Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/draft revision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles about fictional subjects should be attributable, have suitable detail and scope, and be written from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.

Wikipedia contains numerous articles on fictional worlds and elements from them. For articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events or locations, significance outside the narrative itself should be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship. Once a topic's notability has been established, the approach to writing about these subjects is the most important consideration to make. This essay describes some guidelines towards writing a proper article on fiction.

Style and formatting
Manual of Style and its subpages
Related policies and guidelines
Related help, tutorials and proposals
Related to specific cultures

Contents

[edit] Key principles

[edit] Attribution

Main article: Wikipedia:Attribution

Articles on fiction should be appropriately referenced and should not include original research.

  • In the case of serial fiction (e.g. television series, movie trilogies, series of novels), the specific fictional works should be cited as appropriate.
  • References should be given for real-world information on the creation, presentation, and reception of a fictional work.
  • Opinions should never be attributed to "many fans", "some scholars", "critics", and the like. These are weasel words. Specific and legitimate references are superior to anonymous sources.
  • In addition to the primary source material, there are many sources of in-depth information for writers of article on fictional subjects (although some are more reliable than others). Examples include the following:
    • Annotated books or screenplays;
    • Behind-the-scenes documentaries;
    • Critical reviews;
    • Distribution materials;
    • DVD commentary tracks;
    • Interviews with creators, actors, etc.;
    • Press coverage;
    • Production diaries;
    • Sales figures;
    • Scholarly introductions to editions of the work;
    • Texts from fields like cultural studies, film studies, etc.;
    • Third-party analyses; and
    • Websites or blogs run by the creators.
  • Ideally, articles should include critical analysis of the subject, influence of the work on later creators and their projects, and conflicts between different fictional sources (e.g. books and films), provided such material is derived from reliable, third-party sources.

[edit] Neutral point of view

Main article: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Articles on fiction should represent conflicting views fairly.

  • In the case of serial fiction, where one episode or published work contradicts another or causes an internal inconsistency, Wikipedia editors should not seek to determine which has primacy. Instead, note the contradictions in a fair manner.
  • Events should be balanced with due weight. Plot summaries should cover all important points and not overemphasize more recent plot developments.
  • The idea of canon is permitted to some degree, provided there is no dispute about the source's canon status. Canon sources should still be cited out-of-universe, such as "Episode 34 reveals that..."

[edit] Notability

Main article: Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

Articles on fiction should generally be about notable subjects. A fictional work is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject.

  • Pages referring directly to a primary source material (e.g. books, films etc.) are typically notable.
  • Major characters in a fictional work or series of works may be notable, but it is preferable to cover characters within the broader article on the work of fiction. Minor characters are not usually notable, and should be combined into a single list-style article.
  • Subjects should have a significant real-world presence, fictional presence, or both.

[edit] Detail and Scope

Articles on fiction should have a level of detail appropriate for the subject. They should endeavor to both summarise the fictional subject matter and place the fictional work within the context of the real world.

  • Articles should be succint.
  • In particular, plot synopses, fictional biographies, and the like should be terse.
  • Articles should strive to describe the subject matter related to the real world, such as:
    • the author or creator;
    • the design;
    • the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative;
    • real-world factors that have influenced the work;
    • for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character;
    • its popularity among the general public;
    • sequals, spin-offs, cross-media etc.;
    • its sales figures (for commercial offerings);
    • its reception by critics;
    • a critical analysis of the subject;
    • the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and
    • a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional.

[edit] Perspectives in fiction

Articles on fiction can approach their subject from two angles:

  • In one method, articles can describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world. This is referred to as an out-of-universe perspective.
  • The second approach treats the fiction as if it were real, and describes it from the perspective of the people and characters of the fictional universe. This is often referred to as an in-universe perspective. Many non-Wikimedia wikis and independent fan-maintained websites take this approach, but it is not considered encyclopedic. Topics covered may include:
    • the birth and death dates of fictional characters;
    • a plot synopsis framed as biography;
    • performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices;
    • an exposition framed as the history of fictional locations or organizations; and
    • fictional background information on alien creatures presented as real-world science or anthropology.

Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should prefer an out-of-universe perspective.

[edit] Prose examples

The following contrived plot description does not discuss the real-world universe at all, even tangentially, and is an example of the type of writing that should thus be avoided on Wikipedia:

In Star Year 8891 the Slibvorks of Blastio were infected with the Kroxyldyph virus by a bio-warfare special operations unit on a clandestine mission. The unit, acting under the leadership of Commander Sam Kinkaid and without the approval of Star Command, rewrote the Slibvorks' DNA and caused their skin to turn blue.

