to take a position one way or the other regarding spoilers until the main debate has been settled. Then, we should simply reflect what the outcome was there. For example, spoilers being kept out of the lead is a contentious issue, especially with works of fiction whose notoriety or fame rests on such spoilers (such as The Sixth Sense or The Crying Game). Has the spoiler debate settled down yet? I've been away on vacation and haven't checked it since I got back. — Brian (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The debate seems to be about spoiler warnings rather than spoilers per se.  I don't see the debate settling down anytime soon, and certainly don't have the time or energy to work with the parties to resolve their issues.  However, this suggestion is not about spoiler warnings, but about codifying in the writers' guidelines a sensitivity to the gamut of readers.  You raise interesting cases with those two movies and can see that works like that would have to be accommodated in any policy. Sweavo 12:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see there is any way you can write a guideline which excludes spoiler information from articles. The best solution might be to place the plot synopsis last in an article, rather than first (after the introduction) as it frequently is. This still means that people may read a very important plot point being discussed in the text, but it might make it easier for them to simply read the introduction and bail out. I don't think what you describe as an imdb write up, more a taster to get people interested, would do for a plot description. Wiki is here to pass on information, not hide it. I have always thought that spoiler warnings are a bit redundant. No one should be seeking internet information randomly if they don't want to find the answers, and people ought to learn this as a fact of life. That is not to say I think editors should be heedless of unsuspecting readers, but in the end the article should contain information thought relevant. Sandpiper 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers: Academic Culture vs. Internet Culture 

message: This is simply a question and request since I can't find the answer in this guideline. I was just wondering if we could elaborate more on fictional article tenses. I see how we could use present tense for fictional articles where the story (or whatever) is still in production, but what about series that are over (aside from yet to be released film adaptations)? I just think that using present tense for stories that are over with somewhat makes the article sound like your not writing from OOU, so it contradicts everything that you stand for on writing in OOU. Just a thought. Actually the reason I'm here is because I'm having an minor edit war on a fictional character article where the series is over, and the person that I'm warring with keeps reverting to a present tense and directing me to this guideline.  --VorangorTheDemon 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular question of tenses seems to be coming up in other fiction articles as well; see, for instance, Talk:Arrested Development (TV series)#Tense?.  Maybe the MoS needs to be explicit about this issue.  As for the issue itself, my comment here has some examples that seem to support using the present tense (two "exemplary articles" that are not-currently-in-production series: The Adventures of Tintin and Red vs. Blue, and current FAs about not-currently-in-production television series: Cheers and Firefly (TV series)).   Iknowyourider (t c) 22:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it already does address this. See WP:WAF#Contextual presentation: "By convention, [plot] synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed. At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'." Tense doesn't have to do with whether a series is still current, but rather where the action is occurring relative to the current point in the story. — TKD::Talk 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TDK is right. Writing plot synopses (which is essentially what character writeups are as well) is done in present tense; that's just the scholarly convention. If you look hard enough, you can find exceptions here and there, but the perpetual present is much more common in such contexts. Where this gets hairy is with serialized fiction such as comic books and soap operas, but even these can be handled deftly with a few real-world references here and there to establish when in the real-world timeline of the series something was shown. For example, "Federia is a strong fighter and loyal friend. In the first season of the series, she is unsure of her powers and abilities; in fact, she accidentally kills her friend Blanne in combat. As the series progresses, however, she gains confidence and strength. Blah blah blah . . . " That's just a made-up, on-the-fly example, so you can no doubt do better; the point is that even for long-running characters, real-world references can help keep the perpetual present tense from sounding stilted. — Brian (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it applies across the board. Arrested Development is still in existence; my friend owns it on DVD. You wouldn't say that the Mona Lisa was a painting; it is a painting and will remain one until such time as it is completely destroyed (at which point it will still exist in copies and digital media). So, if you're talking about the fundamental qualities of the series or action on screen, use present tense. However, if you are referring to things that happened in the real world, you might need to use past tense: "As the series gained popularity, Fox moved it to a better timeslot," or "Episode 34 was directed by Ellen DeGeneres." I admit that this gets quite hairy, especially when talking about actors portaying characters (since their portayal is preserved with the series itself) . . . . — Brian (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Thanks, you expressed those thoughts better than I could.  Iknowyourider (t c) 06:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a place for past tense, however. It is sometimes necessary to make a distinction between the 'present' events on page 123 and the past events referred to on page 123 which are supposed to have happened previously. I tend to think of it as bumping up the tense one place. 'had gone to' becomes 'went to', 'went to' becomes 'goes to'. Sandpiper 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional article tenses

