Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Shortcut:
WT:WAF

Contents

[edit] Policy on plot summaries

I've proposed a slight re-wording on WT:NOT#Plot summaries part 3 for our current policy concerning plot summaries (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point 7). Requesting comments, especially since I don't recall the original discussion regarding the wording being advertised much. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in universe and out of universe

I'm a bit concerned at the current way this guideline is written. While I fully agree that articles ought to be written from an "out of universe" perspective, I think the current article identifies the issue as much more of a "what content is in this article" issue than it really is. It is perfectly fine to have a lot of material about plot and internal history of fictional universes. The issue isn't content, it's presentation. All articles should be written from an out of universe perspective. Mr. Spock should be described as a fictional character from Star Trek, and we should give details about when he first appeared, when he last appeared, and so forth. But that doesn't mean we can't also include a lot of detail about his internal history within the show. Retcons ought to be specifically indicated to be retcons (and all too often aren't), and, in particular, the first appearance of a character in our universe is generally going to be more important than their early history inside the fictional universe, but that doesn't preclude in depth discussion of in universe material.

It's more of a question about the way things are written about than the actual content, is my basic view. I think the current examples are not very good in this regard because the exemplary models of an out of universe perspective never provide any in-universe details. I don't think it is right to imply this, on the merits, but I also think this guideline is going to get a lot less buy in by the people who spend their time writing on in-universe details of fictional universes if they think that wikipedia is opposed to in-universe details, which it of course is not. What this policy should be about is a) encouraging that articles be presented in a way which allows for reference to the real world; and b) to encourage people to actually right about the real world context of fictional creations. What it should not be about is discouraging discussion of in-universe details. john k 13:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say I agree. Also, the guideline doesn't give a very good idea of how to handle articles that explain things like magic systems or whole organizations in fictional works, which are generally very difficult to write from an "out of universe" perspective as suggested by the examples. I don't think it's impossible to do, just that the examples given don't really give a good idea of how to handle these sort of things, and a better guide would be greatly beneficial. --ACDragonMaster 09:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. The current guidelines are fairly incoherent and have a number of significant problems.
  • They encourage bad prose.
  • They replicate the common error that equates citation to a primary source with original research. Under the viewpoint advocated in the guidlines, all plot summaries are original research.
  • "Consider this analogy: Would it be acceptable to write an article on flight based solely on watching birds flying?" No, but it would permit the article to state that at least some birds fly. As long as the editor doesn't get carried away, I don't see a problem with that. The problem is inaccurate use of primary sources, not the use of primary sources without restriction.
  • Several of the articles cited by the guidelines themselves violate the guidelines. Q.v. Padmé Amidala. This is probably good for the articles.
I really think that the useful sections of this guideline can be summarized in three maxims: Avoid original interpretation. Keep plot summaries as brief as practical. Cite sources frequently. If editors use common sense, this entire guideline is unnecessary. DCB4W 04:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Some clean up of the guideline is in order, but remember, if editors all used common sense then we wouldn't need to make most of the guidelines that do exist :) -- Ned Scott 04:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia-wide, that is. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose?

This seems like backlash from people who don't think Wikipedia should contain articles about fictional subjects (the guidelines' examples lead me to believe that sci-fi/anime is the main target) -- am I wrong in reading this as a not-so-subtly veiled attempt to get people to stop writing such articles? It's hard to believe anyone is going to take these "guidelines" seriously -- they're either going to be ignored until forcible editing or deletion occurs, or the people who would write such articles will just go somewhere else. This would be a great shame, since Wikipedia is often a good resource for refreshing your memory about some character from a show or book, or finding all the collected information about that character that has been represented in the show. --Yudantaiteki--

No, the guideline is not at all intended to discourage the creation of articles on fictional subjects or to chase people away. It is, rather, a guideline on how to write about fictional subjects in a way that non-fans will find useful. If you want the complete biography of Chewbacca, there's a Wiki for that, but this isn't it. If you want to learn about Chewbacca as a cultural artifact in our own world (e.g., how the character was conceived, has been portrayed, and has influenced other elements of culture), Wikipedia should be the place to look. (That said, our article on Chewbacca needs work.) As for people not adhering to the guideline, well, that happens with all Wikipedia guidelines. Try to get an article past Wikipedia:Featured article candidates that treats its fictional subject from the perspective of that subject's fictional milieu, though, and you'll see that Wikipedia's best practices are indeed in line with this guideline. -- BrianSmithson 01:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Judging from the number of articles on fictional subjects and the number of people who make use of them, if these ludicrous guidelines are ever seriously followed by most of the authors the utility of the database as a whole will drop. I'm still having a hard time seeing this as anything but a vendetta against sci-fi and anime fans for daring to put their articles on "serious" Wikipedia. The guidelines are written in such a way to make it appear as though they are calling for a serious scholarly writing style, but reading between the lines the message is clear -- if you're writing about a fictional subject, take it somewhere else. In theory this would affect not only anime/sci-fi but also articles about literature as well -- but I notice that only anime/sci-fi articles have been marked with the "cleanup needed" box, which exposes the true motives of the creator(s) of this guideline. If the Wikipedia creators do not want articles on fictional subjects to be written, they should just say so explicitly, rather than making "rules" like these.

