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

Early discussion

I like this. If it were reworked to be more instructive and less discursive then I think it would be a valuable bit of Wikipedia policy. Since seeing it, I've constantly wanted to refer people to it (especially in Peer Review) but I can't do so with an authority while it's "just some guy"'s work. How about getting it promoted to policy or at least guideline status? Soo 16:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear back from Uncle G, from whom I borrowed some of the wording. I think it'd be at least a nice courtesy to let him know that I've kind of taken his idea and run with it. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by instructive vs. discursive? — Amcaja 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

To give a glaring example, "So, is using the fiction as a source inherently bad?" That sort of construction is fine for an essay, which is pretty much what this is as the moment, but it would seem out of place in the Wikipedia MoS or whatever. Clearly it's important to justify the decisions that have been made, but it is more important to spell out what those decisions are. Some kind of separation between the two needs to be established. I don't think it would be particularly difficult but I think it would be helpful. Good to hear that progress is being made though. Soo 09:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I see what you mean; basically, make it sound more policy-like. Keep the page on your watchlist; I plan to do a second draft in the next few days. — Amcaja 15:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

this is excellent, and should definitely be proposed to become policy. one issue: the "example articles" are all for major series or lead characters, there is none about less major characters, places, objects, events from within those fictional universes, so they dont help that much in illustrating your point. the only 3 FAs i could find for fancruft stuff were Link (Legend of Zelda), Wario and Spoo, of which only Spoo appears to follow your guidelines. Zzzzz 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Wario and Link (Legend of Zelda) are mostly out-of-universe. Wario, for example, shows how the character changes from the framework of the games themselves. Spoo is about 50/50 in and out of universe. Lakitu is another example of out-of-universe perspective on an FA. — Amcaja 22:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent essay, Brian. I suspect it may be a bit difficult to get it accepted as real policy, but it's got my support, for what it's worth. The only real suggestion I can make is to eliminate all the red links, lest someone actually feel it necessary to create articles for all of them. <grin> The point gets across perfectly well without them. – Seancdaug 02:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll basically just copy/paste what I had to say on this from a conversation with Seancdaug on the WikiProject Final Fantasy talk page (which arose from a conversation concerning the development of the materia page), as I think it probably says whatever I feel better than going over all of it again in my head would:

"Perhaps this is something we should strive for a little more, but I have to wonder if we took it further than the materia page has done (which, as far as I can see, does it as much as any of the articles Amcaja offers as examples) it would result in us omitting lots of notable material just so as to avoid constantly using "in the game's world," "in the fictional setting," "the character [does this or that]" and other such detached phrasing that would be required in order to consistently preserve this "out-of-universe" point of view. The reason I say I can picture that happening is because we'd literally have to use it in every sentence or two if it needed to do it more than this, and it would quickly become very laborious to try reading something written that way. It should be assumed on the reader's part that they're reading about something fictional. We would have to be very careful in how we went about it, and on some of the larger articles (take Cloud Strife's biography, for instance), it would be next to impossible to do. Either the reader gets bogged down by being constantly reminded that they're reading about a fictional character or -- on the off-chance that they don't read the opening sentence of the article -- they think it's all real for a few seconds (which isn't really that likely anyway)."

"To give you an idea of what I'm trying to say here, imagine reading the article on Napoleon while consistently sifting through flags like "the real-life person," "the actual location," "the historically documented battle" and other such phrases. It would be painful. Not that it would happen with a real-life subject, but I'm trying to emphasise the point."

"Also, from what I have seen of people making attempts to apply real world perspectives to articles on fictional concepts, it typically becomes what all of us call "irrelevant fancruft," such as when people start bringing analogies to the Metropolis anime and Akira into the Midgar page, or when people start drawing analogies between fossil fuels and the Lifestream on the materia page. These are things that could happen a lot more and would actually become perfectly valid if we were forced into taking a completely out-of-universe approach"

"I disagree with some of Amcaja's conclusions on this subject, because when we're touching on something from a mostly in-universe perspective, we can just detail the facts and actually avoid most of the fan-speculation that he's talking about. Also, when we're saying things like "in the game," "later in the story" and "within the world of [insert title here]," we're adding in points of out-of-universe perspective, but we can't take it much further than that without it being a hindrance to reading. I don't think either 100% in-universe or 100% out-of-universe perspective is the way to go. As a fellow mergist, I'm sure you can understand the importance of a middle-ground, which I believe we've achieved with most of our articles."

"...we do have the audience to consider. What are they going to be looking for when they look up 'materia' -- or anything else for that matter? Information on what it is, what it does and how it comes to be, or information on why the developers decided to incorporate it into the game? Obviously, most would want both if they could have it, but if they had to choose one over the other, I'd say it would be the former. The entire reason the article is named 'Materia' in the first place (rather than 'Lifestream') is because it was agreed that 'materia' is what readers are most likely to be running a search for."

"Furthermore, if only things like why the developers chose this or that necessitate notability [a response to something mentioned by Seancdaug] (I recall also when the Spira page was temporarly a Featured Article candidate that we ran into the issue of some people suggesting that we provide information on why the developers chose to make this or that location be where it was and have this or that climate, stuff we have absolutely no way of knowing without asking them), then we'd all have to go on an FF Wiki genocide mission and delete about 95-99% of the information in the FF articles. Things like that are not things we can reasonably find out about. Even the Ultimanias don't go too far in-depth on things like that. There's a section in Final Fantasy X's Ultimania Omega on ideas that they didn't use, but still, it's not that relevant in regard to what they did use."

I'm not saying that it's a bad philosophy by any stretch of the imagination, and especially not for encyclopedias that are limited in scope by necessity (God help me, it sounds like I'm saying 'Wiki is not paper' despite how much I loathe hearing it), but Wikipedia gets millions of hits a day right now because of just how much information people are aware that they can find here. That's what sets it apart from any other encyclopedia, paper or electronic. I'm not convinced that the inclusion of information like what we detail is non-encyclopedic or unprofessional, as Wikipedia itself is not within the same vein of other encyclopedias. Obviously it shares the constraints of notability and bears certain standards of quality in presentation, wording, cited sources and, of course, the information offered, but we need not compromise the information that most readers are wanting to read in order to live up to an ideal that is really only a standard of encyclopedias that are inferior to Wikipedia in what they can offer in the first place."

I'd also like to add that I think some of the examples you present as the "poor choices" for phrasing are phrased such that they look bad from the start ("all knobbly"?) and that some of the information added into the "good choices" could have easily been added to the others. I also think the suggestion you put forth along the lines of us not knowing how future entries in a fictional series will develop things is a flawed point. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As of the Slibvorks first appearance, all of them are blue and all of them do come from Blastio. That's reality (within that universe) until it's expanded on.

If I have in any way misinterpreted the proposal, I apologize. The main idea I'm trying to put forth is that I don't feel we can't have both the assumption that we're dealing with a fictional world (without reiterating it needlessly) and the information on the subject presented with the assumption that what we've been shown (and often lectured on in informative official books) is reality. Yes, what is and is not reality within a fictional universe can change from one interview with the creators to the next, but until they do change it, it is as much reality as the fact that there was a World War II. Ryu Kaze 06:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your critique. I think the main point we are disagreeing on is the value of purely fictional information. I don't see how mimicking the Star Wars Encyclopedia or some in-universe look at Final Fantasy is helping anyone; there are dozens of such sources on the internet (fan pages), and in print (A Guide to the Star Wars Galaxy, etc.). Yes, development information, etc. is more difficult to get your hands on, but that just makes it all the more valuable. WIkipedia isn't and shouldn't be a free fanpage hosting service, and if the source material is the main source, that's what we get.

As for your assertion that framing things from the real world will result in poor writing or difficult reading, well, there are several example articles linked from the proposal (all Featured) that show that this is not the case.

You are right that fan-related articles on Wikipedia are prone to original research regardless of the perspective taken by the authors. That's a bigger problem. But I stand by the assertion that writing as if the fiction is real invites original research. It's everywhere on the Star Wars wiki. It seems very easy to make large assumptions like the Slibvork example. If someone on the show has flat out said "Slibvorks are blue and come from Blastio", then it'd be admissable to say as much in a Wikipedia article. But if it's an assumption made based on scant evidence, it's OR.

