Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 9

Real-world perspective Barnstar

Here's something to award to people who actually improve Wikipedia in fiction-related articles by including or expanding material related to real-world perspective. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 16:06, April 5, 2008

EPISODE merge

I've been working on a Manual of Style guideline (an official one) for the Television WikiProject (see User:Bignole/Television MOS), which should eliminate the need for any MOS information in EPISODE, allowing it to become strictly a notability guideline (or be removed outright, but that's another discussion). So, if people could bring their opinions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs#Update, that would be appreciated. This way we can get the ball rolling on that and remove this merge proposal that's been up there forever.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral (for now) - Allow me to premise by saying, I don't know the state of WP:EPISODE; the last time I saw it, it was a mess. Still, the concept of a directive on episodic content is not without merit, and the scope of such an article extends beyond television. Other mediums, such as radio, manga (yes yes, covered by anime and manga I suppose), comic books, whatever medium you can think of. I'm not wholey opposed to such a merge, (as nearly all episodic content indeed relates to fiction,) but I would rather like to see a possible draft of such a merge effort before supporting such an action. -Verdatum (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposoal over at Smallville pages

See Talk:Smallville (TV series)#Merge all character lists for discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So and so is a fictional character

Why do so many articles on television characters begin with the line, "so and so is a fictional character in so and so series"? Why fictional? Shouldn't that be obvious from context? An encylcopedia would never refer to a real person as a "character". Indeed, "so and so is a fictional character" is actively misleading in many cases. It makes it sound like a character is fictional within that show's universe, like Itchy and Scratchy in The Simpsons.

I also see this in articles on comic book characters. Look at the first line at Captain Marvel: "Captain Marvel is a fictional comic book superhero..." As opposed to a real comic book superhero? And this is supposed to be an example Wikipedia's best work? Sheesh.

Let's have a discussion about this, please. It's a real pet peeve of mine. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In the future, how about starting such a discussion before you go and change dozens of articles to remove your "pet peeve" when someone had already told you it was against the MoS (all have been undone, BTW, as you were told would happen). As for why we use fictional character, because the first sentence establishes the basics of the topic and establishes a real-world starting point. In this case, we are clarifying that the article is about a fictional character, versus a non-fictional character (and yes, there are such characters), and at least for the first sentence, writing about the character from an encyclopedic perspective. We do not just go "oh well, you'll figure it out from the rest of the article." It may seem overly obvious, but sometimes you have to lead the horse to water, and we want to be clear from the first sentence that this article is NOT about a real person. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's saying that, and he brings up a good point that we make it sound as if they're a character within the fiction. Perhaps we should say something else, like "a character of fiction"? -- Ned Scott 07:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see "X is a character in the fictional game Y" a lot, where X is a fictional character and Y is a real game. Madness. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

1) I wasn't told of the guideline until after I made my changes. 2)You're ignoring the main point of my argument: the fact that the wording makes it sound as if the characters are fictional within an already fictional universe. 3)Does anyone use the phrase "non-fictional character"? Most writers wouldn't describe Jamie Foxx's role in Ray in such terms, unless they had to distinguish Ray Charles from characters in the same film who weren't based on real people. I still think most readers will assume that "character" means "fictional character". 4)The Captain Marvel example is just inexcusable, I think. You speak about establishing a "real world starting point". So why must we describe Marvel as a "fictional superhero"? It's not like there are superheros in the real world. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, you were told per your own talk page, hours before you made the changes to all of the Office character pages. ANd no, I'm not ignoring the main point, I'm discounting it. They are fictional characters in a real work, not in a fictional universe. And hey, there was that whole super hero reality show, effectively making superheroes in the real world (even if they were stupid ones). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, I was warned at 6:16, 28 May 2008. I made my last edit to an Office page at 6:12. It's in the logs, plain as day. And regardless of whether those reality show participants are superheros, they're still not comic book superheros. "Comic book" is enough to show that so and so is fictional. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I misread the time there. Still, once you started the discussion, you should have waited rather than turning around and redoing one of your changes hours after the warning there and an hour after starting a discussion here[1]. And no, comic book isn't enough to show something is fictional. There are comic book depictions of real life events, not all are purely fictional.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed McClure because that line is still misleading to me. It's embarassing to see that in an article on the front page. I did what I thought (and still think) is right. McClure is not fictional in the show's universe, which is what that line suggests. That line puts him in the same class as characters like Itchy and Scratchy, who are cartoon characters watched by Bart and Lisa. (Incidentally, how would we describe Itchy and Scratchy? As "fictional fictional characters"? Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the use of fictional character in the first line. Moreover, this should be always linked to explain what a fictional character is. Linking to that is much better than [[fiction]]al character. We have to make clear that the individual in the article doesn't exist and it's only a product of fiction. I think we have to remove phases like "born in October 20, 1960" which certainly should be under a section called "fictional biography" or something like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a "fictional biography" to begin with, because if you have that then people will want to include anything. Plus, no fictional character is "born", just like no fictional character truly "dies", because the great thing about fiction is that when you "die" you can always come back. Now, you can make note when discussing the character's publication by stating something like "Captain America was originally present during World War II..." or something like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with AnmaFinotera's point of the fictional/non-fictional character. If you say, "X is a character in the fictional Y" then that doesn't identify if the character is fictional or non-fictional. Oh, and the fact that you don't see it that often doesn't mean that if a non-fictional character warranted an article that we shouldn't use the "non-fictional" term to describe them. As for the idea of "there aren't fictional superheroes", or something similar, I'll give you the Loch Ness theory: Can you prove that? There are no definites in life. There are high probabilities. There's nothing that states we couldn't have a real life Batman, or Iron Man, or someone similar prowling the rooftops at night. Vigilantes are not non-existent.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the term "fictional biography" is not the best. "Character's storyline" or something like that is better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a desperate argument. And even if those figures existed, they still wouldn't be called "comic book" superheros. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think I understand why Awbizkomeydownstar doesn't like the fictional character qualification. Although I agree that it's necessary on many articles, let's not forget that it started mainly as a substitute for real real-world context writing, which many fan-writers are incapable of and unwilling to learn about. That's why we're stuck with loads of articles which are mere plot summaries or, worse, 'fictional biographies' with the real-world context ridiculously reduced to the word fictional in the lead. dorftrottel (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

About "born". Check Ismo Laitela for example. "Laitela (born 27 June 1955 in Tampere is a controversial character blah blah blah". This is terrible. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For one thing, birthdate is trivia for most characters; probably a one-off reference in a single episode or issue, or whatever, because it isn't going to be defining for that character in the way that debut publication/broadcast date would be, or that a real birthdate is for a real person. There are exceptions (Jenny Sparks, the children in Midnight's Children), but even in those cases to introduce it in the manner of a real birthdate is to present it completely without context and therefore without meaning. Postdlf (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the need to distinguish, and just as one incidental possibility, I tried out a change today from "early life" of a fictional character to "background of the character". DGG (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Maybe it's time to write down some instructions for other editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What should and should not be in a character article