[edit] Seems not like a MoS

This seems to me less a MoS about fictional subjects than a more broad-based content guideline on fictional subjects. (Compare to other MoS entires and you'll see what I mean.) Beyond that, it seems to me weirdly flimsy - it promotes the out-of-universe perspective, but fails —to note the single most important reason for an out-of-universe perspective, which is simply that Wikipedia is about the real world, and things that happen in other worlds are of interest to Wikipedia only insofar as they provide context for things in the real world. Phil Sandifer 16:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I often come back to this page with considerable head-scratching, because I would like to improve the pages on Chekhov's plays—for example The Seagull (most of which article is plot description, but so what? Plot is information; encyclopedias are information).
This page advises:
This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. This is not inherently bad, provided that the fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article.
I do not see what's wrong with their constituting the main portion of the article, if the article is solely about the work of fiction. My contention is that it is all right for editors to summarise plots, because since the article is about the work of fiction itself, the work is its own source.
Although this page warns sternly about writing from within the fictional world, what is wrong with that, so long as you don't interpret it? But then, the exceptions section gives leeway to do so; for example:
Note that when using the fictional work itself to write these descriptions the work of fiction must be cited as a source. For instance, a video game article should cite the game text, but it should also cite a reliable secondary source when necessary.
"When necessary", for me, would be in the surrounding comment; but you don't interrupt plot summary with secondary material, which would be disruptive. There have to be unadulterated chunks of plot summary and character description.
As you know from my comments on other pages, I believe that the same citing policy can be applied to every type of article, from popular culture through to ancient history or religion. The way I look at it is that the content of a piece of fiction, whether on television, in a book, or onstage, comprises a set of verifiable information. If I say "Konstantin shoots himself", that is a fact from the source Chekhov's "The Seagull". Even a whole page about Konstantin's actions and behaviour in "The Seagull" (or an endless series of summaries of Simpsons episodes) would meet the same criterion, though the result would of course be dreary and superfluous.
Articles about the epiphenomenal role of fictional characters in popular culture would be written slightly differently, but the citing principle would be the same. For example, an article about the character of Manuel in "Fawlty Towers" might include that character's afterlife in adverts and in controversial stereotyping disputes in Spain, etc. As long as everything was referenced to published or professionally produced sources, the article would fit comfortably into Wikipedia's reliable-sources principles.
qp10qp 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't one of sourcing, to my mind - hence my largely backing away from the issues of sourcing, which seem to me clear. And plot summary can be useful. What is less useful, to my mind, is a detailed synopsis. Consider the question "Why do we care about The Seagull?" The answer is not because of anything that happens in the plot, but rather because of the play's critical acclaim, historical importance, etc. The plot is important to understanding that, but it is background information. To include a massive and detailed plot summary is, in many ways, akin to opening Double slit experiment with a lengthy narrative of the experiment's set-up, execution, and specific data. It could well be an interesting read, but it misses the point. Phil Sandifer 18:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've got an encyclopedia of music which gives act-by-act summaries of opera plots. I'm glad of that because half the time I haven't got a clue what's going on in an opera. The significance of the opera is dealt with in the composer's article or in general opera articles. This seems quite normal to me.
I expect my observations appear a little simplistic and obtuse; but what I want to see is as much reliable information in Wikipedia as possible, and so I try to think of ways (without the messiness of exception clauses) we can allow articles rather than reasons to disallow them. (By the way, I have enough stuff about "The Seagull" to outword the plot summary by far; but my point would be the same for articles where little extraneous matter exists—if the thing has been published, performed, produced, or whatever, it's no skin off Wikipedia's nose if someone wants to knock up a descriptive article on it.)qp10qp 22:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it's an excellent and important point - but it's notable that your encyclopedia is specifically an encyclopedia of music. Thus certain assumptions are made about notability and focus for you, and certain topics are covered in a different way. The distaste for in-universe perspective is not a statement about its absolute worth, but rather a statement that such things are more suited to different sorts of encyclopedias. Put another way, and this is a point I've made elsewhere, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia of functionally infinite size - not a compendium of subject-specific encyclopedias. Phil Sandifer 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that idea is that a plot summary provides a useful introduction to the rest of the article. It allows people who read the book 20 years ago to refresh their memory, and if someone wants to know about the work of literature's impact even though they haven't read it, the summary enables them to see what the work is about before they jump in to the rest of the article.
The punchline of the first section is "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective." Doesn't that address the single most important issue that you're concerned with? This guideline is different from most of the rest of the MoS, but style and content in the case of in-vs.-out are not completely separable. With the exception of bracketing off notability issues, it's intended as a guide on how to go about writing or rewriting an article on fiction; I don't see a better place for it than here. Most editors seem to like having a unified guide to writing about fiction, even if it strays somewhat from traditional MoS fare.--ragesoss 22:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree - what I wonder is if a MoS should be split off of it, and some version of the overall guideline be established as, say, Wikipedia:Fiction or something. (I have some scribbles towards such a guideline in draft form in my userspace, for instance: User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay) Phil Sandifer 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see some more general-purpose MoS-type stuff added here, and the "don't write the biography of Darth Vader and call it Darth Vader" stuff made a part of that. I'm too busy to do it at the moment, but it would be a very nice addition to our M'soS. — BrianSmithson 22:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flexible wikicity box?

Is there any template in place that would allow us to flexibly link to the various WikiCities projects on fictional universes in a manner akin to the Wikitionary or Wikiquote boxes? This would allow for a good way of handling the often very substantial amounts of in-universe information on some articles - merge whatever isn't already there to the WikiCity article and link to it, thus minimizing the sense that well-meaning fan contributions aren't worthwhile. Phil Sandifer 05:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. But given that Wikicities projects are not official Wikmedia projects, I'm not sure it would be possible. Would a simple template work? Perhaps someone with technical knowlege about the Wiki software and interrelationships can comment? -- BrianSmithson 05:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's right with an in-universe perspective?

I'm going to be devil's advocate & argue against the current ban on all in-universe writing. For biographies of fictional characters, I think they are appropriate. First of all, it is much easier to write in that way and second, you can be a lot more concise. In most cases, the novel/movie/television series is the primary source, and everyone knows it.

The main criticisms of in-universe writing are:

  • They are overly reliant on fiction itself as a primary source

When you are giving a fictional synopsis, won't the fiction always be the primary source? I know a lot of people think that Wikipedia should only be about "factual events and phenomena", but personally like having synopses of notable fictional works and characters. I'd point out that notable fictional characters such as Frodo Baggins, Paul Atriedes, Harry Potter, and Buffy Summers have large amounts of in-universe writing in their biographies.

  • Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research.

Let me get this straight, Wikipedia wants an out-of-universe style with "a critical analysis of the subject", but if non-academics try provide the critical analysis, it's shot down as original research. Unless those pesky academics get quite busy, anyone writing a Wiki-article on fiction is between a rock and a hard place.

  • In-universe writing can lead to skewed emphasis.

True, but not necessarily. Certainly, I find that writing character biographies chronologically can make them far easier to read.

  • Likewise, the usefulness of in-universe writing is questionable. Interested individuals can, after all, find the fictional universe's account of events by simply reading the books, playing the games, or watching the films and television programs.

My favourite criticism. True you could sit down and watch Lord of the Rings (over ~12 hours for the extended edition) or read the summary and look up particular points of interest in a matter of minutes! I think the online encyclopedia fulfuls a valuable role in that people don't need to revisit the original source material for a summary.

In my opinion, the two "Prose examples" are great examples of turning simple writing into complicated writing. In addition, all of the additional "real world" information is completely unreferenced. At least the original prose had a clear source that could be verified!

Look, I'm not totally against "out-of-universe" writing, particularly including the reaction of critics to a work of fiction. But considering the number of biographies of fictional characters already on Wikipedia writtin in an in-universe style, perhaps allowing some carefully marked in universe writing might be appropriate. Here is an sample template I made: User:Dr_Aaron/fictional_biography_template. This might be less inflammatory than dropping the In-universe template willy-nilly throughout the 'pedia.