message: The following pages have had a succession box using Template:s-fic and Template:s-ref included to indicate in-universe relationships.  These pages are using the succession box as a test for these templates and for the reimplementation of succession boxes within fictional articles as expressed in the discussion above.  While the proposal has passed, its implementation still awaits votes, guidelines, and the official policy change.  Please reply with what you think of the succession boxes, what could change, and what guidelines should be created to track and monitor the succession boxes in fictional articles thus to insure they are following the proper guidelines.  The pages currently undergoing testing are:
* Armando Dippet
* Albus Dumbledore
* Dolores Umbridge
* Severus Snape
* Minerva McGonagall
Please review and comment.  I am aware that the current policy is that succession boxes are not allowed for in-universe references and this proposal is attempting to bring that issue to light and present a solution.  While voting alone does not produce policy, I would like this proposal and these examples to act as a springboard for discussion, with the hope that the policy can be modified to allow for succession boxes for at least some in-universe titles.  Thank you and I look forward to your comments and this discussion!–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:s-fic]] test for rules, guidelines, and policy change 

message: I'd like to get some more opinions on some character articles that I have proposed a merger for. You can find the discussion at Talk: Smallville (TV series)#Merge characters.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smallville

message: ...and the article has little or no real-world context (i.e. a fantasy work), is section 3 meant to grant exemption? If you are writing about fictional material and the only way to put it in real-world context is by prefacing each sentence with "In the book". In particular, does Orcs & Goblins need to be written from real-world perspective, and if so, how would you do this without arbitrarily making references to the source book (i.e. "in the book", "according to the book") from which the material is derived? Ham Pastrami 22:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, section 3 deals with the context of plot summary, but it's not meant to imply that an entire article can be entirely plot summary (this is expressly disallowed by WP:NOT#PLOT), or lacking in real-world context. Parts that describe what the universe actually consists of are covered by section 3, but there should also be some real-world information about influences, creation process, reception, and impact. I don't think that there are any featured articles about fictional universes, but World of Final Fantasy VIII, a good article, does a decent job, given the apparent level of information available. — TKD::Talk 23:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the fictional universe is the subject of the article... 

message: How, exactly, is the author of a work of fiction only known from secondary sources?  Seems to me that it's generally known from the cover of the primary source. john k 22:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm lost, is someone demanding a secondary source to verify the author of a work of fiction?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I see on the page here where you are talking about it. I don't get that either, or that part about design and development. You can easily get that information from primary sources. Interviews are primary sources, and you can get all kinds of basic information like that from interviews.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How did that get there? I moved it to the primary sources section. —AldeBaer 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  primary/secondary 

message: Maybe there should be a guideline on "writing as a fan", regardless of the topic someone is writing about. Sorta like WP:COI, but with emphasis on stylistic aspects. I'm seriously considering to compose a draft in my userspace. Any opinions? —AldeBaer 13:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be helpful, in that it could summarize and emphasize, especially for newer editors, the most relevant issues (WP:WAF, WP:FICT, WP:OR, WP:RS), without needing to find all of the individual pages on their own. I think that a few WikiProjects try to set up a centralized guideline page for their relevant scope, but having a Wikipedia-wide page is probably beneficial, given the number of editors who get started with Wikipedia out of fandom. — TKD::Talk 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, my opinion precisely. Meanwhile, I decided to make the larger round, and posted at WT:MOS and WP:VPP. —AldeBaer 14:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I like the "Writing as a fan" title better than the "neutralized" PRECON moniker. I think the opposite of fandom on Wikipedia usually boils down to a simpler case of WP:NPOV or WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a touch of WP:OR — or sometimes just fandom for a competing product. Over-proliferation of unencyclopedic fansite material is, I think, by far, the more widespread problem. — TKD::Talk 14:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. You see, the idea was to widen the scope, but that may not be such a viable option after all. I hope others share our opinion on this. —AldeBaer 14:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is that the existing fiction guidelines are applied patchily, if there are block-voters or admins protecting the article. For example, Spoo is a spectacularly non-notable fictional food, but gets a featured article. We've had a load of admins and experienced Wikipedians wanting it kept featured, yet it's probably less important than Malibu Stacy or Butterbeer, which don't even get articles.--Nydas(Talk) 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basic notability appears to exist, and from there on out it's just a matter of how good the article is referenced and written. It's not the most convincing example of an FA, but it is a good article. The proposed guideline would entail other things, e.g. when a Pete Sampras fan insists on calling him "The greatest tennis player of all time" without any reference. I plan on explaining how things like that are not good ideas and prohibited by several policies, including WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Of course, anyone could point fan-writers to those policies, but I'd like one central place where all the good and bad aspects of writing as a fan are combined in one readable guideline. —AldeBaer 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not draft something in your user space as an essay and see what happens? I'd like to see it anyway. — Brian (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so would I. Some "essays", such as WP:DENY and WP:ATA, are very widely cited even though they technically don't carry the stamp of an official guideline. — TKD::Talk 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the encouragement, (edit conflict) both of you. Despite my unjustified feeling hurt by an ignorant community that doesn't value or appreciate extraordinary ideas like many most of mine are, I acknowledge that I'm already in the planning stages. Now that I've boasted about how this would be a great thing, I'll have to write my ass off accordingly. I.e. as soon as I'm done licking my wounds. I'll drop a note here when I've come up with something halfway debatable. —AldeBaer 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe I should explain my being obsessed with that "official guideline" seal: I'm German. —AldeBaer 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This idea should definitely be explored. It could be the "glue" that could tie all our fictional guidelines together. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Writing as a fan 