And keep in mind that this proposed guideline does not wholly discount in-universe perspective. It says that plot summaries and the like are okay, provided they are kept brief and are sourced. An explanation of how materia is made in-universe, etc. would fit in there ("When the characters visit Such-and-Such City, they learn that materia is blah blah blah . . . . "). In addition to the development stuff (which, I still assert, should be the focus of the article), the in-game explanations can be given as well. "In the game world, materia is blah blah blah . . . . " Still, the mechanics of materia could easily be described from out-of-universe. "The player may choose to equip materia to a character in such and such a way. Various materia stones interact in different ways, blah blah blah . . . . " (It's been a while since I played FF7).

As for the argument that development stuff is just too hard to find out about without asking the developers, I disagree. There are any number of interviews with these people, albeit many in Japanese. But the information is out there for a lot of topics. And if it isn't, then perhaps that's an indication that this particular topic needs some time to ripen in the pop-culture stew for a while.

I hope that I've at least spoken to your concerns. I do agree that perhaps the fictional examples in the proposal should be toned down some. It is not my intention to disparage fan articles, simply to raise them to a new level of scholarship that involves more than just playing a game or reading a book or watching a movie. I think that fictional articles should be more than just book reports. In the longrun, I doubt this proposal will ever become anything more than a guideline, and then it will only really affect article seeking Featured Status. By that I mean that Wikipedia has lots of articles with original research in them, with no references, with verifiability problems, etc. None of those should be present in a Featured Article, though. If this gets adopted, nothing would change in that respect except that there would be one more guideline to follow. — Amcaja 16:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You have addressed my concerns and I appreciate your response. I also apologize again if I misunderstood anything previously.

I don't believe that approaching these articles from an out-of-universe perspective would necessarily invite difficult reading; that was mainly my response if we were to take it further than we normally do (such as with the aforementioned materia page). Going back to the Slivborks and Blastio for a second and the idea of original research: if it were a show that was currently still in development, I would definitely agree with your suggestion, but if it's something that no longer is (or were just a stand-alone game as the Final Fantasy titles tend to be), it's fine in my opinion, to say "Slivborks are blue and come from Blastio." In such a case, there's little reason to suspect that the creator would randomly mention during an interview that there's green Slivborks from Radion that we never saw, right?

One thing that I'm curious about is your opinion of articles in which development information would be impossible to acquire. In such a case, it cannot serve as the focus in any way, correct? In those situations, would you agree that mostly plot-related information (provided it had sources, of course) would be acceptable? To give you a few examples where we don't really know a whole lot, there's the Cloud Strife, Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII) and Aerith Gainsborough pages. Info on the origin of Sephiroth and Aerith's names has been added early in the articles, and quite belongs there, I think. Now, with these characters, there's some information that we do know as far as development goes, and other information that we don't. For example, we know that Sephiroth wasn't always intended to be the villain, we know that Aerith had a different fate and we know that Cloud was originally supposed to have black hair (these things should probably be added in there), but such information usually gets filed into the "Trivia" sections of pages like this.

Are you mainly proposing that information such as that get more of a center stage standing? That it be mentioned earlier in the articles before all of the in-universe stuff? If so, I think that would be a good suggestion (provided, of course, that only verifiable info is being added), as I usually find the Trivia sections to be a mixed bag of info with varying degrees of relevance. I also agree with you that plot summaries should be kept brief (see the plot summaries I helped write for Final Fantasy VIII or Shadow of the Colossus).

I think we're mostly in agreement, only I feel that -- since Wikipedia is unique in how much information it can provide -- we need not comrpomise the plot info (especially since that's what a lot of people are going to be looking for) for development info having 80% of the spotlight. They can share it quite easily, I feel. Perhaps even development info could be offered first with a largely out-of-universe approach and the plot info to follow could be offered with its mainly in-universe approach, but with touches of out-of-universe phrasing added here and there for an atmospheric consistency.

Another thing I agree with you on, by the way, is that Wikipedia suffers largely from unsourced, often biased original research-laden articles. This is a major problem for many different fandoms on Wikipedia who have members who feel that Wikipedia should be a place for the presentation of the fandom's various interpretations of different things. I agree that we should only put forward what we know to be true, detailing it as what it definitely is and nothing more (this was actually an issue in the writing of Shadow of the Colossus' plot summary, as much of the plot was intentionally left open-ended and editors have often felt they had the "duty" of "fleshing it out"), but often times, we can provide official explanations for various plot elements (the Cloud, Sephiroth and Aerith pages are good examples here too) that are integral to an understanding of the character. Where that's not intended to be left up to interpretation, I don't feel that it should be regarded as something better left to fansites.

I think that's our main point of disagreement: I don't feel that the development materials should trump the plot-related stuff in terms of attention because of the unique opportunity provided with this particular encyclopedia. I definitely agree that the difficulty of acquiring relevant development information makes it all the more valuable, but -- owning more than 10 official Japanese Final Fantasy books myself -- I'm aware that a lot of that information is stuff we'll never see. In an ideal situation, I would propose that development info (with an out-of-universe perspective) come first, followed by plot info with a dominantly in-universe perspective (with it, of course, being identified as such).

Anyway, I guess we're mostly in agreement. I do have to thank you, by the way, as this has inspired me to look further into a means by which we could definitely improve articles more. I'll try translating more of the interviews (even the questions that don't look particularly relevant) when I have time and try to determine if there is anything of notable value to be found in them.

To a better Wikipedia. Have a good one. Ryu Kaze 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Has severe problems

One of the main problems with this is the awkward way that people will have to end up detailing plots, if this goes through. Take your one about a Wolf-something character. Every sentence that tells the plot has been preceded with "In the book x". So very, very awkward.

That is one abbreviated example, and I don't find it awkward at all. There are a number of example articles linked at the bottom of the proposal (most of them Featured Articles) that show that this approach is not clunky in the slightest. — Amcaja 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Would the following paragraph pass your policy? If not, how should it be fixed? (btw: spoilers)

At the beginning of Stargate SG-1's 8th Season, the human-form Replicator Fifth captures Samantha Carter after his race escapes from the Time Dilation device left by the Asgard. After he lets her go, he creates a human-form Replicator duplicate of her called RepliCarter. RepliCarter would later grow to hate Fifth and kill him, becoming the leader of the Replicator army. Ultimately she would be unstoppable in her thirst for power. It was only with the discovery of the Dakara Superweapon, and the unlikely help of System Lord Baal that SG-1 was able to not only destroy her, but the rest of the Replicators in the Milky Way.

If someone wants to know what happened in SG-1's 8th season, there it is, above. I see nothing wrong with that. If they clicked on the SG-1 link, it would tell them that it was a sci-fi tv show, and hence all happenings fictional. If the above paragraph doesn't pass, I'd like to see a version of it that does.

No, this is fine. It's a plot summary, and it includes real-world language to ground it ("At the beginning of Stargate SG-1's 8th season . . . ). I would change the woulds to present tense, though, just for clearer writing. But as a plot synopsis, there's nothing wrong with it. — Amcaja 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, most articles that details fictional universes are obviously about fictional things. If there's any doubt whatsoever, we don't need a policy, we just need a disclaimer:

The point of this policy is not that fictional things are being confused with real things, so that disclaimer is targeting a different problem. The policy concerns how to treat a fictional subject from a perspective that is most appropriate for scholarly writing in a general-purpose encyclopedia. — Amcaja 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think for plot summaries, as you might see for a particular film, then an in-universe perspective is no big problem. However far too many articles, especially on well-developed universes such as Star Wars', stay in this perspective throughout, but for a small disclaimer sentence at the start. That's what this policy seeks to address. However I agree that this does need to be clarified. Soo 17:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Even in Star Wars, how could you write it nonfictionally? Say you're detailing the specs of the Millennium Falcon. What are you meant to do, at every line insert "In the film X, it was noted that the ship had... Y"? If that sounds okay, just imagine a paragraph like this:

In the film X, it was noted that the Falcon had Y. Also in the film X, it was noted that the Falcon had Y. Also in the film X, it was noted that the Falcon had Y. Also in the film X, it was noted that the Falcon had Y. Also in the film X, it was noted that the Falcon had Y. Also in the film X, it was noted that the Falcon had Y.