The main problem with an in-universe perspective is that it's useless--particularly with fictional characters that appear in more than one work. If I'm doing anything more serious than passing the time, I need to know where something was said and how. I have nothing against citing the fiction as a primary source; my main problem with in-universe writing is that it can't cite its sources properly. Nareek 05:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've argued before that it's perfectly acceptable to have in-universe plot synopses and in-universe character biographies (particularly for characters with confusing backstories that span multiple works) provided that these synopses do not form the main focus of the article. The important thing that Dr Aaron seems to be overlooking is that Wikipedia is a source about the real world, so a fictional element's existence should be discussed as it exists in this world; that is, as a fictional construct, a cultural artifact. As fun as it might be to write about Buffy Summers as if she's real, she isn't, and Wikipedia should describe her as if she isn't. But we can give her backstory in a short section of her overall article if it's helpful to understand the whole subject. -- BrianSmithson 05:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
A quick comment - fictional works are a part of the "real world" - a heck of a lot more people care and focus time and attention on them than many more esoteric scientific, artistic, or historical facts. I must admit the non-fictional real-world relevance elitism of Wikipedia has completely put me off doing anything with fiction/pop-culture ever again.
I definitely agree that it should be made clear when someone is writing about a fictional construct vs a real person (did you look at my template?). Dr Aaron 10:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


I think there's some confusion between plot summary and backstory, on the one hand, and in-universe perspective on the other. I think plot summary and backstory can be useful parts of an article, provided that they're done in the context of the real-world fictional work or works. But unless these summaries etc. are done from an out-of-universe perspective, they have very little value. This is particularly true for "characters with confusing backstories that span multiple works". If you just tell me about Buffy without telling me which episode, novel, comic etc. the information comes from, then I have no way to evaluate it, let alone cite it. Please, guys, tell me the sources of your fictional information. Nareek 06:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
For serials (novel series, tv series etc) as opposed to single works, I take your point that it is good to know where a fictional reference comes from. But that has to do with refencing in general rather than necessarily writing from an "in-universe perspective". Then again, most "in-universe perspectives" totally lack referencing, but I would argue that it is not inherent to the in universe style. Dr Aaron 10:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


And also use the real world chronology. It's important if the backstory of a longstanding character was a recent invention, and it's misleading to start the character's article with it as if that's how it was introduced (see Darth Vader for an example of good chronological order; see Anakin Skywalker for a bad one). A scholarly article can't just take the current version of a character that has been developed across multiple works and media and is still in publication, and describe it as if it was always the way it is now. Instead, a scholarly article about the character will necessarily document 1) how writers developed that character through an accretion of works over time, and 2) how audiences saw the character being developed through viewing those works. This will obviously require some degree of plot summary, or else it's just going to be a list of titles and dates. But in-universe perspective is blind to the history, the context, which is the whole purpose of giving the character an article in the first place. And by treating story as abstract fact, it fails to describe how a certain element of the character's story was actually depicted (was it shown as the main plot of an entire episode? described in voice-over narration at the start of each episode? only presented in a fan reference work?), thus omitting key information and inevitably, improperly weighing the character's "information" the same way we would that of a real person rather than based on how significant it's depiction actually was in context. Plus lengthy in-universe descriptions of copyrighted fiction are copyright infringements, but I won't bore you with that legal analysis right now (feel free to follow up on my talk page if you like). Postdlf 07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Another good point, but I think that Darth Vader is a fairly specific example of a character where real world chronology and fictional chronology were very different. Another would be the Foundation series by Asimov. But the prequel is more the exception than the norm. Dr Aaron 10:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It's actually quite common with comic book characters, either because of retcons that "erase" previously published stories from "canon" history (as with just about every DC Comics character), or because of "secret" origins later depicted that fill in gaps in the character' story (as with Wolverine, whose backstory was developed 15-25 years after the character was introduced). Or think of the relationship of Serenity to Firefly; the film told a backstory that was completely unknown during the run of the TV series. Describing it in the order it "happens" within the fictional world would obscure one of the most important narrative elements of the series, that the characters (and most importantly, the audience) did not known what had happened to River Tam. Postdlf 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
A rather general comment about this manual of style and thoughts expressed here: I think both parties have voiced excellent ideas. One inherent obstacle is the lack of, or limited, scholarly attention fictional entities receive (be it whole universa or merely single characters). Written classical (science-) fiction like the works of Jules Verne tend to be more referred and analyzed than say a contemporary author like Peter F. Hamilton. Some types of articles like archetypes or staples in fiction such as force fields are certainly enriched by the mentioning of early works touching the subject (such as for example In the Walls of Eryx).
As far as academics is concerned, I know only of gamestudies.org as an easily accessible body dealing with computer games. Suppose though that the whole field will attract more attention (a folklorist attending the same university as I wrote a Master's thesis about music in computer games), especially "new" media such as television shows or computer games.
Lastly (and perhaps the most on topic), the issue of when a given character has appeared in many episodes/volumes/games or even different media (the oh so canonical info added via novelization..). Yes, many articles are very messy (thinking about all the "kustom wordz" in this article) and many tend to have "biograhical creep" in them, yet that is perhaps more an issue of notability and editorial cleanup. I'd say that some in-universe style summary might benefit a reader more than a couple of sentences of analysis (that unfortunately tend to be or invite to WP:OR). Though I realize the drawbacks of poorly done in-uni writing which is too often encountered here. Scoo 16:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Dr Aaron. I love this point: "all of the additional "real world" information is completely unreferenced. At least the original prose had a clear source that could be verified!" This has often struck me too, that the in-universe parts of articles tend to be the best-referenced, because the produced fiction is the source, whereas all the bits and pieces about when it was produced and how many people watched it, etc. are often unreferenced. So often it is the out-of-universe writing which is the less reliable.
I don't think, by the way, that in-universe writing is as banned as the top part of this guideline page makes out (see my discussion two threads up of the exceptions granted by this page). I think that what is banned (and this should be made clearer) is what I'd call "in-universe" original research. By which, I mean something like "Foo's mother was from the planet Funge. We don't know who his father was, but in episode seven Walter Plinge has a tear in his eye when Foo returns to Funge, and so perhaps he is Foo's real father." Editorial speculation on a fictional universe is as inadmissable as speculation on, say, a historical topic, obviously.
qp10qp 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you're interpreting "in-universe writing" correctly. This is in-universe writing: "Foo's mother was from the planet Funge." This is not: "The 1986 episode "Foo Fights Fools" established Foo's half-Fungian heritage, through a flashback that shows his mother tearfully leaving Funge." In-universe: "Xtra-Man is capable of lifting roughly ten tons." Out-of-universe: "Xtra-Man's superhuman strength has been a consistent feature of the character since its introduction, with many stories showing him capable of lifting economy-sized foreign automobiles over his head. The entry for Xtra-Man in The Official Rolodex of the Xtra-People Universe, a fan reference guide published in 1996, states that he can lift "roughly ten tons," but such a clear limit has not actually been portrayed or described in any published story, and editor Mark Groo explained in the letter column in Amazing Xtra-Man #305 that this was an arbitrary figure—‘if the story requires it, he lifts it; the writer doesn't bother to figure out how much a Jetta filled with clowns actually weighs.’" Postdlf 18:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
"Foo's mother was from the planet Funge" is out-of-universe writing if it's part of a plot summary framed by an out-of-universe article. It's only in-universe writing if it is written as biography, the way we'd write the biography of Queen Christina of Sweden, through a whole or major chunk of an article. qp10qp 03:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If the whole plot summary takes the form of "Foo's mother was from the planet Funge", that's in-universe, even ifg it's surrounded by out-of-universe material. It's true that not every single sentence needs to remind the reader that fiction is being discussed, but that should be made clear throughout the course of the plot summary. Nareek 12:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. The reason why it's in-universe is because it's framed as an abstract statement of fact, as if it's true that the mother came from Funge. What is true is instead that a work of fiction depicts that. But it's possible to frame the summary so that every sentence does not need to start with "In work of fiction X..." For example, "In episode 26, Foo learns his mother's story when he finds the transcript of her unfinished autobiography; her voice-over narrates what he reads as Foo's reaction is shown. She was from the planet Funge, and left to avoid the Cataclysm. Foo was conceived while she hitched a ride on a freight starship." This is out-of-universe, because the first sentence makes it clear that the following sentences are describing the content of a particular work of fiction, and in what manner that work depicts that "information." Postdlf 15:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This is highly complex, not a simple matter at all. There are many modes of discourse which overlap. You both seem to prefer a style of writing where the plot summary or what ever is interfered with by reminders of an out-of-universe frame. But it is much easier to read a plot summary if it is introduced as such from out-of-universe and then left to tell its story as if from within. Both modes of discourse are out-of-universe; but the trouble with the interfered-with style is that the reader (and perhaps the writer) is constantly forced to readjust perspective: am I being told a story, told about a story, or being told what has been told about a story? qp10qp 15:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is more complicated to write about fiction than to just abridge it. We're not Readers' Digest. The out-of-universe context isn't "interference" because the whole purpose of the article is not to let loyal fans of Foo know what his heritage is, but to document the history of how a notable fictional subject has been utilized and developed in notable works of fiction. The in-universe writing is what is confusing and interfering, because I can't tell from reading it what actually exists. The sentence "Foo's mother is from the planet Funge" doesn't tell me if this refers to trivial text published in a fan reference guide, if this was the entire story of a flashback episode, if Foo's mother has a catchphrase, "As we did on the planet Funge...," or if Foo's mother has ever even been depicted onscreen or only referred to. Probably the most useless in-universe writing I've ever encountered was in a Star Wars video game character article that stated it was from a game, but gave absolutely no clue as to how the game presented any of this story. I couldn't tell what was part of actual game play, what was contingent upon player action and what was predetermined regardless of how the game is played, what was presented in mini-films bookending levels, what was just published back story in the game insert that wasn't actually shown in game. I couldn't even tell what character the player is in the game. All I could learn was this character's in-universe story in the Star Wars "canon," but Wikipedia is not a fan reference. Postdlf 16:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. And I'm not sure the present page gives clear enough guidance on how to write really well about fiction or how to make a good fiction article. Here's an example of in and out of universe getting horribly mixed up (from Gandalf):