message: There is currently a renaming debate going on at Talk:Malcolm Wilkerson, regarding the title of the  articles of the family members of Malcolm in the Middle. Posting this here since this is related to writing about fiction. Any input welcome. —AldeBaer 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of certain fictional characters 

message: I reworded the section on Notability and undue weight . Ned Scott reverted (I assume he meant to revert only my last edit ). On reviewing my changes and as I saw nothing had been posted here, I decided to revert excluding my last edit and to come here and ask for opinions.
My rationale for the rewording was that I think the malpractice example employed in the Notability section was barely recognisable as such and didn't seem to be of much help to anyone who doesn't already know the relevant aspects of WP:PG. Please provide any input. —AldeBaer 08:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remind me to get my eyes checked. I'm not sure what I thought I saw last night, but I can't seem to remember what reason I had to revert you. It is indeed an improvement. Sorry about that. -- Ned Scott 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phew. Totally no prob. Any input by others still welcome, of course. —AldeBaer 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on #Notability and undue weight 

message: There's currently a dispute going on at Celebrity Jeopardy (Saturday Night Live).  It's a really picayune thing, but, hey, we want to get the little things right, too.  I requested a third opinion, but they seem to be really backed up, so I figured I would come here.  Basically, there is a section at the article that lists individual episodes of the sketch by air date and the "celebrity contestant" characters who appear.  In one episode, there is a joke where the Burt Reynolds character momentarily insist on being referred to as "Turd Ferguson".  He goes as far as to change the name on his podium.  All in all, I count five lines from the transcript that make reference to this joke in any way.  Another editor believes that, in the section identifying episodes of the sketch, the name "Turd Ferguson" should be referred to. I hold that it should not.  I'll lay out my logic and reasoning rather than force you to read a long and silly argument.
1. "Turd Ferguson" is a joke name.  It's effect is for one joke and then a callback to that joke.  
1a. Because the section is otherwise a dead serious section, written from an out-of-universe perspective, listing a joke name alongside actual character names breaches the formal tone expected of the section.  
1b. Mentioning this one joke in an otherwise serious section gives it undue weight relative to every other joke.
2. Within the section, the episode in question is already identified uniquely.  No more information is necessary to do that.  
3. The joke is already acknowledged in a section of the article that seeks to explain and contextualize the the humor.  
There has been a considerable back-and-forth.  I don't think it will be possible to resolve this with just me and the other editor involved.  He has pledged to edit war and has kept his promise.  If I'm wrong, I accept that, but we need other editors involved because left two our own devices, we will never agree. Croctotheface 05:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A silly matter, but guidance would be appreciated 

message: I just came across a mention of wikipedia in an article in the The Times magazine. The writer made a comment which I think illustrates what people in the real world actually use an encyclopedia for. Loved the brothers, surely the best early evening road haulage based TV ever produced. I can still name all three siblings: Edward, Brian and David. And the surname? Hammond. I can't remember where it was set. Dudley, at a guess. Wikipedia doen't say. 
Clearly the article has failed the journalist who wanted in-universe information about the plot. Now, this may have nothing to do with any existing policy, simply that the series is too old for anyone to remember enough details to have included this information. However it illustrates a point which no-one seems much interested in. One of the most important aspects of any fiction is the storyline. Not for purposes of illustrating a point being made in the article, but as an intrinsically noteable piece of information worth including. Sandpiper 08:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the failure is because there just are not any active editors who know about the show to fully flesh out that article, and not because of this guideline. The guideline doesn't say "don't mention things important to the fictional universe," or "don't mention the storyline at all." The only thing this article does is tell editors not to put undue weight on minor information, and don't write the article in a primarily in-universe tone. I think you just came across an article that shows how young we truly are. With 2 million articles, and something like 0.22% featured or good article status, so we're obviously behind in a lot of articles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of in-universe information not otherwise connected to an article 