-- Alfakim --  talk  13:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of fancruftery that this policy seeks to avoid! Since Film X is a primary source, you shouldn't be citing it in the article. A better example is "Due to a mistake with the film colouration process, the crew of the Falcon were shown to have green skin." with an appropriate citation to a secondary source. Notice that the example is written from the perspective of our universe, wherein Star Wars characters are film characters. Your illustration would just be considered Original Research. Soo 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

But the crew having green skin is completely different information. How do we say that the Falcon had Y without it being in-universe? Please use relevant examples. --Tango 14:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

To address the Millennium Falcon question, the specs of the machine could be approached like this:

The Millennium Falcon features prominently In the original trilogy of films. Han Solo describes the ship as "the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy" and repeatedly boasts about her capabilities. He tells Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi that she can "make .5 past lightspeed" and that she made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs. However, the ship is not without some defects. When the heroes escape from Hoth, the hyperdrive refuses to work. Only the repair skills of Artoo-Deetoo are able to get the ship back into working order again.

The ship's specifications are further outlined in the Star Wars Sourcebook from West End Games. According to its floorplan, the ship can handle 4 passengers and hold 300 tons of cargo. Etc., etc., etc."

This is all off the top of my head and still in rough-draft form, but you get the idea. The difference is that this is presented as being from some source, some tangible place that people can associate with. It doesn't drop right in there and say "The Millennium Falcon is a starship that holds 30 tons of cargo and can make .5 past lightspeed." — Amcaja 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

"All characters of this species that have been introduced to this point are blue-skinned humanoids from the planet Blastio."

That sounds like weaseling to me. The first part of the sentence doesn't add anything that wouldn't already be assumed by anyone reading it. --Tango 18:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be phrased better, sure. But weasel words are things like "Some people claim" and "Some fans believe that" kind of phrasings. The phrasing you are taking issue with cites its source (or can be assumed to be from the source made-up TV show). I'll try ot clarify the example, though; thanks for the comment. — Amcaja 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words are any words added purely to get around a policy rather than to actually add information. It doesn't have to be about citing sources to be weaseling, that's just the most common use of the term. The phrase I'm taking issue with adds nothing to the article, so it is weaselling. --Tango 18:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree that it's weaseling then. Someone who watched Star Wars and wrote that all Wookiees are brown would be flat out wrong, as anyone who has seen other Star Wars movies can attest. That's the kind of logic-leaping I'm trying to warn against. Like I said, it should be rephrased, but this thing is still in the draft phase. — Amcaja 20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

@Amcaja AKILLBILL (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

However, would they be wrong if they said it before the other films were released? Films that haven't been released yet are not considered canon, so you could say you're not finding out more about the universe with each film, but rather the universe actually changes. (That's a rather convoluted arguement, but hopefully you can see the point I'm trying to make). --Tango 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point (and actually the Wookiee example was a bad one, since I think the Wookiees in Revenge of the Sith are all brown). I still say it's leaping to conclusions based on scant evidence. To take it to an absurd extreme, after A New Hope, would it have been logical to say that people from Alderaan have brown hair and brown eyes based solely on Princess Leia? I'd rather see the prose acknowledge the small sample size: "Princess Leia is the only person from Alderaan introduced in the films so far. She has brown eyes and brown hair." But that's the type of prose that requires stepping out of the source material and viewing it as an element of a film/book/TV show/whatever. — Amcaja 21:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point - deciding if the sample size is enough to assume it's typical of everyone is original research. It's in that kind of matter than 2ndary sources would be very useful, but in many cases there aren't any authoritative enough to really use. Fan sites are of limited use. Prehaps a disclaimer saying what information is being drawn from ("This article uses information up to season X") would be useful (in addition to citing specific episodes or films - the disclaimer would basically be a citation for the lack of information on counter examples). --Tango 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be a secondary source. If there's a canonical Field Guide to the Firefly Universe, it's a primary source, but such a book is more likely to make broad statements like "The Hyluks are purple, doglike beings from the planet Yluk." Your disclaimer idea isn't a bad one, provided we decide that writing an article form a primarily in-universe perspective isn't a bad idea. Incidentally, the problem with this OR is that many of these canonical sourcebooks do just that — the author sees that C-3PO is gold and that he has a British accent, so he writes that "Protocol droids are gold in color and speak with prissy, upper-class accents." Reasonable assumption, but still OR. The difference is that this sourcebook author is being paid to write about a fictional universe, and he or she has carte blanche to make up facts like that, which then become canonical. We, as fans and outside observers, are not in the same situation. However, people want the wikipedia article on protocol droids to be as good as something they read in a Lucasfilm sourcebook, so they mimic its writing style and, likewise, leap to similar logical assumptions. Unfortunately, our assumptions do not have the weight of canon and paychecks behind them. :) Thus, I still contend that it's more scholarly and generally useful for an encyclopedia to avoid such writing altogether. ;) — Amcaja 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Most books like that aren't considered canonical. They might be in Dr Who - a lot of things are there - but I know they certainly aren't for Star Trek which has very strict rules about canon, it has to have actually appeared in a film and TV episode, even the animated version isn't canon. The various Star Trek encyclopedias only include things that are already canon (with a few comments written from our universe's perspective about scenes that were never broadcast, etc). They're a useful source, but only because they're more convinient than watching all the shows, not because they're more precise. --Tango 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only corner of fandom with which I have much familiarity is Star Wars. Lucasfilm considers all the encyclopedias, "essential guides", roleplaying supplements, etc. to be canonical, so they are good sources for in-universe articles. They seem to be used extensively at Wookieepedia, for example. Interesting that Star Trek doesn't do the same. — Amcaja 04:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

About time

This crystallises exactly what I've thought about writing about fiction into clear, concise wording, splendidly! Woot. Morwen - Talk 19:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! — Amcaja 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic

Can we policyfy this? It's got pretty strong consensus! TheGrappler 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! The FA community seems to like it, though it's getting some flak from other quarters. We'll see, I guess. :) — Amcaja 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your philosophy, as detailed by your responses to critics, is spot on. However, as evidenced by the frequent misunderstandings by critics, I think the current version comes off as rather more restrictive than it is meant to be, in terms of limiting what many people (you included) feel is valuable information. Your Millenium Falcon example is excellent, and probably the most effective way to get the point across is to have examples of the same information presented in good and bad ways. But the made-up examples are less effective than ones that incorporate actual fiction content (like the Star Wars one); they should emphasize that the same information can be effectively presented in an out-of-universe style. I would recommend leaving out additional meta-analysis ("shocked fans") from the examples and focus on presenting the same info in good versus bad ways.--ragesoss 05:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely - the examples need to be of the same info, otherwise they are meaningless. --Tango 10:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. So are you two suggesting that the fictional examples be swapped for real ones that also incorporate identical information in good and bad ways, or will the fictional examples suffice, provided they offer the same information? — Amcaja 16:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with fictional examples, as long as they are realistic enough to explain the point correctly, but I think Ragesoss wants real ones. They should certainly show the same info though. --Tango 17:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to use real examples simply because it would limit things to my own areas of fandom (er, Star Wars and Super Mario Bros.? :). The example about the aliens changing appearance from one season to the next is obviously inspired by the Klingons, for example, but I don't know the actual details behind the makeup change. I'll try to comb over the fictional examples and make sure they are presenting the same information in both in- and out-of-universe form, though. — Amcaja 04:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Klingons is far easier to discuss from an out-of-universe perspective - budget constraints etc. It was never explained in-universe beyond Wolf saying "We don't talk about it to outsiders" in the time travel episode of DS9 with the tribbles. Any in-uni description would be pure speculation. It's situations where the in-uni explanation is obvious that it's easier to write in-uni. --Tango 11:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've reviewed the fictional examples, and I'm not sure I agree that the exact same information needs to be present in both the in-universe and out-of-universe prose. Rather, I think that writing out-of-universe frees the editor up specifically to add more information than can be given in-universe. The aside about outraged fans, for example, is something that could not be presented from an in-universe perspective, and thus illustrates another strength of out-of-universe writing. Perhaps I should add a note about this being a strength of out-of-universe perspective.

