Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 3

New "in a nutshell" suggestion

Maybe a slightly expanded "in a nutshell", or something in the introductory passage might make the following clearer:

• No article about a fiction setting should be written only from an "in-universe" style.
• Any "in-universe" sections should be short, succint and accessible to those not familiar with the work. Excessive detail and assuming too much knowledge should both be avoided.
• An article should begin and end with "out-of-universe" comments that lead the reader in and out of the fictional setting. Introduce the subject in its real-world context. Summarise and explain the in-universe aspects. Have the conclusion say something about the impact this fictional setting, or aspect of this fictional setting, has had on the real world. Obviously citing sources for such statements.

This approach avoids leaving the reader lost in an "in-universe" style where they encounter unfamiliar concepts and names and are still left still in the fictional universe at the end of the article. We want readers to feel they are back in this world! :-) Much of this may already be implied in the guideline, but does this sound reasonable and can it be worked into the guideline in any way? Carcharoth 10:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can be stronger than this. I would say that the only place where in-universe should be even considered is when writing a plot summary of a single work. DJ Clayworth 13:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this in light of what Brian wrote below, I think that in-universe plot summaries can be appropriate for fiction whose plot has a reasonably strong sense of continuity. For example, the Star Wars trilogies, Dragon Quest I–III, and The Matrix series have self-consistent plots; it makes sense in such cases to describe how characters, objects, etc., fall into that plot. Other universes — such as those of Homestar Runner, The Legend of Zelda series, and Mario — have a less definite timeline among individual appearances, so an in-universe character/location/etc. "plot" summary makes far less sense because there is no continuous plot. — TKD::Talk 15:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether we are discussing one DC comic book or on Star Wars movie, we are still discussing that one issue or that one movie, which is still considered one piece of fiction. To give literary continuity creedence over the real-world publishing or film history seems inappropriate and misguided to me.--Chris Griswold 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I was thinking that it might sometimes be useful just to get how the character fits into the overall story out of the way, so to speak, before discussing other production details. But you're right; these sections could and should be grounded in real-world language, too. — TKD::Talk 23:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I always try and write plot summaries that cross multiple stories in the form "In ABC, this happens. In XYZ, the other happens". Chaka (Stargate) is a pretty good example of that. I think that's the best way to do a plot summary while still grounding it in real life. --Tango 23:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Carcharoth and DJ Clayworth on several points. First of all, it is the lack of in-universe information that is likely to leave the uninitiated reader at a loss because he has no guidelines as to how everything fits together in the context of the novel. He will have a lot of raw data, held together at one end by the real-world creative process, but totally loose at the other, preventing the reader from having any feeling or idea of the actual piece of art. As for restricting in-universe passages to plot summaries, I strongly disagree. They are needed in character characteriziations to show what type of figure this is the author has created. I can't answer the "Why?" and the "How?" with any credibility if I don't establish the "What?" first. Describing a character just from the outside is not going to do the character any more justice than if I try to describe the guy next door without trying to walk in his shoes. Such short passages for characterization are standard in reader's notes and also common in academic publications I've seen. --OliverH 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Even the "what", though, can be described out-of-universe. The character is a product of its creators. What the character is like and how he/she/it acts are products of the creators. Grounding character descripts in out-of-universe language entails describing not only the "what", but who gave them those traits, how, when, and why. There's not really mutual exclusion here. The danger with remaining in-universe is that the elements other than "what" and "when" tend to be glossed over. Here's a passage from Jabba the Hutt, a featured article:

Jabba the Hutt's physical appearance is as grotesque as his character and reinforces his personality as a criminal deviant. As Han Solo puts it in Return of the Jedi, Jabba is a "slimy piece of worm-ridden filth". Film critic Roger Ebert describes him as "a cross between a toad and the Cheshire Cat", and astrophysicist and science fiction writer Jeanne Cavelos gives Jabba the "award for most disgusting alien." Science fiction authors Tom and Martha Veitch write that Jabba's body is a "miasmic mass" of flesh that shakes as he laughs.

Notice that relevant points are sourced either to the film itself or a critic. The description is clear, yet is sourced to a real-word (out-of-universe) point of reference, either a film or a writer. — TKD::Talk 09:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick question about fictional character articles

Thanks to the help of some editors I have came to understand these guidelines to a certain degree. In the last weeks, though, I can't make my mind up. I am working with some Dragonlance characters, having already rewritten three (Goldmoon, Riverwind and Sturm Brightblade), and I have noticed there is a big difference between the first (Goldmoon) and last one (Sturm Brightblade), especially about "plot". The first article relates the character's interventions from an out-universe perspective (hopefully), while the second points only to the most important part of the character's appearances. In example, the second article informs the character sacrificed himself, stating later why it was significant to the Dragonlance world, but does not mention in-universe information as to why he was there, how was the final fight, who killed him nor what happened to the group of characters after his death. All these matters are discussed, to a certain point, in the first article.

My question is, which approach is preferred? Undoubtedly, the article should be useful for both fans and casual readers. And that is exactly my problem: I feel the first one would keep "fans" (that is, people who like reading fantasy stories) happier than casual readers (probably this last group would worry about the length), while the second would keep casual readers much happier (but the almost complete lack of in-universe information may heavily disappoint "fans"). -- ReyBrujo 17:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

fans are already catered to through numerous fictional-universe specific guides, websites, wikis etc, which will normally be linked to in the external links section. wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia and is not designed for the minutiae that fans might desire, so the second approach is preferred. Zzzzz 13:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's really not true. Wiki is a unique experiment in encyclopedias which sets out to be very much more than a general encyclopedia. I would judge its goal is to become a definitive work on every possible subject. Hence my puzzlement why people seek to limit its scope in fiction. (though it is true other contentious areas also suffer censorship) Sandpiper 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a unique experiment as an encyclopedia. It is merely the currently most popular site using wiki software. It also (currently) has people working to build an encyclopedia. There is no getting round the fact that it is possible to present the same information in different styles. Some people prefer to present material about a fictional universe in this "in-universe" style (maybe with "real world" information in a separate section in the article), and some people prefer to present it in a more mixed style grounded in th real world. The same essential information is there, just packaged in different ways. At heart, this is all a stylistic issue. Wikipedia has to agree on a style, as some styles conflict. Hence the need for (gasp) a Manual of Style!!

For another way to consider the different styles issue, consider the way some people like to present information in snappy soundbites or trivial lists in infoboxes, and how some like to present the same information as prose sentences in the same article. Same information. Different styles. Wikipedia can combine some styles, but not all. Hence the need to exclude or restrict some styles. For example, speculative, op-ed style writing is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Read the best of Wikipedia's articles and see how certain areas have settled on a "tone" of voice and an encyclopedic style. That is what is needed at fiction articles as well. Carcharoth 00:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, the style generally accepted needs to be grounded in good method. As far as I'm concerned, an article about a character requires a characterization, and no characterization can really be credible without describing at least the character's in-world outlook on things. Much like you can't really describe William the Conqueror in the context of 21st century morals, you shouldn't characterize a 20th century fictious figure solely in the context of 20th century morals, but at the least compare the outlook of the character with the outlook of the author, or show why the author gave a specific outlook to the character -that's also what most reader notes do and what is very much practiced also in academic literature on the issue. Especially an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia which might just as well be accessed via Wireless at an airport lounge also can't expect readers to have all necessary reference material at hand. So an article devoid of any in-universe context is unlikely to make much sense to the uninitiated reader. --OliverH 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But even necessary background material can be framed from an out-of-universe perspective. Instead of saying, "Character X feels hostile toward Character Y", it's better to write, "Character X first appears in the 1998 novel ..., in which the author depicts him as hostile toward Character Y". This focuses on the actions of the real-life author, not the character, who is merely the product of the author. I think that this is what you were aiming for with showing why the author gives a specific outlook on the character. As for the way it's done in academic literature, such would be original research unless sourced to a particular writer. Wikipedia shouldn't engage or appear to engage in novel analysis; instead, it should neutrally report on what others have said. Instead of saying, "Character X symbolizes ...", it's better to write, "English professor Y argued that character X symbolizes ...". In other words, we cannot include our own conclusions; we have to find reliable sources that make those conclusions so that the article is verifiable. Provided that the character is sufficiently notable, those sources should exist. The main thrust of this guideline is not to discourage inclusion of the important traits of a character; sourced, reputable analysis; or comprehensiveness. Rather, it encourages the treatment of characters as cultural artifacts in the real world, not as "real people" to be biographed based on the fictional universes in which they were created. — TKD::Talk 09:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request?

Can I ask your indulgence on reviewing this article about a TV show and let us know if we struck a good balance in regards to in and out of universe? We are a new project and this is our first article that we've achieved GA on and want to really make it a great example. Anyone willing to take a look and see how we can improve/reach this goal? Thanks! -plange 04:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty please? I really desire to know if this article is meeting the standards you have set here, thanks :-) -plange 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Making this policy