message: I'm not sure if this is the right place to write this but I'm trying to find an infobox for a fictional place e.g. an infobox for a fictional, city, lake, river, forest, temple. if anyone can help --> --Savre 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We generally avoid such infoboxes, because they assert that the place is real. It's unlikely that the kind of facts that are used for real places are actually relevant for fictional ones. Say like, population won't really tell you much about a fictional place, since many fictional places can have different populations and still have the same effect in the story. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just who, realistically, believes an article which claims in the introduction to be about fiction, is about a real event? This is the same argument as that about spoilers: no one reads an rticle about anything unless they want to know something. Similarly, no one reads an article about fiction unless they want to be told some fiction. Sandpiper 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said anyone would confuse a fictional thing for a real one. The point is that it's wrong to write about a fictional place as if it's real. The population of Smallville is irrelevant in its own right; only if it's a salient plot point in one of the stories in which Smallville has featured does the information need to be presented. — Brian (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sandpiper, it's getting old. It's one thing to make your opinion known, and another to insult a view that has widespread support. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional Places

message: The section explaining secondary sources is misleading. I think that two concepts are being confused.  Secondary information about a work might in fact come from primary sources, for example the author writes a piece explaining how he came up with the ideas, why he lived in paris and what effect it had on his work. This would not be a secondary source, but a primary one. It would be secondary information bout the main subject of the article which ought to be included, but still a primary source, unverified by others. Another secondary source might, for example, claim the author had never ever visited Paris and was lying. Sandpiper 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tentatively agree and tried to clarify on the difference in meaning between information vs. source in a non-confusing way. Please note that information provided in the required secondary sources as well as with the work of fiction itself should be considered secondary, or external, information. E.g. the name of the author on the cover of a book can safely be treated as secondary information, since it's meta-information provided by the publishing house, it's usually not part of the fiction (although there are counter-examples). — [ aldebaer⁠] 01:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Sources 

message: I found the following templates for fiction related problems; would there be use in adding them here, or listing them? Or, alternatively, would it be possible to merge them into a more generic template that uses parameters to achieve the same result?
* (Links to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction)
* (Links to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction)
* (Links here)
* (Links here)
* (Links here}*
* (Links here)*
* (Links here)*
* (Links here)*
* (Links here)*
* (Links here)*
* (Links here)*
** These appear to be sub templates for 
G.A.S  11:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and  would be useful additions, provided helpful explanations are given as to their usage.  is irrelevant here. And the lot of in-universe derivates should be redirected to , but that's another story. — [ aldebaer⁠] 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a TfD on the multiple in-universe templates, and the result was to just merge them (in a way that would allow a trigger to give a custom category), but I guess no one got around to it. I'll take a crack at it tonight. -- Ned Scott 02:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it might be already like that.. but not.. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More templates 

message: We're putting together a draft for a basic layout guideline on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles). Thought it might interest some other people here as well. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Start of drafting character guideline. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:ANIME/MANGA's character guideline 

message: Does this guideline apply to mythological topics? (My feeling is that it should not – fiction and mythology are not the same, although there can be some overlap. Wikipedia should probably have a different MoS guideline for writing about mythology and religion.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, religion isn't considered "fiction"...as I'm sure you can understand what that's so. If by mythology you are referring to things like Roman Gods and Greek Gods and the like, that wouldn't be fiction either. I would go over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology and see if they have an manual of style for religious and mythological articles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In some ways, yes, but we allow a lot more in-universe information. For something to be considered a part of mythology, or say, a classic, usually means it's had a very big impact on the real world, and has done so for a very long time. It's enough to justify a lot more "plot" than the average article on fiction. The real world-relevance is justified in tons of other articles that are linking to the main article for context. Or something like that, for a lack of better words. But yeah, what Bignole said, I'd see what those other WikiProjects have since there are so many other things to consider. -- Ned Scott 07:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mythology?