I still intend to tone down the Spudhead example to be less dismissive of fan writing, and I think I'll revisit the fantasy king paragraphs to be written more along the lines of the Millennium Falcon example I gave above. Perhaps the anime/video-game example could use a rewrite, too. But I don't think having more informtion in the out-of-universe examples is indicative of a flaw; it's more of a feature. — Amcaja 17:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

More info is fine - your original out-of-universe examples didn't include some info that the in-universe ones did. That is a problem. --Tango 18:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah-hah. I misunderstood the criticism. I'll remedy that. — Amcaja 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Those examples look good. Basically you want the in-universe bits started of with better out-of-universe intros, rather than said as real ("In the book..." rather than just "..."). That seems reasonable. I think most articles try and do that already, but I'm sure people can attempt it more. --Tango 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's part of it. It's hard to show the full results of doing a completely out-of-universe article without having a before and after to contrast. Unfortunately, one of the side effects of using short examples in the essay is that this doesn't come across so much. A good out-of-universe article on Darth Vader would be mostly about Lucas's development of the character, David Prowse's acting, James Earl Jones's voice work, the makeup involved, the costume design, his impact on popular culture, analysis of the character, etc. Details of his birth, deeds, etc. (which currently make up the bulk of the article) would be included, but relegated to a brief "biography" perhaps. Like I said, the short examples give a taste of this, but it's hard to see the effect without looking at a complete article. Hopefully the linked examples will be good enough for that. — Amcaja 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In which case, I disagree. Consider what the reader actually wants to know. Chances are they're coming on wikipedia to find out about what the character did. The rest is trivia - we normally put trivia in a small section at the end. --Tango 10:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either of us can pretend to know what the reader actually wants to read. :) I personally don't care to read a seven-page plot summary, which is what Darth Vader is right now. Without knowing what people want to read, though, we have to decide if Wikipedia is a fanpage or a scholarly source. If it's the former, we can go hogwild on the plot summaries and to hell with the critical analysis and behind-the-scenes info. If it's the latter, the plot summaries need to be kept nice and trim and not overwhelm the other details. By the way, a lot of my previous comments on this page show up in the "compare last revision" page as having been changed during your last edit, but I can't figure out how. Do you know what happened? — Amcaja 13:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we don't know, how about we try and aim somewhere inbetween? A 7-page plot summary doesn't sound good (doesn't sound like a summary at all, really - closer to a transcript!), but then 7 pages of behind the scenes stuff probably isn't good either, it depends on how much interesting stuff there is to say. I think that's the key point - there often isn't much out-of-universe stuff to say, while there is almost always plenty of in-universe stuff. It's hard to get a balance in the article when the information available isn't balanced. (Somehow I managed to click the wrong edit link and added my comment to the end of the wrong section and had to move it - that probably explains the odd diff). --Tango 14:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy vs. guide

As opposed to making this policy, I would much prefer to see this added to the Manual of Style. Once there, FA reviewers could easily point to it as part of the FA criteria. I think making this policy might have the unfortunate side effect of stifling article growth... fictional topics almost always have a period of time in which they write from an in-universe perspective, but if this were policy, such additions would likely start being reverted as vandalism, instead of being improved as per style... Fieari 07:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'd like to see this adopted as a style guide, not as a hard-nosed policy. I need to investigate the procedure for that, but I've been really busy lately outside Wikipedia. It's probably time to move this to a larger forum. Where is the proper place to move this thing? — Amcaja 12:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Move it onto the Community Portal, right above the misguided Wikipedia:Articles about fictional concepts that was added today.--ragesoss 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put a proposed tag on it now. We should move it to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (fiction-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (articles about fiction). There are several other MoS pages for something-related articles, but I think keeping "writing about fiction" is better for this. For there, it can be discussed more, and either accepted or rejected; in any case, that would be a permanent home for it. I'm going to make the move... if someone else disagrees about the naming, we can discuss subsequent moves.--ragesoss 22:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good guideline with a couple caveats

I like this guideline. I think it does a good job of cutting to the heart of what annoys people about badly written fiction articles: they focus too much on regurgitating the fiction itself in summary form instead of adding insight and broader perspective. I also think the terminology you introduce here will be very useful for providing constructive criticism on these articles. On the other hand, I think there's certainly a use for summaries of the fiction, especially when they're drawn from many sources and reordered. I would have no objection to a purely "in-universe" section describing the plot of a book in an otherwise "out-of-universe" article. Likewise, a developing article may consist entirely of "in-universe" information without meriting its deletion - it may serve a valuable role as a portion of the final product.

As for why we have a problem with articles containing too much in-universe info - I think that's just because often contributors to a fiction topic often have done little more than read/watch/play the fiction before visiting the corresponding article. Fanatics or scholars who really dig into the background, watch related documentaries, participate in newsgroup discussions on the topic, etc. tend to have a little deeper knowledge. Deco 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it say anything about deleting in-universe articles? That definitely shouldn't be in there; it's just a style guide. As for an in-universe section for summaries, summaries can be done well without be totally in universe (though out-of-universe references might be few and far between).--ragesoss 23:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't - sorry if I implied that. I agree with your comments. Deco 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think most often we have contributors who have relied on fan references, and who haven't actually viewed or read much of the relevant works of fiction. That's probably why so many articles have so little context; no one has a clue where any of the fictional details were actually depicted (such as Darth Vader's years of birth and death—not given in the movies...and horrible to start an article with...gah!). I remember an AFD discussion for a highly detailed article on a character that only appeared in one Star Wars video game. The whole article was written as if it were based on a novel rather than an interactive game, and the article's author couldn't even explain how the game communicated the information about the character to the player. Postdlf 06:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To respond to Deco's comments: I agree that short in-universe sections are perfectly fine, and the guide even mentions this. Perhaps the guide should have a bit more to say about this? I see these in-universe sections as most useful in the situaions you describe, "when they're drawn from many sources and reordered." For example, Darth Vader (which needs a complete rewrite) might do well to keep a short "biography" section that begins "After six films and 9,303 novels, Darth Vader's official biography places his birth in . . . " and then go on from there. My fear would be that this section would get way overlong, but then those interested could split if off per Wikipedia:Summary style. So, the main Darth Vader article is out-of-universe with a brief in-universe bio, and we have a daughter article called Biography of Darth Vader. — Amcaja 14:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, better as policy

I like this as a guideline, but would like it to have some more "teeth" as a policy. We have too many nonencyclopedic articles on Wikipedia, and hoisting this to the level of policy would do a better job at improving the quality of Wikipedia than leaving it as style. However, even as part of the MoS, it will still have a positive impact, and I would love to see every article that this is talking about rewritten by a group of people to chop out the current content and replace it with this suggestion. Note that it would be a wonderful thing to find an alternate wiki for the current content -- while the stuff that's there now is quite interesting and in many cases carefully researched and quite neat, it's not within our scope. Something akin to transwiki/rewrites would be the best way to handle things, I think. --Improv 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In the past some of the game fiction details has been moved to game guides at Wikibooks, I believe. Something similar might apply for other types of fiction. Deco 02:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this the place to note one's approval? Well, consider it noted. This standard is a great idea, whether as policy or as a guideline. Sandstein 05:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I like this proposal a lot. In my role as FA director, I see lots of issue pertaining to articles dealing with fictional universes and I think this page does wonders to addresses common problems. Raul654 23:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The most compelling reason for making out-of-universe descriptions policy

...other than that it simply makes for better encyclopedia articles, of course, is that in-universe descriptions are likely to constitute copyright infringement.

A summary of a fictional story is a derivative work, an abridgement. The retelling of events, plot points, and character descriptions, is a use of the original work(s). This means that copyrighted expression is necessarily being used when the content of a copyrighted work is described. Using the "objective" writing style of an encyclopedia does not change that any more than the stories in The Onion are less creative works of fiction for their use of a newspaper format.

The usual, and incorrect, perspective is that because facts or not copyrightable, so stating that "Peter Parker is the real name of Spider-Man" is just to state a fact, not to copy fiction. But facts cannot be anything that was created by an author. It's true that within works of fiction that depict Spider-Man, his real name is given by the writers as Peter Parker. But omit that real world context, and you've simply repeated fiction, not fact, that a writer created. Repeat enough of it without that context, and you've committed copyright infringement. But if you sufficiently frame it in real-world context, then (perhaps) you've transformed it enough so that the fiction you've retold qualifies as a fair use.

