Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 10

"Fictional character"

Why do all of our articles about characters in fiction start out with something like "Gandalf is a fictional character in Lord of the Rings"? Wouldn't "Gandalf is a character in Lord of the Rings" work just as well? Wkdewey (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Some characters in works of fiction are not fictional (a representation of a famous person in a work of fiction). --MASEM 06:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting a good balance between IU/OOU

Just to throw this in: I've been thinking that a good balance of in/out-of-universe should be suggested, but I don't know where to put it. Does "A good fictional article should have as much real-world information as fictional summary, if not more" sound like a fair suggestion? I'm not saying that all fictional articles can reach this target, nor do I want the balance to be used as a reason for deletion/merging. I'm just saying that, B-Class and higher fictional articles should follow this balance. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, you rarely need more than five paragraphs of pure plot to describe a fictional element (or 45min episode), and my personal rule of thumb is that a stand-alone article on a fictional topic should have at least two (better: three) paragraphs of real-world information (production, reception, secondary analysis). I always strive for a 1:1 balance (worst case) for near-finished articles, although I usually end up with 1:2 (plot vs. real-world). Lists are a different matter. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence why I said "if not more". Some B-Class and up articles—notably the Simpsons ones (because there are so many)—have about a 50-66% proportion of OOU content. For example (random selection), Everybody Hates Hugo (GA) is about 4 paragraphs of plot, six of production and reception. I normally hover around 1:2.5 (I aim for 40:30:30, S:P:R on episode articles), but on rare occasions I hit 1:4 (and on one, 1:10!). I only mean it as advice, and there is no reason why an article shouldn't have more or less. It's just a good baseline for the quality articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, it depends on the fiction--a great many of our plot articles, especially the combination articles have much too little plot to description to be clear, and are just teasers, not encyclopedic. Perhaps we should have a rule that the treatment of a 45 minute episode should not normally be below three paragraphs of pure plot. The amount needed in a character element article will vary even more--if a charcter is the key figure connecting a complicated plot, an article of whatever length shoudl be written to give an adequate description. I see no reason why a stand alone article on a fictional element need have any real world content at all beyond the acknowledgment that the subject is fictional. A standalone article on plot should be about the plot-- the balance is in the overall content of the treatment of the subject. DGG (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia articles should be solely title, infobox, plot, and in that respect I think should be merged into episode/season lists where we can give them around two hundred words of plot: for example, The Trial of a Time Lord#Episodes. I'm not a big fan of a lower limit for a plot summary: of course, we shouldn't be silly and only have fifty-word summaries, but sometimes you can do an episode in two paragraphs, as easily as you can do it in five. I'm not a big fan of TTN's redirecting policy, and prefer actual merging. I think that if you can write a plot summary of the character which needs to be spun-off, it's available enough for some out-of-universe information too. I want to stress, though, that I realise not all articles that warrant articles can reach this target. I just want this to be a target for anyone who wants to take fictional concepts to GAC/FAC, based on the current trend of featured articles on fictional concepts. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Setting any ratio will be potentially problematic and can be gamed either way. 50% is a nice number, or setting a # of words per minute or page, but every piece of fiction has unique aspects to be considered. For example, there's likely little more that can be said about The Simpsons as a series so the amount of OOU content will remain fixed but as long as new episodes are made, the amount of IU content increases. Is this bad? Certainly not, but it's also a more unique case. The only real advice that should be given is that the OOU should be the first and foremost focus of the article - doesn't mean it comes first or the like, or gets the most real estate, but only that the article is written to add the OOU in all aspects and in the most clarity needed to be understand by someone not familiar with the work in question and then addressing the IU to "complete" the coverage. --MASEM 16:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify this statement: "Careful differentiation between narrated time and fictional chronology on the one hand, and narrative time and actual chronology of real-world events on the other (of particular relevance to all film and TV-related topics)". I do not understand how to actually use this while trying to fill in some details on a page that is tagged as needing this. For example, if a series puts in a fictional history of Scotland based on myths of Scotland and other places, and I'm not familiar with the actual history of Scotland, how can I add in the missing details of the fictional story background without (potentially) making things worse? Looking at one of the "Good example" articles -- Buff the Vampire Slayer -- didn't really help clarify what is being sought here. Keybounce (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Was "actual chronology of real-world events" meant to refer primarily to publication dates? Which is the first star wars movie? "A New Hope" in the real world, "Phantom Menace" in the fictional chronology. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Although that is a bit debatable as to what was intended to be the first; I recall Lucas saying he postponed Eps I-III because they were mainly grand space battles and special effects in the 1970s couldn't do them justice. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section

Formatting and overall appearance

Consider that you're writing for a mainstream, laymen audience who mostly uses Wikipedia as their first stop. It is generally advisable to increase the article's (and with it, Wikipedia's) overall usefulness and usability by focusing on the bigger picture first and incorporating information roughly ordered from the general, or mainstream, to the more specific and detailed as our coverage emerges.

There are many types of things that shouldn't be included in Wikipedia articles, so it's all the more important to get the hard facts into the article, with appropriate sources.

Another idea to really get an article going is to properly format the individual references, using a references section. Not only do they look a lot better than e.g. bare url links, they are also very convenient for the reader in providing at-a-glance info. Template {{Cite}} and its subtemplates (see the template description page) are easy to use and it's definitely worth the effort. In addition to its increased usefulness, a properly formatted article will also help inspire more editors (and newbies) to properly format references. A somewhat unthankful but nevertheless important job is to format references included by others.

Last but not least, focus on the article's overall appearance. Is every relevant aspect covered in appropriate depth and length? Is the plot summary written coherently? Does it provide sufficient but concise information to recapitulate the story at the core of the article?

Discussion

• I've been thinking on and off about how best to advise editors regarding aspects of e.g. the plot summary and general formatting and appearance. The above is obviously not ready to be included as is, as I've just written off the top of my head. I'd appreciate any input and tuning on the proposed wording. All I'm hoping to get across with this proposal is the notion and tone of casually handing out useful pieces of advice regarding best practice in a range of aspects. Not in a slap-over-the-head-with-policy way, but aiming high in a relaxed manner. Inspired by the pertinent discussion regarding plot summaries, I decided to include it as well, inviting editors look at the bigger picture. Much more could be added, I'm sure. Just Get It Right^(TM) is imho the best practice of encouraging best practice. 78.34.134.103 (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Check up

Building 26 - Heroes Episode, Can people who are more familiar with this project thingy, tell me if this episode is Good, Okay or Bad, in relation to this thingy. Good meaning that it follows the rules goodly, I tried to made the article follow the rules, but it just got changed by an IP adress dude. You can view my last edit to see if thats any good.... hard to do with an article like this. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the current version is just plot summary - there isn't a single line of real world context. From my perspective, needs a complete rewrite. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What about my last edit? I tried to make it more realishy IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt (and I am not aiming to hurt anyone's feelings), the article is everything wikipedia is not (WP:NOT#PLOT). The lead is practically nonexistent. IMDb and tv.com are user-created sites and are usually considered as unreliable (WP:RS) except for the cast and airdates (which in wiki-practice don't require sourcing for aired fiction). The plot summary is nearly twice as long as recommended by WP:MOSTV, and the article contains no non-trivial information about production and reception either (also recommended in WP:MOSTV, and generally needed to establish WP:Notability). Since the article doesn't seem to follow any fiction-related wiki rule, it is in a very bad shape from an encyclopedic standard. To get an idea what wikipedia considers good or even excellent articles on TV episodes, see WP:GA#Television episodes and WP:FA#Media. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

thats the thing there so not wiki that i was trying to fix them. But the problem is i didn't want someone just to come along and nominate them all for deletion, because they CAN be fixed...... just will take some time...IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Since wikipedia works on the WP:Assume good faith principle, good-faith efforts and volunteering for article improvement can often avert deletion or merger attempts for a significant time. But action is the only thing that matters in the end, and I hope you stick around to prove the article's assumed potential. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hows this?; Building 26