Not to try to hijack the above discussion, but the last few point raise some issues that should really be worked out better. We tell editors that character articles should not be biographies, but that leaves things a bit open ended. I suggest we should outline a few points of what are acceptable points to include and what are not. For example, the above discussion points to the fact that an exact birthdate is rarely needed. I realize that these are somewhat subjective, but I think outlining what are good and bad example articles and why those are the case will help clean up both character articles and lists. --MASEM 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea of giving more specific instructions in order to help editors write better articles. Check for example User_talk:Magioladitis#Blake's 7 Status Removal that a discussion about "status" is taking place in many different Talk pages with the same result. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Television MOS that I've worked on (see User:Bignole/Television MOS) address character articles. If we're going to get specifics for general fiction characters, then I think it would be good that (pending the Television MOS goes through) all pages .... be on the same page (pardon the pun).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that what you have there is good for a general character article, but I'm thinking about more specifically about what in-universe details that should and should not be included for a character in general, regardless if its an article or a small section in a larger one about a character. --MASEM 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good compliment to the general structure of the article. I would be fearful of WP:CREEP.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That what I was expecting. Bignole's article it's a great idea. I was planning to contribute there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way,, can anyone give an argument why they should not contain a substantial part that is a biography? I see some character articles as a often better approach to summarizing plot, epecially of a series, and I think that's a validuse of them. DGG (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First, they aren't real, and a "biography" would kind of be treating them like they were. "Biography" is misleading when you are dealing with fictional characters. If someone wants to write a "biography" for another Wiki, or just publish a book on it then great, but "biographies" on fictional characters generally lend themselves strictly to fans. Second, not everything that happens to a character is relevant, important, encyclopedic, or just plain interesting. Do I, or anyone else for that matter, need to know that Character X ate Cheerios for breakfast one episode? Most likely not. Do we need a walkthrough of their every movement in a show or comic book? Not when you can summarize their actions without having to detail every minute aspect of them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To restate in another way, the format of a "biography" simply doesn't work for fictional characters because they don't live out sequential lives, and what is important to a real person is not necessarily important to a fictional character. A character's story is told in bits and pieces, sometimes depicted as the main narrative action, sometimes merely referred to in dialog as having already happened, and particularly when that character is developed across multiple works of fiction often not in a chronological order. A "biography" would ignore that context, and so would fail to give proper weight and treatment to various story elements, and would fail to describe how that character was developed and presented to an audience. It matters whether a character's childhood was the subject of ten TV episodes or only one conversation in one scene of one episode and then never commented on again, or if a character's backstory was revealed when he was introduced or not until after decades of publication. We don't pretend that we're writing an encyclopedia entry from within that character's fictional world, which would really be the least interesting way to do it because it would leave out all the real-world information that Wikipedia is about. Postdlf (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We still need a better intro in articles on fictional characters

OK, I'll concede that we need to spell it out for the readers when a character is fictional. But I'm still not satisfied with the stock intro in character articles: "[so and so] is a fictional character in [so and so series]". Barely anyone has addressed my point that this can cause readers to wrongly assume that a character is fictional within the universe of that franchise, like Itchy and Scratchy or Radioactive Man in The Simpsons. Ned Scott did suggest using the phrase "character of fiction", but unfortunately I think this would cause similar misinterpretations.

Does anyone have any comments? The best I can come up with is to keep the "fictional character" phrase in a separate sentence. Example: "Troy McClure is a fictional character. He is a recurring character on the animated series The Simpsons." However, I'll admit that that's not the most elegant prose. We do need something better than what we have now, though. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree per the length conversation already gone over once above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you disagree about, specifically? You don't think the stock wording is potentially misleading? The other conversation turned into an argument about the existence of "non-fictional characters". I'm done with that. This is a distinct issue, relating to the quality of the prose. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the stock wording is not misleading. Many featured and GA character articles having the same phrasing. Said articles have been well reviewed, including by copyeditors who deal specifically with prose, tone, etc. You are the only person I've ever seen have any problem with it or to find it misleading at all. It isn't misleading. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So because no one else has mentioned it, I must be wrong? Do realize that a lot of crap gets through the FA process. Count how many problems you can find in this version of the McClure article. I did a lot of work on the article during the weekend before it reached the main page. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Characters that exist as part of shows-within-a-show are still fictional; some real person had to create that person at some point. The distinction of being a character of a show-within-a-show is not significant in the first sentence, but should be clarified in the second sentence of the lead. For example, Itchy and Scratchy are fictional characters from the television show "The Simpsons". They are a cartoon cat and mouse, respectively, that appear on the fictional show "The Itchy and Scratchy Show" within the series. (I'm not looking at the actual article, just an example off my head). --MASEM 18:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I actually like the intro from Radioactive Man: Radioactive Man, within the world of the animated series The Simpsons, is a comic book superhero who... And it elegantly avoids the 'fictional' qualifier. On a related note: I don't think the fiction-in-fiction quality about e.g. Radioactive Man is of utmost importance. Mentioning this particular quality of a character somewhere later in the intro and in the discussion in the article body is sufficient. But primarily, Radioactive Man is still precisely this: A fictional character in the series The Simpsons. dorftrottel (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing that the "fiction-in-fiction quality" is of utmost importance. And I agree that both McClure and Radioactive Man are ultimately fictional. My argument is that readers might misinterpret the intro of Troy McClure as saying that he is fictional within the show. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's very likely. At any rate, reading beyond the first sentence clears such questions up, that's why there is more than one sentence. One option, besides sorting into Category:Metafictional characters, is to explain (and something to that effect could imo be added to WAF) that second order fictional characters like e.g. Radioactive Man are fictional fictional characters. dorftrottel (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot more likely than someone thinking Troy McClure is a real person, which is what other editors are worried about.

As an aside, is "fictional fictional character" a real term? There are no Google book hits for it: [2]. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be more likely, but failing to make the distinction between real-world and fictional (in the entire article, but also and especially at the beginning) is far worse than failing to (immediately) distinguish between first, second and n-th order fiction. When all is said and done, the fact that Itchy & Scratchy are second order fictional entities is of comparatively minor importance when compared to the basic information that they are fictional characters in The Simpsons. Also: I had never heard or read the term 'FFC' either. I prefer the generic order nomenclature for this set, but I made it up myself. dorftrottel (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should make a distinction between the real world and the fictional. And I agree; we don't need to immediately indicate that a character is "second order fictional". However, we shouldn't lead readers to think that a character is second order fictional when that character is not. We need a wording that eliminates all possible misinterpretation. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That's certainly an honorable plan (and I can very much relate to having such things as pet peeves), but should iyo all of those articles have the exact same wording? You see, I mentioned FFC because I just now stumbled upon it, and because (much like with FC) it could imo be established as a useful 'signal word'. On a Wikipedia-wide scale, such things begin to work intuitively both for readers and editors only after a while, i.e. more or less regular readers would then know that the character is of the first order simply because the link goes to FC instead of FFC. My suggestion is to look up all related articles and change the wording and link accordingly to FFC. I wouldn't worry too much about people mistakenly thinking that a character is second order. FFC is the special case, FC the normal and by far more prevalent case. Most (usual) people (unlike you and me, maybe?) wouldn't really need a qualifier for the normal case, much like they don't need to be explicitly told that something or someone is not fictional (which would be the logical extension of your reasoning). dorftrottel (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While I can understand your concern Awbiz, I highly doubt the average reader would ever even think if such a thing. I didn't until I read this discussion just now and I have a tendency to over think such things. Second order fictional characters are not that common compared to first order ones. While I haven't checked, my guess is the majority of Wikipedia's articles on fictional characters are about first order fictional characters. I think readers would assume that an article on a fictional character is about a first order one unless told otherwise since first order fictional characters are more prevalent. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

New MOS for TV

The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How to write a plot summary