message: No, the intro won't do.  in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded  sounds as though the 'real' world being talked about is the imaginary world invented by the author. Sadly, I havn't time for a further critique just at the moment. Sandpiper 08:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note Intro refers to the paragraph in the Real-world perspective section and not the lead paragraph. — G.A.S  10:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  need for infinite imaginary universes 

message: Can we scrap Spoo as an exemplary fiction article? I make no secret of my dislike for it, although I am not the only one: see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Spoo, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spoo/archive1, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoo.--Nydas(Talk) 09:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has complained, so I've removed it.--Nydas(Talk) 19:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoo as an example article

message: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_en_ot/harry_potter_lawsuit This should be something to keep track of. It could provide a little bit more information on where the line is when it comes to copyrighted fictional material in encyclopedia's. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter lawsuit 

message: Evidences?Geni 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the facts that this has been established well over a year, that it is used as a standard in thing like AfDs, GAs, FAC, and a general standard across the various projects, and the fact that your argument against it is based off of a very small community of editors, it is you that has to prove that this is not generally accepted. TTN 01:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FAC standards are not guidlines. Argumentum ad Antiquitam is a logical faclly and ah links to back up your claims?Geni 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The featured articles represent various views of the community, and they are fine with it, which is the opposite of what you're trying to assert. If something is broken around here, it is usually fixed. You'll see that the only challenges to this are from people like yourself, which would mean that the rest of the community feels that this is fine. Please do not try to use the "Oh, only a few people deal with this." argument, as I just gave four different mediums that this is referenced in. Then there is the fact that even without this, the standards are already set in WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N, so you have your true answer right there. TTN 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People like me? Your meaning? Oh and the silent majority stuff convinces no one. You claim AFDs so links? FAC requirments basicaly include haveing an image. Should we start redirecting every article that does not have an image?.01:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, there is no point in this. Either prove that this is limited, or you can go do something else. TTN 01:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the FAC criteria carefully. It says, "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." That means there may be articles were it is not appropriate to have images. FAC criteria does not say you must have images, it says that they should be present when appropriate.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many cases can you think of where an FA has passed without an image?Geni 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many cases have you seen where an FAC has failed because there were no images?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There was a lengthy discussion and consensus to make this a guideline. -- ReyBrujo 14:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/straw poll was the straw poll to review consensus. -- ReyBrujo 14:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Generally accepted standard"

message: Do plot summaries and character descriptions require 3rd-party sources, or are the works themselves sufficient? So far as I can tell the standard practice across tens of thousands of articles on novels, plays, movies, video games, and the like is that 3rd-party sources are not used or required. Is there a significant difference of opinion among engaged editors about this? Are there any guidelines or policies that address this directly? The question has come up at Talk:Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys)#Deletion of Plot Summaries.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before, recently at WP:FILMS. For the most part, if the source is easily accessable (i.e. I can go rent the movie, read the book, etc etc) then the source is primary and it's the work in question. But, this only applies to facts taken directly from the source, and not interpretive opinions. You cannot say "John felt discouraged" and cite some episode of Television Show X, if you are simply making a personal observation based on John's reaction. That would require a third-party source, or in the least a primary source interview with the writer, director, actor discussing such an emotion.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur. Similarly problematic would be attributing character traits to characters in fiction when such is never spelled out. For example, you may have a piece of fiction where a character drowns puppies for fun, but you can't call that character evil unless the author does or a third-party source does. You can, however, say "Character X drowns puppies" and source it to the primary source material. — Brian (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i think there is a problem with, or at least the potential for a problem with editors interpreting plots differently. I can see how plot summaries are useful but my concern is that they are original research. I definetely think it needs a strict guideline on how to write them and avoid personal interpretations and following the WP:SYN policy. --Neon white 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Only original research if you include your personal opinion--which would only be the case of interpreting motivations that are not explicitely stated. Primary sourcing is still sourcing, and there is no policy or guideline that states you have to have third-part sourcing for everything.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue of third party sources do however play a role in whether an article should be created or not, refer to WP:FICT for more detail. G.A.S  18:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summaries & sources 

message: I feel that a recent rewording of WP:FICT now directly contradicts this guideline (among others) - I have brought up the issue here - if anyone would like to comment. [[Guest9999 12:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FICT]] 

message: The guideline currently says: "Publications affiliated with a particular work of fiction (e.g. fan magazines), are mostly not considered suitable secondary sources about the primary works..."
Fan magazines are often not affiliated with the work, and 'mostly' sounds like a recipe for 'special exceptions' for favoured franchises. We should have something more discrete, or just leave out the sentence altogether.--Nydas(Talk) 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan magazines 'mostly' unreliable