Better yes? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, holy crap has any of you guys seen the earlier heroes epiodes, look at the crazy length of the plot in this; Six Months Ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmTheCoinMan (talk • contribs)

That reasoning would fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No-one has come around to deal with that article yet, as is the case with many other episode articles on wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

reply and continued discussion at User_talk:Sgeureka#Building_26. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Attention over at South Park pages

There is currently a discussion taking place over at the List of South Park episodes concerning the notability of the majority of the South Park articles, and the possibility of merging any non-notable articles into newly recreated season pages (with the possibility of being recreated regardless of the episode merge given the length of the "List of" page...see Talk:List of South Park episodes#Reformatting pages for the discussion on simply reformatting the "List of" page). More opinions are wanted and needed at the talk page so that we can get a better idea of the consensus. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion?

Not claiming in any way that religion is just a piece of fiction, although fiction sometimes becomes "religion", I'm considering to propone a similar writing codex for religious articles. Often enough some fxxl here and another there, uses direct references to the religious scriptures themselves as a means of citation. Which is about the fxxlishmxst writing style that exists! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is okay only when the article acknowledges that it is myth ( a special form of fiction ) that is under discussion. Otherwise, citations to fictional sources should not be used to establish non-fictional facts! It is rather aggravating to see, when it happens. Taking out a reference that makes no sense and adding a fact tag is an appropriate response.Levalley (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)#Merge same topic, regarding the merger of Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) back into one article given that they are two separate articles covering the same topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"The problem with in-universe perspective"

I tend to enjoy in-universe perspective more than real life - but that's a personal opinion.

And I do not see any of the points listed in this section as real problems. Who made this guideline? Care to explain why the 'problem's are actually problems with in-universe perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.159.171 (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well there are a number of issues - broadly as an ecyclopedia, we are interested in the impact of a fiction work and it's place in the culture of the day not the minuate of the story itself. Also an in-universe perspective is misleading, many aspects of a character or story can be added decades after their creation. So for example, the character Galactus had most of his origin made up about two decades after his creations, an in-universe persective will present that as a linear narrative and give an misleading overview of a character's history. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that includes pages like this. So, I suppose that some editor invented this in-universe business as original research and opinion. You will observe that there are no references to reliable sources to back any of this up. If one actually looks at a reliable source like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, you will find them using an in-universe style without any problem. For example, here's a paragraph from their entry on Macbeth:

"Worried by the witches' prophecy that Banquo's heirs instead of Macbeth's own progeny will be kings, Macbeth arranges the death of Banquo, though Banquo's son Fleance escapes. Banquo's ghost haunts Macbeth, and Lady Macbeth is driven to madness by her guilt. The witches assure Macbeth that he will be safe until Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane and that no one “of woman born” shall harm him. Learning that Macduff is joining Malcolm's army, Macbeth orders the slaughter of Macduff's wife and children. When the army, using branches from Birnam Wood as camouflage, advances on Dunsinane, Macbeth sees the prophecy being fulfilled: Birnam Wood has indeed come to Dunsinane. Lady Macbeth dies; Macbeth is killed in battle by Macduff, who was “from his mother's womb untimely ripped” by cesarean section and in that quibbling sense was not “of woman born.” Malcolm becomes the rightful king."

So long as there is an introduction which makes it clear this this is a fictional account, not real history, there's no problem. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• We're not just worried that someone will mistake fiction as fact, and the guideline isn't telling anyone that narrative or plot can never be summarized. The question is always how to contextualize that fiction. There's not a problem with that paragraph from Macbeth because it's all summarizing the narrative of one work of fiction, in the linear chronology that the play itself follows. The problem typically arises in serial fiction or media franchises, when the in-universe description is the result of a synthesis of multiple works of fiction, without regard to the real-world chronology or narrative device by which such in-universe narrative is established (e.g., flashback, retcon, etc.). We want to make sure articles explain the work of fiction, and that they explain how the subjects within fiction are developed and depicted by those works. Note also that even in articles on single works of fiction, a truly informative article will deconstruct the fiction by explaining how that work tells the story. In the Wikipedia article on Macbeth, which has a much more lengthy synopsis of the play than the single Britannica paragraph above, the article goes some length towards explaining how the play establishes the story, such as whether certain events occur on-stage or are just related in dialogue as having occurred. Postdlf (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you square that last statement with what is actually written in the guidelinr, viz: An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info.

What does it mean to make any effort to uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real world info? For example, one might be leaving out a real world comment that birnham wood was a real place, that traditionally witches appear in threes, or any manner of real world fact which might conceivably be included. What on earth is this supposed to mean? It appears to mean that if any possible real world fact which might have been included is omitted, then the passage is defined to be in-universe. The passage above quite obviously makes an attempt to uphold the illusion of the original, by giving a continuous narrative withour real world interruption and thus meets this definition of 'in universe'. This patently contradicts what you just said (as well as being rather insane), and appears to rule out inclusion of any such passage. Rewrite needed? Sandpiper (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that ever since this guideline was enforced, far too many articles have compensated for this by merely inserting the word "fictional" all over the place which in turn has resulted in some ridicilous, confusing and/or just plain silly text. For example, the synopsis for the Doctor Who story "Meglos" starts with the phrase "The fictional Prion star system contains two habitable planets..." and it's supposed to be from real-life POV and all, but it does kinda give you the idea that it's fictional INSIDE the fiction. So at least as far as story synopsis are concerned, they should be allowed to remain in-world perspective. Takeshi357 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