The story behind "The Hobbit" began in a chance meeting between Thorin and Gandalf in the inn of the Prancing Pony, in Bree. Gandalf had for sometime foreseen the coming war with Sauron, and knew that the North was especially vulnerable. If Rivendell were attacked, the dragon Smaug could be used to terrible effect. Thorin was also keen on regaining his lost territory, and the quest was born. (LOTR, appendix). Unknown to the dwarves or Bilbo, Gandalf had joined the quest in order to investigate what he suspected to be the resurgence of Sauron (or the "Necromancer", as he is referred to in The Hobbit) in Mirkwood.

I actually don't mind a good old plot summary or synopsis if it's done well, but only if it is ruled off clearly from the commentary and referencing. However, character biographies are, as you indicate, much trickier and do not really work from an in-universe POV because we want to know when and where these biographical details occur. The stuff in brackets here could feasibly be moved to notes.

I don't mind pages like The Two Towers. In theory, the plot summaries are disproportionate to the weedy amount of analysis, and this guideline says plot summaries should be short. But despite being nearly all plot, this page, in my opinion, is out-of-universe because nothing is described as if it is real. The article requires a great deal more material about the sources, writing, reception and context of the book, however. Which is the hard bit. qp10qp 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the Foo/Funge and Xtra-Man examples above, and agree that the writing style on Wikipedia should be skewed towards helping the reader realise the context and relevance of the work of fiction in wider society. I personally feel that "in-universe" styles should be still be encouraged, but elsewhere, on a "Cliff Note's" kind of Wiki about fiction. To pick up on the LotR example here, I'll try to rewrite the above example in out-of-universe style:
"The Hobbit" was published in 1937. During the subsequent writing of the "The Lord of the Rings", Tolkien made changes to, and expanded on the world described in "The Hobbit". One such change was the nature of the ring Bilbo found in "The Hobbit", and hence the subsequent War of the Ring that is central to the plot of "The Lord of the Rings". However, because "The Hobbit" had been written before Tolkien conceived of the plot of "The Lord of the Rings", maintaining consistency between the stories was not always possible. Tolkien made alterations to subsequent editions of "The Hobbit" to reduce the discrepancies, and he also wrote a backstory to "The Hobbit" that retrospectively placed the quest of Bilbo and the dwarves in the larger context of the War of the Ring. This backstory, published in the Appendices of "The Lord of the Rings", centres around a chance meeting between Thorin and Gandalf in the inn of the Prancing Pony, in Bree, depicting Gandalf as a strategist who inspired and encouraged Thorin's quest to the Lonely Mountain, in the hope that the threat of the dragon Smaug would be dealt with. This backstory also expands on the events concerning the Necromancer (a character introduced in "The Hobbit" and revealed in "The Lord of the Rings" to be Sauron). None of this is implied in the story of "The Hobbit", if taken in isolation.
I think that sums it up well. I don't think I would have problems finding sources to back up the claims made here. This puts the writing in context, but equally, a straight plot summary would be useful in other contexts. Carcharoth 15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a quite excellent piece of writing, and an excellent example of proper real-world perspective; all the information that an in-universe description would have provided is there, but contextualized and deconstructed rather than opaquely stated as abstract fact.
A "straight" plot summary is useful in articles that are only about single works of fiction, rather than characters or concepts developed across multiple works. That one-work plot summary is still going to be out-of-universe, because while it will follow the narrative order of the fiction, it won't describe fictional events as if they really happened, but instead describe how the book depicts those events. It will be important, even within one work summaries, that the summation follow the order in which the book actually depicts events, rather than the fictional chronology. For example, an article on a murder mystery novel will not begin with a description of the murder, even though that "happened" first; it would instead describe how the book reveals clues of the murder in sequence, and then reveals all of the secrets at the end. One-work articles also need to distinguish between events that are "shown" ("In chapter three, the dragon attacks the heroes"), events that are described by a character as having happened ("In chapter three, the heroes tell the villagers the story of how they were once attacked by a dragon"), and events that are only referred to in the narration ("Chapter three introduces the heroes, who are described as well-known victors in a fight with a dragon.") The incorrect, in-universe method would just state that "Prior to their first encounter with the villagers, the heroes were victorious in their fight with a dragon," which is completely uninformative about what that actually refers to. Postdlf 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Just for the record, I've tweaked what I wrote slightly since you wrote the above. Your examples of the dragon are good as well. Carcharoth 11:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

It's hard to tell home much of this discussion is immutable Wikipedia religion and how much is personal opinion, but my personal opinion is that appropriately-labelled in-universe information is not necessarily less important than its real-world context. Perhaps I'm just a fangeek, but when I look up a fictional character on Wikipedia, what I'm interested in is the character, and not the medium in which the character was portrayed. I'm interested in Adrian Monk's brother Ambrose; the fact that he is played by John Turturro and appeared in such-and-such episodes is secondary. (Heck, I'd regard those as more fangeek material than the in-universe stuff.) I'm especially uninterested in some shrink-wannabee's secondary analysis. What I'm looking for is a compendium of information about the fictional universe. (Yes, such a compendium will occasionally have to deal with retcons, but that's not insurmountable; there's no reason why it can't step out of the universe to frame them. It's not like the real universe is immutable; new facts about the world and its history are discovered every day, and the history of that discovery is itself interesting.)