I think this needs to be elevated from MoS to policy. Unlike most of the MoS (Which serves as an ugly hammer for hitting people you don't like because their comma usage or preferred date formatting fails to coincide with some obscure section or another), this is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia's approach, seeming to me akin to NPOV (though obviously less important.) That is to say, it's not a style guide, it's a basic standard for all articles. MoS leaves it in the awkward realm of things that the arbcom has made very clear aren't that important. (I believe there was a principle a while back that it is assumed people will not edit articles purely to enforce MoS requirements, or something along those lines) Phil Sandifer 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this dude named Phil Sandifer. This should be a standard. --Chris Griswold 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as there are passages in here that I consider highly questionable and in dissonance with encyclopedi c and academic practice, I don't see making this policy as an improvement of any kind. --OliverH 08:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed a few revisions I think could use to be made - I think the policy page overemphasizes the sourcing/original research issue at the expense of what seems to me the heart of the prohibition, which is simply that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about this world, not others. Phil Sandifer 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested to hear what OliverH finds unencyclopedic and non-academic. The idea behind this guideline is to discourage language like "Luke Skywalker was born in 18 BBY and married Mara Jade in 34 ABY" in favor of bits like "Film critic Leonard Maltin describes Skywalker as 'the savior of the Rebellion' and views the character as an archetypal 'Campbellian hero'." Where has it gone astray? -- BrianSmithson 14:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Good academic findings are reproducible. Simply citing critic XYZ makes it impossible for the reader to judge whether the critic might have a point or if he has no idea what he's talking about. It could just as well be a fringe position you try to sell to the reader. I'll give you an example of the problem: The Lord of the Rings, an article cited as exemplary, states "Tolkien's largest influences in the creation of his world were his Catholic faith and the Bible." and references that to secondary material which totally rules out things being otherwise from the get-go, a site calling itself "Decent Films", "Film appreciation, information and criticism informed by Christian faith". It then produces a couple of other quotes from Tolkien himself. But Tolkien can only tell us about conscious processes, not about what influenced him unconsciously. With explicit reference to the actual text of LotR, it would be much easier for the reader to see where the analysis is credible and where it is a stretch. If you try to tell the reader something about the "how" or "why" without telling him something about the "what", the analysis on the one hand is hard to follow for the uninitiated and on the other lacks credibility. The passage titled "Exception", by its title alone, is relegated to third rank, suggesting that "Well, yeah, it's tolerable in this context, but only if and when..." But as the very first line reads, "out-of-universe information needs context". It's totally useless for a reader to know that Skywalker has been described as a Campbellian hero if he doesn't know what makes him one. The paragraph "Even these short summaries can often be written from an out-of-universe perspective, and when this is possible, this approach should be preferred. For example, the following made-up paragraph is a largely in-universe plot synopsis that might draw from several different episodes of a television show or several different video games in a series" is not in line with academic texts I've seen. A recent thesis I read dealing with the fantastic literature of Astrid Lindgren had a multipage summary of each of the stories dealt with at the onset of each chapter, and then switched repeatedly into in-universe view when characterizing the individual pro- and antagonists. If you avoid in-universe view, it's sheer impossible to give a real solid characterization much like you can't do a real person justice without trying to think yourself into their shoes. The supposedly illustrating examples show another problem: It is claimed that the second version "does not seem as confusing to those unfamiliar with the series". That's easy to say for someone who cooks the example. In fact, however, the multiple references in continuous text blow up the paragraph by several lines and swamps the reader in references which he might or might not be interested in. Yes, it's good to reference your writings. But it's unnecessary to do so in continuous texts. With this density of references, it's much, much better to do it in footnotes. It forces a switch of perspective every half-sentence which makes the paragraph read like a written hiccup. Ironically, that's how, for example, Jabba the Hutt, another one of the articles listed as exemplary handles it. Just as some quick points. Without in-universe perspective, the out-of-universe perspective is hanging in thin air and of dubious credibility. --OliverH 19:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of your argument seems more aimed at WP:NPOV than at this guideline. For example, "Simply citing critic XYZ makes it impossible for the reader to judge whether the critic might have a point or if he has no idea what he's talking about" is something that needs to be handled by contrasting critic XYZ's opinion/analysis with critic ABC's. Due to WP:NPOV, we the editors are not allowed to do any analysis except to say what others have reported or alleged. As for your criticism of the article on The Lord of the Rings, that's not a problem with this page; it's a problem with that article's sources. If a Christian website is the source of that, perhaps this should be brought up at Talk:The Lord of the Rings and the reference removed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources grounds. And if others agree, we can remove that article from this page as an example. As for your assertion that "With explicit reference to the actual text of LotR, it would be much easier for the reader to see where the analysis is credible and where it is a stretch," again, it is not our place to prop one position up over another, assuming both are verifiable and sourced to credible references. And the "Exceptions" section covers this -- give a short plot summary, by all means; it's not forbidden. You may disagree with the title "Exceptions", and we may very well need to reframe this page so as not to come off as so anti-in-universe (I've made this suggestion before and been opposed).

To address some of your other points: "It's totally useless for a reader to know that Skywalker has been described as a Campbellian hero if he doesn't know what makes him one." Presumably, the article would go on to provide examples from Maltin about why this is the case. "For example, the following made-up paragraph is a largely in-universe plot synopsis that might draw from several different episodes of a television show or several different video games in a series" is not in line with academic texts I've seen." It is in line with film criticism I've seen. My main background for much of this verbiage comes from reading histories and critical analyses on animated films. For these, where a single character appears in hundreds of films with little internal continuity, I think the text works fine. Where you might have a point (I'm still not sure) is with fictional items/characters that appear in one conherent work or set of works (say, a novel trilogy or a single film). I'm interested to hear what others think. And finally, I have absolutely no problem with including references in the body of the text. I've seen that done in several different places, not just academic discussions of fictional characters or situations. There's nothing wrong with it, in my opinon (or in the opinions of the many editors who have selected articles like Jabba the Hutt as examples of Wikipedia's best). -- BrianSmithson 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thing is that I believe that observing NPOV in and of itself makes for a good style and avoids fannish articles, because it also means having a neutral stance at what's important and what isn't. It should be noted, however, that an encyclopedia and film criticism are two distinct things and while film criticism can be used in writing an encyclopedic article about a film, it should not follow the same standards as film criticism. And I think you missed my point about references in the body of the text. I specifically noted that Jabba has numbered references in footnotes, whereas the example had spelled-out references in the text. Spelled-out references are also used academically, yes. But they only work up to a certain density. The example is a pretty good show of where this mode fails, because it completely chops up the text and makes fluid reading nigh impossible. For such a density, tiny linked numbers are much better. They can be easily overlooked by those who don't want to bother with them, and can be accessed by those who are interested. My key issue is that writing an encyclopedia is processing knowledge for the reader, and as such, we should write in the reader's interest first and foremost. But coming back to NPOV, my point here was this: It's sometimes hard to tell whether a source is good or not. If the statements made are backed up by summaries or direct quotes of primary material, the reader can see in what context the statement seems justified. Basically, I believe that encouraging out-of-universe perspective is good, but outright discouraging in-universe perspective will make characterizations pretty useless and more comprehensive articles hard to understand for the uninitiated and will make reproducibility more difficult. --OliverH 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a large proportion of the writers of articles on fiction at Wikipedia do not agree that NPOV necessarily means "having a neutral stance at what's important and what isn't." They want to write about things as if they're real, period; this guideline was designed to address this problem. But over all, I think we're in agreement. I too am a fan of using direct quotation of source material in articles such as this. This could be direct quotes from the fiction itself or quotes from its creators. But I think it's important to reiterate that any analysis must still be left to others (which you seem to agree with). As for references in the body of the text, the current guideline actually advocates both forms: "This is generally fine, provided that some sort of indication is given as to where these various pieces of information come from (cite.php, for example)." It then goes on to more strongly advocate the in-text documentation, granted, but it does not discourage the style used for Jabba the Hutt. This should perhaps be rectified. (As for the example, it is just that, a cooked example to demonstrate one method of doing this. Presumably, in a longer article, the references would not come in such quick succesion.) If I may try to put your argument into a nutshell: You want to see the guideline tell when and when not to use an inside-the-fiction perspective rather than the "always use out-of-universe perspective except where absolutely unavoidable" stance it currently takes? -- BrianSmithson 15:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to move away from the "yuck, it's in-universe perspective" to "How do we include the most important information?". Take a look at my points on one example over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Example of "in universe" style and "out of universe" style. The second example using solely out-of-universe perspective tells us more about Tolkien and where he included data about the Nazgul than it tells us about the Nazgul themselves. In a style such as this, it will be extremely hard to provide information on what the role of the Nazgul is as in what literary intentions Tolkien follows in their use, and what philosophy governs their literary description. Nothing about the issues of death and the fear of death that Tolkien finds so important. Quite the contrary, it practically tells the reader: "Go, get those books I mentioned and read up for yourself". That, in my opinion, is not the task of an encyclopedia. Rather, it should take information on the Nazgul and present the gist here. I think User:Geogre said something true further down here when suggesting that it's good to start and end in out-of-universe perspective. In such a way, you can start with establishing what you're dealing with at the beginning (Novel? Movie? Play? Character? Protagonist or Antagonist? etc.) and close perhaps in summing up the relevance and merits of the topic. What's in between largely depends on what precisely the article is describing. As I said, I don't think it's possible to give a good characterization of a character without jumping into his shoes now and then. When talking about a book or movie on the other hand, you have a whole lot of real world data you can automatically include and usually some reviews that help fill an article with outside perspective. --OliverH 16:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(Unindenting again.) I don't have a problem with this, and I agree that it should be done on these types of articles, most especially for characters and tropes that appear in one coherant novel or set of novels. The problem is how to phrase the guideline so as to prevent the article that reads, "The Nazgul are fictional monsters from The Lord of the Rings. They were created by Sauron in Year 423 of the 3rd Age from the souls of the kings Enkidu, Gollumgash, Feinstein, and Ford. . . . " That is not encyclopedic, and it is, as Geogre describes below, sharing the experience of the fiction rather than summarizing the fiction. I also don't have a problem with your Huck Finn example below. But that sort of jump in-universe is currently supported by the "Exceptions" section of the guideline. I'm not saying I know the best way to describe how to do these kinds of articles, but simply changing the guide to say "use in-universe perspective when appropriate" isn't going to help staunch the flood of Darth Vader's-biography-as-an-encyclopedia-article articles that we have all over Wikipedia. -- BrianSmithson 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I now see what Oliver is saying. How about something to the effect that anything in-universe needs to be subservient to an out-of-universe purpose? In other words, a reasonably succinct plot sumary of an overall work is fine so that the reader ican be familiar with subsequent analysis/discussion. Examples of in-universe character behavior need a sourced out-of-universe theme or production detail to tie them together (otherwise, they'd likely be original research anyway). Of course, it's still a judgment call as to how much plot is too much, and I doubt that it'd be a good idea to have hard numbers here. Some films/games/etc. are richer in plot twists than others. But at some point the level of detail becomes trivial, to the point of retelling every one-off joke made or recapping every single scene. This change would make it clear that something like:

General ABC is a fictional character in the 2001 military film ABC. [Here follow 15 KB of in-universe biography and character description.]

is unacceptable. Yet, this material could be condensed, character behavior and personality framed in terms of what the creators hoped to convey. I've seen many examples where editors try to extrapolate "enough" specific examples to a broder generalization, when in reality that generalization is not only unsupported by any reputable critical analysis, but outright contradicted somewhere else in the work or in a sequel. This is probably less likely to occur with established literature than with, say, contemporary video games and films, but, then again, the latter categories seem to be where our biggest problems lie with respect to this guideline.