I've got a draft of an essay giving guidance on how to write a plot summary at User:Phil Sandifer/Plot. This came out of the notability debates - I wrote it to try to give good non-deletion based ammunition to people who want to curb bad plot summaries, and to try to make it easier to teach people instead of just undoing their work. I think it's pretty good, but I welcome comments. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's great, but your target audience will never read it, let alone follow your good advice because "It's not policy" ... user:Everyme 20:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's consistent with everything in WAF, PLOT, and whatever the existing plot summary guideline is. I can move it into WP space and tag it as a guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless it says Policy at the top, it will be totally disregarded as being 'just a guideline'. Meanwhile, attempts continue to remove #PLOT from WP:NOT... I'm all with you, but see Carcharoth's section below. Encyclopedic enthusiasm is losing to fan enthusiasm on a daily basis. user:Everyme 21:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to feel that way, but over all we've made a lot of great improvements to our coverage on fiction. We're still moving in the right direction, it's just that there's a lot of noise going on. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Does our moving in the right direction explain my reluctance to even nominate any of the "articles" in Category:Animorphs books for deletion, e.g. Visser (novel), because there's a ~95% chance they will be kept? user:Everyme 04:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, we probably ought to have an article on that book. Just... not that article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Animorphs books - I'd nominate them, but rather than just note the issues with WP:PLOT, concentrate the fact that they fail WP:BK. General result will either be delete or merge to a series page. Other similar formula type stuff has been merged to their series page, while some non-fiction books have been merged back to their author page for the same reason - even though it had no plot at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this funny or scary?

See here. Hilarious but also scary in some ways. Found it in the Signpost. Crossposted to WT:FICT. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is scary, and it's not the first such article to criticise Wikipedia's ridiculous systemic bias in overall coverage. What do you expect? Some folks are fighting like crazy to squeeze in every last plot information from the millionth Star Wars novel — and they are getting their way on a daily basis. Scary indeed, but do something about it. user:Everyme 20:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If only it were true - the issue here is that World War II is a main article under which we have articles on well over a hundred battles. This is not true of Call of Duty (series). Our World War II coverage is more in detail than any other encyclopedia short of a specialist encyclopedia on World War II, and it's foolish to suggest otherwise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it's a suboptimal example, but the gist of the article is correct. user:Everyme 21:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The WWII example is out of whack, but some are quite astute (comparing War and Peace to Metal Gear Solid 4, for example). --Phirazo 20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Err... --Kizor 07:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Star Wars full stop user:Everyme 08:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but with Star Wars we're dealing with 12 hours of films, and God only knows how many pages of books and comics. Which is to say, there's vastly more plot there - it's difficult to compare. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the size of the franchise. It does merit due coverage. But the coverage is undue, it's blown out of all proportion. Part of the reason is that most Star Wars fans are stuck in the "make-believe phase", they never mature to the analytical deconstruction phase, which in turn is absolutely necessary to write about it encyclopedically. The average density of our coverage of Star Wars is unacceptably thin. user:Everyme 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make general accusations like that. I would consider myself a fan of Star Wars, but I'm not stuck in a "make-believe phase" in the least bit, and I have matured to the analytical deconstruction phase thank you very much. Please don't assume that just because a person likes a particular thing, that means they think and act like a child. [/rant] --Eruhildo (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, but a fairly accurate description of facts. Something to consider at the very least. And I am twice the Star Wars fan you are. user:Everyme 05:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the word "most" in your comment - makes a huge difference in meaning. ^_^; You're right, hardcore fans of anything are usually a bit wacky and immature. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone in this discussion ever hear about NOT PAPER? W should write about everything that the world considers of some importance that we possibly can with the people available. That said, I wish we had more people here interested in historical events, and important things in the past 3000 years of the world in general, than in Star Wars. But that does not mean I would in the least inhibit the people who do care about that fiction, or any other--just hope that in browsing Wikipedia they develop other interests as well. DGG (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not well said. Ever hear of WP:BIAS? Your statement makes sense only from the assumption that there are efforts to delete valid articles, which is most clearly not the case at all. But do I see the strong necessity to actively discourage editors from adding yet more imbalance to Wikipedia's overall coverage? Yes, absolutely. How that could be done, I don't know, but we need to somehow do it. One way is to unwaveringly insist on reliable secondary sources to establish real-world notability. Too much editorial leeway has been granted to the people adding popular culture material. How much more evidence do we need that those articles are never going to be fixed, because their authors are too busy creating the next five or ten likewise substandard "articles"? user:Everyme 18:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"which is most clearly not the case at all". Sorry, but that's your personal POV and as such not a valid guideline for policy. "Imbalance" to Wikipedia's coverage is typical pseudo-cultural talk that ignores that popular culture IS culture -which would be clear to anyone who actually reads secondary sources instead of just demanding them from others for every article that one dislikes. Your personal declaration of coverage as "undue" or "imbalanced" has, sorry to say, precious little to do with preventing bias, and a whole lot with introducing it. You may regret what constitutes culture today, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia doesn't have an obligation to cover it, whether you like it or not. --OliverH (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"the assumption that there are efforts to delete valid articles, which is most clearly not the case at all". Sorry, but that's your personal POV and as such not a valid guideline for policy. — First off, I love it when people fail to understand the difference between a meta-discussion and the project. But actually, your reply makes no sense at all. I wasn't proposing or indeed saying anything related to policy. I was talking about the constant personal attacks against people who are arguing for the upholding of encyclopedic standards. "We" "deletionists" are not "destroying" content (as in: valid encyclopedic content), and insinuating that we do, and especially that it is our goal, is a personal attack. Period. And secondary sources are not some fancy luxury — they must exist and be included in the article on page creation. Since you replied to the underlined quote, do you believe that there are efforts to delete valid articles? If so, bring it to admin attention immediately. But never say it, as you do when you say that my statement isn't true and "just my POV", without having irrefutable proof for such allegations, preferably in the form of diffs. I know that some rabid inclusionists try to put the "destroyer" label on everyone who believes in encyclopedic standards. But if and when, as you did above, someone resorts to alleging that there are efforts to actually destroy valid content, then put up (with evidence, in the appropriate forums) or shut up. Also, you apparently don't get any of what I said. I agree that popculture must be covered. But it should be covered in due detail, and that's far from what is happening. The main reason for that is that most people who only ever write about popculture do so because they erroneously think that it's easy and doesn't require any specialist knowledge. Well, they couldn't be more wrong. Properly writing about fiction is a really tough job, which most people are simply unfit for. user:Everyme 11:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You merely prove my point: You demand evidence from others, but consider it unnecessary to support your own claims with evidence. You're perfectly correct that properly writing isn't easy -regardless of the topic. Judging what constitutes proper writing, however, is even harder. It certainly isn't enough to make bold claims that some things are plain obvious, as you did above. This is only underscored by your simply postulating a difference between "meta-discussion" and the project. I hate to tell you this, but there is none. Meta-discussion deals with process and a flawed process can produce articles you personally can drool over as many as you want, but it makes for a broken product anyway. Meta-discussion IS the project. An individual article is part of the product of the project. You go even further, you complain about alleged personal attacks by others, but have no hesitation to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is simply unqualified to see the obvious and doesn't believe in encyclopedic standards. As long as your only argument is wholesale defamation of anyone who doesn't share your views, you have no argument. Certainly not one of "encyclopedic standards" which, in truth, are merely your own preferences. This makes your demand for difflinks plain dishonest. Since you demand for yourself and ONLY those who agree with you the right to define what constitutes valid encyclopedic content, you can ignore any and all such difflinks, simply defining what was deleted as invalid. That is why for a credible and sound procedure, such criteria must be supported with evidence. As long as you invent a lack of necessity for such evidence, you're not talking about encyclopedic standards -and frankly, I have to doubt that you or a lot of the self-proclaimed defenders of "encyclopedic standards" actually understand how an encyclopedia is put together today. It is the luxury of Wikipedia that it doesn't have to sell its contents. A luxury, unfortunately, that allows you the luxury of not actually considering issues any modern encyclopedia has to consider and thus declaring your actual LACK of encyclopedic standards as your own standard. --OliverH (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This has got to be the most pointless wikilawyering I've ever seen. Please, at least try to make a point. And, as much as I hate to cite WP:CIVIL, please make yourself familiar with it. user:Everyme 13:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You continue to merely talk about standards. How about abiding by them yourself? Citing WP:CIVIL while ignoring it is perhaps not the wisest of moves. The fact that you refuse to concede my point is not surprising, but that doesn't mean I didn't make it. Fact is that your "encyclopedic standards" are based on nothing but your say-so. As such, you have no case at all but simply try to make your own prejudice pass off as external standards. Produce a reference for them or stop trying to BS other people with an appeal to a fake authority. End of story. --OliverH (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, Wikipedia people as a whole make the standards, and we who are here can make them whatever we collectively choose--determined not just by what people choose to write, but by what rules they decide to adopt and to follow. That's the essence of open content, such as this wiki, and of a wiki-like organisation. What people choose to come here and write about cannot be controlled. Various people separately or in more or less distinct groups can attempt to influence the rules, and the manner of organisation here is very susceptible to influence by small coherent groups, as participation in all decision processes depends on who chooses to appear. But still what any small group says must tacitly be accepted by the whole, or it will be a dead letter. If it turns out that half out content would be about popular culture then that's what we'll have, and we can have all the details copyright law permits if that's what people want as long as theres a source--and for matters involving content of fiction, the primary source is acceptable, so almost everything discussed under this heading is sourcable.