Perhaps it's Wikipedia religion that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to put such a compendium. If so, well, if what you've got is a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail. Yes, there are Star Trek fan sites and Smallville fan sites and Law and Order fan sites... but then finding the material is a significant bit of research in itself; Wikipedia provides one-stop shopping. Perhaps there should be a sister Fictipedia. (Alas, the name's taken.)

Notability is a concern, but I don't think that fictional material is necessarily less notable than nonfictional material. I'd say that there are probably more people interested in the details of James T. Kirk's life than in the details of William Shatner's. Culturally, I think that Jim Kirk is just plain more important than Bill Shatner. (Sorry, Bill.)

As far as the exact style, I consider readability to be extremely important. The out-of-universe examples shown seem stilted, awkward, and unpleasant to read. For my purposes, where I'm interested in the fictional characters and events, they are poor to the point of unusability. I'd much rather see the material presented as out-of-universe framing followed by the bulk of the material in in-universe style, with footnotes referring to the actual published sources.

There may be people who care more about the real-world framing - episodes, release dates, et cetera - than they do about the in-universe material. Perhaps the answer there is to not try to cover both sides in the same article. Perhaps there should be an article describing the medium - the TV series, book, or whatever - with all of its real-world information, and a separate article or section giving the in-universe information. We see some of this in some TV-show articles, with Law & Order and its per-season subarticles providing real-world framing, and Lennie Briscoe providing in-universe description of the character.

So, there's my 2¢ worth.

Jordan Brown 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that everything in Wikipedia has to cite its sources--including descriptions of fictional characters. That is Wikipedia religion and it's unlikely to change. If you're describing Monk's brother as if he was a real person, then you're not telling us where you found out him, and where we can go to verify what you said. Nareek 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Material about fictional characters (or events or whatever) should be referenced to the source the information comes from. In the particular case of Ambrose, there should be references to the handful of Monk episodes that he appears in or is mentioned in. Footnotes are perfect for that, just as they are appropriate for telling where you found information about real people (or events or whatever). Jordan Brown 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Beyond verifiability, "in-universe" information is either re-telling what happens in the story (basically, plot summary; even if the article is about a fictional character, it's just a different way of organizing and filtering the summary), or analysis of the plot. If it's plot summary, then we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for articles that consist solely of that; rather, plot summary needs to be accompanied by real-world context, reception, sourced analysis, and the like. If it's analysis, it needs to be cited to a reliable source, thus giving it out-of-universe context, or else it's original research, which is not allowed.
Agreed, no original analysis. On the rest: The relevant WP:NOT bullet item appears to have evolved quite recently; as recently as September it encouraged "comprehensive, summarised plots". Doesn't seem like it's cast in concrete. The real-world interaction that you describe is often or perhaps even usually unavailable, especially in citable form, and so the rule you describe would appear to preclude describing the particular fictional material if there is no directly associated real-world interaction. Perhaps perversely, I'd say that episode summaries are the worst offenders there, being mere plot summaries. Character bios represent aggregation and summarization.
And then there's the issue of copyright. If all we're doing is retelling the story in detail, in a different way, without adding any material from other sources, it may not be fair use, because the authors of the work may have a similar "in-universe" encyclopedia that they'd like to market to fans. Of course, it'd be bad publicity for a publisher to sue Wikipedia, but they could go after downstream commercial users of Wikipedia's content, and it goes against the Wikimedia Foundation's mission to provide content that may not be reusable commercially.
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't comment deeply on that question, but (a) I didn't say "in detail" (b) if an in-universe presentation gives the same information as an out-of-universe presentation, I'd call them equally infringing, and (c) I'd worry about all articles that draw primarily from a single source, not just ones about fiction. Also note that one of the tests for copyright infringement is the impact on the market for the material... and it's not clear whether that impact is positive or negative here. It may well be that a readily available summary of "what came before" allows newcomers to enjoy (and buy!) the latest publications. Jordan Brown 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a valid point that all single-source articles are dangerous. I'm not a lawyer either, but if you're adding critical commentary and other "real-world" info to the article, then it's probably more likely to be viewed as fulfulling a different purpose from the original work. It's a sticky situation that we'd probably not want to tread to close to. — TKD::Talk 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
From another standpoint, a good article on any subject should be comprehensive, but should not belabor or give undue weight to any one aspect of the subject to the exclusion of others. For fictional characters, for example, the character's actions and personality in the fiction are just one aspect of a complete article. It's not enough just to describe those details; a good article should connect the character to its actor(s), author(s), and audience, describing motivations, influences, and reactions. If a character is moody, is that part of a larger theme? Was that trait modeled after someone whom the author knew in real life? Did critics find the character too shallow or predictable because of that temperament? So there are many possible ways to expand upon and provide context to that one in-universe trait. Wikipedia articles need to stand alone, so it'd be subpptimal to put in-universe and out-of-universe information in separate articles because context would be lost. — TKD::Talk 03:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that those are interesting questions to some people. Most of the time, they aren't interesting questions for me personally (and I extrapolate that there are other people in the same position). Mostly, I don't care who the actor is, why the author wrote the story that way, or (especially!) what the critics had to say, and when I do it's from a completely different mindset. I want the story (or whatever particular slice of the story the article in question covers). I agree that it is an interesting wordsmithing problem how to satisfy both needs. Perhaps the actual character bio (or whatever) should be in one clearly marked section of an article, and real-world information (appearances, actor, whatnot) in one or more separate sections, and that's what seems to have been done in the best articles on fiction.
When you say that a mere plot summary is "not enough", are you saying that no loaf is better than half a loaf?
Looking at two articles you've worked on, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, in each one section 2 looks exactly what I'd like to see: an in-universe summary of the plot. (Actually, they've got more detail than I probably would have put in.) I would have swapped sections 1 and 2, since I consider the plot to be more important than production history, and I'd say that undue weight was given to the production history, but that's just personal preference and interests. Note that both of those articles have achieved high WP honors, in-universe prose and all. Luke Skywalker also looks like what I'd want. Rewriting those sections into out-of-universe prose like that shown here is painful even to contemplate, either as a writer or as a reader.
Jordan Brown 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
First, sorry if I was misinterpreting anything that you said. Yes, it's important to give a clear enough picture of the plot and characters, but too often the pendulums swings too far in the direction of too much.
Is no loaf better than half a loaf? If it's just plot summary, and it's on an element/character within fiction, rather than a work of fiction itself, then a merge upward or with similar articles from the same fictional universe may be beneficial. Usually, for articles on works of fiction, it's easier to find out-of-universe information on and to expand in that direction, except that, per WP:FICT, lists of characters or fictional elements are usually better tolerated than separate articles for each individual one (and often, those lists are a good compromise if kept reasonably free of microdetails).
For articles on single works of fiction, the self-contained plot synopsis seems to be best practice. As for whether background/production or plot/synopsis comes first, I've seen it done both ways, and I'm not sure that there's a strong consensus either way. The issue is a bit harder with characters or other fictional elenmthat appear in more than one work. Jabba the Hutt is an example of a current featured article. The article is careful to establish which parts of which films develop the character, and to do so in the order of chronological release, not in the order of Star Wars internal chronology. This works. Another approach, which is used by the article on Solid Snake, is to go fictional work by fictional work and detail background, plot summary, and other issues all in one shot. For both articles on fictional works and articles on fictional elements, the important thing about being out-of-universe is to establish real-world context somehow before you go into plot summary. Whether the best approach for that is to go first by relevant plot summary / character development / production issues and treat each fictional work in order within those sections, or to go by fictional work first and foremost might depend on the proportions of material available. Luke Skywalker makes a few sporadic efforts to establish what happens in which fictional work, but it could be much better.
Piecing together a coherent fictional "biography", especially where there's no internal continuity or where there are retcons, is often impossible without wandering into original research. The most consistent approach, and the one that avoids any issue with "canon", is just to cover character development in real-world chronological order. It's also sometimes ambiguous what is canon and what isn't. When you throw in the real-world factors that went into character development, sometimes the things that were nonsensical or just unexplained in the internal continuity of the fictional universe begin to become clearer. The real-world information doesn't have to be evenly distributed within plot points. The important thing is that it's there somewhere to provide context and, where possible, additional insight into the plot. On the flip side, this guideline does state that in-universe passage are fine to establish context for ther out-of-universe information. What's not okay is to give a whole "biography" in one shot, with little context as to where each piece is actually coming from. — TKD::Talk 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(indentation reset)