I do realize that the phrase "subservient to an out-of-universe purpose" is a bit vague, and could probably be wikilawyered to death. At some point, though, listing every example of a character's personality trait just has to encroach on the principle of undue weight. — TKD::Talk 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, this hits pretty much what bothered me. As an example of the "out of universe theme" if I wanted to write about Tolkien's statement that "death" and the fear of death is the theme in his work, it's practically impossible not to talk about the manifestation of said fear in the characters -which would invariably include in-universe perspective since it deals with an emotion experienced by the characters themselves and guiding their actions and even, in Tolkien's fictional mythology, was brought about through in-universe actions. --OliverH 19:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody fill me in on what it takes to make this a guideline? There are very few people involved in this discussion. Is a half dozen people how Wikipedia defines consensus? I'll point out that Wikipedia says that guidelines can also be created de facto based on what the majority of people are already doing. Most pages about fictional characters either largely or entirely describe the character using in-universe perspective. Unless the consensus here is made by many hundreds of people (equal to the number who are actually writing in-universe prose), I suggest that the in-universe example set by the majority of articles become the guideline Jerdwyer 01:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You can see the straw poll that got consensus here. -- ReyBrujo 01:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Jerdwyer 04:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Canonicity

Should the page include a prohibition against discussions of a work's canonicity? Things like "X resembles Y from the novel Sci-Fi Show: The New Adventures. The canonicity of the novel is unclear." I find problem both with the discussions of canonicity (Which seems to me unverifiable in many cases, and absurd in all cases, since I cannot think of a universe complex enough to have canon issues that has a consistent continuity) and in terms of useless trivia, in that it involves playing up esoteric connections that are relevant only to the fictional world. Phil Sandifer 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think canonicity can be addressed in an encyclopedic fashion, probably best by four methods: 1) divide fictional subject articles by medium, so that depictions in comics, novels, movies, cartoons, etc., are described separately (most of the canon issues pop up in cross-medium comparisons); 2) expressly describe when a depiction is a retcon, a story that the writers intended to contradict and supplant earlier depictions; 3) expressly describe when there has been significant documented fan (and creator) reaction to a depiction relevant to canon (e.g., "Polls have shown that unhappy fans universally disregard the depiction of Kirk in Star Trek: The Next Degenerate as "non-canonical," and subsequent Trek writers have also ignored the story's revelations. Roddenberry himself, on his deathbed, disclaimed it as a parody."); 4) if there are detailed and verifiable rules on what constitutes "canon" within a particular fictional universe, handle that in a separate article on canon (George Lucas himself has established such rules, therefore there is an article on "Canon in the Star Wars Universe"...I forget the exact title) rather than repeating it ad nauseum in every subtopic. If one of these methods cannot be applied (I can't think of any others right now), canon is not relevant and should not be mentioned (as when it is "unclear," as in your sample statement).

On the flipside, the canon problems we need to watch out for are articles 1) disfavoring certain forms of media because they are "noncanonical," despite significant sales or audiences (the X-Men comics may be the only "canon" for the characters, but more people have seen the films than read the comic books); 2) conversely, overemphasizing certain forms of media because they are "canonical," even though they may get little exposure (a Star Wars novel may describe an "important" element of Darth Vader's "biography," but that should not be given equal weight to the film depictions that predated it and that more people viewed); 3) not giving due weight to contradictory depictions simply because one is no longer "current," even though the "superseded" depiction may have been used for more of a character's publication history (is is true that Superman was once Superboy? depends on what you read); 4) giving undue weight to current depictions, that while not contradictory of earlier stories, change key characteristics (Spider-Man was depicted with a secret identity for over thirty years of his publication history; comics in the past year depict him as going public). Postdlf 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused; are you saying that a notable encyclopedia article's comprehensiveness should be directly proportional to its popularity? — Deckiller 17:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'm confused by your question. : ) Is there a particular point above that you would like me to rephrase or elaborate upon, or a particular example that you did not understand? Postdlf 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

" conversely, overemphasizing certain forms of media because they are "canonical," even though they may get little exposure (a Star Wars novel may describe an "important" element of Darth Vader's "biography," but that should not be given equal weight to the film depictions that predated it and that more people viewed)". — This makes it sound like you feel that the books should get little comprehensiveness value becuase they are less popular than the films. If a work involves a character, then it should probably be noted in that character's "appearences" or "synopsis" section. Heck, as a side note, most of the books are bestsellers; you would never know because of the very poor condition of many star wars novel articles. — Deckiller 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooh! Dare I point out Middle-earth canon? :-) Carcharoth 00:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Innies and Outies and other thoughts

I write, flail in hand, eyeing that dead horse for one more flog. I think that the "in a nutshell," above, was probably closest to an accurate recommendation commensurate with professional writing on fiction. My own fiction summaries have been moderately successful in Wikipedia (e.g. A Tale of a Tub, Oroonoko, and some non-featured ones like The Rehearsal (play), Glumdalclitch and The City Heiress). These all contain "in-universe," but they are primarily "out of universe." It is customary, when providing a summary of action or recounting the text itself, to go "inside" for a time, so long as the article is outside from its perspective.

An article must be about the thing and must never be the thing. It must identify itself in its summary sentence first and foremost as a fiction. It must identify its author. It must identify whatever series it is in. Furthermore, it must step back after any summary to discuss the work. Recapitulation is the work of fans, and it is the best way to make "fancruft." The tendency to recreate, over and over again, is the impulse behind sharing an experience rather than discussing a cultural phenomenon. After watching a movie, teens might say to one another, "Hey, 'member when the space ship blew up, and you saw a head spinning in space? That was cool!" The obsessive fan is beyond that, but she or he may well write articles that are born in that same impulse: they seek to share an experience, to recreate and re-experience the joy. Such things are not wrong. They are not to be denigrated. They are, however, not encyclopedic.

The special fear is, of course, the manufactured universe. Given that major corporations have figured out that fictional universes are a spigot they can put on their fans' wallets, it is in their interests to keep new items and stories coming. Because these things are commercially designed to be self-perpetuating, from their inception, the amount of cultural dissiderata they generate is fathomless. What we cannot do is paddle our little boats in that whirlpool. If you can't step outside of the fiction, can't place it in context, then you can't write encyclopedically. If your reader gets lost in the neat details with you, then you have basically said, "Hey, 'member when?" Geogre 19:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and as long as I'm here, I really recommend scholarly introductions to editions for sources of information on a work's production, author's biography, and culturally recognized themes. For example, the material I used in John Cleland was from the Dictionary of National Biography (a first class reference) and three different editions of Fanny Hill. The latter gave me much-needed information on Cleland's claims about the publication, his trials, and the obscenity trials. The same four sources could have been used, with the novel itself, if I had been trying to write about Fanny Hill itself. Since that already had an article, I didn't mess with it. Geogre 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I know plenty of encyclopedic practice which recapitulates. The edition of the Britannica I last checked recapitulates some of the possible founding sagas for "Hamlet", and the major German encyclopedia in fact recapitulates the play itself. Yes, you are right, a good article must step back, but that does not mean that the overwhelming part of the article must be from the outside. Such an article would be bound to be unintelligible for the reader unfamiliar with the subject of the article. The key point is not the least simply NPOV. NPOV brings with itself a cold-blooded analysis of what's chaff and what's wheat. A fannish article will be lost in minutiae, a good article will still include details, but it will include those details that count and most importantly, show why they count. --OliverH 19:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we agree, as most of those with experience writing about non-fantasist fiction will, that some "inside" is necessary. However, it is necessary to begin and end outside. If one does that, with clear signals to the reader, there will be little trouble. However, I dare say that EB repeating the plots of "Murder of Gonzago" or others isn't going to be recreating the experience as I discuss above. Geogre 21:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The essence of out-of-universe

I think that it's crucial that WP's articles be written from an out-of-universe perspective, and that's why I'm concerned that the out-of-universe idea is getting confused with other, separate ideas, like the use of primary vs. secondary sources, and the value of plot summaries in an article. Those are not what out-of-universe is primarily about. Here's in-universe:

Flamemonster the dragon looks like a big pink worm.

Here's out-of-universe:

In Dragons of Doom, the dragon Flamemonster is introduced as looking like "a gigantic pink worm".

This is out-of-universe because you're treating the dragon as a character in a book, not as an entity in an imaginary universe that we're pretending is real. The key, I think, is citing your source, which is not an optional thing that fiction-article writers can vote on, but a mandatory part of the overall WP plan.

I want to stress that it's not anti-fan or anti-[fill in beloved fictional universe here] to insiste on an out-of-universe perspective. Speaking as a fan of various things, an article is much more useful to me in my fandom if it tells me specifically which work of fiction contains the particular fictional information that I'm reading about. It makes the information useful for fan readers, not just entertaining for fan editors.

The primary vs. secondary source thing cuts both ways--using a secondary source can actually detract from the out-of-universe perspective. Take The Guide to Middle-Earth, for example--if you cite it, you're incorporating that work's in-universe perspective. I would much rather see an editor quote how Tolkein described Shadowfax than read The Guide to Middle-Earth 's paraphrase--or, in many cases, a WP editor's paraphrase of the GME's paraphrase. The former is just so much more useful than the other--for students, for fans, for whomever.

