Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-4-20-09

Wikipedia:Fiction was previously a redirect to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). This page is not a notability guideline for fiction.

Many of Wikipedia's articles cover works of fiction or fictional subjects. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of factual information, writing about things that are not real requires some special care. This page explains the role of fiction in Wikipedia, and explains appropriate approaches to covering it.

The general principles are as follows:

• Fiction must be written about as a cultural artifact in the real world, not in terms of the fictional world.
• Articles should include concise plot summaries to provide context, but these should not be the only point of the article.
• Articles on sub-topics of a larger work of fiction that do not present a substantial real-world perspective on their topic should be merged or deleted.
• Elements of a work of fiction that lack substantial real-world perspectives but are important to understanding the work can be merged into list articles.
• In some cases, it may be useful to spin off some element of a work into its own article, to allow it to be discussed in more depth. However, some real-world perspective or analysis from independent sources must be included in all such articles.

Fiction as cultural artifact

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

The single most important rule about coverage of fiction on Wikipedia is that fiction is covered as a cultural artifact in the real world. We are primarily interested not in things that happened to imaginary people, but rather in the social impact that given works of fiction have - whether that impact be direct, cultural, or artistic. All aspects of an article on fiction must work to establish real-world importance, or to provide appropriate context for understanding real-world importance. Those that do not should be removed.

Types of real world impact

Real-world impact of a piece of fiction can generally, for our purposes, be divided into three categories.

• Direct impact: Some works of fiction have genuine, direct real-world effects. A famous example is the novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, which has been explicitly credited as a major turning point in attitudes about American slavery. In these cases, the work of fiction itself does something in the world. Sometimes this is wholly unrelated to its artistic content. The fact that "Tom's Diner" was the song on which the MP3 file format was optimized is a direct impact, for example, but that fact has nothing to do with the artistic content of the song.
• Cultural impact: Other works of fiction, while they do not have the immediate and direct impact of Uncle Tom's Cabin, are nonetheless significant as cultural objects simply because of the way they have permeated the culture. Enormously popular works of fiction can be described in terms of their popularity, the presence of related merchandise, how they are referenced in other works of fiction and culture, reviews of them, etc.
• Artistic impact: Even a relatively minor work of fiction can have an impact, however, if it is doing something artistically significant. A work of fiction can have an impact if it develops new techniques within its medium, or exemplifies existing techniques, or has been the subject of academic or critical attention. Artistic impact is often established through reviews, analysis, and scholarly commentary.

All of these impacts must be verifiable through reliable secondary sources. None of them can be verified via the work of fiction itself.

Useful real-world information can also include production information, when this information is geared towards understanding the social, cultural, or political impact of the work. So, for instance, an anecdote about two of the actors playing practical jokes on each other during the filming of a TV episode is probably not useful information, but commentary from the writer about the artistic goals of the episode probably is, as it provides useful information about the artistic and cultural impact of the work.

Plot summaries

See also: WP:PLOTSUM and WP:JUSTPLOT

Since we are primarily interested in fiction as a cultural artifact, the plot of the work of fiction is not our primary concern. That said, understanding commentary and reaction to a work of fiction does require an understanding of what happens. It is not enough to simply know, for instance, that The Crying Game contains a famous plot twist - to meaningfully understand the film, one has to actually know the plot. As a result, a section summarizing plot details is an important part of most of our articles on fictional topics.

This summary should be concise while still providing a sense of the overall work. The purpose of a plot summary is not to allow the reader to vicariously experience the work of fiction; it is to explain and condense the plot to essential elements, and to provide context for an unfamiliar reader, or to refresh the memory of a familiar reader. Similarly, plot summaries should not avoid revealing key details in an attempt to avoid spoiling the original work.

On the other hand, a plot summary should consist of more than a two sentence description of the work's premise and a spoiler about the ending. A good plot summary is a careful balance between brevity and detail. For more complete guidance, see Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary.

Although we include plot summaries primarily as context for the real-world information, this does not mean that they should consist only of events expressly commented on by secondary sources. A plot is not a set of isolated instances, and it is expected that the summary will give a picture of the overall work so as to facilitate the reader's broader understanding.

An article that is primarily plot summary should not reach good article status. For articles on sub-topics of larger fictional works, if the article has no significant content beyond plot summary, it should be deleted or merged back into a more general article on the work of fiction.

Sourcing

See also: WP:RS

As with any article on Wikipedia, articles on fiction should make extensive use of secondary sources, especially when related to real-world impact. These should include both independent secondary sources such as reviews and critical commentary, as well as secondary sources more connected to the original work such as interviews with creators. The author's view is not the sole viewpoint that matters, and secondary sources such as creator commentaries do not trump other secondary sources.