This guidance was in conflict with the undue weight section of the neutral point of view policy. It misrepresents what WP:UNDUE states. I can find no mention of unimportant information within that section. The entire section on undue weight is about giving minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views within an article summarising all views. It is not about writing from an in-universe perspective, since an in-universe perspective is not an opinion or view espoused by a source to which we can give undue prominence. An in-universe perspective is a style of writing. What is being looked for is policies stating that articles should rely on secondary sourcing to avoid original research. Those policies are WP:V and WP:NOR. Those are the policies editors should reference in guidance if they want to make such points, and indeed, they have already been referenced. Hiding T 10:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly - it has always felt to me like a bad distortion of WP:NPOV to treat primary sources and in-universe material as offering a POV. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've raised the question at WT:NPOV. It's best everyone is on the same page. Hiding T 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, I don't see how reliance on one source is not placing undue weight on that source. Next you will be saying that unsourced coverage is not biased because it does not place any reliance on any point of view at all? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll say that. The problem with unsourced coverage is not NPOV. If we allow NPOV to be about balance of sources, we are opening a disastrous can of worms. None of which is to say in-universe writing reliant on primary sources is acceptable. It's not. But we need to be careful not to twist policies to say things they shouldn't in order to provide redundant support for the claim. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In terms of this guideline (as opposed to discussions about the nature of NPOV), I agree with Hiding's reverted edit, the issue of using fiction directly is WP:PRIMARY and not WP:UNDUE. At one point, I too thought undue had to deal with the ratio between article content and independent sources, but (at least in the current revision) it deals with alternative viewpoints. -Verdatum (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One reason why WP:UNDUE might have been invoked is that in-universe writing (at least regarding serial and franchise fiction) may require a POV selection of certain sources as "canon" or "within continuity", and others as not, so as to resolve retcons or accidental (or supposed) inconsistencies in the fiction. Otherwise, I think the invocation of WP:UNDUE may have been a case of equivocation. In universe articles effectively weigh fictional elements as if we were writing about real people and events, which has been said to give "undue weight" to fictional elements that might represent a comparatively insignificant portion in the real world published fiction. Postdlf (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - the "canon" stuff is a chronic problem. I usually find that WP:NOR is sufficient to kill it in almost all cases, however. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The concept of maintaining a NPOV when summarising a primary source work of fiction is exactly the same as when summarising any other source. It is an essential requirement for all wiki editing, that we fairly represent the source being claimed to support some passage. This is very fundamental. I suggest the relevant part of WP:UNDUE is An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The concept applies within one source as well as between sources. It is not simply about different views on one point, but about giving proportionate coverage to different points. So six chapters are about character A and one about B, then as a very rough rule character A gets six times more write up than B in the plot description. Character C, who only appears in one paragraph, might not be mentioned at all. Sandpiper (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There's two concepts at work here. One is the real world concept of undue weight, and the other is WP:UNDUE. I guess the two got confused there. The thinking here was using the real world (original) meaning of the term "undue weight", not our little wikipedia definition. Thinking about it now, I don't know why we linked to WP:UNDUE. -- Ned Scott 03:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that over reliance on a perspective that is in universe is a symptom that undue weight has been place on primary work of fiction. To make an analogy, placing undue weight on the primary source and an in universe perspective are the two sides of the same coin, namely style and content respectively. The problem with articles that only rely on fictional coverage is, as WP:INUNIVERSE makes clear, a complete lack of real-world context and sourced analysis - clearly the sin of omission. Writing an artlicle from a purely in universe standpoint is a clear a breach of WP:NPOV since ficition is being presented as fact. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Presenting fiction as fact does not seem to me a breach of WP:NPOV so much as a breach of WP:DONT BE A CRAZY MAN. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Being too in-universe could, in some situations, make a NPOV issue, but most of the time the concern isn't NPOV related. It's an issue of balance rather than being biased or pushing one view over another. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is how do you define "balance" without reference to WP:NPOV? I am not sure I can answer this question myself, but it is clear that fictional topics can be described from either:

1. A real world perspective, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded; and
2. An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe.

Fiction is unique is this respect in that it can be written from two perspectives. Except for information about a works authorship and publication, most real-world coverage of a fictional topic will be derived from secondary sources, whilst in universe coverage is usually derived by citing or summarising the primary source. So I think when you say that writing an article about fiction is a matter of balance, I think you mean to say is that an article is balanced so long as undue weight is not being placed upon anyone of the primary, secondary or tertiary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

This guideline appears to say that referencing is mandatory. As far as I am aware, referencing is not mandatory. No wiki editor acting in good faith should ever delete any material simply becaus it is unreferenced. He is permitted to do so if it remains unreferenced after requesting references and patiently waiting a reasonable time for a response, with the very important proviso that he also believes it to be wrong information. Deleting information an editor believes true, but which happens not to be referenced is a severe violation of the whole principle of the encyclopedia. There are a number of quality standards which require referencing, but this is icing on the cake. It is perfectly in order for someone to write an entire article off the top of their head without references, which they or someone else can add later. It is a quality issue, not an inclusion issue. Sandpiper (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's ambiguous - WP:N certainly seems to support some level of deletion due to lack of referencing. But I think part of it is also that fiction articles historically have a particularly low standard of quality, and there is some desire to combat that aggressively - which I can understand. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandpiper, there's more to it than believing it to be wrong information. If no reference is included, and is it believed that no citable reference exists, then it is interpreted as WP:OR, and it may also be removed. The remaining discussion concerning WAF is just how much you can rely upon primary sources. That's where things become more confusing. -Verdatum (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that going overboard in one direction in reaction to someone going overboard the opposite way is equally unacceptable. Referencing has always been used on wiki to settle arguments. It is grossly overrated as a guarantee of accuracy and any recourse to referencing in an attempt to improve accuracy should be taken with great caution. However, once again this is an issue of policing wiki rather than really a question about lots of inaccurate content appearing anywhere. My interpretation is not ambiguous. Nothing in core policy is ambiguous: all riggle room is there because someone insisted upon it. It is the same sort of fundamental principle as the one which states wiki editors are required to carry out original research, because obviously that is the only way to create non-copyright content drawn from a balance of reputable sources. As you say, Verdatum, editors are permitted to remove challenged unreferenced information, but it would be vandalism of the encyclopedia to do so if they felt the information was valid.

This guideline has always been insanely twisted by conflating a polemic against in-universe content with a guide to what content ought to be in a well balanced article about a work of fiction. For example, it still contains the lie An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading... An in-universe perspective is a style of writing and can be used or abused just as any other. This guide has always been the home of a vendetta against something largely invented on wiki solely for the purpose of denegrating it, in-universe writing. In-universe writing is the normal way to summarise and describe a work of fiction. It is not the normal way to discuss background information about a work, but most encyclopedias would be baffled by creating this style distinction solely to ban it. Obviously, the way to summarise the plot of the work is with an in-universe piece of prose. That is what is always done. Obviously, the way to discuss the publishing history is by some more in-(real) universe prose saying it was this publisher first, then that, then out of print, whatever. Normal people do not argue about whether a particular section of an article is describing the fiction or describing the context. It is all just prose writing. The whole concept was popularised here for the purposes of arguing that articles on wiki should not be exclusively about the plot, and the result of this nonsense is still with us.

I agree that an article about fiction should not be solely about the plot. Exactly how much must depend on the specific subject and what is appropriate and needed for the discussion. This guide ought to say that the best way to describe the plot is in a style which will be natural to the reader, which is to say largely or exclusively in-universe. This should not be prescriptive, but natural. It may be entirely natural to interrupt the narrative with real world interjections, such as to explain that the story now continued in a second volume, or next episode, or whatever. But this has been taken to extreme lengths arguing that the narrative must be so interrupted, when good style and common sense say that a simple short story style is best. I personally find it equally objectionable to be given an instruction that an article must be entirely in-universe as out-universe. It should naturally swap between the two as most appropriate to the section in question. All this guide need say is that it should contain more than a simple plot description, list plot description as one essential element, and explain what other elements are needed.

