Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Fiction/entertainment guideline notices: v • d • e • w
  • A new (6/3/08) RFC on the global acceptance for WP:FICT is underway.

More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board


Archive
Archives
Shortcut:
WT:WAF


Contents

[edit] Real-world perspective Barnstar

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

[edit] Sections in articles about fiction and TV series or books, especially in List of characters

I started a discussion in Talk:Characters of Lost#Dividing the characters to Oceanic Six and others about the way the sections should be written in articles about fiction and TV series.

I am the opinion that section titles and section division should not reflect the "current" (last episode seen so far) status of the characters on the specific TV series in the same reason that we don't write the status of a fictional character appearing in a TV series. I think we should recommend that the characters appearing on the show in a way to take under consideration all seasons/episodes and in a way presenting fundamental elements of the TV series/book/etc and not using criteria that may change or depend only on the "current" (last episode seen so far) episode (or book if that concerns a book series such as Harry Potter).

I am not sure that FICTION already covers that. At least it did, but it seems we have to make a discussion here about a more specific policy about the subject.

I find the division of the characters of the Lost TV series subjective and wrong. The same way I felt about an older division of the characters of Jericho to deceased and not deceased. I had corrected the latter with no problem by merging the one category into the other. The editors dealing with Lost seem to have a different prospective.

I certainly would like that specific guidelines are writen. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm following correctly, but are you referring to something similar to have maybe Smallville's main page does it? That's set up based on their original appearances. Many have left the show, but they remain in the original list, while anyone that came later were added in a separate listing as they were not part of the original group of series regulars.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The division in main and additional cast is just perfect. It's simple, it covers all the characters, it is independent from the "status" ("dead", "alive", "on the island", "off the island", etc.) of the character.-- 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Also List of characters in Heroes is not that bad. Except maybe the "family" thing but this is under discussion there as well. It has Additional season 1 characters and Additional season 2 characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There have been some editors that have wanted to reorder the list to be "Current cast" and "Departed Cast", or something to that effect. I've always felt that gave rise to recentism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In regard to Lost, the sections contain spoilers so I am not sure why the headers should be any different. Using Greek mythology as an analogy, the page is arranged by "Olympians", "Titans", "nymphs", "other deities" and "mortals". –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to note that all "off the island" characters (Oceanic Six aside) have always been off the island. If someone look at the page and says, "Oh damn, I didn't know Sun was part of the Six" then they shouldn't have looked at the page. You should expect spoilers on a central pages such as a list of characters. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 :) I liked the example you used. But see Battlestar Galactica. Since the main element of the whole series is Cylons vs Humans (it is written in the introduction of each episode) it is completely normal to do that but in Lost the division between people on the boat, people on the island, etc. is not a basic element of the whole series. The basic element is the survivors and other people they meet. Certainly, the division to Oceanic Six, people on the boat, etc. has nothing to do with Titans and nymphs. Characters in Lost can change status in each episode.
Now, about the style of writing, I think it is more encyclopedic to divide the characters each tv series, etc. to main cast -indicating in which season are main cast- and additional cast. This saves us from recentism, too much spoiling, fancract division, etc.
We have to encourage people to check the Wikipedia articles. I removed all Heroes articles from My Watchlist because someone was always entering information from previews, at 90% inaccurate or just... wrong. We want people who just start watching Season 1 to go and find the infrmation they want without worrying to get unnecessary spoilers. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, if someone has only started the beginning of a series, they should know not to touch that series on the internet with a kilometre-long pole (even if it has a blade at the tip). And part of the hitch of Lost is the fact that there is usually a storyline on all fronts. Currently, on the Kahana, at Locke's camp, at Jack's camp, the past and the future. Those characters may venture into the other realm, but tend to stay within there own. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Characters of classical mythology change status too. Heracles eventually became a god and the Olympians are a group that formed and expanded overtime. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"Those characters may venture into the other realm, but tend to stay within there own" Why do I believe that this sentence is not a good way to look things in Wikipedia? Those characters are part of a product that it is distributed in many ways. TV in the US, dvd boxsets in other countries, etc. Why can't we make articles based less on "the last episode seen so far"? Why must someone watch all the episodes of a Tv series before consulting Wikipedia? This is not how an Encyclopedia should work I think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should be complete. To be complete, we need all information. We can't stay on the first episode when there are more than that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that. I am searching a way to present things in a better way. Check the Cylon (Battlestar Galactica) article for BSG. It is very nice. It explains what Cylons are, they are not section titles like Captain Adama is a Cylon, it presents information outside a certain season's perspective, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Adama's what now?! Lol. But at Cylon (re-imagining) the biggest spoilers are shown. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There are more good ways for presenting characters: List of Battlestar Galactica characters, List of Prison Break characters. :) I'll try to check most of the characters' articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Still, if you sort through them all, the amount with spoiles outweigh those without partially because the list of characters as where many without enough info for a page but enough to be significant are put. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
At the Lost page, there is no section title that reads ***** is one of the Oceanic Six. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that even if we reorganize the Oceanic Six into the main list of survivors the article will still state which survivors are part of the Oceanic Six, as this is essential information about the characters. Where and how this information is presented is just semantics. Yes, it would be less obvious if it were only stated in the normal font after the characters' names, but as stated several times we don't organize information in such a way to spare new viewers of being spoiled. Jackieboy87 (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I checked many other articles of Lists and I think Lost system is the worst. The vast majority uses the classic main/additional cast. You are not even using the word "cast" or "characters" in the section titles. In response to the "we don't organize information in such a way..." I have to use that's why I am asking specific rules to be written in the Manual of Style. The question is if we have to organize information in the way I suggest or not. And that has not only to do with Lost. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Input requested at WT:FICT