Secondary sources have an important role in fiction articles, of course. Opinions about and interpretations of the work should be from secondary sources, rather than from our own impressions. And descriptions of visual works are often better quoted from a secondary source. But particularly with written texts, the best articles will incorporate a fair amount of primary material as well. Nareek 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your example is good and fine, but it does not constitute an article. If you say or cite someone saying that protagonist XYZ is presented as a nihilistic terrorist, you will not be able to support that in a cogent and legible fashion without looking through the eyes of the character. No doubt reading about Tolkien's describing of Shadowfax can give you a lot of information linguistically, but it will give you very little information on Shadowfax as a character and its use as a literary figure. If you take a look at "Cliff Notes" etc. all of them include summaries and characterizations of key figures including their in-universe viewpoints. I'll give you an example from here: The characterization of Huck Finn starts "In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain created a character who exemplifies freedom within, and from, American society. " This is "out-of-universe", but then it continues "Huck lives on the margins of society because, as the son of the town drunk, he is pretty much an orphan. He sleeps where he pleases, provided nobody chases him off, and he eats when he pleases, provided he can find a morsel. No one requires him to attend school or church, bathe, or dress respectably. It is understandable, if not expected, that Huck smokes and swears. Years of having to fend for himself have invested Huck with a solid common sense and a practical competence that complement Tom’s dreamy idealism and fantastical approach to reality (Tom creates worlds for himself that are based on those in stories he has read). But Huck does have two things in common with Tom: a zest for adventure and a belief in superstition." This pretty much compares the two as if they were real people. And how do you want to show how detailed the characters created by Twain are, if not in such a fashion? Etc. --OliverH 10:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A professional information source like Sparknotes can claim that it hires experts to summarize and analyze fiction--so we're supposed to take their word for it that its summaries are correct. Because WP is edited by anonymous volunteers, we're required to cite sources, so that readers can verify that our accounts are accurate. If we're summarizing descriptions and events, we can cite primary sources; if we're dealing with interpretation, we need to cite secondary sources. The passage you quote does neither, and so would not make for a good WP article. Nareek 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources being the original text, per definitionem written in-universe. I don't think you got the point of what I said. --OliverH 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you say, "In The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkein describes the character Gandalf as a 'wizard,'" that's an out-of-universe perspective, citing a primary source. Nareek 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. It's also NOT a characterization, but a piece of trivial data that likely anyone reading the line will already know. --OliverH 17:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is up to it, we need some well-written articles on fictional elements

As Brian pointed out earlier in this talk page, we need some more examples of fictional elements other than the works themselves or characters. If you've been following AfD the last month or so, a lot of "gamecruft" has been deleted. It's hard to sympathize with the "keep" proponents when these articles are roughly 99% in-universe, but what's been irking me is that some of these are potentially encyclopedic topics. To iterate what Brian said, we need some good articles on fictional weapons, locations, technology, vehicles, philosophies, species, etc., to hold up as an example of how to do these things correctly. Furthermore, many of the current articles on these elements fail to assert why the fictional element is itself notable (when in fact it probably is, by reason of novelty or being a key to the overall work's success). Again, it's not the loss of truly minor, one-appearance things that bothers me; it's the stuff that's been deleted for WP:NOT game guide violations when a total rewrite could produce a good article.

Fortunately, at least as far as video games go, I'm beginning to see more serious ludology. http://www.gamestudies.org/ appears to be an online peer-reviewed journal, which contains papers on Counter-Strike, Halo: Combat Evolved, Grand Theft Auto 3, Lara Croft, The Sims, and others. Some of these go into depth about various elements of gameplay that traditionally have not been well-sourced on Wikipedia. — TKD::Talk 00:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in these, but I've seen WikiProject Stargate discuss and are preparing DNA Resequencer (Stargate) and Stargate (device) as possible featured article hopefuls. -- Ned Scott 00:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's encouraging. I saw the original failed nominations a while back. — TKD::Talk 00:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and just found TARDIS (which was mentioned on the first FA candidacy of DNA Resequencer), Doctor Who's fictional time machine, which is a featured article. -- Ned Scott 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have my Ph.D. exam in a bit more than a week. After that, I plan on digging out some secondary literature on Tolkien and his work and rewrite some of the de:Wikipedia articles. I can just as well double-up and improve some of the en: articles as well. --OliverH 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Outlines

This is just an idea, but it would sooo much help editors, but can we come up with a suggested outline/template for an article with suggested headings. This might help stem the tide of OR and in-universe, etc. See the templates here and here. I have 2 questions: are these two good examples we can go ahead and use, and can we create others like it for the different types of articles? Thanks plange 18:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The templates can be good examples, but as general templates, I'd have my difficulties. As an example, a text written in a more mythological style will have very little character development -the characters will be more like archetypes. And then we have stories such as LotR which have two distinct layers of narrative, the mythic one of Gandalf, Aragorn etc. and the modern one, with the Hobbits. --OliverH 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I guess I'll reframe and ask if this style guide we came up with for Firefly (TV series) is a good outline or not? You'll see below the General part we have an episode and character sample...plange 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... The character outline seems like it might encourage a little too much emphasis on plot summary. I would say that items in the Character sketch section should be merged with Major themes, so that you ensure that you don't go overboard with describing the character as a biographical subject. Speaking of, I would axe the Biographical summary section as well. If a backstory element is used to bolster an existing theme, then include it in Major themes. I also would not list actions by episode; this gets into too much detail, and is probably best left to the individual episode/season articles.

Another change that I would make is renaming Criticism to Critical reception or just Reception, beause criticism has negative connotations, whereas the other terms are more balanced. Also, you might consider adding a section on production details where enough information exists. Here, you would describe character customes and the actor/director's approach to portraying that character.

I think that the best way to approach a character article is to focus on the character as a vehicle for the advancement of themes and the overall storyline. This is not to say that you can't describe the characteristics and actions of that character, but don't go blow-by-blow. For example, Captain Marvel (DC Comics) doesn't describe actions in every single comic book and spends a mere two paragraphs on "Character biography". I find that framing things in terms of what out-of-universe information you have (themes, production details) helps to filter what in-universe examples to include. — TKD::Talk 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've revised them, what do you think? And does that mean the episode one was okay? plange 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any more feedback here? Don't want to go to all the trouble of re-writing our project's articles (which are crufty) to something that's not much better. The old version of our character template was basically pulled and adapted from the Novels Project... Thanks! plange 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty please? plange 22:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

random comments:

• "Full dates (including month, date, and year) should be linked" - should also mention the converse, i.e. that indivuual years, days, months should not be wikilinked.
• "Quotes in general are not encyclopedic" - yes they are if they are used to illustrate a point in the article text. a "List of Quotations" i think is what you mean, right?
• there should be more emphasis on the process of authorship of the shows - who wrote it, when, how long they took, where they got their ideas from, influences, its production etc. things to include are wardrobes, props, budget, casting, direction, lighting, cinematography, sound design, music. there should be discussions of ratings, dvd sales and of critical reception. a discussion of the "themes" of the piece is useful, but ensure its based on reliable secondary sources. and there should be details of the legacy of the work. how did it influence others? how did the episode change the show? do other works reference this one? etc.
• "A teaser Synopsis with no spoiler content. " - this will already be in the lead so no need for a separate section for it.
• Guest cast should not be a list, but "brilliant prose".
• They should be ?px - no you should never specify a hardcoded pixel size.
• Explanation of the character's name - must be backed up by a source!
• why does Characters have a critical reception section but Episodes does not?
• "the actor/director's approach to portraying that character" - what about the writer?
• overall i suggest bringing it more in line with Tenebrae (film) and Halloween (film). of course these are film articles not TV articles but the same basic approach can be used for writing about them. and for the characters, Jabba the Hutt is a good example, but you dont have to follow it section-by-section (its missing a few things). Zzzzz 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I've revised them and I think I'll tackle one episode as a trial run. plange 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Structures from WikiProjects

Someone might want to round up the outline and style guidelines from other WikiProjects as well to get a better over-view. I'll list some that I'm aware of to start off: -- Ned Scott 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• WikiProject Anime and manga - WP:ANIME#Article structure
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Television - WP:TV#Structure of a TV show article
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Firefly - Wikipedia:WikiProject Firefly#Style guide
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels - Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/CharacterArticleTemplate
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels - Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth - Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat - Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat/Style Guide

Question

Do we have a template to tag articles that need to be revised into accordance with this policy? Phil Sandifer 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, {{cleanup fiction-as-fact}}. — TKD::Talk 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tag usage

I thought I'd let editors here know that revisions are being proposed and discussed for WP:SPOILER and its templates at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines. This is a result of the (still open) RfC going on at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. Any input and collaboration between fictional guidelines is welcome and encouraged. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The template doesn't work

Although the "fiction-as-fact" template was created to emphasize the need to focus on an out-of-universe perspective, I don't think it does this effectively. The language in the template suggests that the article is misleadingly presenting a fictional subject as a real entity, which is a stronger accusation than the intention. For example, when I added this template to Killer Bebes, the response from its author was "the intro clearly states that the page is about fictional characters," which this guideline clearly explains isn't good enough but the template does not. Do we need a new template, or to revise this one? Thanks. Deco 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered{{In-universe}}? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the same template. It was moved from "in-universe" to "cleanup fiction-as-fact" (though I preferred the former). But I agree, it could do with a rewording.--ragesoss 23:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to replace it and explain on talk. It's what's worked for me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles

I don't understand this section; isn't it largely going to become a web directory? There's HUNDREDS of wikis out there about fictional subjects... many of them over at our sister project, Wikia! I'm confused as to the purpose... -- nae'blis 02:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

there is already a webdirectory, List of wikis, which is linked. the list here is just supposed to give a "flavour" of them. cheers. Zzzzz 11:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Magneto

The logic for present tense is 'It's always happening in the present because it can always be read, so it should be written in present tense'. But if the story itself took place in the past via flashbacks (meaning, in the story itself it occured in the past and not the present), shouldn't that stuff be written in past tense too? --DrBat 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends. If it's being related from one character to another as happening in the past, then it's past tense. If it's a flashback showing things happening, it's present.

An example of the former: Bilbo tells Frodo about his ancestors, who had harvested many turnips.

An example of the latter: Duncan flashes back to his time in the American Revolutionary War. In this flashback, he is riddled with bullets from a gatling gun.