With regard to an article describing the plot of a work of fiction, this must be based upon the primary source itself. It is absurd to say this can be based upon secondary sources. All wiki articles are created by editors summarising a source. There is no difference to the process involved in accurately summarising a primary source to that involved in summarising secondary sources. It relies upon original research done by editors and can not be guaranteed by any number of additional references. The primary source is an unimpeachable one when it comes to the actual story line, and has the added benefit that since there is only one, there is no issue in resolving contradictory views. The policy of NPOV is relevant, because there is a requirement for editors to honestly report a source in a balanced way which applies just as much whatever kind of source is being reported. A plot summary is an essential part of a description of a work of fiction, is always included in any discussion about such a work, and is a useful piece of encyclopedic information in its own right. It requires no secondary source to justify its accuracy. As to noteability, very few articles on wiki contain references for the purpose of establishing their own noteability. This is usually presumed, as for example by the simple publication of a book being evidence that it is sufficiently noteable that there ought to be an article about it. Now, as to other facts about the work, these may require sourcing. Reviews may be cited to say the character was weak, the plot innovative. But as a general principle of all wiki content, sources are only needed after an argument develops over accuracy. Sandpiper (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are arguing that a work of fiction is notable just because it is a book, I don't support that view, nor do I support your view that just because the primary source is a book, then you don't have to cite book pages or at least chapters (or scenes for films). The fact is that works of fiction can be accurately referenced just as easily as secondary sources can. Citations should be provided, if only because:

• The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation (WP:V);
• Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented (WP:OR).

It is true that most plot summaries are not referenced, but just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it does not mean that this practise is appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of published works is the scope of WP:BK, there is no need to go off-topic of WAF here.

So perhaps I've missed something, but I've never known a policy or guideline that strictly states when it is necessary to specify locations (page, chapter, scene, etc.) for an inline citation. I realize that holding strict to citation practices, one should provide an inline citation to the primary work when discussing aspects of the plot. I'm always happy to see such a citation, and I'd certainly never remove it. However, when the primary source in question is the article's topic, I've never had any problem with an implied citation for simple uncontroversial and unsynthesized facts about the work. Anyone who feels otherwise can easily add the citation themselves. -Verdatum (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing the plot summary should be encouraged, particularly for nuanced points or critical plot details (eg who the identity of Kaiser Soze is in The Usual Suspects), but it is general not required (eg it won't be purged ala WP:V's claim about unsourced information) in the article building process. However, once you start up the quality ladder to GA to FA, you are going to be asked to source the plot. So it's best to encourage it from the start. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries are implicitly referenced to the primary source, which is an appropriate source for them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that is what a lot of editors would like to believe, thereby relieving them of having to provide any citations. But I think WP:V and WP:OR are pretty clear that that view is not soundly based. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that plot summaries sourced to the primary source are clearly verifiable, and do not violate NOR assuming that they are, in fact, accurate. The question is whether every plot summary needs a footnote stating the obvious - that it is based on the thing it is summarizing. This is clearly not the case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Whenever this issue has come up on one of the main policy pages and I have taken an interest, the result has been as I stated. The view has been that no good editor would challenge or delete valid content merely because it has no attached reference. References might be helpful or perhaps even desireable, but are not essential. Gavin Collins, I asume you posted a precise quote of the rule as it currently exists. It seems to say (1) if you include a quote it is i necessary to say precisely where it comes from, (2) material challenged or likely to be challenged...must be attributed. Thus no requirement to attribute anything which has not been challenged or is not likely to be challenged. The sentence starts by talking about 'burden of evidence'. Obviously the whole section is talking about what to do in a confrontational situation, where a challenge has taken place. This says nothing explicitly about what the proper behaviour of an editor is when faced by a non referenced situation, but obviously the answer is (1) add some references himself or (2) do absolutely nothing, because he sees no problem with the text aside from it not having a reference. Our task is to make articles better, which means adding to them and correcting mistakes, and also obviously not tampering with sections which have no obvious problems. The opposite reductio ad absurdum argument is also clear: if the above were not true then every single point, virtually every single word, would need to have its own reference. Is the word 'a' acceptable english usage? Do I need a ref to prove it?

With regard to ...editors would like to believe, thereby relieving them of having to provide any citations. ye what? Did you know that 'wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit'? This does not mean 'anyone can edit so long as he reads five million policy pages first and swears to follow every one even when they are unclear and contradictory'. It means he can just go in and add a line to an article contributing a fact. The proper act of another responsible editor coming across the new information is to accept it gratefully, unless he has some reason to worry it may be wrong. Only then does an issue of attribution or deletion arise. Masem makes the proper point, general referencing should normally be regarded as an 'added value' addition which is not normally required simply to create an article. It is perfectly fine to write a style guide explaining that referencing is useful, and considered necessary in the best articles, but it is not acceptable to imply it is mandatory in any kind of article about fiction, because it simply isn't.

I can't say exactly what the current standard for noteability of a book is (for book read any relevant media you wish), but the simple fact it exists and has public circulation implies it is a valid contender for an article in a reference source. Obviously, there are more books in existence than there are wiki articles, but in principle wiki is an unlimited encyclopedia. It is likely either wiki will fail, or it will simply grow indefinitely at the rate technology permits and contributors can write. Currently, if a book has received enough publicity for someone to think it worth writing about it (obviously, not the person who wrote it), then it is likely someone else may want to find out about it also and it deserves an article.

I notice no one has disagreed with my comment about the guide: For example, it still contains the lie 'An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading...' An in-universe perspective is a style of writing and can be used or abused just as any other. This still needs to be rectified. It is an even longer standing problem with this guide than the implication about mandatory referencing which seems to have crept in. Sandpiper (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that some editors like to think that not providing notations is not really necessary when citing a primary source, but in my experience of rewriting the article Kender, coverage that does not cite its source usually turns out to be inaccurate or original research. If you look through the archive, you will see that original research cleanup template was disuputed, but when we went through the article line be line, it was found that most if not all of the unattributed content had to be rewritten or dropped althogther because no source could be found to support some of the descriptions being made. As WP:WAF says, reference all information and cite your sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I have created a proposal at Wikipedia:Fiction for a new policy page discussing fiction issues in general - pulling heavily from WAF, but also from NOT#PLOT and some of the more agreed upon proposals to come up in notability debates. The goal is to create a single policy page that clearly establishes core principles of what it means to write about fiction in an encyclopedia about fact. I welcome comments and criticism at the talk page there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing this guideline so that is supports yours is out of order; if anything it should be the other way around. The round robin of changes: FICT, WAF then PLOT with each new change an attempt to water down each guideline so the other can be watered down is out of order. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries

There is a disparity between the written guideline and what actually happens. 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This section is, bluntly, very bad advice, and completely contrary to actual practice:

“ Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes"). This gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material. This style of writing should be preferred for plot summaries that encompass multiple works, such as a series of novels. Such conventions are not as important for plot summaries of single works, such as novels that are not part of a series; nevertheless, some real-world language at the beginning of such summaries is often good style. The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. ”

That's appallingly bad advice that will result in unreadable plot summaries. A good plot summary cannot work if over-laden with constant breaking of the suspension of disbelief, and keeping too detached makes the plot summary essentially unreadable: We need to strike a balance.

Furthermore, the last sentence is either essentially meaningless or appallingly bad. Are we seriously saying that we should make authors constantly redo their work on the plot summary as the article develops further, carefully keeping it in check so that it never becomes the slightest bit more developed than any other section? Are we living in the real world here? And worse, are we seriously saying that a section, otherwise fine, should be hacked to pieces merely because of length comparison? There is not a single other case in all of Wikipedia where we are stupid enough to recommend that good work be thrown away because it's too long compared to other work.