It sounds like you and I, at least, aren't all that far apart. Here's what seem to be a couple of key points:

  • In-universe prose per se isn't a problem, as long as it is appropriately referenced and accompanied by real-world context. (Ref the SW movie articles and, to a lesser extent, the SW character articles.)
  • Notability is always a concern, both in terms of whether or not to cover a particular character (or event or whatever) and in terms of what level of detail to use.
  • Document structure is a concern. Should a character be covered inline in other material (as a mention in a plot summary, rather than separately), in a separate section in a larger article (perhaps a section in an article on the entire fictional work, or perhaps a section in an article on characters in the work), or in an entirely separate article? There's not one right answer; it will depend on how much material is available for the particular character, how many characters there are in the work, and so on. (Note that this question is not unique to the fictional world; different local politicians might get different treatment depending on their notability.)
  • All material, whether related to fictional events or to real-world events, should be referenced.
  • No original analysis. No "Joe is secretly in love with Sally", unless that's stated in the material. (It can be hard to draw the line, though. Suppose that South Park included a segment with a character in a black cloak and helmet fighting a wizened character in a brown cloak using energy swords. Would it be OR to call that a parody of Star Wars, or would it fit under the "simple deduction and description" exceptions?)
  • Fitting together multiple pieces of a larger work can be tricky because of inconsistencies and retcons. (OTOH, this happens in the real world too; sources can disagree and a WP editor must either reconcile them or present both. It's hard to see how to reconcile them without OR, in either the real or fictional worlds.)
  • It's desirable to tie real-world events to their fictional results, and fictional events to their real-world results. (For instance, a character's departure may be related to an actor's contract dispute.) It can be tricky to present these cross-references in a way that is accessable but not intrusive.

OK so far? Yes, I know I've said several times that a particular issue is tricky or requires care... that doesn't mean that it should be avoided, just that getting it right might require some work.

Now we get into what I'd call more dangerous waters...

  • A summary that is too detailed may run afoul of copyright. It's far from clear where that line is, because condensations and abridgements are derivative works and so protected. Existing WP practice (ref the Star Wars articles) seems to allow for a fair amount of detail. (BTW, the most relevant parts of the USC appear to be 17 USC 101 "derivative work" and 17 USC 107 "fair use".)
  • It's desirable to present all facets of the work - contents, relationship with real-world events, development process, et cetera - with appropriate weight. But what is appropriate weight, and to what extent are particular editors required to fill in material that is outside their interest and expertise? Remember also that opinions vary on the notability of particular facts - some people care about what's going on in the story, and others care about the technology used in creating the work (photographic technique, et cetera) and the people and interactions that went into the creative process. I'd like to think that the notability discussion above would naturally address this issue: I add that information that I consider notable, you add that information that you consider notable, and if one of us thinks that the other is diving too far into trivia then we talk about it.

Jordan Brown 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize that I'm coming into this discussion late. I would just like to comment that I agree with nearly everything Jordan Brown just wrote, and that his approach is much more useful in my opinion than the approach that the MoS, as currently written, would encourage. Most of the problems are questions of degree; whether a certain article goes too far into in-universe discussion is going to depend on the specifics of that article, and as long as the Wikipedia editors are thoughtful and careful we should be able to draft articles that are both readable and useful. Copyright law is not my field, but I think that the "fair use" problems mentioned above are very much questions of degree as well. Academic publications-- of which Wikipedia is one-- do have some latitude to describe the subjects of their study without running afoul of "derivative work" protections. These are evaluations that we have to make based on the circumstances and content of individual articles, and the broad rules in the MoS are more harmful than helpful. (One hopes that this is why the MoS is a guideline rather than a policy.) DCB4W 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind with respect to copyright is that Wikipedia's purpose is not only to create an encyclopedia, but to create one that others can re-use for commercial purposes as well. — TKD::Talk 10:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding whether something can be considered a parody or not, yeah, that needs to be cited to a source other than the work of fiction itself because it's an interpretation rather than a simple description. — TKD::Talk 10:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to move forward

I have thought about it all some more after reading some very insightful comments. Basically, I think that the MoS (fiction) should be slightly ammended.

  • I think the language in the Out-of-universe perspective section should be toned down, particularly at the end. I think that character biographies and plot synopses should be labelled as such, but be allowed to be written in an in-universe perspective. I'd add that they should still be well referenced (using discrete footnotes), terse, and not contain original analysis. Being lengthy & unreferenced are big problems, but they are not intrinsic to the in-universe style.
  • I think the Prose examples section doesn't add anything useful and should be scrapped.

Critical problems with articles on fictional material

1. Poor referencing from fictional source material - particularly when the source material is in a serial format (television series, comic series, movie trilogy etc.). This was well picked up by Nareek.

2. Poor referencing regarding factual source material. Personally I find this to be the main problem with the "good" out-of-universe articles. They contain lots of unreferenced facts.

3. No original research or unreferenced analysis. This can be tricky - for example the the Two Towers movie compares the book and the movie with no reference to who did the analysis.

4. Lack of notability - there are large numbers of articles on fairly obscure topics by interested fans.

Personally, I find notability a hard one to judge; I sort of lean towards the idea that if someone is likely to write about it, it probably means there are 10 fans who will want to read about it. In many ways Wikipedia is good like that - it expands in terms of people's interests and I don't like telling people what to be interested in. Still, there is some pretty obscure stuff out there and I guess there should be limits!

Hope this gives people more things to think about. I thought I'd canvas ideas instead of just revising the MoS page, seeing as everything is so controversial at the moment. Dr Aaron 12:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It might be time to archive some of the old talk on this page.