I am proposing a hypothetic case of what would be covered in an article of a notable work of fiction assuming no size restrictions but also lacking any notability for the universe within that work of fiction, as to try to bound issues for spinouts and other aspects, as well as likely creating language to be re-inserted in here on how much to discuss a fictional universe. Please see this discussion thread if you would like to provide input. --MASEM 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

the case cannot arise. How can a work be notable independent of its subject, unless it is notable primarily as an example of fine printing, or cinematography? 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant court case - "Harry Potter Lexicon" - the perils of in-universe writing

Discussed at "Rowling to Testify in Trial Over Potter Lexicon," New York Times, April 14, 2008. The allegation is that the defendant's work in that case does not qualify as fair use because it "merely compiles and repackages Ms. Rowling’s fictional facts derived wholesale from the Harry Potter works without adding any new creativity, commentary, insight or criticism." Everyone should watch the outcome of this case. Postdlf (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to note while this is a valid concern, results of legal cases should only filter to WP after WP's lawyers have stated something to that effect. The most recent inquiry, a few months ago I think over in WP:NOT was that right now, editors should not concern themselves with possible copyright infringement issues in the development of policy and guidelines. This court case may change that but we should only respond after the lawyers for WP respond. --MASEM 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no, no, et cetera. Sorry for being blunt even by my standards, but we have to be firm on this. If we jump every time this ridiculously complex site of ours could conceivably get in trouble from the perspective of legal laymen, we might as well blow up the encyclopedia and go home. Exceptions to this can have very weighty consequences and should only be made with the equally weighty aid of Wikimedia's legal help. Mike effin' Godwin has already been consulted on this specific issue, and until and unless he says otherwise, we stand firm. --Kizor 22:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Stand firm? In defense of pure plot summary "articles"? Dorftrottel (vandalise) 13:29, April 28, 2008
Thank you for your quotation marks, but can we keep that out of this? --Kizor 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but I don't think we need such a court case to recognise pure plot summaries as the poorest form of pseudo-article (that's where the quotmarks went. such pages are simply not proper articles), and axe them as they come. Likewise, even if Mike Godwin's advice were that we need not worry wrt the Rowling case, we should still do something against disproportionate plot summaries, for purely encyclopedic reasons. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 09:17, April 29, 2008
This is something to keep in mind, even if we're not going to take any drastic measures on it. We often deal with image-copyright stuff without consulting the Foundation's legal advisors, but I do understand that article text is its own monster. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The image policy came down from the Foundation based on their legal advice. When the text becomes an issue for the Foundation, the same will happen. Until then, it's up to editorial consensus to set the way forwards, and the consensus tends to be that we should avoid copyright paranoia. Hiding T 08:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It is relevant, but please note that the result of the court case has not yet (as far as I know) been announced. It could go either way, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions until the case is over. All the news articles I found said something like: "The case continues." From what I've read, the case has actually finished now, but a verdict will take "several weeks". Let's wait until that verdict arrives. Oh, and well-referenced and encyclopedic articles won't have a thing to worry about. It is more the fan stuff on wikia, or our badly-written articles, that will be a concern, if even that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not relevant. We should not have articles that are just long plot summaries, but the previously mentioned court case has nothing to do with the rationale. We should be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias summarize the plot of works of fiction, but they are not written in a style that substitutes for the work of fiction. They describe the work of fiction, not retell the work of fiction. 'Nuff said. Ursasapien (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. What a sorry condition would we have to be in to need a court case to recognise what is and what is not encyclopedic. Incidentally, erring on the side of caution largely overlaps with the project's goals. Dorftrottel (ask) 09:21, April 29, 2008
It's not even relevant--we have nothing of that degree of extensiveness. And in the case itself, the key point of argument was the competition with the original authors well-demonstrated intent to publish a similar publication. Two published books as guides to the works can compete with each other (though of course it has been quite correctly argued that nobody else's work can in practice possibly inhibit the actual sales of Rowlings'). When some author objects that they intend to produce a wiki and sell access to it for profit, we can argue the matter. DGG (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character Lists in Play articles