I propose all of this be replaced by something resembling these guidelines:

“ In general:

• Try to cover the main points of the plot, without getting bogged down in relatively insignificant details. If an incident is not particularly notable, then it should not appear in the article.
• A plot summary is not meant to substitute for the original work: it's primary purpose is to provide the reader with basic information about the work, such as the main characters, their motivations, and what happens in the story.
• More complex plots may require longer plot summaries, but should not devolve into covering every insignificant incident.
• Plot summaries should attempt to strike a balance between making it clear how important plot points are to the work as a whole and providing context for other sections of the article, which may provide criticism or analysis of specific sections of the plot. A good summary should, as much as possible, do both.
• The length of the plot summary should be appropriate to the article in question. An article on the critical reception of the work might only need a brief plot summary to put it in context, whereas the main article on a work that has had extensive critical analysis of its plot might require much more, simply to put the later sections discussing this analysis in context.
• Works where no or little discussion of the plot would ever be possible (usually because few or no reliable sources discuss it in any depth) should keep their plot summaries short. However, a plot summary should not be deleted or trimmed solely because it is temporarily more developed than the rest of the article: if the plot summary is likely to be fine once the rest of the article catches up, it should be left as-is.

”

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is here to inform not to imerse. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that forgives simple bad writing advice. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a bald assertion that the wording is bad just because you disagree with it. Plot summaries can and should be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works. If they don't, they are composed in an imersive style which basically reads like its got "its head up its ass". If you are into that sort of in universe coverage, Wookieepedia is the place you can find lots of it. Here at Wikipedia, articles should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In-universe and literalist bible articles

I was reading the Elisha article, and to me it deserves the in-universe template. It's written through and through as the characters actually existed and the events described (often supernatural events) actually took place, when we have not a single corroborating source to rely on. I tagged the article with the in-universe template and it was promptly reverted with the indignant comment "since when is it Wiki policy to describe religious books as works of fiction?" Is Wikipedia a place for religious people to vaunt their special claims? Which religion takes priority? Alan Canon (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Elisha then beheld Elijah in a fiery chariot taken up by a whirlwind into heaven. "
• "The very touch of his corpse served to resuscitate a dead man."
• "That Elisha inherited the wonder-working power of Elijah is shown throughout the whole course of his life. "

Whether the Bible is fictional or not is disputed, so it is probably best that we don't blindly apply policy as if it is. The biography should have some "according to"'s added, though, I agree. --Tango (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In-universe plot summaries should be deleted or re-written - redirect all to the bible. no.. only joking. Don't we have any sort of "this religious article needs re-writing to have a NPOV" or something {{Bibical in-universe}} ?

I don't regard the Bible as fiction. Fictional works acknowledge that they're not real. I'd regard it as an unreliable source that other people regard as a reliable source. Andjam (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

For both non-fiction and fiction (whereever you may classify the bible) , excessive coverage of the content of the work without establishing context for that work is not helpful. That said, I would be very very careful applying WAF to the Bible (That's a brewing storm waiting to happen). --MASEM (t) 12:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Elisha is 75% "plot summary" (by paragraph, even more by words, I think), that doesn't seem to be a very good way to write an encyclopaedic article. It is tagged as start-class, though, so I guess the people writing it are aware of that. The basic principles behind WAF probably do apply to biblical characters and stories in the vast majority of cases, but it isn't worth the drama that would be caused by explicitly applying the policy. Just apply the principles behind it and nobody will notice! --Tango (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Scrubs

Feedback is requested at Talk:List of characters on Scrubs#Main character merges to decide how to handle the main characters of Scrubs. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. "

We should kill this text. It only makes improving articles difficult if otherwise good material is being cu for length alone in the early stages, when it would be fine later on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this sentence is fine because we have to give priority to other material than lengthly plot summaries. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not a paper encyclopedia, so that's not really our major concern: What is a concern is that this particular sentence forces much more time to be spent on plot summary, because it forces you to constantly rebalance the plot summary as the article expands. I'm not saying that we should remove the other guidelines that say that we need real-world context and so on, but this sentence' is just asking for us to throw out otherwise encyclopedic plot summaries, just because they're a little more developed than the rest of the article, then recreate them later. That's meaningless work that distracts from the other sections, instead of prioritising them. Alternatively, we could put a restrcition on it, e.g. "In a well-developed article, the length of a plot summary..." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it, because in other contexts I've come to appreciate you as a smart guy, but you're missing the point very much like all "inclusionists": Yes, we are not a paper encyclopedia. But we are an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic articles simply cannot consist at any time of merely a recounting of the plot. There is nothing more to say about it than that. Please just accept that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. 78.34.241.15 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read things before you respond to them. I'm trying to have a serious conversation on unfortunate consequences of a single badly-worded sentence; pretending that I'm suggesting deleting everything in the guideline related to balancing plot with other sections does not further discussion in the least. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In your above comment, you're explicity starting from the premise that We are not a paper encyclopedia. I think your logic in taking that premise is beyond flawed, so naturally, that's what I responded to. Everything you said after that is based on a foul premise, imho. 78.34.241.15 (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

...Read. What. I. Said. It's clarified below. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, that sentence, taken at its word, forces more work to be done with the plot summary: Instead of writing it once and being done, it would have to be expanded every time the rest of the article is, because, in most FAs on fiction, the plot summary is three to five paragraphs. "careful balancing" would mean that an FA-quality summary would have been deleted long before the rest is ready for FA, forcing needless duplication of work. The rest of this guideline is ample for the purpose of making sure we have real-world context, without causing extra work involving the plot. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the danger of people taking and applying the advice laid out in this guideline too literally is exactly nil. And someone would have to apply it mindlessly and literally for any of it to even just potentially become a problem. At any rate, I've yet to see one single instance of someone spending too much time calibrating the plot summary as the rest of the article grows. What the paragraf says is basically: WP:NOT#PLOT. And I daresay that that constitutes the bulk of your problem with the section here, since you're clearly very much opposed to the notion that a mere plot summary cannot possibly be an encyclopedic article. 78.34.241.15 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actively done. We have a template, {{plot}}, that tries to enforce it that's being slapped around classic novels willy-nilly of late! Have you actually edited fiction in the last year? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a NOT PAPER argument. We don't want articles of 100kb because we want people to actually read our articles. We don't want lengthly plots because we want to keep articles BALANCED and provide QUALITY information and not just refactoring plot details. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You were talking about a lot of time being wasted because people follow WP:WAF#Plot summaries too closely. Appropriately tagging a section as being disproportionately long takes virtually no time, and neither does reverting the tagging in case it wasn't appropriate. 78.34.241.15 (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] Magioladitis: Removing this sentence will not stop the ample material discussing plot summaries in absolute terms. The problem here is that we're considering plot summaries in *relative* terms, which is a changing goalpost. By all means, we need to prevent things from getting too long, but saying that they should be compared to other sections is problematic, particularly as the average FA fiction article has a 3-5 paragraph plot summary (which is about the length we want), but comparing it with other sections could have that useful size reduced to something that cannot effectively be built on with real world criticism. We can do a lot better

I.P: I reviewed about 50 uses of the template in classic novels a couple weeks ago, using the What links here tool. Every single one was completely inappropriate, and had it been acted upon, would have resulted in the plot summary being too short to effectively communicate the basic plot. Maybe it's used appropriately in other genres. But just one person acting on this in classic novels would have been enough to hurt the encyclopedia, in the name of a balancing act that there's no reason for us to ask for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how you might have arrived at the erroneous conclusion, but it is erroneous. {{PLOT}} says The plot summary in this article is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the content. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. -- It does not tell the editor to "shorten the edit summary to a certain ratio" or anything. Also, arguments of the form "could have, would have" are not very strong, I hope you see that. 78.34.241.15 (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