Does that make sense? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Always keep in mind the out-of-universe perspective. It should be "In such-and-such issue of So-and-so, Magneto experiences a flashback in which he is depicted..." and so on. Keep in mind this is not a real person, these events did not really happen, and also keep in mind Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#The use of in-universe statistics and chronology. His fictional biography does not have to (and more than likely should not) be recorded in Wikipedia following an in-universe chronology. --Newt ΨΦ 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved Huntress' revised origin story to its place in the publishing history rather than in the canon. I do believe it was contested, which was to be expected. --Chris Griswold 01:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples given

I've noticed that a lot of the examples given on this page focus more on revising in-universe plot summaries than on what I see the biggest point of this guideline, which is the focus on out-of-universe information. Our examples are usually things like chaging "X was born in 1943" to "In Issue 34, it was revealed that X was born in 1943." The problem is that neither is really the sort of information we're most after. Phil Sandifer 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. To summarize: We shouldn't just reduce in-universe info but add out-of-universe info. Very good point. I'm creating a new comics collaboration to clean up specific articles and try to promote some of them to Good Article status. This is one of the things we will be working on. --Chris Griswold 01:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This helps a little with my dissatisfaction over this guideline, but not much. It seems to me that all this MoS is asking us to do is obfuscate text with in-line references, while still repeating the same information in a different style. The actual value of the article is no different whether its references are quoted later or inserted inline, as long as they're accurate and comprehensive. Any person reading an article specifically about a certain subejct (,timeline, plot arc, character, organisation etc) already knows it's fiction - and most likely, would like to read about that fiction in a smoothly-progressing, natural way. I think people are underestimating a reader's ability of suspension-of-disbelief. Sojourner001 13:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I hugely, hugely agree with Sojourner. When I read articles on fictional characters it's usually to fill in holes in my knowledge, for example, after watching the X-men movies to learn more about the characters backgrounds. Constantly saying "in issue 47" adds nothing useful and makes for disjointed and tedious reading Jerdwyer 01:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary

I also think we need to fairly clearly state the problems with "detailed plot summaries" for episodes/books/movies/etc. They've increasingly become the last bastion of fancruft, and almost without exception read as lengthy in-universe chunks that people are reticent to get rid of. A few specific sentences to this effect would be useful - any objections to my adding them, along with trying to rework the examples as above? Phil Sandifer 15:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean about the plot summaries? I think Oroonoko is an example of a good one. What kind of plot summary are you trying to prevent? — BrianSmithson 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Genesis of the Daleks seems egregiously long, for example. Phil Sandifer 22:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Phil. I wrote a series of "synopses" for Firefly (TV series) episodes that I'd meant to provide a detailed flow of the episode, and asked folks to trim them to essentials based on those details. Instead, they've mostly expanded on them, and I have only myself to blame for encouraging this. Perhaps we can suggest a rough guideline of X paragraphs per hour of show or 100 pages of book, so folks have an objective indicator to suggest when they're wandering into narrator territory. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dragons of Winter Night and Dragons of Spring Dawning are examples of extremely long plots. Some people have already began working in the first book, Dragons of Autumn Twilight, which has a much nicer (one page long) plot. We are talking about plots, not article layout, remember that when checking those articles ;-) -- ReyBrujo 05:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

All of the articles associated with The 10th Kingdom, a minor Hallmark-produced telefilm, seem to be heavy on plot and deeply in-universe. Take Christine Slevil-Lewis-White, for instance. Her entire life story and little attempt to put her in context as not being real. --Chris Griswold 05:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Character notability

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Clarification of "notability" for fictional characters and its subsections contain some discussion about revising the WP:FICT guideline to require secondary or tertiary sources for standalone character articles, and to require that such artcles contain no more than half plot summary / backstory, in order to ensure an out-of-universe perspective. Comments are welcome. — TKD::Talk 10:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Emphasise standard encyclopedia practices

Can this MoS entry emphasise the normal encyclopedia practices, such as mentioning key facts in the lead section or first few sentences? Articles suffering from in-universe persepctive tend to suffer from lack of this information anyway, so it is worth emphasising. The example texts of good practice give the name, date of publication and author of the fictional work, but many articles miss one or more of these points. How about an entry in this guideline saying that all articles must start by introducing the real-world historical, geographical and authorial context? ie. Say when a character or work of fiction was created, who created it, and give some cultural context (country, nationality of author, languages published in). And for a character, say in the first sentence the name of the books/movies/series/comics they appear in. Seems obvious, but you would be surprised how many articles leavve this kind of stuff out, or only mention it a long way into the article. Carcharoth 10:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Additions to example text

These changes (in bold) to the example text illustrate what I was talking about above:

"Ludgar Wolventongue is a fictional character in the universe of RPG Co.'s Lands of Lustre series. (explain what Lands of Lustre series is) Introduced in the Mysteries of Tympania trilogy (give a set of dates here and give more precisely the title of the book and date of publication where the character first appears) by Amanda Karbowski, (explain who Amanda Karbowski is: nationality, other works, when she was born, what language and genre(s) she writes in) the character plays an important role in many Lands of Lustre novels. (name the novels) Karbowski's trilogy describes Wolventongue's birth into a powerful Tympanian family as the son of King Rodgast Horseheel and Queen Gebellynde of Hyrax; he ascends to the throne in 838 Age of the Mystic River, as described in the second book. (name the book) Various characters describe Wolventongue as "caring and magnanimous" (provide references and name the 'various characters'), and Karbowski offers numerous examples of these traits. (cite the examples) However, the king shows a temper from time to time, as when he berates a young Sir Gyroban after the Battle of Rynsoth. (give a reference here to the book and pages where this happens) In the later stand-alone novel Death in Tympania (1995), Wolventongue dies in 872 Age of the Mystic River during the Battle of Ganzon Gulch, a victim of Grufius the Gargler. The fact that Karbowski killed off the popular character shocked fans and prompted many negative reviews in science fiction magazines." (cite negative reviews and provide quotes to justify use of the word "shocked")

At the moment, the example text, though only intending to show how to avoid in-universe style, does a dis-service by not showing how an article should be fully referenced and placed in the appropriate context. Carcharoth 10:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in question was intended to be a lead paragraph. The details you mention would most defintely be in the main body of the article, but most of them would be information overload for a lead paragraph I think. — BrianSmithson 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Brian. These are details best left out of the lead and explained in the main body. A lead section that had all of this information would be too bloated. Dmoon1 23:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Doh! I should have realised it was an example of a lead section. I've now added something explaining that. Carcharoth 10:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested examples (Middle-earth)

Somewhere above someone requested examples of out-of-universe style article. I've recently started a major revamp of Middle-earth. It is still a work in progress, but the lead section and the first two sections give an idea of where I am heading. The geography, history and culture sections need major pruning and recasting towards an out-of-universe perspective, and I intend to do that over the coming week. The adaptations and games section also need to be turfed out to their own articles and very brief summaries put in their place, maybe combining them into something like Middle-earth in popular culture. Are these kind of changes what this guideline is meant to promote? Carcharoth 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Family trees

Are family trees really necessary for fictional characters? In example, this one. I would like to hear opinions or precedents about this matter. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not. I'd have more objections to a particular artwork of a fictional character being used to illustrate that character. Why that artwork and not another one? Carcharoth 23:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It illustrates character interconnectedness, so helps convey information useful for the understanding of the book. We should be lucky if we can actually give one specific family tree, a lot of Tolkien's stuff isn't that easy, e.g. Fingon or Orodreth. --OliverH 12:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think details of relationships are significant, and if there are too many to be described in prose, a family tree is the best way to show it. --Tango 14:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem where family history is significant (usually when the other family members are actual characters, not cameos/unseen characters). -- nae'blis 21:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Could just read the primary source

Recently User:Jerdwyer removed this text from the guideline:

Likewise, the usefulness of in-universe writing is questionable as interested individuals could, if they choose to invest the time, find the fictional universe's account of events by reading the books, playing the games, or watching the films and television programs. On the other hand, articles written from an out-of-universe perspective, with their inclusion of details of creation, development, critical reaction, etc., serve our readers better.

I agree with removal of this text - I do not find this a compelling argument. One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to summarise and avoid the investment of time alluded to above. I agree with the overall guideline but believe it deserves better justification. Deco 23:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should not obviate the need to read the original work, merely offer enough plot summary to place the work in context. If someone wants to know what happens in a book, they should indeed read the book, and making plot summaries detailed to the point where the reader doesn't need to read the original work does a disservice to the author attempting to sell said book. Same applies to any fictional work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true that we shouldn't completely obviate the need to read the work, but interpreted literally the above argument appears to be claiming that there's no need to include any summary, because the reader can read the work instead. Clearly asking the reader to go undertake reading a large work in order to understand the context of the article is ludicrous. Deco 06:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph right above it emphasizes keeping IU writing short, not eliminating it, and other parts of the guideline emphasize writing to give real-world context. How do you think it could be made more clear? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see Deco's point. The paragraph quoted above is being used as an argument against an article taking a primarily in-universe perspective. Perhaps it should be tempered a bit, though, to say "the usefulness of long passages of in-universe writing is questionable . . . ." I also don't think it would be too much of a loss if the bit was removed. — BrianSmithson 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently read a book based on an academic thesis on three of Astrid Lindgren's more fantastic youth novels. Each section of the book opened with a complete summary of the respective novel. That's useful because it gives you the general map on which the author later pins his individual points. Not all academic works do this, some relying on the reader to have the primary work available. In an electronic medium such as Wikipedia, though, I believe that the first approach is imperative. Someone accessing WP via Wireless at an airport terminal or inside a train can't just go to the next library and reference the points, so some overview should be given in my eyes. --OliverH 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't strive to obviate in-depth, point-by-point analysis, either. You read a book that analyzed those novels; we should leave that task to in-depth works, and stick to encyclopedic overview. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry I didn't discuss first. Since it didn't change the result of the guideline, only the reason behind it I hadn't thought it as significant a change as it apparently is. My bad. I see it's been reverted to the original text which says "by the simple expedient of reading the books etc." By reading Einstein's works I could not have to look up e=mc^2 but then what's the point of an encyclopedia. To me, saying "go read the book" is like removing the article on Lewis and Clark and saying "here's a list of biographies, go read one of them instead." Man in Black has a good point about keeping plot summaries short and I would suggest something like "remember that Wikipedia is meant as a reference, not as clif-notes and keep plot summaries brief." Again sorry for not discussing first. This is the first policy discussion I've been involved in. Jerdwyer 05:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