For those who would like the encyclopedia different than it is, they are welcome to form a fork. All the content that they wish to take is usable under GFDL, and the software is open source. It's been done before. I'm even associated myself with some of those projects for a more academic blend of content--a person can work on more than one. DGG (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

. Anyone who wants a different encyclopedia I

Request for comment at Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

There is a request for comment at Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), regarding the inclusion of the characters surname in the lead sentence. More opinions are needed. Please read the most recent discussion, Talk:Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Name Redux, to understand why each side is opposing/supporting the inclusion of the name in the lead. Thank you. 11:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fictional character in ________

Here's an often encountered problem. But, first, an example:

Jimmy Tart

Jimmy Tart is a fictional character in the TV series Bob's World.

See the problem? in the sentance, it seems as if, in the Tv show, Jimmy Tart is fictitous. Now, if Jimmy Tart is the main villan, in the show's universe he must exist in the show's universe.

A better way of saying it would be: Jimmy Tart is a fictional character who appears in Bob's World'.

Not sure if this is the right place to put this but...

PS. Sometimes it's worse. See: Jimmy Tart is a character in the fictional TV series Bob's World. But I know "Bob's World" real, I watched an episode yesterday!

PS. There is no show named "Bob's World", it's just an example.

Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See above. I still believe it's highly unlikely that many, let alone the majority of readers would intuitively arrive at the conclusion that "Jimmy Tart is a fictional character in the TV series Bob's World" means that the character is second order fictional. I think a far better idea is to improve the clarity in those articles about actual second order fictional characters. "Jimmy Tart is a character in the fictional TV series Bob's World" is clearly wrong unless the series Bob's World is actually fictional. If you come across something like that, don't hesitate to boldly change it. user:Everyme 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, that I don't see where the average reader is going to assume that Jimmy Tart is a fictional fictional character when reading that statement. I never have since I started coming to Wikipedia. Personally, I don't really think that the current way, or your proposed way are of any consequence. If someone wishes to write it as "appears in" that's fine. If they wish to write it as "in the TV series", that's fine as well. I would say that I wouldn't suggest going around and changing every page, but I don't believe that there is a concrete standard for writing the opening, other than to make sure you say that they are in fact a fictional character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• See also Hypercorrection and try to relax. user:Everyme 10:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

I do not think our citation of this page is appropriate. WP:UNDUE speaks exclusively of viewpoints. A plot summary is not a viewpoint. There are issues of appropriate weighting to be considered in fictional articles, but those issues are separate from WP:UNDUE, and we ought not cite a policy that is not actually about what we are trying to say here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is more with the formulation and focus of WP:NPOV rather than the appeal to its spirit as cited in this guideline. Stupid and singleminded infighting has led to a suboptimal status quo for NPOV (even including the policy name imho), which idiotically and in full conflict with the true spirit of accuracy and all its various aspects focuses mostly on things like political and religious POV. Past proposals to rewrite and widen the scope of NPOV to better reflect the formative spirit behind it have always been rejected by status quo defenders. That shouldn't prevent us from doing the right thing here, and I certainly don't view it as a valid reason to dumb down the spirit and ideal of universal accuracy in all aspects of an article to the poor state of the NPOV policy page. It's UNDUE that needs to be revised and expanded, and I'm right there with you if you are to try and bring it up to snuff. user:Everyme 23:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that the question of appropriate weight outside of POVs is key, but I think it is appropriately treated as separate from WP:NPOV. In this case, I think it's simpler to strengthen our phrasing here and stop relying on a policy page that doesn't really support what we're trying to make it do. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

the question of appropriate weight outside of POVs is key — That's basically my own opinion, but I cannot entirely agree that it is appropriately treated as separate from WP:NPOV, i.e. if by "appropriately treated" you mean that it doesn't pose a major problem in some batches of articles, namely e.g. in-universe writing / overlong plot summaries for fiction articles, or aspects like selection, placing and total number of images for many articles (both fiction-related and other). But ok, let's work on the assumption that we can more efficiently help improve the situation by clarifying and elaborating on appropriate weight outside of POVs (I like that term). Why don't you amend the section to what you think is effective and appropriate so we can discuss the nuances of it here. user:Everyme 01:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please let me know, everyone, what you think of these changes. Further tweaking here. user:Everyme 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Though I'm not sure it needs the citation to NPOV at all - do we really have many undue weight POV problems on fiction articles? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had initially omitted it, but then thought that moderately experienced users may intuitively make the same connection to NPOV/UNDUE as I did and so decided to leave it in to emphasise the distinction. user:Everyme 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Should fictional characters and objects only be categorized in categories such as "Fictional foo" rather than foo itself? Andjam (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested external link: WikiIndex

Hi, I recently added an external link to www.wikiindex.org to the "see also" section of list of alternative outlets for in-universe writing. My change was reverted with a note that it needed to be discussed first. So here I am. :-)

Currently, at the bottom of the list is a "see also" pointing to Wikipedia's list of wikis. While this is a good idea, there's not much on that page that hasn't already been listed here. An editor looking for a specific universe or genre is unlikely to find it there. However, in the external links of that list, I did run across WikiIndex, which is a "wiki of wikis" intended for listing, defining, and categorizing all of the various wikis out there (on all topics, not just fiction). I have since become an editor there and while the site is in its infancy compared to Wikipedia, I feel that it could be a useful resource to someone trying to find a wiki about a specific fictional universe. Thus, I added a link to it here in this article after the link to the list of wikis.