In contrast, the passage below treats the same subject in a way that is suitable for Wikipedia, because it discusses the fictional universe with respect to events, people, and things in this universe. Notice how this perspective allows the inclusion of much information that an in-universe perspective would not:

In the later series, a larger budget allowed for more extensive special effects makeup. The Slibvorks were now depicted as having blue skin, a stark contrast with their appearance in the earlier series. The writers explained this by adding a genetic misfortune into the backstory of the Slibvorks. According to the current series bible, this occurred in Star Year 8891, between episodes 5.14 and 6.0. This was later expanded into the novel The Trouble with Kroxyldyph by Honda MacHinery. The novel follows the adventures of a bio-warfare special operations unit on a clandestine mission to infect the Slibvorks with the Kroxyldyph virus. The unit, acting under Commander Sam Kinkaid's leadership and without the approval of Star Command, rewrites the Slibvorks' DNA. The change in skin color is one of many unintended side-effects.

Likewise, the lead section of an article written from an in-universe perspective about a fictional character might read something like this:

His Royal Highness King Ludgar Wolventongue of Tympania (820 Age of the Mystic River–872 Age of the Mystic River) is a fictional character in the universe of RPG Co.'s Lands of Lustre series. Wolventongue was born into a powerful Tympanian family, the son of King Rodgast Horseheel and Queen Gebellynde of Hyrax. He ascended to the throne in 838 Age of the Mystic River and ruled as a caring and magnanimous king, although not without an occasional bout of moodiness. Wolventongue died in battle with Grufius the Gargler in the Battle of Ganzon Gulch.

Notice how the prose is careful to label the subject as fictional, only to proceed to describe the character as if he were real for the remainder of the paragraph. Instead, the lead section and the whole article should persist with its out-of-universe view of the character:

Ludgar Wolventongue is a fictional character in the universe of RPG Co.'s Lands of Lustre series. Introduced in the Mysteries of Tympania trilogy by Amanda Karbowski, the character plays an important role in many Lands of Lustre novels. Karbowski's trilogy describes Wolventongue's birth into a powerful Tympanian family as the son of King Rodgast Horseheel and Queen Gebellynde of Hyrax; he ascends to the throne in 838 Age of the Mystic River, as described in the second book. Various characters describe Wolventongue as "caring and magnanimous", and Karbowski offers numerous examples of these traits. However, the king shows a temper from time to time, as when he berates a young Sir Gyroban after the Battle of Rynsoth. In the later stand-alone novel Death in Tympania (1995), Wolventongue dies in 872 Age of the Mystic River during the Battle of Ganzon Gulch, a victim of Grufius the Gargler. The fact that Karbowski killed off the popular character shocked fans and prompted many negative reviews in science fiction magazines.

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

Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's the two core content policies. It requires articles to rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and also contain no original research. Articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Such article are likely to lack any critical analysis on the subject and may invite creative interpretation. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves.

Consider this analogy: Would it be acceptable to write an article on flight based solely on watching birds flying? Furthermore, much of this analysis might seem on the surface to be quite sound. For example, assume that an editor creates an article on a starship recently introduced on a science fiction TV show. Using the episodes as reference, he or she writes, "Finn-class starfighters have purple shielding and can fly faster than Mach 3." But how do we really know that all Finn-class starships have purple shielding? What if there are green ones that just have not been introduced yet? And what if later episodes show that Finn-class starships come in slower or faster varieties, too? The editor has made an inference, based on limited fictional information. Framing things from the perspective of our own universe eliminates the problem altogether: "In Episode 37, Commander Kinkaid obtains a Finn-class starfighter with purple shielding. Vice Admiral Hancock calls the ship 'a real space ripper' and says that she can 'make it past Mach 3'."

In-universe writing can lead to skewed emphasis. For example, an article about a character from a particular film might begin with details of the character's early life, information that might only be found in an obscure novel. With such an approach, only later can the article describe the character's actual contribution to the famous film for which he or she is known. In other words, possibly irrelevant information is being given equal weight to more notable material. 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. On the other hand, articles written from an out-of-universe perspective, with their inclusion of details of creation, development, critical reaction, etc., serve our readers better.