Can someone provide some guidance regarding the make-up of Character lists in Play articles? There is some dispute on this and no clear guidelines. (Unfortunately, we have very clear guidelnes for Film, books, even toys and games, but not for plays.) I see that in your "exemplary articles" list you have several tv series and one film, but no plays. Should character lists be in list form (like in a theatre program or playbook) or in prose (like in the exemplary tv series articles that are listed)? And in complex plays (like Shakespeare) should the character lists be fairly complete, or just the main characters? Or should character sections be placed in a separate article completely and deleted from the main play article? Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just added this to style guidelines cat

This page is one of the 6 style guidelines specifically mentioned at WP:WIAGA, and it says it's a style guideline, so I stuck the style guidelines cat on it. Feel free to revert. Ignore my comment in the history about it being "commented out"; turns out that was a HotCat bug. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested addition

I couldn't find anything explicit along these lines, so I'm suggesting adding it, or something similar, in "Notability and undue weight" and "Plot summaries":

“ The balance of real-world perspective and in-universe/plot information must also be considered for distinct elements within an article: if an article contains a list of characters, each character should have real-world perspective to balance the plot information given; if an article on a work contains a section on a particular fiction element, that too should cover real-world perspective to balance any in-universe perspective. ”

If there's any concern that this would lead to removal of things that shouldn't be, especially as wikipedia isn't finished and there is no deadline, it might be worth adding

“ However, it is not necessary to enforce this point strongly in all articles. Wikipedia is not finished, and where there is any expectation that such real-world perspective and analysis may be added in future, such material should be left in the article. ”

Of course, if this is said, it might be worth reinforcing that good articles (including GAs and FAs) shouldn't have such coverage, along the following lines:

“ Note, however, that such plot-heavy sections may be considered an obstacle to achieving Good Article or Featured Article status. ”

(probably with GA and FA links).

So, what do people think? If WP:FICT settles in the direction it seems to be moving, I think this would be very useful in discouraging over-inclusion in lists. If we can only cover a list item with plot summary and in-universe information, should we be covering it at all? SamBC(talk) 14:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mostly sounds a good idea - I wouldn't bother undermining it with the However... paragraph. I also think that a lot of what's in the Depth of Coverage section there would find a better home here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe this is sufficiently covered in #Notability and undue weight section. More importantly, there is no use in including this material, especially when it's instantly watered down into oblivion with the second part. Also, most bad editors in fiction articles do not at all care for article status or encyclopedic standards but merely for the inclusion of each and everything, so the GA/FA carrot does not work. Bad editors should be shown the stick. Dorftrottel (criticise) 15:36, May 6, 2008
    • Firstly, I included the "however" as a possible addition if people felt this was too prescriptive rather than descriptive. In terms of already covered, the text you refer to only covers whether things should be covered or not. The proposed addition talks about how to cover them; an article on "TV Show X" may give lots of information on social impact, critical reception, etc etc, and then have a section on characters that discusses each character only in in-universe/plot-based terms. The intent of my suggested addition is to suggest that this isn't a good idea, and that each character should have a balance of real-world information as well. SamBC(talk) 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Having worked on character lists, I must say that "each character should have real-world perspective to balance the plot information given" is just too strong even for high-quality articles, although this is generally good advice for the group of characters as a whole. I also share Dorftrottel's concerns that quantity often matters more to fan editors than quality (I started out as a fan editor before I saw the light). I am neutral on additions about GAs and FAs; it can't really hurt though either. – sgeureka t•c 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Addendum for "where there is any expectation that such real-world perspective and analysis may be added in future, such material should be left in the article": Just because it is possible to add three paragraphs of real-world info and analysis, doesn't mean that the other 20 paragraphs of perfectly originally reasearched plot are justified. If I knew that an article could very well become a GA if only expanded with real-world info/perspective, but that only one quarter of its current plot would need to stay for that, I may as well remove the excessive plot that moment. – sgeureka t•c 16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with anime and manga