In keeping with the spirit of WP:EL, I considered this to be "a well-chosen link to a directory of websites" rather than a link "mainly intended to promote a website". However, another editor feels differently. So, what are the objections? Thanks for your input, GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really of value on this page, and as it is already linked to from List of wikis, I see no reason at all to duplicate it here, seemingly to give it a higher priority/value than other such pages. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fictional history of

Reading this, I'm unclear how articles such as Fictional history of Spider-Man and Fictional history of Wolverine exist? The whole rationale of such articles is to provide in-universe plot summary. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! These articles have a 100% in-universe point of view. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

But worse than that, it's explicitly built into the article via the title and the rationale that it provides - those are just examples of a wider problem. How we tackle it, I'm not sure. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

These are sections simply split from the main articles due to length. (per WP:SIZE.) Which I believe that [[User:Cameron Scott] knows, since he nominated them recently for AfD... - jc37 14:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually only one of them - I was surprised to find more of the same. I'm more interested in the general point - from what I read here, plot summaries are an acceptable section of an article, they should not *be* the article. So an article that explicitly sends out to provide a in-universe fictional article seems to a no-starter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, comics and favorite television shows have long been given a free pass and extreme leniency in such areas than other stuff. It sucks, its unfair, its fairly blatant favoritism, but that's how it always seems to be. See for other examples, the Simpsons, Lost, and soap opera articles, or the insane number of unnotable albums. Personally, I think all of those articles should either be deleted outright or merged back to their main articles. A fictional history should not be so massive it has to be split out from a character article, period. But, unfortunately, I suspect you will find that it will not happen anytime soon, even if the recent RfC decrees that all spin-outs must be notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If readers want to know about plot, there should be external links at the bottom of the article to cover that. But extensive plot is not something we need in articles. Unfortunately, fixing all of this will be a very long and drawn out battle. --Eruhildo (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The recent RFC, of course, decreed no such thing. That view had majority support, but not consensus support, and a contrary view also had majority support, indicating a thorny issue at best.

Personally, as someone who does real academic research on popular culture topics, I find our plot summaries enormously useful resources for refreshing my memory, evaluating whether something is worth a deeper look, or for basic background research. I think it's important to walk a line between providing succinct plot summaries and becoming a fan repository, and that this guideline has always attempted to show where that line is. But the vehement commitment to waging a battle against my ability to use Wikipedia as a resource strikes me as unfortunate at best. There is a compromise position between Wikipedia as a fan guide and the complete scouring of all substantial plot summaries, and it's frankly depressing to see so many people willing to avoid such a compromise in favor of fucking me over. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While I would agree that keeping these articles in their current state is a problem, I also agree there's some allowance for something like this here. The problem (I'm no way a S-M authority here, I'm going by what I read) is that we the fictional history of the character, and then the general plot development over the "official" comic series. I would be very careful to allow a non-notable detailed fictional history as it is given, with the basic biographical details should be incorporated into the main Spider-Man article (it seems to be mostly covered there already); the other aspects, more specifically the various plot arcs of the comic book should be covered in The Amazing Spider-Man and other comic book articles as an akin of "list of episodes" - not specifically listing each book but the general summary of the works - which the RFC suggests is a reasonable allowance for a non-notable article. --MASEM 21:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In practice, I think one of the biggest problems here is that the primary source texts don't really support reading Spider-Man as a continual narrative of the sort these articles suggest. (And within a few months I'll even have a peer-reviewed article published saying just that. :)) On the other hand, there are certainly Spider-Man stories we want to provide some summary of. I think a conversion to a list-of-episodes style approach - Spider-Man storylines or something - is a good change to these articles. But deletion seems to me a poor idea - as woeful as these specific articles are, they are useful starting points. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I'm particularly satisfied that while we don't really want "list of <comic> books", a "list of story arcs in <comic>" is a worthwhile cause. There's a couple reasons for this: first is the comparison to a list of episodes which is the type of case that past AFDs and the WP:N RFC support as allowance. Mind you, this has to be written concisely and without speculation and sourcing the comics (as they do). But the second aspect, particularly for something like Spider-Man or X-Men is that there is bound to be a reliable third-person, and at worst, primary source that clearly delineates the plot arcs so that the definition of each plot arc is not some arbitrary fan thing. The third, and more beneficial part, is that there actually may be good reception of certain arcs (much as the Death of Superman arc got a lot of attention at the time) that would boost the notability of the article, making it even more encyclopedic and less a problem for naysayers about such articles. This may require pointing to sources that aren't routinely considered reliable but can be shown to be such. Not every comic can be treated in this way, but I'm both topics here can be done like that.

In generally, I'd rather see more plot details moved away from breaking it down by characters and instead breaking it down by the work. The characters description (whether in a list or its own article) should only touch on key plot points and points that may be better to understand the character but don't have a significant influence on the larger plot itself. In this case, the Fictional History articles are written from the POV of the character, but 90% of the text can be kept to make this from the POV of the comic book, removing a few extraneous details on the characters and relocating them, if possible, to the character's entry. This helps to prevent plot duplication - one of the primary concerns when having separate articles covering the same fictional work - and make things flow better for both. --MASEM 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My only hesitation here is the issue of crossovers - both explicit (Death of Superman) and implicit (the so-called Triangle era of Superman when four titles basically comprised a de facto weekly book). I'd still go by story arcs for characters for that reason, and break that article into sub-articles based on era instead of title. It is more useful, to my mind, to have Spider-Man stories of the 1980s containing Spider-Man stories published in any comic than to have Amazing Spider-Man stories. This also lets us deal with something like Crisis on Infinite Earths, which is without a doubt a major Flash and Supergirl story, even if it didn't appear in their books. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a degree of sense to that, especially where there are specific arcs and/or limited series that have been, or can be broken out into separate articles. That doesn't mean every arc or title needs an article, but those that deserve one - by notability, weight, complexity, whatever - can have the Cole's/Cliff's Notes moved out of a "main" article for space and flow. The "main", be it a character, "character history, or "storyarcs" article can then refer readers to the article by link, {{seealso}}, or a "See also section", depending on how the "main" is structured. - J Greb (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)True. I guess the key point to bring home here is that articles called "Fictional history of..." beg to be deleted as they scream "in-universe", but the same information arranged in an out-of-universe manner (whether per character, per comic title, per decade of the characters) is much more likely to be considered encyclopedic. Care needs to avoid duplication if possible (crossover arcs may be one where {{seealso}} can come into play. It may take a couple of whacks for the more convoluted crossovers to be worked out, but again, this is why that any significant series is likely going to have a third-party source that one can used as a starting point to break them apart and to help here. Thus, I recommend not deleting these two articles, but note they are a work in progress until a better format is figured out. --MASEM 22:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Should these articles go for AfD? What was the result of the only AfD so far? Constructing a "biography" for these characters, I think is original research, isn't it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem to me to be original research in a sense that we deem problematic in other circumstances. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OR crops up in reader/fan level nitpicking and gaff explaining. If that is avoided, what is left will be a compression of the primary source with, hopefully, information from solid secondary and tertiary sources. - J Greb (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