So far Wikipedia has primarily focused on fair use regarding images, probably because there are commonly known lawsuits involving images and the internet, and it's a lot easier to understand what constitutes the use of an image than the use of fiction. But we all need to further our understanding of the law regarding the use of fiction—the use of story and character elements, not just verbatim text—and we need to ensure that the "out-of-world" perspective is required writing policy, not a guideline, because writing from an "in-world" perspective will constitute infringement of copyrighted works. I've written elsewhere on this issue recently; see, e.g., here; and when I have more time I'll pop more prior comments in. Postdlf 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right that it is possible that wholesale reproduction of characters or plotlines could potentially be considered infringement, even if used to describe the work, but I can't imagine this wouldn't fall under fair use. Plot summaries are legitimate parts of fiction articles that introduce details necessary to understand the work and the real world's relationship to that work. It would be quite a different matter if we wrote and sold our own works for profit, claiming that we were the original authors, which reproduced another work's characters and plotline in different words. This may be a case of "it doesn't matter if you're breaking the law if nobody's going to file a complaint". Deco 03:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what I said. It's a fair use to summarize a plot in order to comment on the work, as part of a critical review or other kind of academic work. That's why I said that the real-world context is key to fair use. But you better be sure that the "understanding" of the work you mention above is part of that academic work itself. Lose that transformative context and you're simply creating a competing product for the Star Trek Encyclopedia or the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe. The more our articles look like they just came from a fan reference such as those (which are all written from an in-universe perspective), the less claim we have to fair use for our use of the characters and fiction we describe. Postdlf 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with this - with the necessary caveat that an article in early development may not reflect this desirable balance of viewpoints. Deco 09:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but we're still in a tight spot if that early version falls over the line in terms of having too little context/commentary to justify a fair use of the fiction. I tried to propose a new CSD criteria for articles about fictional subjects that lacked a specific reference to any work(s) of fiction in which it was depicted (more specific than simply what fictional universe the subject "exists" in), partially on that basis of fair use failure, and also on the likelihood that such an article was a direct paraphrase of a copyrighted fan reference. The proposal unfortunately failed to draw much support, probably due to my unfortunate use of the term "fancruft" riling people up too much for them to really read through my explanations, and the copyright issues are also difficult to grasp. But at a minimum, an article on a fictional subject that completely fails to reference a single real-world fact will completely fail to qualify as fair use, and I still hope that CSD may be changed to tackle that in the future.

But I wonder if there is another way, perhaps for us to shift such "early versions" of articles into a different Wikipedia namespace for editing that is not subject to search engines and broadcast all over the internet, until they have enough transformative context to be moved back into main article space. A work in progress that is not widely distributed may have a fair use claim to the fiction it uses, as it is simply being used as raw material to develop a final article. Postdlf 14:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather rely on OCILLA to protect us for the duration of the article's infancy than complicate our article development process. Deco 23:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, and I guess beyond that let the contributor beware. Postdlf 00:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

If this is to be part of the Manual of Style, would it be a good place to remind editors to cite page numbers from fiction books? Imagine, for example, that I was writing a list of computer passwords to avoid, and a portion of the list consisted of important objects from Lord of the Rings. A small part of my list might look something like this:

• Glamdring (Tolkien 1994: 971)
• mathom (Tolkien 1994: 5)

The article of course would contain a suitable Reference section. The detailed discussions about in-universe aspects of various characters, objects, etc. can seldom be justified in an encyclopedia, but on the rare occasion when subtle details are important in the real world, a precise citation to the primary source is very helpful.

This could be problematic, as I can foresee that each editor may have a different edition of the book. Maybe chapter numbers might be more appropriate. Kevin 10:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Page numbers should be included, with the specific version listed in the references (in traditional lit. crit., that's how citations are done), but chapters might be a good idea also in Wikipedia's case. Citations in the examples is a good idea, definitely, whether or not there is an explicit reminder on this page.--ragesoss 11:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Within reason

I believe this policy is solid, though it could use some common sense within reason clause. What I mean is, for example Stargate (device)#Complexities of function contains a bunch of sub-sections about complexities to a fictional device. The device has already clearly been labelled as part of a fictional universe and continually calling back to make it clear these effects are fictional would make the whole thing unreadable. What I mean by this is, I agree Wikipedia should be written from a reality POV, but once a [something] has been labelled fictional an article should not need to remind readers that factors or features of that fictional something are fictional as well (Once it's clear the Stargate is fictional you don't need to say the wormhole it generates is fictional). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Stargate (device) is a perfect example of the sort of article this guideline is meant to warn against. So, the short answer is that the "Complexities of function" section is simply more fictional information than is needed for a general-purpose encyclopedia about the real world. — Amcaja 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I take that back partially. Stargate (device) does include some out-of-universe stuff, but I do think it is too heavily slanted toward in-universe material. The long sections about how the devices work could use some heavy pruning. To address your specific comment that "continually calling back to make it clear these effects are fictional would make the whole thing unreadable", I disagree. There are several articles linked to on the proposal page that do exactly this, and most are featured articles. — Amcaja 17:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Staxringold. This policy goes too far, to the point where it seems not to allow any description at all from an in universe perspective. I'd prefer something that advocated descriptions more like "The virus made the aliens' skins turn blue. However, this story element was also motivated by budgeting concerns." In other words, explain both the in and out of universe explanations for the work, rather than having the out of universe perspective completely dominate. As long as it is clear that one is fiction and the other is not, the article will still be readable. --Danaman5 19:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Please read the above comments about the impact of copyright law on "in-universe" perspective writing. But even regarding it purely as a style issue, how would it make it unreadable for an article on the complexities of a fictional device to describe how various works of fiction constructed that fiction? How was this article written without that information? Danaman5 has a good point in giving real world explanations for fictional elements, but before you even get to that point, you have to state what real world work of fiction depicted the fictional element in the first place. The citations are a good start, but that needs to be part of the body of the article itself. I think the problem is when writers think the point is to "inform" readers about how the device "works;" but it's fiction. That's the wrong perspective. We instead need to describe how works of fiction have depicted the device. We furthermore have no fair use justification for copying every detail from those depictions. Postdlf 19:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

in-universe hall of shame

I just happened across this egregiously in-universe article: Witch-king of Angmar. We should have a template for adding to the the talk pages of the worst offenders, to catalyze more rapid compliance with this policy/guideline (whichever it turns out to be).--ragesoss 04:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a first run at a template: {{in-universe}}

{{In-universe}}

nice banner. But i think you might have to be more precise. "describes fiction as if it were from the real world" or something. "fiction as fact" might be too vague for non-native english speakers. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the banner's a good idea, though I would caution against making this into a witch hunt. I'd wager that maybe 90% or more of Wikipedia's articles about fiction are written primarily from the perspective of the fiction itself, so a blitzkrieg on them should this policy be adopted would be a very good way to piss off a large number of editors. But, yeah, no problem with the template. As for wording, I don't have any real problem with "fiction as fact". But some alternates might be "fiction as if it were fact", "fiction as if it were factual", or "fictional events as if they actually occurred". — Amcaja 12:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would wager that those same 90% of articles need a major refactoring (and gutting, and ...), not that we should try to make this policy dance to both allow the status quo and suggest fixing things. We have problems, and they need to be fixed. If that means rewriting every one of those articles, that would be a plus. --Improv 18:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that someone who was not privy to this discussion might use the template to flag a non-fiction article that the flagger feels is inaccurate, i.e., an article that claims the Java programming language is better than C++ might have this template placed on it by a C++ advocate. I don't know if we can do anything to the wording to help with this situation though. Gerry Ashton 13:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Can solve that by saying describes a fictional topic. That makes it clear the topic is the issue not the individual fictions in the article. I also agree with Brian that this is such a serious problem we don't want to alienate everyone off the bat. It's such a good and obvious in hindsight idea, that all we need to do is spread awareness of it and stop new violations. The banner should go on talk pages only I'd think. - Taxman ^Talk 13:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the current wording of the template should take care of that? We could also make it "work or element of fiction" perhaps. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like the wording "describes fictional events, characters, settings, or objects as though they were real". This is a bit verbose, but I couldn't come up with an appropriate generic term (maybe "entity"). Deco 23:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the existing {{fiction}}, which reads, "To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction, this article may require cleanup." — TKD::Talk 01:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the proposed wording better, simply because the existing {{fiction}} could be satisified with a simple "Boboso Metu-Face is a fictional character in the HeroSpace anime series. He was born in 2388 on the planet Yamotron . . . ." But clearly the two templates are aiming to satisfy the same ends. It would make sense to merge the two into the stronger version under discussion here. — Amcaja 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree about merging the current version of {{fiction}} with the above template. Perhaps the editing and help links are worth keeping.--ragesoss 00:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Currect {{fiction}}:

*Our current version:

The current version of {{Cleanup fiction-as-fact}} (at the top of the section) represent my attempt at a merged version, to replace {{tl:fiction}}.--ragesoss 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest we get this policy adopted before we start adding the template to articles. I think it would be less antagonistic to get consensus that fact-as-fiction was a bad thing (and that it meant more than just adding 'this article is about a fictional topic' at the top). DJ Clayworth 21:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. And I think a template is better off on talk pages; we don't need yet another distracting, self-refential box to put at the top of hundreds of articles. But we might as well get the template we want squared away now.--ragesoss 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

wording

I would change "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective." in to "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should primarily take an out-of-universe perspective." This would allow some in-universe information as long as there is a proper out-of-universe red line to the article. If you don't include this, then before you know it you will have ppl removing every "plot synopsis" in wikipedia, which seems a bit over the top if you ask me. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 10:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change as you suggest. I had wanted to avoid mincing the words, but some of the negative comments above seem to be from people who believe the guideline would be applied too stringently in its previous form. Hopefully this will ease some of their reservations. — Amcaja 12:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But that wording is too soft. It should be the former and only explicitly state an exception for plot summaries. - Taxman ^Talk 14:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason some people have reservations about this proposal is that they fear that folks will point to the summation (the "in a nutshell" part and later the bolded line) as the sum total of the thing. It would definitely be best to keep these two items as short and punchy as possible, so as to avoid something like "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and, with the exception of brief and judiciously used plot summaries, all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective." I have no problems about changing it back, but I was just trying to woo some detractors. I'm not sure what the standard practice is on these things as to whether the "in a nutshell" stuff has to cover all possibilities. I suppose it shouldn't. — Amcaja 15:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

agree with taxman - be harsh! the nutshell should just give the essence of a policy and not mince words. Zzzzz 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How's the current wording? I also don't want to water down the "exceptions" section to make it too permissive, but a lot of people seem to be arguing that, say, Darth Vader could use an official biography since he's been developed over so many movies, books, comics, games, etc. Provided this "biography" stays very short (one section of a few paragraphs in a long article), I don't see why this would be a problem. — Amcaja 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the wording is now a redirect to the exceptions. i'm not much for that personally. Also i think the "out-of-universe" focus is a bit too strong troughout the proposal (for instance the exceptions). You just can't get away without some "in-universe" biographical information on characters for instance. You have to explain something about Darth Vader representing Evil within the StarWars universe. There is a difference between "in-universe" writing and "in-universe" information. I think the proposal misses that distinction at several places and should be a bit rewritten to "avoid in-universe writing". - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between avoiding in-universe perspective and avoiding in-universe writing. — Amcaja 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The wording is not too strong. We're an encyclopedia, not a fiction work or fan magazine. Those things you mention should be written about entirely from an out of network perspective. - Taxman ^Talk 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't make myself clear enough. What I intended to say is that the focus of SOME areas of the proposal is too much on "not using information out of the universe", instead of focusing on "writing from an out-of-universe perspective". You cannot explain the usage and representation of the iconic figure Darth Vader, without explaining that within StarWars the character embodies the role of "The Evil Badguy". This is universe information that is required to explain the usage of the icon within culture. Listing pure data (actor, time, movies) is useless, dare I say even without meaning, without describing the FUNCTION of the character within the universe. Saying something about Batman (which no one would argue doesn't belong in Wikipedia) is useless by not mentioning that he is a "selfmade superhero deeply scarred by the murder on his parents" and that this selfmade + vulnerability combined are the aspects that makes him one of the more loved comic heros, because people can easily identify themselves with that. Without some of that context of the story, the explanation of why he is "easily identified with" is useless. Ergo, universe information should be used as context to the out-of-universe events, popularity, reaction etc. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That same information can be conveyed from an out of universe perspective. And cited. If there isn't a reliable source to cite for that (there would easily be in this case) then your characterization of Batman as that is original research. You're misunderstanding what out of universe perspective means. It's not that we ignore important elements of the story, just that we don't talk about them from the perspective of the story. - Taxman ^Talk 12:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I think I get TheDJ's criticism. What if the first paragraph of "Exceptions" were rewritten thus:

Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own universe. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. This is not inherently bad, provided that the fictional passages are short, grounded with real-world language, and do not form more than a small portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Note that when using the fictional work itself to write these descriptions the work of fiction must be cited as a source.

I think this addresses both The DJ's and Zzzzz's concerns. — Amcaja 12:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

YES, this I like. That's 100% what I intended to point out. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Example articles

I looked at some of the articles featured in the Example articles section and noticed that some articles had good footnotes, for example, Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Others, for example, Jabba the Hutt, often did not rely on formal footnotes, but rather mentioned the name of the movie, or for television, the date the episode aired. Considering that one would usually have to buy a movie DVD or an entire season of a TV show to check the article, I suppose these references are adequate. I do think that by having the list of example articles concentrate on movies, TV shows, and video games, the "Manual of Style" readers are not exposed to citations that give a page in a book, and so do not become accustomed to the idea of being able to check a fact in an article by reading a small amount of text (as opposed to having to watch an entire season of a TV show to check a signle fact.) Gerry Ashton 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Donkey Kong, Krazy Kat, and Felix the Cat rely primarily on print sources, so those provide examples of using print sources and good footnotes in articles on fictional subjects. (And, yes, Felix does not have inline citations. I and others wrote the article long before such were standard, but I do intend to add them, hopefully soon.) However, I agree that it would be nice to see an example article on something from, say, Tolkien or Douglas Adams. If you know of a good article about a fictional element from a print source, please add the article to the list. — Amcaja 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I added The Lord of the Rings to the list of example articles. It has a good variety of secondary sources. Gerry Ashton 21:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good addition. Now if only we can find an article on some character or location or monster from science fiction or fantasy literature that meets the criteria. — Amcaja 12:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How about Frankenstein's monster? The plot summary is a little bit long, but everything else has the right perspective.--ragesoss 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has an out-of-universe perspective, and appropriate amount of detail. However, it has no footnotes or references. Gerry Ashton 22:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add the article Obi-wan Kenobi as an example of a very bad article in this regard. It treats him entirely from an in-universe perspective, resulting in a huge over-emphasis on obscure matters to do with his early life and no separation between his role in the movies and his role in minor, later fiction. DJ Clayworth 17:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What is a good article criterion

fyi, you may be interested in the wording of the WP:WIAGA:

Articles dealing with fiction: For articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, or locations, significance outside the "fictional universe" must be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship. The focus of the article should remain on discussing the subject as fiction within the context of "our" universe, not on establishing it as a "real" topic in a fictional universe; otherwise, the article may be better placed in one of the many fictional-universe specific wikis.

Zzzzz 10:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

the grammar and lexis of writing about fiction

There's some useful stuff on the project page. I think that it needs to deal with the particular grammatical and lexical pitfalls of the register. For example, there's a tendency to overuse temporal and sequential markers, such as "then" (= "next"). Care is required to achieve consistent and logical tense. And lots more. Tony 13:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that such information would be useful, especially some discussion of the literary present tense and when to switch to past. (I still have problems with this myself.) However, the guideline at present is mostly about how to approach the fiction, not the nitty-gritty of what words to use or not abuse, literary present, and the like. Perhaps once we get the kinks in this particular proposal ironed out, it would make sense to create one all-inclusive style guide for fictional articles that would incorporate this, your suggestion, WP:FICT, and other guidelines? In the meantime, perhaps someone should do a more style guide-style style guide per Tony's suggestion for later merger with this proposal. — Amcaja 13:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Edited to add: Some of what you are talking about is already at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction. I like the idea of bringing all the info on writing about fiction into one place, but, like I said, we should probably iron out this particular policy/guideline first. — Amcaja 13:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Brian; I'll check it out. Tony 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fictional-universe-specific wikis