An overview of what? You neither want a summary of the plot nor a point-by-point analysis, so all that's left is the barebones: Titel, author, year published. Is that your idea of a good article? --OliverH 06:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that's not what he suggested, is it? Summaries should be kept minimal, and you'd be surprised at how useful an article on a fictional work can be when it does contain non-plot details. For example, Back to the future#The Delorean time machine, that doesn't tell you anything about the plot, but contains some great information that is relevant to the work of fiction. We need more about the work than the work when it comes to fiction. If I want to learn more about the movie it's far more likely that I've actually seen the movie, or that seeing the movie is it's own option, thus anything I can learn from watching the movie really isn't.. necessarily.. simply for the sake of recording what had happened. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Useful for whom? Relevant for whom? What makes the information how the time machine was cobbled together more relevant than the basic motives? It is trivia that might be of interest to 1% of those reading the article but is definitely not on the agenda of the vast majority of people who will access the article. An encyclopedia is not supposed to deliver information as to -exaggerating- what brand of cigarette the author smoked when writing the article, but rather what he had on his mind and how he implemented that and what's remarkable about that, where he came from and where he went, figuratively speaking. If you want to learn more about the movie, chances are that watching it seven times will still not make you learn some key points because you missed important details every single time because you weren't paying attention at a crucial moment or because a tiny bit of information was missing to point you in the right direction. Likewise with a book, reading and understanding are two very different things. It should be the task of an article to provide, in a nutshell, the necessary information to understand what the work of fiction is, and what it is about. Not to provide random bits of trivia because they are from an out-of-universe perspective. --OliverH 11:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Although there's some back and forth above, I think we're pretty much all in agreement here, so I'm going to suggest an alternate text, something like this:

Although an article cannot assume that the reader is already familiar with the fiction's primary source material, and must summarize this material to a sufficient degree to put out-of-universe details in context, relying too heavily on in-universe material has two negative effects: it makes an article uninteresting for readers who are familiar with the work, and for readers who might wish to experience the work it provides details of the work in a less compelling way than the work itself. Moreover, reliance on any single source to the exclusion of others is to be discouraged.

Revise at will. Deco 08:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the original, which correctly stresses that articles with details of creation, development, critical reaction etc serve the readers better. Earlier in the article it is quite clearly stated that brief plot summaries are perfectly acceptable, so I don't think that's an issue either. The "reliance on single source" thing is not really relevant to in-universe versus out-of-universe, it belongs elsewhere. so combining the original, man-in-black, ned scott, briansmithson, and deco, we get:

Likewise, the usefulness of the usefulness of long passages of in-universe writing is questionable. Interested individuals can, after all, find the fictional universe's account of events by the simple expedient of reading the books, playing the games, or watching the films and television programs. In-universe writing makes an article uninteresting for readers who are familiar with the work, and for readers who might wish to experience the work, it summarizes it in a less compelling way than the work itself. On the other hand, articles written from an out-of-universe perspective, with their inclusion of details of creation, development, critical reaction, etc., serve our readers better. Catherine breillat 09:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment as long as "long passages" is emphasized, but please take out the words "simple expedient." Comics are usually out of print, libraries don't carry many books, and non-mainstream films are usually not available at local video stores. Some people don't watch horror movies but might still want to know about Hannibal Lector, others are slow readers and don't have a year to spend on Harry Potter. Reading/watching/playing the original is often difficult and time consuming, and to say it is simple is an insult to those for whom it is not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.16.112 (talk • contribs)

It is also clearly stated earlier in the article, in some detail, what constitutes out-of-universe details and why they are beneficial. This entire paragraph is redundant. Deco 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

template name

In regards to {{cleanup fiction-as-fact}}, maybe we should rename this template, since there are many articles that do an "ok" job at separating fiction and fact but still need to follow other guidelines from WP:WAF. Not that it's a totally different issue, but it would make it clear to not remove the template just because someone said "ok, this is fiction". Or maybe just a redirect (that would be shorter to type, too). Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this tag has been put up on many articles that don't need it; articles that make it clear that the object in question is a fictional thing. Me, I'll remove the template on articles if the word 'fictional' is located in the first line, since that tells the reader that, indeed, the thing is fictional. Scumbag 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that just because it says "fictional character" in the first line does not mean that the subject is treated as a fictional character in the article. For example, see Michael Myers (Halloween). The only out-of-universe information about this character is in the lead, the rest of the article treats Michael Myers as if he were a living person stalking the streets of some small town in Illinois. It needs to be plainly stated that inserting "fictional character" into the first sentence of an article does not mean the article meets the criteria of this guideline. Dmoon1 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not just if it's mentioned to be a fictional character, but if the over-all treatment is mostly out-of-universe. -- Ned Scott 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This was addressed some time ago by updating the {{in-universe}} template, but this article was not updated. Should be better now. Deco 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice! I'll remember to start using that one from now on, thanks! -- Ned Scott 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A TFD discussion that pertains to this guideline

{{Myst fiction}} is up for deletion here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 8#Template:Myst fiction. You are invited to share your thoughts in the discussion. — TKD::Talk 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes and succession boxes

Umbrella Corporation

Company type	Fictional — public
Industry	Pharmaceuticals Bio-Organic Weapons
Founded	Europe (1968) Date of collapse (1999-(2003)
Headquarters	Europe United States Antarctica
Key people	Ozwell E. Spencer Dr. Edward Ashford James Marcus William Birkin Albert Wesker
Products	Adravil Aqua Cure Safsprin Uspirim Tyrant B.O.W. Viral Weaponry Regenerate

I keep spotting real-world infoboxes, like the corp box, the military historical person box, or other real-world infoboxes on fictional universe pages. Can we add something to this guideline to discourage this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I personally would like to banish all in-universe material from infoboxes. It's a sad state of affairs that I'm currently in an edit war with someone who is probably 12 years old about whether Daffy Duck is the father of another cartoon character. -- BrianSmithson 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Such a ban would need to be worded carefully, to allow infoboxes in articles on fictional subjects where appropriate; i.e., stuff like "First appearance," "Creator," etc. Infoboxes are heavily overused in general, but if they are appropriate for other articles, there ought to be valid ways to use them for fictional subjects.--ragesoss 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian said that he wanted to eliminate in-universe fields from infoboxes in fictional articles. "First appearance" and "creator" (if you're referring to the creator of the fiction) are out-of-universe. — TKD::Talk 16:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. That's what I was trying to say.--ragesoss 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Using real-world infoboxes on fictional articles is probably unwise in most cases, but there are plenty of fiction-bases infoboxes that are specially designed for fictional pages, and do include in-universe facts (alligence, rank, birthplace, etc). I don't see any problem with those. --Tango 15:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that a middle ground would be to allow in-universe information if it is a basic/essential element of the fiction — information that would probably be worth mentioning in the lead. More trivial information — such as eye color, detailed "stats", minutiae only found in supplementary backstory — is probably best omitted. The problem with the "real-world" infoboxes is that they generally encourage pulling in that minutiae in order to fill out those infoboxes. Depending on the nature of the fiction, the items that Tango mentions may or may not be relevant to a particular series of characters (allegiance and rank are probably more likely to be germane to the story and appropriate to mention in the lead, birthplace less likely so). I personally like infoboxes as a quick tabular summary of important information; the operating adjective being important. — TKD::Talk 16:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should only be important information in infoboxes. I recently removed the hair colour/eye colour infomation from all the Stargate articles. I think the Star Trek articles still have it, though... --Tango 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally, isn't it incorrect for time-relative information such as "previous affiliations" and "status" to be a part of an infobox for a fictional character? --Chris Griswold 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. It should say "Affiliations prior to Season X" or "Status as of Season X", or whatever is appropriate for the medium in question. --Tango 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. Can we whack succession boxes too? Particularly ones like the ones on Vir Cotto, which until recently suggested a fictional character from 350 years in the future was the incumbant emperor of a non-existant race? Phil Sandifer 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, succession boxes don't make sense for fiction, which "occurs" anew each time it's read/watched. — TKD::Talk 05:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone added the "no real-world infoboxes" and "no succession boxes" to the guideline page itself, I would be a happy AMIB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Per the general agreement in this section, I've gone ahead and added a section about infoboxes and succession boxes. — TKD::Talk 06:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it? Historicising fiction is deliberately written so as to report from times long gone, and indeed, so is a lot of Fantasy. In fact, in written fiction, past tense is almost standard, so there's doubtful justification for claiming the contents "happens anew" with each instance of reading. Another problem is where to draw the line. Norse sagas are a happy mix of legends and history, up to and including having lines of probably purely mythical kings end with very historical personalities and the same holds true for many other noble houses who trace their ancestry to mythical figures. --OliverH 07:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The fiction itself may be in past tense, but I've yet to see a style guide that does not recommend the use of the historical/literary/narrative present tense for retelling fiction for the purposes of summary or analysis. In the case of mythology for example, you would say, "In the ancient Greek myth, Prometheus brings fire to the humans." Or something to that effect.