Many resources might not seem to be primary source material themselves, but in reality are. For example, many science fiction franchises publish detailed guidebooks about the aliens, spacecraft, and weapons depicted in the series. However, these works generally do little more than reframe the source material in a pseudo-encyclopedic manner; many of these works even add new information and extrapolations of things only hinted at in the series itself. A good rule of thumb is that if a potential source treats a fictional subject from a mostly in-universe perspective, it is primary source material itself.

Another reason to avoid both in-universe perspective and lengthy, detailed plot synopses is that, in sufficient quantity, they may be construed as a copyright violation. Information about fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."

[edit] In-universe template

If you notice an article that predominantly describes a fictional topic from an in-universe perspective, or even provides no indication that a fictional subject is fictional, either improve it yourself or add the {{In-universe}} template to bring the issue to the attention of others. This template looks like this:

 This article or section describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style.
Please rewrite this article or section to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective.

[edit] Exceptions

Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own milieu. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. This is not inherently bad, if the fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Note that when using the fictional work itself to write these descriptions the work of fiction must be cited as a source. For instance, a video game article should cite the game text, but it should also cite a reliable secondary source when necessary.

Even these short summaries can often be written from an out-of-universe perspective, and when this is possible, this approach should be preferred. For example, the following made-up paragraph is a largely in-universe plot synopsis that might draw from several episodes of a television show or several video games in a series:

Hirokazu Exocool catches Gogosaurus outside Cephalopod City. He brings it to his master, YuYu Yamauchi, who transforms it into a much more fearsome Synthosaurus Rex. The creature then escapes YuYu's hideout and terrorizes Cephalopod City. Exocool is forced to sacrifice a Level 3 Waste Card to prevent the beast from destroying the castle of Princess Apricot.

This is generally fine, provided that some sort of indication is given as to where these various pieces of information come from (cite.php, for example). Another option is to add these notations to the prose itself. This may give the paragraph a more grounded tone and make it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the series:

Gogosaurus's first appearance is in Monstrous Minions, released in 2003. The plot involves Hirokazu Exocool's efforts to capture the beast outside Cephalopod City. Monstrous Minions 2: Minions Morph! (2004) involves Exocool's quest to return to his master, YuYu Yamauchi. Once the two have been reunited, YuYu transforms the Gogosaurus into a much more fearsome Synthosaurus Rex. Monstrous Minions 3: More than Mighty Minions (2005) completes Gogosaurus's backstory. This time, the creature escapes YuYu's hideout and terrorizes Cephalopod City. Exocool must sacrifice a Level 3 Waste Card to prevent the beast from destroying the castle of Princess Apricot.

[edit] Infoboxes and succession boxes

Infoboxes, usually placed in the upper-right portion of an article, give key data about the article's subject in tabular format. For entities within fiction, useful infobox data would include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work. With loose continuity, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add. By contrast, a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance.

As with all infoboxes, trivial details should be avoided. An infobox for a real-life actor would not contain items such as favorite food, eye color, and hobbies; these details do not aid the reader in understanding the important characteristics of the subject. In the same way, infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory. For this reason, infoboxes meant for real-world entities should not be applied to their fictional counterparts, since, for example, information important to a description of a real-world company may be tangential to a fictional one. It is important to identify the revenue of Microsoft, whereas the fact that fictional MegaAcmeCorp makes 300 billion GalactiBucks in the year 2463 is probably unimportant.

Succession boxes, another common type of template, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities. Succession boxes assume continuity, which may not exist. Even if it does exist, the fiction's creators may choose to rewrite it later, invalidating any previous canon. In-universe succession boxes cannot adapt to these situations. Furthermore, the story that each work of fiction depicts does not change despite the continuation of stories across serial works or sequels, and as a consequence, the events within one work of fiction are always in the present whenever it is read, watched, or listened to. In-universe temporal designations such as current or previous are therefore inappropriate.

[edit] Example articles

The following is a partial list of articles about fiction or elements from fiction that follow the recommendations of this guideline. These are good examples to follow for editors seeking to cover fictional subjects on Wikipedia. Keep in mind that the content in these articles may have changed since the time of their original listing here.

[edit] Characters

[edit] Complete works (films, television series, video games, etc.)

[edit] Miscellaneous

[edit] Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles

Some other Wikipedia-like projects prefer in-universe perspective. These are a good alternative for editors interested in such topics. The following is a partial list:

See also: List of wikis

[edit] See also

[edit] Related WikiProjects

These are some of the more important WikiProjects that deal with fiction material. They may have additional suggestions, article templates and styles that you might wish to make yourself familiar with.

Languages