...Oh, just go away. I'm getting damn tired of your WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT responses to everything. The first sentence there says exactly what I said it did, and your only reaction was to complain that it didn't set an actual limit. I point out that I saw evidence of it being abused, you claim that I am making hypothetical arguments. Go away. You've been doing this all day, at multiple fora, and if you keep it up, I shall open an RfC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[redacted] "Multiple fora" means your talk page and this talk page. "All day" being maybe fifteen comments over the course of several hours. Threatening an RfC based on your unwillingness to listen and accept valid arguments is... well, I think it's in line with the rest of your behaviour today. On an unrelated note, I accept your concession. It was a pleasure educating you. 78.34.252.95 (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth and death date

In the primary source section it mentions birth and death of characters, but it comes across like we are promoting the inclusion of that information. From a real world perspective, a fictional character can neither be born nor can they be killed. Thus, they don't have birthdays or deathdays, and including such information would be like saying they were "real".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Fictional characters are not born, they are created. Are there still articles with "birth"-"death" information in the leading section? We 've been removing them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Every so often I see them, usually on articles that have not gone through any serious review (GA, FA, etc.). I just removed them from Laurie Strode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem if the information is in the infobox. I think it's clear all the information about the character there is based on fiction. I converted some tables to infoboxes where the discrimination between reality and fiction is better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We've always removed them from the infobox as well (to my knowledge, there isn't a GA or FA character from film or tv that has that info present in the article or infobox). It's virtually the same thing. Fictional characters don't have birthdates or deathdates, and covering such things anywhere outside of a real world perspective insinuates that they are "real". Since WAF says that the infobox should contain things only essential to understanding the character, the question because how can a DOB be essential to understanding a character? It holds no raw value to the article; if there is a reason to know it then that's something to cover in prose and an infobox cannot explain such a thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So, you suggest that we completely remove |born= and |death= from {{Infobox character}}? Maybe you have to post a note to the template's talk page as well. I know that already the |age= is about to be removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoever you think should know about this discussion then please feel free to leave a note on any respective pages. This is a WAF issue. Infoboxes should reflect what WAF says, not the other way around. The way it appears, that talk page of the template doesn't seem that active to begin with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary

Can people please join discussion to work out the nature of Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. It was tagged as a guideline for a year, and then a user changed it to a how to page. I thought it worked better as an Info-page, and now myself and Dreamguy are tag warring over whether it has consensus or not. I've set my stall out at Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary#Bizarre argument. Hiding T 10:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections."

This RfC is on whether this statement is counterproductive, since the length of the other sections of an article will change constantly as it's developed further. It seems to set up a situation where, instead of encouraging people to do their best work on making a plot summary from the start, we encourage them to do a series of possibly inadequate summaries, with a good one only finally being allowed just before FA.

Indeed, in relatively new articles, a plot summary of the standard required for a featured article would, under this policy, have to be actively gutted, throwing out good work.

I, the opener of this RfC, believe that it would be better to cut this statement, and instead give advice on writing an appropriate plot summary that stands true from Start-class to FA.

Sample advice we could use to replace this, if replacement is desired:

• "The length of a plot summary should not be excessive."
• "A plot summary should skip over or heavily summarize less important parts of the plot, saving more detailed description for key scenes."
• "The complexity of the plot should be used to decide the length of the plot summary. An average work can usually be effectively described in 300-500 words, though more complex works may require up to 1500 or so. If the plot summary is much longer than that, there should be a good, encyclopedic reason, such as extreme length of the source, an extensive critical discussion requiring this level of of detail later in the article, or additional information being included along with the plot summary, such as the aria lists common in opera articles." [ETA: deleted per discussion below.]
• "It may sometimes be appropriate to go into more detail on a relatively minor aspect of the work in order to facilitate later discussion or critical analysis (which must be reliably sourced); however, care should be taken that this does not distort the importance of these elements in the fiction itself. If necessary, they can always be described during the analysis, instead of in the plot summary itself."

We can discuss other advice to replace it, but I do feel the current statement adds nothing, and detracts from our goals by putting unencyclopedic, temporary considerations ahead of long-term encyclopedic ones. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - 1500 words? Is that stated in the guideline already, or something you want to add? 1500 words is way too much. 1000 word plot summaries are pretty darn long already, and to suggest 1500 words is basically writing a manuscript on Wikipedia. WP:MOSFILM doesn't suggest more than 700 words, unless it requires more just to make a complicated plot more clear (but doubling that wouldn't be necessary. no film is that complicated). WP:MOSTV keeps it down to 500 words for individual episode articles as the max. I'm not sure the people over at WP:NOVEL even have a guideline for such things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That list is just ideas for things we could say instead of what we do now, and shouldn't be considered finalised. However, consider the below

Plot summaries in Featured articles on literary fiction

This is basically everything in the FA section "Literature and theatre" that A. was on some sort of literary work (as opposed to an author, etc), B. had a plot section, and C. that I spotted as a literary work on a very quick look-over.

Featured article	Approximate word count	Notes
Candide	1370
The Country Wife	1049	Laid out over two sections
Creatures of Impulse	886
The General in his Labyrinth	881
Hamlet	1092
La Cousine Bette	858
Mary: A Fiction	340
Night (book)	2863	This is actually nonfiction
Original Stories from Real Life	462	This book doesn't actually have a plot
Proserpine_(play)	419
The Raven	327 (see note)	Also includes the entire 1235 word complete text of the poem (!)
Romeo and Juliet	565
Roy of the Rovers	1584	Comic strip
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight	532
To Kill a Mockingbird	541

About 1/3rd of this sample (admittedly, not a systematic one) has over 1000 characters in the plot summary. In one case, the entire 1235 word original work is quoted in full (albeit, you have to click "more" to see it)

I've done some work in operas. It'd be interesting to see if my suspicion that featured operas tend to have plot summaries on the longish side bears out. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 22:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's for books. I figured they would be longer, but you cannot write a generalized figure that works more toward one medium, and grossly extends several others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

True. Oh, well: I mainly just wanted to give some examples of how we might curtail plot summaries without the "carefully balanced" language used now. Let's ignore that suggestion and move on. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 22:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• How about "Proportional to the importance of the plot to the work overall"? I've always felt a plot summary that is too long is essentially a violation of WP:UNDUE; it makes the plot seem more important than it is. Nifboy (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I categorically oppose any change to WAF as proposed by Shoemaker. His sole interest lies in enabling plot-only "articles". He should therefore appropriately address his issue at WT:NOT. --84.44.248.66 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification of related discussions: Templates Plot and All plot

There are two closely related discussions taking place at Template talk:Plot#Requested move and at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:All plot. This relates to the recent aggressive campaign aimed at enabling plot-only "articles". --84.44.248.66 (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, how does this relate to some mythical campaign at all? Try a little AGF and being more neutral in your notifications. Irony on your note is, however, amusing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Take another look at the TfD you started. --87.79.182.211 (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox - first apperances

For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction.