We eventually need to come up with a new nutshell statement reflecting this philosophy, but until then, these are the key points I'd like to see considered:
  • accept the authenticity of real-world sources, allowing out-of-universe sources and writing styles for information like:
a) how the real world affected the work of fiction - budget constraints, actors quitting, inter-racial kiss taboos, the real-world author being inspired by other works of fiction, etc.
b) how the work of fiction affected the real world - copies sold, spinoffs, pop culture references, etc.
  • accept the concept of canon, thus allowing in-universe sources and writing styles to be used in appropriate sections of the article (assuming there is no dispute about the source's canon status)
  • clearly distinguish between sections of the article based on the source material - real-world or fictional.
  • regarding notability: allow articles even if, for whatever reason, they have
a) A significant real-world presence, but little fictional presence
b) A significant fictional presence, but little real-world presence
(I'm not happy with the wording of that this bit on notability, and I can't think of any good examples, but I hope you get the point - that depending on the topic, the amount of source material could be heavily biased towards in-universe or out-of-universe, but the total amount of combined source material is what makes the topic worthy of inclusion, using an appropriate in or out-of-universe writing style ratio for that topic.)
  • fully reference all sections, whether in-universe or out-of-universe.
  • no original research. (Regarding the Two Towers example, I see your point, and any work where fictional sources are different will require editors to tread very carefully. Editors should be able to list differences between book and movie (in-universe tone), and add any real-world reasoning from relevant people about why the changes were made (out-of-universe tone), but not speculate on such reasons themselves. Quack 688 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is an "in-universe source"? A fan reference like the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe? Postdlf 15:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Quack 688.
To answer Postdlf's question, in my opinion an "in-universe source" is the primary fictional source material. This is very easy to cite when it is a single work, but often more poorly cited when existing as a compilation of books, tv shows or movies (a particular episode should be referenced). A published source book I would consider a "critical reference book", which provides a referencable basis for opinion; the views are not original research. I do not consider online fan-commentary a particularly good source of reference for citations. Dr Aaron 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd avoid the question of notability at all. That's covered at WP:FICT. It might be a good idea to merge that page into this one or vice versa, but for now, let's not tread the same ground. I'll give the other suggestions a more critical look when I get the chance this weekend. — BrianSmithson 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several major issues here.

First is the imposition of "canon" or "continuity" where it may not be appropriate. It's reasonable to speak about canon in the context of Star Wars or Marvel and DC comics, where you have a central authority defining what is and is not canonical to any given continuity. Where you run into problems is when someone wants to write a in-universe history of, say, Futurama or Happy Days. References to anything that happened before the episode making the reference are mutable, based on whatever is funny or suited to the scene in question.

Another is the idea that we should write articles about things that are important to their fictional universes but not to this real universe. This is a bad idea. Because there are no references other than personal observation of the works in question, we end up with cruft even worse than the Pokémon articles; nothing more than fanpages parroting the fictional work in question and often ending up crammed full of trivia and speculation and garbage. Even when you remove the trivia and speculation and garbage, there's nothing to put in their place, so they inevitably return. Encouraging and allowing the creation of magnets for garbage that can't possibly have any encyclopedic value is not good policy.

The biggest, IMO, is the fact that people forget which side of the kayfabe they should be writing from. Statements presented as fact in a fictional story should be dealt with as plot points, not facts. Take the example of Klingons; we should note that Klingons changed appearances between Star Trek and Next Generation because of an increased budget for makeup (or whatever the real-world reason is, I don't know), not because of such-and-such in-universe thing. The reason behind Captain America's costume is due to an increased demand for nationalistic comics, not because he wants to carry the US flag as he fights Nazis (or whatever, I don't really know that it was ever explained). The trivia of the creation and the trivia of the presentation and the trivia of the reaction are all more important - and deserve greater emphasis - than the trivia of the story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said, and I'd have to agree. -- Ned Scott 09:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be softer on anything in this guideline. -- Ned Scott 09:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I was interested to read your 3 points - obviously specific bugbears that you want to take on & probably should be touched on in a revised MoS (writing about fiction).
  • I take your point about canon (which has been discussed a bit before), but I would hesitate to call it a major issue. "Canon" tends to be used in universes with lots of spin-offs that contradict eachother, such as Star Wars or LOTR, where I think it does have a useful place. But I certainly don't see "canon" being overly used in Wikipedia.
  • I agree with your notion of "cruft" (is that your own term?) - too many articles with overly long regurgitations of fictional detail. But as long as articles are well referenced, have no original research, and meet notability requirements, this should cut down on rambling, speculative works.
  • Of course, I don't fully agree with your final point. I still believe that as long as you make it clear what sections are plot synopses and what is production and post-production (real world) trivia, I don't think the actual perspective does any harm. I do strongly agree that the trivia of creation, presentation and reaction could use more focus, but only when given proper referencing. That info is also generally harder to find & cite properly, hence its absence from many articles. Of course, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim to include that sort of material.
Dr Aaron 10:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your thoughts, Man In Bl♟ck - you do bring up some points worth considering:
1) Canon and continuity
The first thing I thought when you mentioned that was, "How come Bart Simpson doesn't get older?" I was curious to see how his Wikipedia article dealt with this issue, and I was pleasantly surprised:


According to The Simpsons Uncensored Family Album, his birthday is April Fool's Day. The Simpsons employs a floating timeline, in which characters do not age with time, and Bart is depicted as being ten throughout the show. (He celebrates his tenth birthday in "Radio Bart").

Nontheless, some early episodes gave hints at Bart's birthyear: According to the show Bart is two years and 38 days older than Lisa, who was born during the 1984 Summer Olympics. In the 1991 episode "I Married Marge", it was revealed that Bart was conceived in June 1980 (Homer and Marge had just seen The Empire Strikes Back), which would make his birthday April 1, 1981. A chalkboard gag in a 2003 episode refers to this situation, with Bart chalking "I SHOULD NOT BE TWENTY-ONE BY NOW" on the board.[1]


I tried that again with "How many things can Bender carry around in his belly, anyway?"

There is very little consistency in Bender's hardware from episode to episode, and his internal workings vary as required for the story or for comic effect. ... Bender's chest cavity appears to have access to hammerspace, as Bender frequently pulls and stores objects within it that are far bigger than the laws of physics would normally allow...

There is no in-universe explanation for such things, so the articles simply switch to an out-of-universe tone where it is appropriate. Problem solved.
Outside of the canon issue, I highly recommend people have a look at those articles. They both describe their characters well, without just churning out a massive list of every single thing the character does on screen. Fictional claims are usually referenced by episode, and several real-world points are included where relevant (including the image of Bart's bare buttocks being used for political activism!). They could use more referencing for real-world points, but even so, they are both good examples of what articles about fictional characters should be like, IMHO.