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

Simple answer: absolutely not. The anime and manga MoS is a topic specific MoS just like WP:FILM and the TV MoS (which is becoming a real MoS as noted in the message below). It deals with aspects not just related to "fiction", including quite a few industry specific topics. It is a well used, well understood project specific MoS. And unlike this thing, it hasn't had any real issues with disputes or the like. Our MoS is stable and works well. Every good project has a MoS. There is no reason at all to merge them. Will you also be proposing every other topical MoS be merged into WP:MOS? I'm going to presume you aren't in the Anime and manga project that you would even make such a suggestion, as you don't seem to have a clear grasp or understanding of what the project does or its full scope. Collectonian (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Kubanczyk has generally done a good job on style guidelines when I've noticed, but I agree with Collectonian on this one. The key is that you're either working on manga or you're not; for the people who aren't, there's no point in making them read manga-specific guidelines, and the existence of manga guidelines doesn't create any extra work for them. However, I very much welcome Kubanczyk and anyone else joining the current push to make sure style guidelines are just as tight as possible, so that we minimize the amount of material that people read that they won't actually need. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. The MoS for anime and manga-related pages is ok on its own, and does not need to be merged with this controversial guideline. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:WAF and WP:MOS-AM have different aims: the former is guidelines for the microwriting (to use a jargon term) about all fiction and fictional topics, while the latter is about the structure, that is macrowriting, for a specific genre of fictions. I can't see them fitting together at all neatly. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Such a merge wouldn't even make sense. I fail to see how the guidelines provided support the merge - could you please elaborate on the matter? --Eruhildo (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with not merging. WAF isn't really about article structure and what to look for, but more about how you should go about writing your information when you attain it, appropriate sources, when to leave trivial details out of an article, and outlets for information that is relevant to the show but not to an encyclopedia. If you look at the Manga MOS, the FILM MOS, and the one that I'm working on for the TV community, they are more about article structure and what info you need to look for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that these two should not be merged. While I understand the nominator's reasoning, I think it has been misapplied in this case for the reasons already expressed by others above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also opposed to merging. MOS-AM is a project/topic specific page, while WAF is a very general style guideline. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EPISODE merge