Fiction articles often make more extensive use of primary sources than other articles, due to the fact that plot summary, which is a fundamental part of coverage of a work of fiction, is best obtained via reference to the work itself. However, the primary source should not be used for any speculation or analysis of the work of fiction. That said, because Wikipedia does not treat a work of fiction simply as a description of imaginary events, this does not mean that the primary source can only be used for plot summary. Remarks on things such as allusions to other texts, clear commentaries on real-world situations, or basic observations about the text's sympathies to various characters can be based on the primary source, provided that they are both related to the work of fiction as a cultural artifact and readily verifiable by a reader of the work of fiction.

Articles that do not meet these standards

Articles that do not meet the above standards must either be improved to meet these standards, merged into another article, or deleted.

When it is possible to improve an article, it is preferable to do so. Genuine effort to find sources that provide real-world information and to integrate this information into the article should be made before any other options are considered. Furthermore, articles in which the real-world perspective is overwhelmed by in-universe information and trivia should have the in-universe information pared back to a more appropriate level.

When there is not sufficient real-world information to justify an independent article, the information should be merged to a more general article. This will often require some cutting so as not to unbalance the destination article. For articles on particularly trivial topics, deletion is also an option, however, as always, this is a last resort after other options are exhausted.

Authorial intent and NPOV

Wikipedia policy is that all significant points of view must be covered fairly. When dealing with fictional subjects, it is important not to excessively or exclusively utilize the view of the author. Indeed, within literary studies, it is a mainstream view that the author's intent does not matter at all. In the larger cultural context, the author's viewpoint is clearly a major view, and as such it must be covered when information about it can be found, but it is not the only one nor the authoritative one.

An author's interpretation of a work of fiction should never be reported as simple fact, but should be clearly attributed to the author. Active effort should be made to find perspectives other than the author's for all articles dealing with fiction. An article that has no perspectives beyond that of the work's creators is unlikely to sufficiently establish real-world context.

Lengthy serialized works

Particular issues arise when dealing with works of fiction that are serialized over a long period of time, or with franchises that have numerous installments. For example, a season of an American television show will run for almost 16.5 hours. Even considering the differences between media, this often involves a plot in which more happens than in most novels or films. In a particularly extreme example, Superman comics have been published continuously for over 75 years, often with cliffhangers dovetailing one story into the next. There are, in practice, only a handful of people who have even read the whole of Superman comics from end-to-end.

Dealing with these works, which often remain in the public eye and actively talked about for a longer time than individual novels or films, requires special treatment. Due to our guidelines on excessive article size, it is often impossible to cover all the significant aspects of these works in a single article. This is not, however, an automatic license to create spin-off articles.

Indeed, special care must be taken when dealing with serialized works to make sure that frivolous spin-offs are not created. It is very easy to spin off a large number of articles on topics that cannot really sustain an article. Such articles should be merged back with their parent articles or deleted. Articles should only be spun off based on how much relevant real-world information is available, and on how well-sourced the resulting articles can be.

For a work that has spanned multiple generations of readers such as Superman, special care must be taken not to favor more recent aspects over classic elements of the character, as this is a violation of our neutral point of view policies.

Elements of fiction

Generally speaking, Wikipedia covers things that exist in the real world, and so elements of fiction are not covered. However, when an element of fiction has sufficient real-world impact on its own that it can justify an individual article an individual article may be warranted. Such articles can also help provide better organized coverage of a work of fiction, and help articles comply with policies on article size. Creating spin-off articles should be considered a necessary evil, appropriate in only a few circumstances.

1. Fictional subjects of particular note. If a character or other fictional subject independently satisfies the general notability guideline, and there is enough to say about it that covering it in the article for the relevant work of fiction would violate restrictions on article size or undue weight, a separate article may be appropriate. Examples of this include Prince Hamlet and lightsaber, both of which have enough information about them apart from the larger work that it is preferable to treat them independently.
2. Serialized works. As mentioned above, lengthy serialized works pose particular problems in light of our restrictions on article size. For these works, it is often necessary to create spin-out articles to adequately cover the whole of the work. These spin-out articles should focus on the elements with the most independent commentary, and on the elements that have the most real-world information. As always, if there is little or nothing to say about a subject beyond plot summary, an article should not be created.

List articles

See also: WP:LIST

Elements that are important to understanding a work of fiction, but that lack significant real-world information may, if they are currently cluttering the main article, be dealt with very briefly in the form of a list article of, for instance, minor characters or episodes. Such list articles generally provide a very brief overview of topics, and do not go into great detail. These articles should still deal with elements that are important to understanding the work — lists that amount to trivial and inconsequential information are not acceptable.

Related policies

• The Fiction Manual of Style gives more specific and technical guidance on writing about fiction.
• Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary gives specific advice on crafting effective plot summaries.