Further, responding to your point that sometimes the line between history and legend is blurred, you would do something like "Ancient peoples believed that they were granted this land by their deity. In one of the local legends, the deity says to ...". — TKD::Talk 10:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you missed the point completely. My reference to past tense was in relation to the comment that fiction "happens again" each time read. That is not any more correct than a claim that history repeats itself each time a narrative account of history is read. Your second point likewise misses the fact that the sagas contain long lists of successions of kings. Especially in the Hervarar saga, such lists are likely to start with mythical kings and end up with historically verified people. Both statements refer to the sense or lack thereof of including succession boxes. Referring to "ancient people believed" is a stretch when talking about a seamless succession list, especially in a context where no one has any idea where fiction ends and reality starts. --OliverH 10:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I misunderstood you. Thanks for explaining your point again. I was completely focused on the past/present tense issue that you had mentioned in the first couple of sentences, since that's a stylistic issue that's been raised before. I'd say the treatment of legends/mythology/religion, where real-world truth is mixed in, is a bit outside the scope of this guideline, which was designed with more decidedly fictional universes in mind. Perhaps a clarification needs to be made to this guideline, then? — TKD::Talk 10:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Oliver is talking about myth and legend here - at least not exclusively. Look at something like Matt Santos. The problem there is not that the West Wing is likely to retcon a new President between him and Bartlet. The problem is that the West Wing world, at some historical point, diverges from our own, and that if you traced the successions back in theory, you would eventually shift from fictional characters to real ones. This seems to me a much more pressing issue than the "work of fiction only exists when it is experienced" argument, which would be controversial, to say the least, in most English departments. Phil Sandifer 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(Unindenting) I like the text you've added, TKD. I think it addresses the points that have been raised here so far without going too far in any one direction.

Regarding mythology and legends, I admit it can be tricky. I've tackled the problem at, for example, Ewale a Mbedi, a figure of Duala legend known only from oral history. I opted for past tense, since the Duala themselves consider this person to have been historical. I'd treat the mythical rulers from Norse saga the same way. On the other hand, if I were writing an article on one Norse saga in particular, I'd opt for narrative present tense. OliverH, though, seems to be referring to things like The Lord of the Rings, which no one disputes is fictional. In this case, Wikipedia has a longstanding policy of using the narrative present tense. No one takes or has ever taken LotR to be true (aside from perhaps a few loons), and the narrative will be exactly the same if I read it today as it was when I first read it ten years ago. (Again, we probably should merge Wikipedia's three or four guides to fiction into this guideline. :)) -- BrianSmithson 14:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my point about past tense vs. present tense once more. The argument was that fiction '"occurs" anew each time it's read/watched'. My point was that this would require the fiction to be not just literally but linguistically contemporary to the act of reading/watching. While that could in theory be argued with some TV productions or movies, it is generally not the case with literature. Since it is written in past tense, the fiction does not "occur" when it is read, but rather it is recalled from a fictious past during which the events happened. That fictious past has just as much a chronology as the real past, with the chief difference between a narrative on the exploits of Charlemagne and a narrative of, say, King Elessar being that one actually existed, the other didn't. That one point, however, does not change the fact that the narrative depicts the events they encountered in a specific sequence -especially since without further research, we couldn't even tell if aside from the character of Charlemagne, anything else in the story is actually real and non-fictious. None of the events in either tale occur anew at the time of reading -in fact it was one of Tolkien's shticks that he was, in fact, 'translating' old texts. So my entire point in discussing past vs. present tense is that I don't think the argument that fiction occurs anew each time it is read or watched holds water. --OliverH 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Most written fiction is in past tense, but this doesn't mean that we should then describe it as if the stories depicted therein are no longer depicted there. Tolkien's conceit was that the books themselves were really old in our world; past tense is only appropriate if the story is from the past from within the fiction (such as a flashback; "In the 1989 film, Batman remembers that it was actually the Joker that killed his parents"). It might clarify the issue to say that a work of fiction always depicts the same thing, and doesn't stop depicting it even when subsequently published works continue the story. Boromir is always alive in Fellowship of the Ring (the Boromir article, btw, needs some substantial out-of-universe rewrite); he dies in The Two Towers. Mary Jane is always unaware that Peter Parker is Spider-Man in the first film; she learns that Parker is Spidey in Spider-Man 2. Postdlf 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)\

It's unscientific, but I searched "Frodo" on Google Books: [1]. Of the results on the first five pages, I could find only five that use past tense to describe the events of the The Lord of the Rings. This hardly sounds like a controversial topic except among people who enjoy writing about things as if they really happened (i.e., in universe). -- BrianSmithson 16:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with sucession boxes. Many stories have a set timeline, and it is known what orders things happened, so they can be shown in a box. It is meaningless to talk of an "incumbant", certainly, but who held the position before and after the person the page is about is encyclopedic information. --Tango 15:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's kind of harsh to just whack out info boxes from articles entirely just because the company is fictional. This is especially true given the fact that there are at least a dozen fictional company entries currently on Wikipedia using an infobox, including such higher profile pages as Weyland-Yutani and the Union Aerospace Corporation. I personally do not see what the big deal is. Yes they can be gathering places for topic minutia, but that isn't usually too big of a problem. Also they help to organize the article by providing pertinent info in one place and give the page an all-round cleaner look. If this is really such a horrible thing to do, why doesn't some one come up with a special "fiction" info box which is obviously different from the regular one? -- Grandpafootsoldier

I do happen to like infoboxes. They quckly and easily provide lots of interesting information about a subject without having to read the whole article. If I look up example a fictional company, then it is very useful for me to see in what industry the company is, and what products it make, so that I can know what the company is about without reading the whole article. I say, keep the infoboxes. -- Frap 08:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out before mass hysteria spreads any further in this discussion that this guideline does not suggest deletion of infoboxes (just succession boxes). The section on infoboxes states: For entities within fiction, useful infobox data would include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work. With loose continuity, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add. By contrast, a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance. Dmoon1 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sucession boxes

At time of writing, this article presently says: "succession boxes assume continuity, which may not exist. Even if it does exist, the fiction's creators may choose to rewrite it later, invalidating any previous canon. In-universe succession boxes cannot adapt to these situations." If continuity does not exist then fine, don't use succession boxes. But I don't think the second objection makes any sense. If a sequel to a piece of work is written which changes or retcons something, then any Wikipedia article on the subject can always be updated to reflect that. The fact that it is about fiction makes no difference: for example, the nonficiton articles about popes have succession boxes in them. If the Vatican one day decides that an antipope will henceforth be recognised as an official pope, then the succession boxes can be changed to reflect that. (I don't think that's a likely scenario, but it demonstrates that this is not a problem confined to fiction, and need not be a problem at all.) Going back to fiction: unless and until a sequel is written which changes something, it's ridiculous to say that you can't have a succession box because the succession might change one day. (Especially if the work of fiction is finished and complete, and there is no likelihood of a sequel, eg the author is dead. This policy seems to be aimed exclusively at comics.)

Anyway, the whole point of succession boxes (if I understand correctly) is not simply to make assertions of fact (eg. "A was followed by B") but to help the reader to navigate from one article to another relevant article that he might be interested in. So if, for example, someone has just enjoyed reading an article about President Bartlett from the West Wing and wants to read about the next fictional president, a succession box is an easy link to find, instead of having to scroll up several paragraphs of text to find the right link. It's a bit unhelpful to say that you can't use a succession box to find your way around connected articles just because there is a chance that years from now a writer might or might not change something.

I would suggest that succession boxes be allowed, but perhaps with some guidelines on their correct use, like we already have for infoboxes. Richard75 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would like some clarification about the exact rules regarding succession boxes. There was a debate about their use in Star Wars articles a few months back, and we ended up deleting them all (the rationale being that it encouraged fancruft). I was just about to purge them from several articles before I saw this, actually. EVula 18:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Richard75 is right that "it may be changed later" is not very solid reasoning for disallowing succession boxes. I personally think it's foolish to add them to articles on fictional topics since it is fancruft, and it's likely that the predecessor and successor of a given fictional character are not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about them. It also encourages treatment of the topic as if it were real, when Wikipedia's goal as laid forth by this guideline is to approach fictional topics as cultural artifacts from the real world and not as real things in a fictional world. — BrianSmithson 22:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to using succession boxes as a leapfrog into similar articles, I think that argument is rendered moot by the fact that a well-written article will make reference to such characters in the body of the article. Making a link easy to find isn't really the point of the project, though the ability to quickly navigate between topics is important; perhaps characters that would otherwise be in such a box should be listed in a "See also" section instead, with a slight notation that clarifies the relationship (ie: "Person Y succeeds Person X in the Unnamed People Chronicles storyline"). EVula 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But that is exactly what a succession box does. Why reinvent the wheel? Richard75 16:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The wheel was nice, but it is so twentieth century. We need something edgier, that really connects to today's "get it done" editor-on-the-go. EVula 16:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

An additional problem with succession boxes for fictional characters is that they encourage making articles for characters that are not notable, just to make the succession boxes work. Being the ruler of a real country may be considered notable in itself, so that every king of Sweden (for example) may merit his own article. Not every king of Numenor (for example) is talked about enough to deserve an article on his own--yet the succession box format implies that each of them does. Nareek 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Succession boxes are something I think we should discourage for all articles, even non-fiction, for these same reasons. -- Ned Scott 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But it would be tricky creating hard and fast rules on this. Sometimes a fictional succession may be solidly established with notable figures on it. Something like this might be a better guide line: "Before adding in succession boxes make sure the entries in the whole chain are notable ot there is little point in the succession (this goes double for fictional works where you should also establish how strongly canonical this succession is". Would it be possible to have some setting on succession and info boxes so that it can be clearly marked as fictional? You could give it different formatting and/or not allow or show specific information (like eye colour for fictional characters). (Emperor 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC))

I still don't see why we need a widget to duplicate a function the prose already accomplishes. Richard75 brought up the point of reinventing the wheel; the prose is already going to cover any successors worth noting, so why do we need to inflict succession boxes on articles, when they serve no additional purpose and will inevitable attract unclear or fanon successions, non-notable character links, or other cruft? Sboxes are slightly useful while also cluttering at best, but usually annoyingly useless and cluttering. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I can just barely imagine a case where a succession box for fictional characters would be not only justifiable but helpful to the reader. Something sort of like Dr. Who incarnations, except that I imagine those are separated by actor who are an out-of-universe feature. Maybe it's not worth allowing that rare exception because it would inevitably bring in a lot of uses where it's inappropriate. Nareek 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Missed this new discussion, but the exception that you describe is already allowed because this guideline only prohibits in-universe relationships from being described with succession boxes. — TKD::Talk 07:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The original case is back again

Grandpafootsoldier (talk · contribs) has been restoring the original case that brought all of this to my attention; use of {{Infobox Company}} in fictional corporation articles.