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

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

[edit] Merge proposoal over at Smallville pages

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

[edit] So and so is a fictional character

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

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

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

In the future, how about starting such a discussion before you go and change dozens of articles to remove your "pet peeve" when someone had already told you it was against the MoS (all have been undone, BTW, as you were told would happen). As for why we use fictional character, because the first sentence establishes the basics of the topic and establishes a real-world starting point. In this case, we are clarifying that the article is about a fictional character, versus a non-fictional character (and yes, there are such characters), and at least for the first sentence, writing about the character from an encyclopedic perspective. We do not just go "oh well, you'll figure it out from the rest of the article." It may seem overly obvious, but sometimes you have to lead the horse to water, and we want to be clear from the first sentence that this article is NOT about a real person. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he's saying that, and he brings up a good point that we make it sound as if they're a character within the fiction. Perhaps we should say something else, like "a character of fiction"? -- Ned Scott 07:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I see "X is a character in the fictional game Y" a lot, where X is a fictional character and Y is a real game. Madness. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
1) I wasn't told of the guideline until after I made my changes. 2)You're ignoring the main point of my argument: the fact that the wording makes it sound as if the characters are fictional within an already fictional universe. 3)Does anyone use the phrase "non-fictional character"? Most writers wouldn't describe Jamie Foxx's role in Ray in such terms, unless they had to distinguish Ray Charles from characters in the same film who weren't based on real people. I still think most readers will assume that "character" means "fictional character". 4)The Captain Marvel example is just inexcusable, I think. You speak about establishing a "real world starting point". So why must we describe Marvel as a "fictional superhero"? It's not like there are superheros in the real world. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, you were told per your own talk page, hours before you made the changes to all of the Office character pages. ANd no, I'm not ignoring the main point, I'm discounting it. They are fictional characters in a real work, not in a fictional universe. And hey, there was that whole super hero reality show, effectively making superheroes in the real world (even if they were stupid ones). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, I was warned at 6:16, 28 May 2008. I made my last edit to an Office page at 6:12. It's in the logs, plain as day. And regardless of whether those reality show participants are superheros, they're still not comic book superheros. "Comic book" is enough to show that so and so is fictional. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, I misread the time there. Still, once you started the discussion, you should have waited rather than turning around and redoing one of your changes hours after the warning there and an hour after starting a discussion here[1]. And no, comic book isn't enough to show something is fictional. There are comic book depictions of real life events, not all are purely fictional.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed McClure because that line is still misleading to me. It's embarassing to see that in an article on the front page. I did what I thought (and still think) is right. McClure is not fictional in the show's universe, which is what that line suggests. That line puts him in the same class as characters like Itchy and Scratchy, who are cartoon characters watched by Bart and Lisa. (Incidentally, how would we describe Itchy and Scratchy? As "fictional fictional characters"? Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support the use of fictional character in the first line. Moreover, this should be always linked to explain what a fictional character is. Linking to that is much better than [[fiction]]al character. We have to make clear that the individual in the article doesn't exist and it's only a product of fiction. I think we have to remove phases like "born in October 20, 1960" which certainly should be under a section called "fictional biography" or something like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a "fictional biography" to begin with, because if you have that then people will want to include anything. Plus, no fictional character is "born", just like no fictional character truly "dies", because the great thing about fiction is that when you "die" you can always come back. Now, you can make note when discussing the character's publication by stating something like "Captain America was originally present during World War II..." or something like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Collectonian's point of the fictional/non-fictional character. If you say, "X is a character in the fictional Y" then that doesn't identify if the character is fictional or non-fictional. Oh, and the fact that you don't see it that often doesn't mean that if a non-fictional character warranted an article that we shouldn't use the "non-fictional" term to describe them. As for the idea of "there aren't fictional superheroes", or something similar, I'll give you the Loch Ness theory: Can you prove that? There are no definites in life. There are high probabilities. There's nothing that states we couldn't have a real life Batman, or Iron Man, or someone similar prowling the rooftops at night. Vigilantes are not non-existent.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the term "fictional biography" is not the best. "Character's storyline" or something like that is better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a desperate argument. And even if those figures existed, they still wouldn't be called "comic book" superheros. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I understand why Awbizkomeydownstar doesn't like the fictional character qualification. Although I agree that it's necessary on many articles, let's not forget that it started mainly as a substitute for real real-world context writing, which many fan-writers are incapable of and unwilling to learn about. That's why we're stuck with loads of articles which are mere plot summaries or, worse, 'fictional biographies' with the real-world context ridiculously reduced to the word fictional in the lead. dorftrottel (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
About "born". Check Ismo Laitela for example. "Laitela (born 27 June 1955 in Tampere is a controversial character blah blah blah". This is terrible. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. For one thing, birthdate is trivia for most characters; probably a one-off reference in a single episode or issue, or whatever, because it isn't going to be defining for that character in the way that debut publication/broadcast date would be, or that a real birthdate is for a real person. There are exceptions (Jenny Sparks, the children in Midnight's Children), but even in those cases to introduce it in the manner of a real birthdate is to present it completely without context and therefore without meaning. Postdlf (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the need to distinguish, and just as one incidental possibility, I tried out a change today from "early life" of a fictional character to "background of the character". DGG (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's great. Maybe it's time to write down some instructions for other editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What should and should not be in a character article