These articles shouldn't exist for so many reasons, but fan enthusiasm (which I sometimes suffer as well) will prevent any serious merge or deletion debates (that's why they continue to exist). Most fiction series suffer from waning fan interest after a while so that the articles can be finally be merged/deleted. For all longterm fan favorites like Superman, only dated tagging and repeated AfDing (twice or three times a year) seem to work, even if it takes three years to see the results. There are still so many lower fruits to pick, so it's also not like these articles need to be merged/deleted ASAP anyway... – sgeureka ^t•c 09:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage you not to treat people who disagree with your inclusion standards as a wall to be steadily worn down via repeated effort, but rather as people with whom you should talk to and try to reach consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I just care about cleanup. And if people with unencyclopedic motives prevent cleanup, then I'll do my best to tear down the wall the create until the cleanup can finally happen. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would caution you that caring about results over consensus is a poor way to approach the project. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you have "unencyclopedic" motives when you created Ancient starships in Stargate, Artificial human characters in Stargate, Asgard starships in Stargate, Goa'uld starships in Stargate, Miscellaneous alien characters in Stargate, Tau'ri organizations in Stargate, Wraith starships in Stargate ? If someone came to you and said "Every article on Wikipedia about surnames needs to be deleted because Wikipedia is not for genealogical entries" and "I just care about cleanup" and told you had "unencylopedic" motives and that you were creating walls, how would you react to that? Someone could come along tomorrow and point to the articles Stargate Atlantis (season 1), Stargate Atlantis (season 2), Stargate Atlantis (season 3), Stargate Atlantis (season 4), Stargate Atlantis (season 5), Stargate SG-1 (season 1), Stargate SG-1 (season 10), Stargate SG-1 (season 2), Stargate SG-1 (season 3), Stargate SG-1 (season 4), Stargate SG-1 (season 5), Stargate SG-1 (season 6), Stargate SG-1 (season 7), Stargate SG-1 (season 8), Stargate SG-1 (season 9), Starships in Stargate (which you created) and say "These articles shouldn't exist for so many reasons, but fan enthusiasm...will prevent any serious merge or deletion debates (that's why they continue to exist). Most fiction series suffer from waning fan interest after a while so that the articles can be finally be merged/deleted." Put yourself in someone else's shoes for once. --Pixelface (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He openly acknowledged fan enthusiasm as something "which [he] sometimes suffer[s] as well". Now I'll take you by the word and urge you to open your eyes and see the clearcut, categorical difference between each and every one of the articles you cited on the one hand, and fictional historical accounts on the other hand. Please, let it sink in: Fictional historical accounts. These are a priori not about anything other than reproducing the plot of a work of fiction. They are, by definition, not encyclopedic. It's not a matter of "taste" or personal opinion by any stretch. It's about encyclopedia vs. indiscriminate collection of information. Everyme 11:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with sgeureka. These article shouldn't exist, at least with this form, in Wikipedia but right now I don't it's a priority to clean these up. We have plenty of work to do. Just keep an eye if articles with fictional biographies keep expanding. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with sgeureka and several others, too. Also, Phil, I beg your pardon: "caring about results over consensus is a poor way to approach the project" ? What. No, no. You have it exactly wrong. Fuck (well-meaning and other) idiots. We can't call them vandals, because they themselves believe they are doing the project a favour with the 100.000th in-universe plot summary copypasted from Wookieepedia. But that doesn't make their efforts any better. Those articles should be mercilessly axed, and the people who "write" them should be discouraged and demoralised at every turn -- for the sake of the result. Granted, mine are blunt words, but come on, please don't beg for it like that. Everyme 01:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That view is flatly antithetical to Wikipedia policy and has, when followed to its consequences, quickly earned people sanction from the arbcom. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I know. That's why we are where we are. You shouldn't be so proud to err on the side of status quo. Everyme 19:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:1.5 sources, a random essay?

[3] Ok, let's discuss. As my edit summary states, the link was just preliminary. I do in fact believe that the guideline should host a section dedicated to the very valuable concept of 1.5 sources, or at least outline of the concept in the Primary and secondary information section, to aid editors with appropriate referencing. Obviously, I do not at all agree that Wikipedia:1.5 sources is a "random essay". Everyme 01:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not an essay that has significant consensus. And, more to the point, I think it's a very, very flawed essay that creates a term that has no precedent or status in any reputable view of scholarship and research. I think it is deeply problematic for us to embrace wholesale new definitions of what sources are for our purposes, and dangerously disconnects us from the reality of research and knowledge. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more, and on all involved levels. Mixing in the sheer term-dropping of "any reputable view of scholarship and research" with the adolescent-lack-of-educated-judgement, modern-society's-insanity-mirroring cesspool-reality that is much of Wikipedia's fiction- and popculture-related coverage is, frankly, absurd. The concept of 1.5 sources is one very good starting point to get us reconnected with that reality, and to change it for the better -- instead of living in a dreamworld of high academic ideals. If you don't see the irreconcible differences between academic scholarship and research and the reality of Wikipedia, I don't think you really know or understand Wikipedia and the underlying dynamics of the "community". But ok, I've made my position very clear. Now I'll let others weigh in. Everyme 02:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly WIkipedia routinely falls short of what would be at all accepted in academic research. Though, frankly, we have already enshrined too much opposition to academic research in our policy. In any case, enshrining a term that has no meaning - creating a distinction about sources that simply does not exist in any significant pedagogy of research - is not an acceptable role for Wikipedia to play.

I mean, this is crystal clear. A DVD commentary is a secondary source on the work of fiction it comments upon. Period. Full stop. Calling it anything other than a secondary source is simply incorrect. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

DVD commentary is shipped with the work of fiction. It is an immediate part of the respective franchise. It is utterly disqualified from being treated as a secondary source. See my reply at Wikipedia talk:1.5 sources. Everyme 11:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Utter utter bunk - 1.5 (which isn't even an essay, it's a couple of short vague paragraphs) shouldn't be linked here, I completely agree with everything Phil has said. By your logic, the critical analysis commentaries prepared by Dr. Mark Kermode (noted film and arts critic) for films, often many years after their release and then bundled with the films would be "part of" the franchise. Complete and utter nonsense. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is published within the franchise is not a secondary source, by definition. Rare cases like your example are covered by the "short, vague" paragraph that says: In discussions surrounding fiction-related topics, it's often a matter of personal preference whether one sees such a source as a lesser, primary source which cannot provide any significant external context or whether one sees it as more of an independent, secondary source which can and should be used to add context and perspective. -- Substitute matter of personal preference with matter of editorial discretion, and I think you would have a very hard time arguing how that's not an accurate and important description of part of the crucial editorial process of assessing sources. Also, just to give you another relevant example, what about promotional interviews published by third party outlets? Iyo, are those secondary sources, too? Everyme 14:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, I hate to argue by fiat here, but I'm really already tired of arguing this point with you given that your argument is utterly vacant. You are wrong. Primary and secondary sourcing is not a matter of personal opinion or editorial discretion. It is largely straightforward to determine whether something is a primary or secondary source. A DVD commentary for Film X is a secondary source for Film X. There are things it is a primary source for, and really we would evaluate this on a claim-by-claim basis (It's a secondary source for interpretation, reception, and summary. It's a primary source for some claims about production, authorial intent, etc). But for the most part, what you are saying is completely wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe primary and secondary source is not the ideal terminology then. That's why I came up with the neologism primary and secondary information when I rewrote the guideline in 2007. At any rate, we shouldn't be fighting over terminology but rather discuss the reality of article work and how we can streamline and improve on the current situation. I believe you could agree that the degree of independence, or distance of a source is an important quality that needs to be reflected in the way it is used to back up information, right? So let's end the sources skirmish and refocus it on the real issue. Sorry for not making this clear earlier, but it honestly just now dawned on me that we may in fact be discussing different things. So, for the sake of the real issue: You're right, your categorisation of primary vs. secondary sources is correct. Now that the (partly accurate, partly insufficient) label has been detached from the proverbial jar, could we restart the discussion as one about how best to advise and assist our fellow editors with assessing different types of sources on a case by case basis? The 1.5 concept hits on something important imho. Not sure how to incorporate this into the guideline as of right now, but more in-depth advice on assessing sources would do good, and I think the place to do it is between the Primary information and Secondary information paragraphs. Everyme 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyme seems to be confusing the terms "independent source" and "secondary source". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Whatever is published within the franchise is not a secondary source" is wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, please avoid posting in between older posts if you can help it. It really disrupts the discussion. Also, how about replying to my latest points, which you completely ignored? Everyme 09:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My take: Many (though not all) editors agree that "analytical/real-world information" is the important thing for fiction articles (this is also mirrored by the existance of WP:NOT#PLOT). And where producers/writers/actors spend significant amounts of time and money to produce "1.5 sources", there are usually reviews and/or scholar study to establish notability. In other words, 1.5 sources can be seen as an speedy-indicator of a worthwile article, but don't prevent other measures like mergers. 1.5 sources don't make a topic automatically notable, but can be used to justify a spinout if they exist in significant amounts. (I have written at least two GAs that way.) If editors don't share this view on 1.5 sources, then it's too bad, because I actually like and support that concept. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is something to be done with this sort of source and notability, but I'd really like to see us not make up terms to do it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Phil. Also note that “1.5^ary sources” is an oversimplification in that it implies an ambiguity inherent in the sources, ignoring the fact that source classification also depends on its usage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the talk page guidelines and avoid posting in between older postings, like you did above. Also, in doing so you overlooked my latest posting, in which I shifted the focus away from 1.5. You were replying to a closed case, and in a slightly disruptive fashion as well. Please avoid that. OTOH, "classification also depends on its usage" is exactly the thing I'm looking for. Excellent advice to include in the guideline, imho. Everyme 09:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But people don't agree with your "IMHO", that's the point. There is no agreement that a) this essay is significant and b) should be linked here. Development of that essay should continue over there - it's inclusion here (or in any other guideline) is clearly not on the cards for the moment (or ever I'd wager). --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you keep ignoring my comments, you're forcing me to stop assuming good faith. It's not about 1.5 anymore. If you believe the guideline is perfect the way it is right now: Thank you for the compliment. I was the principal author of the current version. But I for one believe it can be improved even further. Everyme 16:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Update?