I believe that part should be changed as it causes problems in long-running series where the first image not only is not representative of the series, but may actually harm the intended purpose of Fair use, to give an overview of the series with as little amount of pictures as possible. This is because for many long-running series, such as those seen in comics and manga, the intent of author for the series changes and a first image may not represent it, why it is notable and why it became popular. If may even give a false impression about what the series is really about.陣内_Jinnai 23:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"First appearance" refers to the volume, film etc. in which the character first appeared. --78.34.98.119 (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. The first appearance in long series may not really serve fair use correctly.陣内_Jinnai 20:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"First appearance" does not refer to a depiction or to a visual image of any sort. The term describes the individual publication (e.g. episode or novel) in a series where a character first enters the plot (makes his/her/its "first appearance", as it were). --78.34.205.234 (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm saying that doesn't exactly work well for long-running works, ie the very nature of "first appearance" violates imo both the wording of fair use and the spirit of its near-requirement for infoboxes in such works.陣内_Jinnai 06:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a fair-use issue at all. "First appearance" does not refer to depictions. --78.34.219.216 (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to include more GAs in List of exemplary articles

I believe the List of exemplary articles would become even more useful if more good articles were to be included. That's because for many topics, featured status is very unlikely to ever be achieved while good article status may be quite possible. Good article status is a respectable milestone in itself and as such should be promoted more. --87.79.84.238 (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fiction-related non-flag test case of WP:MOSICON at TfD

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

Re: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons): Inline-in-prose use of icons is being tested in a TfD on the use of templates to insert strings of "Stargate" symbols into articles on the TV shows. We mostly see this guideline applied with regard to flags; its application to non-flag icons is likely to be of interest to editors here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

I always have a problem understanding IN-U, even after reading it a few times. Are we not suppose to write pages in a historical context? Like everything kinda happens at the same time? For List of CSI: Miami characters, shouldn't status be removed? Also, Tim Speedle, shouldn't the "was" be changed to "is" and his date of death removed? Can someone try and explain IN-U to me better? CTJF83 chat 20:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the intro of Tim Speedle. You're right that fictional characters should generally not be referred to in the past tense. They still exist as those same fictional characters in the real world, regardless of whether they have died within the series' fictional universe. Get to think of it, the guideline should maybe say a word or two about the use of past tense, in the intro as well as in plot summaries.

The main problem I saw with the date was that it was originally passed as the in-universe death date of the character rather than simply as the airdate of the episode in which the plot has the character die. This sort of thing is referred in the guideline as "omitting real-world info to uphold the illusion of the original fiction".

As for the list article, I'd add a references section listing the DVD releases since those serve as the primary sources. Other than that, I see no problem with hosting up-to-date info on each characters' current in-universe "status" as long as it's clear that "current" refers to the real world publication history of the respective franchise. --78.34.219.216 (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fictional plot summary should be written from from present tense. They should not be referred to in the past tense unless they are dead at the start of the fictional work (in which case, they likely shouldn't be appearing in any character list where it would matter). The date of death should also not be listed. Besides being too in-universe, it is also only applicable in the series context and after the episode in which it occurs. See List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters for an example of a properly written character list that uses the appropriate tensing and references to characters (Kish is one who dies, at least temporarily). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both for explaining it to me. I understand a little better, but I'm still not 100%. I think me just reading over pages will help. Thanks again! CTJF83 chat 08:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Navigational problem with this guideline article concerning WP:FIRST

User 78.34.207.232 has brought to my attention at my Talk page that this article apparently has no navigational way to let the reader of it get back to more fundamental writing how-to articles found in the "Wikipedia:" space such as WP:FIRST.

While I feel that WP:CREEP applies to the original edit, I also see the editors point: This article should refer back to the more basic articles on the subject of writing in the encyclopedia. I've searched for a solution, and what I've come up with is template {{Article creation}} to add to this article as a navigational aid. This might work. But:

I'm not 100% thrilled with that solution, as there is already a right-hand Navbar here, {{Style}}, and adding another I feel might make this document too cluttered. I'd prefer a Navbar designed to be at the bottom of this style guideline to refer back to WP:FIRST and other such articles in case the reader needs to get there. {{Style}} has a corresponding Navbar, {{Style wide}}, to do exactly that for that Navbar, but I'm not able to find a corresponding Navbar for {{Article creation}}, such as {{Article creation wide}}.

I also noted that none of the bottom Navbars found at WP:MOS refer the reader back to WP:FIRST that I could find. I may be off on a wild goose chase here. But I'm starting to find it annoying that the bottom Navbar {{Writing guides}} never refers back to WP:FIRST or WP:NEW. Putting {{Writing guides}} at the bottom of this document might be a solution though.

Overall, WP:FIRST claims to be a summary of WP:CREATE which is then under WP:NEW, and none of these articles under WP:NEW seem to document whether they are guidelines, policies or essays. The articles themselves seem to me to belong in the "Help:" space, not the "Wikipedia:" space.

I'm just trying to help 78.34.207.232 satisfy their concern. Is there any solution to this issue, or should I just be quiet? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

on fixing an article in-universe tone probs

if an article isn't about to be deleted, but has some in-universe qualities, ppl may need guidelines on how to tweek or sometimes overhaul the content. right now the in-universe section here just says "here's what wrong w/ in-universe tone." and that's good, but we need a little coaching for those of us who'd like to save these articles.

fans who may not have the time or 'pedia experience to be so careful often show up, do some good research, and write these articles. but they don't really cite and stuff.

and btw, a show itself is a fine source for what has happened within the plot of that show. usu they indicate an episode when they make a statement about something that exists or matters <gulp> within that universe. if someone else needs to see a bit of an episode, try surfthechannel- http://www.surfthechannel.com/show/253.html. maybe ppl can indicate the mins-seconds when something happens if it's actually disputed. that's all for now I guess. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 19:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

also real quick- things get tagged in-universe when the problem is they are in fact too fancrufty. or ya know, a little fan-crufty. which is little bit too much. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 19:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I took out the bluelink to that site you linked to because it installed a virus on my computer. Also according to McAfee's site I'm not the only one to experience this. ThemFromSpace 19:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

'A ... section written like a biography.'

I don't get it.... shouldn't an article on a fictional character include a section on the character's bio? If it is clear from the article as a whole that it is a fictional character I don't see the problem. Dlabtot (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Written like a biography" would mean writing the character's in the same manner we would a real person, like "In 1981, John Smith got married to Mary Sue..." or "He spent 6 years studying at Fictional U.". Instead, unless such dates and information are critical to understanding the characters, they need to be written in an out-of-universe approach. "John Smith and Mary Sue are a married couple...", or "The character is describes as having graduated from school." --MASEM (t) 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what 'written like a biography' means, which is why I didn't ask what it means and why your explanation is superfluous and off-topic.

However, to repeat my original point, since I obviously did not make myself clear: Why should a fictional character's article not include a biography of the character, as long as the article makes clear that it is fictional? ("In Episode X, Y happened...")