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

I support the idea of giving more specific instructions in order to help editors write better articles. Check for example User_talk:Magioladitis#Blake's 7 Status Removal that a discussion about "status" is taking place in many different Talk pages with the same result. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The Television MOS that I've worked on (see User:Bignole/Television MOS) address character articles. If we're going to get specifics for general fiction characters, then I think it would be good that (pending the Television MOS goes through) all pages .... be on the same page (pardon the pun).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that what you have there is good for a general character article, but I'm thinking about more specifically about what in-universe details that should and should not be included for a character in general, regardless if its an article or a small section in a larger one about a character. --MASEM 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be a good compliment to the general structure of the article. I would be fearful of WP:CREEP.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That what I was expecting. Bignole's article it's a great idea. I was planning to contribute there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way,, can anyone give an argument why they should not contain a substantial part that is a biography? I see some character articles as a often better approach to summarizing plot, epecially of a series, and I think that's a validuse of them. DGG (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
First, they aren't real, and a "biography" would kind of be treating them like they were. "Biography" is misleading when you are dealing with fictional characters. If someone wants to write a "biography" for another Wiki, or just publish a book on it then great, but "biographies" on fictional characters generally lend themselves strictly to fans. Second, not everything that happens to a character is relevant, important, encyclopedic, or just plain interesting. Do I, or anyone else for that matter, need to know that Character X ate Cheerios for breakfast one episode? Most likely not. Do we need a walkthrough of their every movement in a show or comic book? Not when you can summarize their actions without having to detail every minute aspect of them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
To restate in another way, the format of a "biography" simply doesn't work for fictional characters because they don't live out sequential lives, and what is important to a real person is not necessarily important to a fictional character. A character's story is told in bits and pieces, sometimes depicted as the main narrative action, sometimes merely referred to in dialog as having already happened, and particularly when that character is developed across multiple works of fiction often not in a chronological order. A "biography" would ignore that context, and so would fail to give proper weight and treatment to various story elements, and would fail to describe how that character was developed and presented to an audience. It matters whether a character's childhood was the subject of ten TV episodes or only one conversation in one scene of one episode and then never commented on again, or if a character's backstory was revealed when he was introduced or not until after decades of publication. We don't pretend that we're writing an encyclopedia entry from within that character's fictional world, which would really be the least interesting way to do it because it would leave out all the real-world information that Wikipedia is about. Postdlf (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We still need a better intro in articles on fictional characters

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

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

Disagree per the length conversation already gone over once above. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you disagree about, specifically? You don't think the stock wording is potentially misleading? The other conversation turned into an argument about the existence of "non-fictional characters". I'm done with that. This is a distinct issue, relating to the quality of the prose. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the stock wording is not misleading. Many featured and GA character articles having the same phrasing. Said articles have been well reviewed, including by copyeditors who deal specifically with prose, tone, etc. You are the only person I've ever seen have any problem with it or to find it misleading at all. It isn't misleading. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So because no one else has mentioned it, I must be wrong? Do realize that a lot of crap gets through the FA process. Count how many problems you can find in this version of the McClure article. I did a lot of work on the article during the weekend before it reached the main page. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Characters that exist as part of shows-within-a-show are still fictional; some real person had to create that person at some point. The distinction of being a character of a show-within-a-show is not significant in the first sentence, but should be clarified in the second sentence of the lead. For example, Itchy and Scratchy are fictional characters from the television show "The Simpsons". They are a cartoon cat and mouse, respectively, that appear on the fictional show "The Itchy and Scratchy Show" within the series. (I'm not looking at the actual article, just an example off my head). --MASEM 18:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually like the intro from Radioactive Man: Radioactive Man, within the world of the animated series The Simpsons, is a comic book superhero who... And it elegantly avoids the 'fictional' qualifier. On a related note: I don't think the fiction-in-fiction quality about e.g. Radioactive Man is of utmost importance. Mentioning this particular quality of a character somewhere later in the intro and in the discussion in the article body is sufficient. But primarily, Radioactive Man is still precisely this: A fictional character in the series The Simpsons. dorftrottel (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not arguing that the "fiction-in-fiction quality" is of utmost importance. And I agree that both McClure and Radioactive Man are ultimately fictional. My argument is that readers might misinterpret the intro of Troy McClure as saying that he is fictional within the show. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's very likely. At any rate, reading beyond the first sentence clears such questions up, that's why there is more than one sentence. One option, besides sorting into Category:Metafictional characters, is to explain (and something to that effect could imo be added to WAF) that second order fictional characters like e.g. Radioactive Man are fictional fictional characters. dorftrottel (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a lot more likely than someone thinking Troy McClure is a real person, which is what other editors are worried about.
As an aside, is "fictional fictional character" a real term? There are no Google book hits for it: [2]. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It may be more likely, but failing to make the distinction between real-world and fictional (in the entire article, but also and especially at the beginning) is far worse than failing to (immediately) distinguish between first, second and n-th order fiction. When all is said and done, the fact that Itchy & Scratchy are second order fictional entities is of comparatively minor importance when compared to the basic information that they are fictional characters in The Simpsons. Also: I had never heard or read the term 'FFC' either. I prefer the generic order nomenclature for this set, but I made it up myself. dorftrottel (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we should make a distinction between the real world and the fictional. And I agree; we don't need to immediately indicate that a character is "second order fictional". However, we shouldn't lead readers to think that a character is second order fictional when that character is not. We need a wording that eliminates all possible misinterpretation. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] New MOS for TV

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