When I was throwing some of the style guidelines into the Category:General style guidelines in May, and when I started doing monthly updates of all these pages this summer, I skipped this guideline (even though it's in WP:WIAGA) because it's about a specific kind of material. But the page has been remarkably stable, and the other 5 style guidelines in WP:WIAGA are all covered at WP:Update, so it probably makes sense to cover this page too, unless someone has reason to believe that the page isn't stable or its future in WP:WIAGA is in doubt. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a great idea to me. It is already being applied by many, I believe, and this guideline really isn't disputed (except apparently two minutes ago by one person). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Due to edit wars, for 3 days. Use this talk page as a forum in order that, after 3 days, editing can be peaceful. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Demotion from guideline

• Ended RFC: while I'm not an admin, and generally think this guideline is good, I've ended it halfway through because it is highly unlikely that a consensus to demote the guideline will be formed: the level of support for this guideline is around 80%, easily WP:SNOW territory for maintaining the status quo. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After this user essay was moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) on May 29, 2006, it was marked a guideline after 18 days. I am disputing this page's status as a guideline, as I do not think it has the broad support of the community, and the person who wrote it in the first place has left Wikipedia. I also removed the "Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles" section, because WP:PLOT currently links to this guideline, and Wikipedia guidelines should not promote Wikia. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Completely oppose. This is a long standing, stable and valid guideline. Its broad support is shown all over the place and it has more than enough community consensus after over 2 years. I take it this is your new attempt to remove all guidelines used to stop people from going crazy with the fictional articles? *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with AnmaFinotera - this is a very stable guideline, and given that it has just been added to WP:UPDATE, requires major discussion before any changes. I have also reverted Pixel's removals of the example offsite wikis; I agree we should not promote Wikia over any other cases in the generic case of moving content off WP, the examples are established wikis that provide representative external resources that can be used to collaborate with material on WP. --MASEM 06:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Very stable guideline with no indication this lack of consensus exists. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as well. And what's with the "the person who wrote it in the first place has left Wikipedia"? This is extremely irrelevant. Fram (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppsed -- guideline is widely cited in other guidelines, and has been stable in its broad content for quite some time and so evidently has consensus support. Not to mention, it's very useful. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This guideline is very stable and organised. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the long-term stability of the guideline. If this guideline was contentious as a whole, it would have been demoted long ago. Obviously, changes to it can be discussed, and that has obviously taken place. This push for demotion during ongoing discussions about fictional topics strikes me as highly counterproductive. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - The guideline has been in place for 2 years, that's pretty good consensus building. The fact that the original author isn't on Wikipedia anymore is irrelevant, just as the fact that this guideline was once an essay. Many guidelines and policies started out as less than that (i.e. as someone's creation in a sandbox that was put in the mainspace). If there were no objections after 18 days, then silence is equivalent to agreement. I don't know if there was opposition, and frankly I don't care because there hasn't been a lot of opposition to this guideline since then (a few issues with particular wording, but generally not the entire guideline itself). I find it hard to assume good faith with Pixel's motives here as well, as they have a history of trying to demote any guideline they disagree with, as well as the very bad timing in trying to get this guideline demoted while the community is in the process of trying to get a new notability guideline on fiction promoted. This comes off as more of an attempt to distract editors from other, more important discussions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

During one week in June 2006, 16 people supported this becoming a guideline. There are currently over 8.4 million registered users on Wikipedia. And over 1 in 4 of Wikipedia's 2.6 million articles fall under Category:Fiction. This guideline has currently been edited by a total of 161 unique editors. It currently has a total of 508 edits.[4] I suppose some people would consider that evidence of stability, but I think it may indicate that most editors are unaware of it. The person who created this page and who has the most edits to it has left Wikipedia. The person with the second most edits to this page is an indefinitely blocked user. I don't know how "stable" I would call it — it seems that in June 2007 it started undergoing big changes. I'm not really impressed with the fact that other pages cite this page. Once a page is tagged as a guideline, people will naturally refer to it, because the page itself tells you it is a guideline and it says "Editors should follow it." And Bignole, are you suggesting I try and promote any page I disagree with? I don't think this is bad timing, unless you consider the ArbCom elections, or if you think June is a better time to discuss things than December. I suppose we could talk about this in January, but I think WP:FICT has been changing almost constantly since July 2007[5]. --Pixelface (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Mildly opposed - I had substantial objections to this guideline a while back, and at one point I flagged it as a disputed guideline. I'm now fine with it, and generally opposed to demoting it, but I disagree with parts of Bignole's logic. When "adopted", I do think that the 18 days of being posted was far, far too little time to generate consensus on anything that purports to be a guideline for the entire encyclopedia. Silence doesn't necessarily mean consent; it may just mean that the essay was going unnoticed for that not-very-long period of time. (Not everyone can check the village pump constantly, you know.) That being said, I do agree with Bignole that the relative stability of the guideline since then does suggest that it reflects a rough consensus, at least as far as its current wording is concerned. From my own perspective, I think the current version is significantly better than the one I groused about lo these many months ago. In 2006 it shouldn't have been adopted as a guideline, both because it hadn't been sufficiently vetted and because parts of it stunk. In 2008, it's fine. I don't think that its irregular "promotion" 2.5 years ago undermines its validity now. I labeled this "mildly" opposed largely because I think that there are far too many guidelines that are far too long; the crucial parts of this one could probably be condensed into a couple of paragraphs. I do think that less, rather than more, guidelines is the direction in which the Wiki should move. If the discussion were about consolidating this and other parts of the manual of style into a more manageable form I'd likely have a different opinion, but I don't think this suggestion has much merit. DCB4W (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above arguments. This guideline is well established and I see no legitimate reason for it being demoted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support, modified the only reason this has been even relatively stable is the inability of people interested in fiction to be at very place at once. I am not all that sure even the parts I agree with really have consensus. Perhaps a statement is needed indicating that, as compared with other guidelines, this is a little less prescriptive and should be interpreted more flexibly. DGG (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Someone notified me of this debate saying I was the surviving editor with the greatest number of edits to this page. Although I have argued about it from time to time, I was quite surprised. My position is that there ought to be a guideline re writing about fiction, but since this text is pretty terrible, this should not be it. I note the page has substantially changed since last I bothered arguing about it, yet retains many of its problematic issues. Trying to read it, I find it unintelligible without careful study. This is bad, guys. It needs to be simple and understandable. Next, it is written attempting to make an argument. Do I detect, therefore, its authors believe no one off the page is convinced by what it seeks to impose? The 'page in a nutshell' tag directs readers to read the conclusions section? How is this a nutshell? And directs to conclusions...of a long and complex argument seeking to convince rather than actual guideline 'how-to' instructions?