Should we change to all external links for the list of fictional-universe-specific wikis? The hodgepodge of Wikipedia articles and external links we have right now bothers me, and it seems that a direct link to the wiki in question would be more useful to someone interested in writing the definitive biographies of Bebop and Rocksteady. Or should we include the list at all? We could conceivably get away with a link to List of wikis. — Amcaja 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

adding a link to list of wikis underneath the existing examples is a good idea. if you do, then you can also change all the wikilinks to external links (as gtheir relevant wikilinks can be found in list of wikis). Zzzzz 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

Just to say I totally support this initiative. Let's get this adopted as part of the style guide as soon as possible. DJ Clayworth 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In its current form, it is quite well written and gets its point across admirably with copious examples and suitable discussion of exceptions. Deco 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's do a straw poll to get this formalized.--ragesoss 22:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Link fixed revisions

Since we can't realistically guarantee that each article in the list of example articles will continue to demonstrate the qualities that the guideline proposes, wouldn't it be a lot easier to link fixed revisions? Deco 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be fine to leave it as straight links. Like the list of Featured Article Candidates, the articles will change. If someone notices that, say, Jabba the Hutt has been totally rewritten as a biography in a month's time, it should simply be removed from the list. (Incidentally, this guide will hopefully inspire scores of more examples so that the totality of good fiction articles will not even fit on this page.) — Amcaja 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

agree with deco - these types of articles have a tendency to deteriorate towards fancruft, a fixed revision link would be better. Zzzzz 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

For the poll see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/straw poll. I've closed it, it's been running for a little over a week and the consensus in there indicates fairly strongly that people see this as being implemented first as a guideline, although there were a number of people who felt it could or should be upgraded to a policy were it to be disregarded. For those keeping score, there were 18 confirmed votes, of which 16 saw it as being formalised and 2 rejected it. The majority is a strong consensus, and within that consensus 13 favoured guideline as a first step, again a strong consensus. Hiding Talk 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a method of opening this up much more widely for comment? Given the number of WIkipedia editors out there, is there really no procedure for making this more widely known before it gets officially adopted? DJ Clayworth 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was announced at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and What links here shows that it has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?, Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia talk:Articles about fictional concepts, and the following WikiProjects: Avatar: The Last Airbender, Comics, Computer and video games, Digimon Systems Update, Doctor Who, Halo, Machinima, The Simpsons, Star Wars, and Television. In addition, numerous specific articles, peer reviews, and featured article candidacies have mentioned the guideline or suggested its implementation. It seems fairly widely known; if people opposed it or had suggestions for changes, I'm not sure why they wouldn't have come here to comment (as two did). — Amcaja 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought a week was an acceptable period given it was a straw poll rather than an official poll, and there was such a strong consensus. I admit it wouldn't have harmed to leave it open longer, but also that it wouldn't even have been necessary to have had the poll, given the discussion it could have just been adopted. Hiding Talk 21:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you need to apologize. As Brian mentioned, a lot of people writing about fictional subjects were made aware of this in one way or this proposal. — TKD::Talk 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think everyone who was interested in this proposal was aware of it. I would point out Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter and Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth as two good examples of "in-universe" writing. For what it is worth, I whole-heartedly support the proposal and I am glad it has been accepted as a guideline, but a bit more advertising in the fictional WikiProjects might not have been amiss. See also my comments below. Carcharoth 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items, which I saw when I first started editing, I assumed that the middle earth articles had a problem with in-universe perspective, but based on your recommendation, I'll have to take a look for myself. --Chris Griswold 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

suggestion to change opening sentence

the current opening sentence:

Wikipedia contains countless articles on fictional worlds and elements from them. Provided such articles comply with policies on notability, this is generally acceptable.

the suggested new version:

For articles on fictional worlds and elements from them, significance outside the "fictional universe" must be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship.

reasons for change: need to be more direct to discuss "writing about fiction" - why start with a discussion of notability? so the first sentence becomes about writing an article in a way to emphasise its notability and significance (on the real world) - i.e. you put in the topic's article itself what exactly makes it notable and significant, instead of waiting until an AFD debate to start discussing why xyz is so notable. and to me, the part "Wikipedia contains countless articles on fictional worlds...this is generally acceptable" is not something to shout from the rooftops - it appears to be encouraging users to create more such articles. so this second version will be more direct in dealing with the subject of writing about fiction, and slightly less tolerant of fancruft. it will also bring it more in line with WP:WIAGA. what do you think? Zzzzz 00:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to keep it the way it is. There's no reason to discourage the creation of any articles that meet the notability criteria, as long as they are well-written and verifiable. Many articles that began as "fancruft" are quite good, and such specificity is one of the hallmarks of Wikipedia. If potential editors of articles on fiction get as far as reading this guideline, we don't want them to give up on what they planned on contributing; by that point, they're likely to be more part of the solution than the problem.--ragesoss 00:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

thats why it specifically doesnt discourage it... just doesnt encourage it! Zzzzz 00:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a disagreement between the article title and the existing first sentence. If the sentence were replaced as proposed, the disagreement would still exist. The title is "Manual of Style (writing about fiction)". Both the existing first sentence and the proposed replacement are about fictional worlds. Although one could argue that every work of fiction creates a fictional world, this phrase brings to mind works like The Lord of the Rings, not works like The Last of the Mohicans. I would like to see a revision that avoids the phrase "fictional worlds" in the first paragraph. Gerry Ashton 01:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

is this an improvement:

For articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events or locations, significance outside the narrative itself must be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship.

Zzzzz 01:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is an improvement. However, the process of authorship is not a requirement. If, for a less than ideal example, I wrote about the Monty Python Flying Circus sketch concerning Spam, and the primary thesis of my article was that the name for unsolicited e-mail derives from that sketch, I see no reason why I must discuss the process of authorship. Gerry Ashton 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

if i change "must" to "should" to soften it slightly:

For articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events or locations, significance outside the narrative itself should be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship.

note this sentence is not *the policy* (that comes in a box a bit later), but the preamble to it. so its not a diktat, but a strong suggestion. eg mentioning that "it was written by terry jones and michael palin and was inspired by terry getting lost in shelves of spam at a cambridge supermarket".

The phrase "process of authorship" more or less presupposes an article along the lines of a book review. However, some articles may be primarily concerned with the relationship between a work of fiction and the real world, and may be unconcerned with the process of writing the book. If the introductory sentence says "should" rather than "must", and the vast majority of good articles about fiction do indeed resemble book reviews, that's fine. If a substantial portion of good articles about fiction establish the notability of the article without being concerned with the process of authorship, then the phrase "process of authorship" should be removed. I'd like someone else's opinion about what the balance is. Gerry Ashton 01:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the change to "should". I think that saying "must" might give some people an unnecessary sense of immediacy with respect to removing non-conforming material, when probably the more constructive approach is to treat it as a cleanup issue, at least in most cases.

As for process of authorship, I think that its inclusion should be encouraged, to the extent that verifiable information exists about it (some authors are more tight-lipped than others). For Red vs Blue, we covered notability thoroughly in the main Red vs Blue article itself, with a good amount of information on process of authorship. However, significant details of the processes of authorship were moved to daughter articles (e.g., Red vs Blue production, which, unfortunately, is undersourced currently) because those processes have been detailed quite thoroughly in multiple published interviews and DVD audio commentaries. — TKD::Talk 03:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the change. The first sentence is not intended to be policy. It's intended as a broad, general statement to catch the reader's attention and funnel it in to the thesis of the piece, which is the "policy in a nutshell" part. Think The Lively Art of Writing. The proposal is really about avoiding treating fiction as if it were real, so suggestions about notability, etc. are really only there as a reminder of other, already in-force policy. — Amcaja 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the proposal is really about avoiding treating fiction as real, perhaps the title should be changed to "Manual of Style (fiction is not reality)". Gerry Ashton 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a possibility. However, what I'd really like to see is a complete Manual of Style on writing about fiction that merges the info rom Check Your Fiction with this stuff, plus adds more. The kind of thing Tony was asking about above under the heading "the grammar and lexis of writing about fiction". — Amcaja 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the current title is fine, and better that (fiction is not reality) because then people will think the title sums up the whole policy, and we want to make it a bit more detailed than that. Plus with this we can add other style points to the page without having to change the title. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use