Certainly every mention of the character's name does not need a reminder that it is a character and not a person. It makes for clumsy, awkward prose. Dlabtot (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Because they are not real people and a biography is unnecessary, overly inuniverse, and excessive plot detail. Character articles should focus on the real-world aspects, not overly minute details cleaned from a 2 second remark made in one episode of a series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the overwhelming majority of fictional character articles, your assertions are inconsistent with the current consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So iyo we should give in to the least common demoninator and abandon standards instead of educating people? I think not. The constructivist approach makes only so much sense before it becomes destructive. --87.79.139.184 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the majority of quality fictional character articles, my assertions are fully correct, thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I would not be led to assume that the bulk of the fictional character pages out there are exemplary examples. All too often, most of them are not summarizing the character but instead reiterating plot from one or several episodes or sub-works - that's the "biography" aspect we want to avoid. For a real person, yes, we want to say "in year X he did this, in year Y he did this, etc." but that form just doesn't work for fiction. It is still completely possible to capture the high level character aspects and reference major episodes where the character is radically changed, but we don't need the mundane. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps biography is not the right term, but it seems to me that a good article on a fictional character would describe the character's arc within the fictional work as well as the backstory of the character if relevant and significant. Dlabtot (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

General style guidelines

I see removal of Category:General style guidelines was reverted. AFAICT, the category doesn't mean "the most important style guidelines" to anyone, it means "the style guidelines that I generate monthly diffs for at WP:Update". This was one of the style guidelines that gets fewer monthly hits than the ones I'm doing; who would like to do the monthly diffs for this guideline? - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering its somewhat contentious nature at times, and its being frequently cited in so many fictional articles, I think monthly diffs would be useful. I don't see why its getting "fewer" hits should matter so much, considering its actual relevance. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could preserve the meaning of CAT:GEN as "style guidelines that get updated monthly". Any takers for this guideline? - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that the category has been proposed for deletion or merging; see Wikipedia_talk:MOS#CFM:_Category:General_style_guidelines. - Dank (push to talk) 04:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Primary Sourcing of Plots

Discussion has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo (once again) questioning the use of books, films, and other media as the unstated sources for the plots of articles about those works, instead of being sourced to a "third-party source" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Infobox Character

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Cleaning house regarding which categories in the template are necessary, which ones are not, and which ones are specialities that are only relevant to certain types of characters. It would be good to have as many people there to talk about each category, and to propose new ones if necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

An editor is urging abandonment of Fiction MOS

I hadn't wanted to bring this up, but a WikiProject Comics editor, over the course of a couple months now, has gone from merely saying he doesn't want to follow this MOS to actively advocating for the abandonment of what he calls this "idiotic manual of style".

The editor, Dream Focus, does so near the bottom of Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man. The article itself is a blatant, blanket violation of every aspect of this MOS. It has been nominated three times for deletion, and each time rescued by, and I'm sorry to use this term, fanboys who treat Wikipedia like free server space for their fan sites.

I'd like to ask any concerned members of the Fiction Project, including admins, to please, please go this article with an eye toward deleting it and helping to establish that the writing-about-fiction MOS matters. (A task force of several editors put a much shorter, up-to-MOS-standard version on the main Spider-Man page.)

When it's gotten to the point where fanboys are now urging others to ignore the MOS for writing about fiction, and turning Wikipedia articles into fan sites, that will, in the long run, hurt Wikipedia's credibility. In the short run, it denigrates all the thought, care, hard work and consensus here that led to the writing-about-fiction MOS. Please see Fictional history of Spider-Man and see for yourselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This style guide itself is not entirely clear as to its objectives. If I had to guess...the primary thrust seems to seem to be that one should minimize synopsis or description of works of art and literature for the "common man" but instead provide a scholarly analysis of the work's significance and place in real history with emphasis on a comparative art/literature approach.

There is, however, a pretentious danger to this emphasis. While this all appears very highly academic at first glance, most writers and artist tend to say such academic analysis is usually a crock that many times attributes significance or intent that quite often is not there, especially by author intent. So whether you can quote a published thesis or book or not, such pure scholarly analysis is often pure ego of the analyst. Worse there tend to be more numerous opinions on the possible significance of the work than can be published in one locations - everyone who analyzes the work for academic credit has their own opinion. Picking foremost authorities on art and literature is most often simply a popularity contest at a given point in time and space in the academic world. Its all subjective opinion.

Perhaps a more reasonable format would be one that combines a simple abstract of the historical and bibliographic occurrence of the work, synopsis information for the common non-academic, and limited and ever changing critical commentary on significance topped by introduction or use of artistic technique. Accuracy and of course organization are of course still key to wikipedia reputation, but I think the part where Wikipedia positions itself an authoritative source of scholarly critique (telling people how they should think and react to various works) is maybe not so important or desirable.

The governing body of Wikipedia fails to remember that comparative literature-art approaches were originally intended for "learning via discussion" but often are corrupted "to persuasion through learning" neither of which Wikipedia should attempt. I suspect recognition of this and the failure to serve the non-academic crowd is the source of rebellion against your prescribed format. That the objectives and intent of your format is not entirely clear except via interpretation of multiple examples.

99.61.36.244 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of full names in character articles

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Buffy Summers#Full name regarding the inclusion of her middle name in the lead sentence, and whether or not it is significant enough to mention. Given this guidelines area of focus, I felt it would be appropriate to ask people to weigh in at the article talk page their opinion on the use of "full names" for fictional characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential changes to WAF

There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present fictional characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listing commonly used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for this page to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple(r) English

Is there a chance this MOS will have a Simple English version? or any other Wikipedia guidelines, for that matter?Alphapeta (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Chronology in "In fiction" sections?

What about articles that have "In fiction" sections such as Quileute people? Should the order of the list be chronological or by importance/notability? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're best bet is to always say a neutral as possible. In that case, chronological order is always the best way to go. Who is to claim that one thing is more important over another. It's too subjective. Best to stay objective and neutral.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"In-Universe" is inside our Universe

Ontology

The study of Being and existence; includes the definition and classification of entities, physical or mental, the nature of their properties, and the nature of change.

Metaphysics

Resignation of Shirley Sherrod

To summarize:

The Department of Agriculture reacted to the story of Fox News.

Fox News carried the story of a conservative blog-site.

The conservative blog-site carried the story of a video submission.

The video submission "creatively edited" the historic wisdom-tale Ms. Sherrod was telling an audience.

And finally, the historic wisdom-tale Sherrod told concerned her realization of the fictional world she had been living in prior to her experience with a poor white farmer ("I won't help a white farmer, because white people aren't really poor.")

Now, telling this last story, accurately, in its complete form, and all its essential details is the crux of the whole controversy; this tale was edited to reach an entirely different conclusion.

Similarly, fiction of any kind has an artistic, metaphorical, and emotional reach that non-fiction simply cannot faithfully reproduce. Its power over the public conciousness demands a certain respect in its treatment, both in general and specific cases. That is why the details matter. That is what makes an "In-Universe" discussion a necessary element of the analysis of a story's real-world impact. --TheLastWordSword --208.83.126.102 (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Universe" in "in-universe" refers to the universe as bounded by the fiction of the work. Harry Potter's universe involves wizards and muggles and magic; Star Wars' universe involve Jedi and aliens and space battles, etc. "Out-of-universe" is speaking to how the fiction impacts "our" real world. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This btw is the reason why I prefer the "in-universe" vs. "real-world" nomenclature.
I believe 208.83.126.102's actual confusion regards in-universe presentation on the one hand and plot summary based on primary sources on the other. The former is a big no-no, the latter is of course a necessary element for almost all articles related to a work of fiction; and they are not the same, as some people believe -- although the guideline imho clearly differentiates, if one cares to read it. --78.35.214.158 (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)