Next, the huge issue with this page, the question of writing plot descriptions as in-universe history. This practice is absolutely the normal, natural, and frankly standard way of doing it. It is what I was taught to do for examinations in english literature. People who created this page seem to be obsessed with writing precis of fiction in a totally unnatural way. Wiki readers are not idiots who will misunderstand that an article starting 'xxx is a work of fiction by A. N Other' is actually a historical account. The list of 'problems with in-universe perspective' has always been a biased polemic against in-universe writing which seeks to attribute any and all possible failings to this style of writing, while ignoring the fact that most such failings can equally occur with out-universe writing. Failings in content are down to editors leaving things out, not their writing style. That is not to say I argue for an exclusively in-universe approach. That would be quite silly, nearly as silly as arguing for an exclusively out-universe one. The proper approach is to write in-universe where the story is being described, and out-universe where an article is discussing facts external to the actual plot. This seems to me so obvious I am not quite sure why there is an argument. Articles should always be written in the most natural and understandable way for all readers of all levels.

The argument that in-universe writing leads to inappropriate stress on minor aspects always struck me as ridiculous: that is simply an example of an article giving excessive coverage to a minor point rather than a balanced account. likewise, if the account is being written to summarise the plot to explain something about a character or the work as a whole, then it is obviously sensible to re-order events as a biography of that character or history, rather than describing facts as drawn from different works written at different times. People writing a review of a topic might go into great detail exactly where specific points come from, but frankly that level of information is ridiculously high and detracts from the simple imparting of the information. I am not sure what examples others have in mind, but as someone above points out, the reason for a plot summary is to remind readers of the plot so they have a description of the nature of the work. A re-working of the source material to create eg a continuous pseudo biography can be enormously helpfull to someone who needs such a description of the character. A case in point would be the reason I came in contact with this page, the 'Harry Potter' series. For those who may not have heard of it, this was/is a detective story 'whodunnit', where precisely the straightened-out biographies and deduced motivations of the chracters were central to the story, and a readers enjoyment of the story. Wiki has a policy of informing, and not fighting shy of 'spoilers' when describing books. I was taught to analyse the motivations of characters within the universe of the story to answer examination questions. Never mind for personal enjoyment, analysis of a book requires this sort of approach. Obviously, I do not subscribe to exclusively in-universe writing, eg such as attempting to reconcile contradictory facts through invented external rationalisations fitted into the plot. Contradictions should be reported as they naturally occur. However, if the author has papered over his own cracks, then it is entirely reasonable to gloss over that, as the extended explanation itself risks excessive reporting of minor detail. I have always thought use of phrases like 'the author introduces' or 'the story describes' as redundant puffing out of a plot description which makes it unnecessarily long without doing anything for the reader except wasting his time.

As to spin-off articles, say devoted to one charcter, there should be no ban on such articles. Article structure ought to be dictated by the amount of material to be covered, nothing else. It is wholly inappropriate to argue that even a relatively minor work may not have a series of articles devoted to it, some of which would just describe, say, one characters biography in a in-universe style (with a simple explanatory introduction). The amount of coverage on any subject normally depends on the amount of time editors have worked on it. Arbitrarily claiming an article is not permitted to grow is wholly inappropriate. I have never understood why a computer based encyclopedia with no significant issues over space (the great advantage over any printed work) needs to arbitrarily restrict areas which happen to be popular amongst editors, so grow faster than other areas which might be considered more 'important'. It is in the nature of wiki volunteer contributors that they work on what interests them. Sandpiper (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the demotion of WP:WAF; if anything this should be made policy. Many editors, like Sandpiper above, associate fictional topics with plot summary only, written purely from an in universe perspective. In some ways I can understand why he might assume that plot is sufficient coverage for articles about ficitional works, as it is common practice in the media to treat characters and plot from an in universe perspective. Most newspaper reviews, film and television guides use plot summary as a "hook" to generate interest in a fictional works. Although this is a good idea to get the reader/viewer interested in buying a particular book or watching prime-time television, this commonly used approach conflicts with Wikipedia's objective of providing a broader balanced encyclopedic coverage that demonstrates real-world notability as well as providing context, analysis or criticism about fictional topics. This a shame, because real-world coverage is what we need to encourge, not discourage. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well Gavin, I see you mentioned this RFC at WT:FICT. So should I start contacting people? --Pixelface (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Explain to me, in detail, how a posting on the notability guideline for fictional elements regarding a changing of the "writing about fiction" style guideline is inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
      • In answer to Pixelface, feel free to contact as many people as you like as I believe it RFC's work best when more people are involved. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose demotion. This is an excellent guideline, in that contributors should be gently encouraged to write with an in-universe style. For scholarly purposes, real-universe writing is far better then in-universe writing, for a number of reasons thoroughly thrashed out in the archives a couple of years ago. Opposition has not suffered due to a lack of concentration of place and time, but because opposers have been defeated in logical argument. That said, I do remember it being an easier read than I find it today. Of course it shouldn’t come across as too prescriptive (some excellent Wikipedia content began terribly), and interpretation should always be flexible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose demotion Stable guideline. Referenced many times by many editors around the 'pedia. Protonk (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose demotion: this reflects and reinforces other consensus policies, and has been used in practice for a long time. No consensus to demote. Randomran (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Ended RFC: while I'm not an admin, and generally think this guideline is good, I've ended it halfway through because it is highly unlikely that a consensus to demote the guideline will be formed: the level of support for this guideline is around 80%, easily WP:SNOW territory for maintaining the status quo. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That's right Sceptre. You're not an admin anymore. Why is that again? I seem to remember you saying you would disengage from me a while back. Whatever happened to that? You may think this "guideline" has a snowball's chance in hell of being demoted (oh, and thanks for "ending" the RFC on Christmas by the way), but I tend to think that we've merely discovered the 15 users on all of Wikipedia who want this to be a guideline. Thanks for your help. --Pixelface (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battlestar Wiki

Battlestar Wiki should not be listed under "Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles". Our policy is to avoid the "false document" mystique of the the "in-universe" style. To that end, all articles at Battlestar Wiki are written in the present-tense style of literary criticism. --Peter Farago (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, what we should do is retitle the section to point out that it's an outlet for articles and information that goes into greater detail on fiction than is appropriate for Wikipedia. Which the Battlestar Wiki does do.

Of course, it would be even more helpful if Battlestar Wiki didn't have the NC clause in its CC license, so that there was any hope for sharing content between the two. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

With that NC clause, wouldn't it make it inappropriate to list it as an alternative outlet? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If it is not GFDL compat, it should be removed. --MASEM 18:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that. It is still a place instead of Wikipdia to contribute such information. It is not a place to transwiki. We should perhaps distinguish in the list between the two. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Phil (shock and horror! :-) Wikipedia links to non-GFDL sources all the time. There's never anything inappropriate about that. Nandesuka (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)