2) Articles important to fictional universes but not the real one.
Hmm. You know, you're right. By my definition, I could write my own story about some guy called Bob, who happens to control the universe with super-dooper thought rays, then say he deserves a Wikipedia article. After all, he's the most important person in his own universe , even though no-one in real life gives a toss about him.
You can have characters important within the genre of fiction as a whole, but which haven't shaken the real world. I'll use Rincewind from Terry Pratchett's Discworld as an example here. Discworld is an award-winning series of novels, and Rincewind is a major character in a significant number of them. But what is his "real-world" presence? Have academics analyzed his character to the level of Hamlet? Has one of his quotes become an international catchphrase (like "D'oh!")? No. So, by the reasoning expressed by the simplistic "real world" guideline, he doesn't deserve a mention. I think I should add this point to my previous list:
  • A work of fiction's real world presence also includes the raw popularity of that fiction within the real world - whether as a best seller or a cult classic.
This is obviously a judgement call, but it's better than a blanket ban on the subject.
Regarding your comment that there's nothing to put in the place of "trivia and speculation and garbage" - I hate fancruft presented as fact myself, but the fictional sections of the Bart and Bender articles show how well-written such works can be, and articles such as those improve Wikipedia's credibility - they set the standard for fancruft sites to follow. Imagine fancruft writers visiting Wikipedia to learn how articles such as these should be written.


3) Statements presented as plot points, not facts
Simple. Treat them as both. The Klingon situation? As plot points, mention the obvious - they had ridges, then lost them, then got them. Mention the specific episodes which deal with this. Then include the real-world facts. We don't need to emphasise either side, just say it and move on.
Btw, you were right about the budget:

Gene Roddenberry said the movie era Klingons are closer to his original vision, but could not be realized in a low-budget television show.

Amazing what you can learn from fictional articles on Wikipedia, isn't it? Actually, that one doesn't count, since it isn't referenced. We should try and find such a reference, and improve the article. That's what this place is about, right? Quack 688 11:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, those are some awesome examples of how to handle such a situation. These probably should be included in some guideline (this or another) as they're.. just so freaking good. Totally shows how out-of-universe is a benefit to these situations, not a hinderance. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick comment on your Rincewind example above. This is an example of an article that wouldn't be in Wikipedia if there was not a corresponding Discworld article. Think of the Rincewind article as a spin-off, or daughter article, from the main article, and think of the Discworld article as the introductory article to a series that cover the subject. Obviously, in cases where there is not enough to support a separate article, the content should be removed or merged back into the main article. Carcharoth 17:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - Discworld's popularity in the real world is what makes it Wikipedia-notable. Once the notability of a fictional universe has been established, any characters or events which are signifcant within that universe become Wikipedia-notable, by extension. Quack 688 00:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. With the bar for notability within a fictional universe being the difficult thing to determine. Those editing in a paticular area need to have a clear idea what requires separate articles, and what can best be dealt with as merges. The idea of Wikipedia as a general encyclopedia should always be kept in mind. Fan trivia and excessive detail can be hived off to Wikia fan-wikis. Carcharoth 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derivative work

A thought: In many articles, an excessive reliance on the work of fiction itself as a reference, especially in a plot summary, seems to me to make it a derivative work, and as such a copyright violation. Please comment. --SmokeyJoe 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. An abridgement or summary of fiction is a derivative work, even when it does not use the verbatim text of the original (that's just a copy), and even if it is "translated" from audio-visual to text. A story element or an element of a character's depiction is not a "fact" that we can use freely, but instead constitutes copyrightable expression. Therefore, any article that uses fiction must have a fair use claim to do so to prevent that use from being copyright infringement.
Our fair use is established by 1) our purpose of informing about the fiction, as opposed to informing from the fiction; 2) our use of the summarized fiction only to the extent necessary to factually describe the fictional subject or work of fiction; and 3) our contextualization of that use within a factual, explanatory, and commentative framework.
Which is all a rather wordy way to say we must write about fiction from a real-world perspective only, to prevent our articles from being copyright infringements as well as to make the best articles. In-universe writing undermines any fair use claim we have because it fails to transform the fiction by casting it within a factual framework. As in-universe "articles" are really just encyclopedia-style fiction rather than information, we are furthermore using the fiction in a way that directly competes with the original author's market for fan references such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia or Who's Who in the DC Universe. The effect on the commercial value of the original copied work (and the larger market for derivatives) is the most important fair use factor.
P.S. IAAL. Postdlf 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not a lawyer, if you look at the concepts behind fair use, they encompass:
  • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  • the nature of the copyrighted work;
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Personally, I would say that pretty much all Wikipedia fictional plot summaries arecovered under fair use: they are non-profit, they should be terse (a point made repeatedly in the above discussions), and while containing abridged content, do not show video or blocks of copyrighted text.
I don't see any particular reason why informing "about the fiction, as opposed to informing from the fiction" provides superior fair use protection. In my opinion, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole is the main thing people should be keeping in mind. Dr Aaron 08:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Correct, if the amount of text being used is fairly minimal to what is needed by the article. The problem isn't with any or all plot summaries, but excessive plot summaries, as well as articles that are only plot summaries *cough*mostepisodearticles*cough*. -- Ned Scott 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Because if your "article" on a work of fiction just summarizes the story and does not provide any other information, you've just made a Reader's Digest abridgement that doesn't transform the copied expression and doesn't even have a strong claim to being "informative" as opposed to "entertainment." When we're speaking about fictional stories or characters, the "amount" does not refer only to the number of words. Courts look at whether the "heart" of the work has been copied, i.e. key plot points, story elements, character traits. But you're right that a very short summary (like a paragraph) is probably not an issue. Postdlf 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An alternative proposal

I've been following the debate for a while now. A lot of good points are being made & I thought it would help if they were expressed in the Manual of Style itself.

Consequently, I have drafted a draft revision.

This updated manual of style has been commented on by a few contributors who have been posting on this site already. While I don't think this new revision is perfect, I think it is a good jumping off point for a new document. The main things I like about the revised version are:

  • A focus on good referencing and notability - themes of many of the posts on this talk page.
  • Key examples of article types that show good referencing, notability, and writing style.

I welcome any comments. Perhaps people could preface their posts in bold whether they think the revised page is Better or Worse than the current page. If enough people like it, than it might be grounds for a change in the future... Dr Aaron 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I quite like the revision, and think it is significantly better than the current version. DCB4W 23:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems good so far. Simple where simple is needed, and really cleans up the guideline. Maybe some of the longer write ups about things (in the original) could turn into essays, if others want to save them? -- Ned Scott 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not bad, but it's a bit all over the place. I don't particularly like the orange example boxes disrupting the flow; the example articles at the end of the guideline should suffice. I'm not convinced the current guideline is broken, so at this point, I think the draft revision isn't needed. I'll keep an eye on it though and see how it changes. — BrianSmithson 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is and was.

I'd like to propose the addition of:

Creative works "are" (not "were") unless they have been lost or destroyed.

Recently there has been a bit of talk regarding whether to use past or present tense in articles. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthew speaks of WT:TV#Was vs. Is. -- Ned Scott 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added a few lines about tense to the draft revision - perspectives in fiction section to reflect that existing fictional material is best referred to in the present tense. Dr Aaron 23:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If there are no objections to this addition I will add it soon. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction

To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/n/Wikipedia_talk%7EManual_of_Style_%28writing_about_fiction%29_2e7d.html"