Some of the relevant articles:

• Shin-Ra
• Omni Consumer Products
• Union Aerospace Corporation
• Weyland-Yutani
• TriOptimum Corporation
• Kaiba Corporation (not Grandpafootsoldier, but relevant)

Just to be 100% clear, {{Infobox Company}} doesn't belong in these articles, correct? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oy. Yes, we shouldn't be using infoboxes designed for real-world entities on fictional ones, mostly because it tends to put undue emphasis on trivial details (i.e., what's important for real-world companies tends not to be for fictional ones). It's not verboten to use infoboxes specifically designed for fictional entities, but I'd be hard-pressed to come up with one for fictional companies that would be generally useful. — TKD::Talk 06:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to see four months of me arguing fruitlessly to that effect, see Talk:VersaLife. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

He missed Acme Corporation! — BrianSmithson 08:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Tense

Can I get a refresher again on the correct tense to use for writing about a cancelled TV show? I thought I was correct and being "out of universe" by having the lead say "Firefly was an American science fiction television series that premiered in the United States and Canada on September 20, 2002" - since it's no longer on the air, I thought it should be past tense there. Someone corrected me saying that I was being in-universe by doing so (which is ironic since I'm really trying hard to be out of universe and to bring all of the Firefly articles into confirmity with this). But when I mentioned Cheers is written with a past tense lead ("Cheers was a long-running American situation comedy produced by Charles-Burrows-Charles Productions in association with Paramount Television for NBC") they said that was different? How so? Very confused... I don't care either way, I just want it to be correct... plange 03:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• When describing the series itself, you would say was since it is no longer on the air. Present tense is used when summarizing the plot. Dmoon1 03:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Yet here was the wrist slap I got. Sounds like someone else is confused then? plange 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me to where this is spelled out? I can't find it on the main page for this. plange 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I am retracting my initial response. Even though the series no longer airs, it does still exist, so is might work better (and this is not an in-universe/out-universe matter). You would still use the past tense when describing things like the dates it aired: "The series aired between 1999 and 2002" or whenever. Dmoon1 04:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the guy who so cruelly slapped plange's wrist ☺ (who, by the way, has done a great job in bringing Firefly and other articles into conformity with WP styles and practices, and takes these criticisms very well — thanks, plange!). Tense is a challenge for any article, but it's especially tricky for creative works, where the work can last centuries (even millenia) beyond both its setting and its initial delivery. (And that doesn't even address the question of settings that have yet to be.) Perhaps one way to look at it is imagining, while writing, that you have discovered the work for the first time, and are sharing the information with your friends.

• Out-of-universe: This is an interesting show that does have several themes, all of which you can see right now. Any particular episode was originally aired on such-and-such date. Some action in this episode alludes to another one, or will have consequences in yet another. As of season X, the producers decided to introduce something new. The next season would have gone somewhere, but the show was cancelled. Now the show creator is doing something else, and perhaps will consider a sequel.
• In-universe: Characters do and say things, although they may have done something in this episode's past. Someone was a soldier before the start of the show, but now is a mercenary. Another will betray a comrade in the near future. The crew is unaware of events happening elsewhere that will affect them.

I'd hate to have to get into the technical tenses, which I don't remember all that well myself without checking a grammar book. I hope this gives some idea. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The work still exists, regardless to whether it's in production or even televised. Movies and books are still written about in the present tense despite creation, production, production, or publication being finished; despite their absense from theaters and bookstores. The work created still exists, perhaps until there is no way to convey it any longer.--Chris Griswold 05:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Can we somehow weave this into the check your fiction area or this page (wherever appropriate)? I got first sent down the wrong track very early when I first came to Wikipedia and our Firefly article had failed GA and the reviewer said that portions needed to be corrected to past tense and pointed to Cheers. Another person pointed me to "check your fiction" section of writing a good article and the only difference I could see was the past tense used in the lead, hence how I went astray. It's very hard for new people to sift and find all of these rules that everyone else just knows, so if this distinction could be added somewhere, that would help other noobs. I guess another task is to correct Cheers :-) Thanks! plange 15:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's problematic to point to an article as a good or bad example of anything, since it might be changed at any time. This is made worse by the fact that many readers of such advice are seeing it a year or two later, when the article may bear no resemblance to the version used as an example. I'm wondering if we have any best-practices recommendation of using version links (instead of ordinary wiki links) for pointing to examples. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles and featured article reviews can point to a determined version (in example, see Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker). Something similar could be used here. -- ReyBrujo 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This tense policy is a train wreck of awful. There's simply no way for long, complex articles to be written in the constant present ithout writing absolute rubbish. Take a look at any number of comic book character pages. Alan Scott is a perfect example, where I 'refined' the article to meet this standard, and now anyone reading it will wonder how it is that he is doing things in 6 decades simultaneously, but is not a time traveller. According to this standard, no character has a past, no character has a future, all previous deeds are occuring simultaneously, and no worthwhile biography can be achieved. Check a real encyclopedia, and characters can and DO have pasts. It's even more difficult in a comic book situation, where hundreds of issues exist, and more continue to come out. It's far more logical, reasonable, and legible to assume the current issue is 'the present' for the character, and that previous issues constitute a character's 'past'. That the reader can hold two issues, one from 1949 and one from 2006, in his/her hands and even read both as 'current events' for the character doesn't change the fact that for the 2006 issue, the events of the 1949 issue are the past. This policy creates poorly written, unscholarly pages which ignores the history in which a character exists by removing the context of the character's actions and choices by relegating them to the 'now', right along with the other 'now' where the first 'now's' events affect the second's. If nothing ever happened, but only happens, then there's no way the character ever progresses. ThuranX 16:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I will admit I had problems to implement this "present" stuff. However, you can use past tenses if you are talking about author's past actions (The character was designed by..., in example), or the character's past actions (The superhero's strength comes from moon Z, although the character has/d never had interaction with it according to the official timeline, or something like that). That is how I had to focus to change my style to fit the guideline (even before it was accepted as guideline). -- ReyBrujo 17:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Rey, but I believe you misunderstand. Accroding to the problems I've been up against, the character's past actions aren't 'past actions'. they are present actions,because someone, in theory, could read the 1944 issue and within it's own context, see it as the present. Although this ignores all common sense, and normal scholarship, it's the way Wiki wants it. the characters do NOT have pasts. No event in chapter 4 is followed by the events of chapter 5, and in fact, happens at the same time. Ishamel boards the ship just as the whale takes down ahab. The Yankee arrives in both Camelot and Connecticut at once. The flood is rising and Jesus is up on the cross, let's hope it floats. Nothing happens in sequence. It's this massive avoidance of common sense which is why the whole policy is bad. ThuranX 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

At least when I was writing literature analysis papers (which wasn't that long ago), I was told to narrate in the present tense, the literary or narrative present. One way to clarify the tense and to further solidify between the real-world universe an fictional one is to state which parts of the story portray which actions. For example, "In issues 45–50, published 1954, X is portrayed as...", or, "In chapter 5, the author continues the character development of the protagonist." Or something like that. The idea is to present the character clearly as a cultural artifact. — TKD::Talk 18:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a brief scan of the article, and the problem seems to be that the article is written from an in-universe persective; specifically, it's from the perspective of the chronology of the fictional universe rather than that of the character's publication history. Present tense often doesn't work if you're describing a character from the perspective of the fictional universe. But this guidelines advises agaionst that perspective as well. If you focus on which issues, story arcs, or writers (in real-world chronological order) develop which parts of the story, then you may find that the present tense will be natural in that style. — TKD::Talk 17:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

TDK is right. If you write about the character as if he or she is real, the present tense will not work. If you treat the character as an artifact of American/French/Italian/Cameroonian/whatever (popular) culture, then present tense is perfectly fine. This guideline advocates the latter approach. (Nothing really new to add; just agreeing. :) This page needs archiving, though. . . ) -- BrianSmithson 05:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with anime and manga

I propose this merge per KISS principle, per Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Both MOS and guidelines are growing and growing. This means less and less people will bother to read it at all. I think some effort is needed to make these newbie-friendly again. --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer: absolutely not. The anime and manga MoS is a topic specific MoS just like WP:FILM and the TV MoS (which is becoming a real MoS as noted in the message below). It deals with aspects not just related to "fiction", including quite a few industry specific topics. It is a well used, well understood project specific MoS. And unlike this thing, it hasn't had any real issues with disputes or the like. Our MoS is stable and works well. Every good project has a MoS. There is no reason at all to merge them. Will you also be proposing every other topical MoS be merged into WP:MOS? I'm going to presume you aren't in the Anime and manga project that you would even make such a suggestion, as you don't seem to have a clear grasp or understanding of what the project does or its full scope. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kubanczyk has generally done a good job on style guidelines when I've noticed, but I agree with Collectonian on this one. The key is that you're either working on manga or you're not; for the people who aren't, there's no point in making them read manga-specific guidelines, and the existence of manga guidelines doesn't create any extra work for them. However, I very much welcome Kubanczyk and anyone else joining the current push to make sure style guidelines are just as tight as possible, so that we minimize the amount of material that people read that they won't actually need. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. The MoS for anime and manga-related pages is ok on its own, and does not need to be merged with this controversial guideline. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:WAF and WP:MOS-AM have different aims: the former is guidelines for the microwriting (to use a jargon term) about all fiction and fictional topics, while the latter is about the structure, that is macrowriting, for a specific genre of fictions. I can't see them fitting together at all neatly. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Such a merge wouldn't even make sense. I fail to see how the guidelines provided support the merge - could you please elaborate on the matter? --Eruhildo (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with not merging. WAF isn't really about article structure and what to look for, but more about how you should go about writing your information when you attain it, appropriate sources, when to leave trivial details out of an article, and outlets for information that is relevant to the show but not to an encyclopedia. If you look at the Manga MOS, the FILM MOS, and the one that I'm working on for the TV community, they are more about article structure and what info you need to look for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that these two should not be merged. While I understand the nominator's reasoning, I think it has been misapplied in this case for the reasons already expressed by others above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to merging. MOS-AM is a project/topic specific page, while WAF is a very general style guideline. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)