Perhaps we should make a note somewhere that writing elaborate plot descriptions also most likely does not qualify as "Fair use" and therefor constitutes a copyright violation? - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, so don't know if that's true or not. But if someone with a law background can confirm that this is, in fact, an issue, it should definitely be addressed. — Amcaja 17:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I would think it's fine as long as we are not passing the article off as a substitute for the original work. DJ Clayworth 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PS: [1] uses plot summaries of a tv show as an example (just above the conclusion at the bottom). The determining detail seems to be "Could the summary be used as a substitute for the original?". As long as it really is a summary and not a complete rewrite, we should be fine. --Tango 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tense

Is this just me, or is it considered normal to write plot summaries of fiction and character histories in present tense rather than past tense? Is this something we should mention here or is that too prescriptive? DJ Clayworth 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right. This is the sort of thing that would be nice to include. I would really like to see the scope of this MoS expanded to include the type of stuff discussed at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction. Basically, make this a style guide in every sense of the word. — Amcaja 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I find the use of present tense completely unworkable. We're talking about events that, from the perspective of the characters, happened over decades. From the reader's perspective, or the publisher's, they may have been published over decades. But in some entries (such as Spider-Man), they are all described in the present tense. The character is simultaneously fifteen and thirty, a high school student and an adult, single and married, yet to gain his super-powers and a veteran with a decade and a half of experience. It's confusing, which runs counter to our mission. Not to mention that twenty paragraphs of plot summary in the present tense reads like a bad grade school book report.

Any narrative that contains an internal continuity by necessity means that some events happened in the past, and should be described as such in this encyclopedia. --Chancemichaels 19:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Using present tense for plot descriptions is an old convention of the English langauge. You probably do it yourself when you tell funny stories or jokes ("So this guy walks into a bar . . . ."). Thus, it has long been the accepted format for Wikipedia (as witnessed by its inclusion at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction). As long as you are including real-world language, the convention works just fine. "In The Phantom Menace, Anakin Skywalker is depicted as a young boy (played by Jake Lloyd). The next film advances 10 years to show a young Jedi in training (played by Haydn Christianson). The final film of the Prequel Trilogy finishes the cycle, showcasing Anakin's fall to the Dark Side." (That's very rough and off the top of my head, but you ge the idea). One of the major goals of this guideline is to prevent plot descriptions from being the main focus of an article. Summation of plot can be equal to but should never be more important than, say, history of creation, development as a concept, etc. — Amcaja 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As Brian mentioned, when summarizing plot, the standard is to write relative to the current frame of reference in the fiction, since that particular part of the fiction unfolds for the audience anew each time it is explored. Now, if that frame of reference is unclear, then that's a problem of the surrounding text, not of the literary/narrative/historical present tense. — TKD::Talk 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I was about to write, TKD. Writing in the present tense becomes unworkable only if you are writing from the point of view of the characters, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid. As long as we write in context it becomes easier. However I do agree that things that occurred in the past from the point of view of the characters can be described in the past tense (or at least mixed tense): "Scrooge remembers the Christmasses of his youth, where Fezziwig threw marvelous parties and everyone danced and sang". DJ Clayworth 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sections in articles about fiction and TV series or books, especially in List of characters

I started a discussion in Talk:Characters of Lost#Dividing the characters to Oceanic Six and others about the way the sections should be written in articles about fiction and TV series.

I am the opinion that section titles and section division should not reflect the "current" (last episode seen so far) status of the characters on the specific TV series in the same reason that we don't write the status of a fictional character appearing in a TV series. I think we should recommend that the characters appearing on the show in a way to take under consideration all seasons/episodes and in a way presenting fundamental elements of the TV series/book/etc and not using criteria that may change or depend only on the "current" (last episode seen so far) episode (or book if that concerns a book series such as Harry Potter).

I am not sure that FICTION already covers that. At least it did, but it seems we have to make a discussion here about a more specific policy about the subject.

I find the division of the characters of the Lost TV series subjective and wrong. The same way I felt about an older division of the characters of Jericho to deceased and not deceased. I had corrected the latter with no problem by merging the one category into the other. The editors dealing with Lost seem to have a different prospective.

I certainly would like that specific guidelines are writen. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm following correctly, but are you referring to something similar to have maybe Smallville's main page does it? That's set up based on their original appearances. Many have left the show, but they remain in the original list, while anyone that came later were added in a separate listing as they were not part of the original group of series regulars.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The division in main and additional cast is just perfect. It's simple, it covers all the characters, it is independent from the "status" ("dead", "alive", "on the island", "off the island", etc.) of the character.-- 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also List of characters in Heroes is not that bad. Except maybe the "family" thing but this is under discussion there as well. It has Additional season 1 characters and Additional season 2 characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been some editors that have wanted to reorder the list to be "Current cast" and "Departed Cast", or something to that effect. I've always felt that gave rise to recentism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In regard to Lost, the sections contain spoilers so I am not sure why the headers should be any different. Using Greek mythology as an analogy, the page is arranged by "Olympians", "Titans", "nymphs", "other deities" and "mortals". –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that all "off the island" characters (Oceanic Six aside) have always been off the island. If someone look at the page and says, "Oh damn, I didn't know Sun was part of the Six" then they shouldn't have looked at the page. You should expect spoilers on a central pages such as a list of characters. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:) I liked the example you used. But see Battlestar Galactica. Since the main element of the whole series is Cylons vs Humans (it is written in the introduction of each episode) it is completely normal to do that but in Lost the division between people on the boat, people on the island, etc. is not a basic element of the whole series. The basic element is the survivors and other people they meet. Certainly, the division to Oceanic Six, people on the boat, etc. has nothing to do with Titans and nymphs. Characters in Lost can change status in each episode.

Now, about the style of writing, I think it is more encyclopedic to divide the characters each tv series, etc. to main cast -indicating in which season are main cast- and additional cast. This saves us from recentism, too much spoiling, fancract division, etc.

We have to encourage people to check the Wikipedia articles. I removed all Heroes articles from My Watchlist because someone was always entering information from previews, at 90% inaccurate or just... wrong. We want people who just start watching Season 1 to go and find the infrmation they want without worrying to get unnecessary spoilers. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if someone has only started the beginning of a series, they should know not to touch that series on the internet with a kilometre-long pole (even if it has a blade at the tip). And part of the hitch of Lost is the fact that there is usually a storyline on all fronts. Currently, on the Kahana, at Locke's camp, at Jack's camp, the past and the future. Those characters may venture into the other realm, but tend to stay within there own. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters of classical mythology change status too. Heracles eventually became a god and the Olympians are a group that formed and expanded overtime. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Those characters may venture into the other realm, but tend to stay within there own" Why do I believe that this sentence is not a good way to look things in Wikipedia? Those characters are part of a product that it is distributed in many ways. TV in the US, dvd boxsets in other countries, etc. Why can't we make articles based less on "the last episode seen so far"? Why must someone watch all the episodes of a Tv series before consulting Wikipedia? This is not how an Encyclopedia should work I think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should be complete. To be complete, we need all information. We can't stay on the first episode when there are more than that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. I am searching a way to present things in a better way. Check the Cylon (Battlestar Galactica) article for BSG. It is very nice. It explains what Cylons are, they are not section titles like Captain Adama is a Cylon, it presents information outside a certain season's perspective, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Adama's what now?! Lol. But at Cylon (re-imagining) the biggest spoilers are shown. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There are more good ways for presenting characters: List of Battlestar Galactica characters, List of Prison Break characters. :) I'll try to check most of the characters' articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, if you sort through them all, the amount with spoiles outweigh those without partially because the list of characters as where many without enough info for a page but enough to be significant are put. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

At the Lost page, there is no section title that reads ***** is one of the Oceanic Six. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that even if we reorganize the Oceanic Six into the main list of survivors the article will still state which survivors are part of the Oceanic Six, as this is essential information about the characters. Where and how this information is presented is just semantics. Yes, it would be less obvious if it were only stated in the normal font after the characters' names, but as stated several times we don't organize information in such a way to spare new viewers of being spoiled. Jackieboy87 (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked many other articles of Lists and I think Lost system is the worst. The vast majority uses the classic main/additional cast. You are not even using the word "cast" or "characters" in the section titles. In response to the "we don't organize information in such a way..." I have to use that's why I am asking specific rules to be written in the Manual of Style. The question is if we have to organize information in the way I suggest or not. And that has not only to do with Lost. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)