Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Sub-policy proposal 2 If you want an article to fix up 3 now a guideline 4 Plot summaries 5 MIB 6 Potential pitfall 7 Different types of fiction 8 Inaccuracies in section on criticism of in-universe writing 9 Example of styles 10 In/out universe comparison 10.1 Comment on archive of discussion 11 Simpler way to express all this 12 Context involving the reader 13 Another example 14 Tense 15 Taking on a template 16 Template Request 17 Something I've always wondered (primary sources) 18 Character question 19 Mega Man Zero character articles

Sub-policy proposal

Please see: Wikipedia:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want an article to fix up

How about this mess-on-every-level (even the TITLE can't get "Spider-Man" right): Spider-man's powers, abilities, and equipment - SoM 03:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

now a guideline

as its now a guideline i added it to Template:Style and Wikipedia:Community Portal. Catherine breillat 13:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Plot summaries

We're running into problems at WP:COMICS with people creating articles specifically to detail plots of individual story arcs. Now, working on the following guidance:

• Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles: Articles about fictional topics should not be simple book reports; instead, the topic should be explained through its significance on the work. The reader should be able to feel like they understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work after reading an article about one. A reader should be able to understand why this person/place/thing/event is relevant to the story.

• Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. Wikibooks, Wikipedia's sibling project, contains instructional and educational texts. These include annotated works of fiction (on the [[wikibooks:Wikibooks:annotated texts bookshelf) for classroom or private study use. Wikisource, similarly, holds original public domain and GFDL source texts. See wikisource:Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks.

• This page: (ensure) fictional passages are short, grounded with real-world language, and do not form more than a small portion of the article.

Can we work something up where we give guidance that articles should not exist solely as a repository for plot summaries, and that plot summaries should be kept brief, and included only where they serve to illustrate elements of a works significance, or events held to be significant to the work or character in question by cited sources? Appreciate thoughts. Hiding Talk 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For example: I think largely based on misunderstanding or ignorance of this guidance , my recent attempt at deleting Runaways (comics) (story arcs) failed. Was I wrong? --Newt ΨΦ 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

MIB

Would someone please take a look at M.I.B. and tell me what SOP is in dealing with such an article?--Chris Griswold 04:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Find a suitable article to merge and redirect to. Hiding Talk 07:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Potential pitfall

I think the purpose of this guideline is (as stated on the project page) to discourage 'original research' theories on 'in world' details and encourage inclusion of information about real world connections and relevance... which seem to me like good things that most people agree on. However, I have also already seen some indications of other interpretations which I think could be much more problematic.

For instance, some seem to suggest that plot and character details should be minimized or cut out entirely... possibly including removing many articles completely. Comments calling articles on minor fictional character or excessive detail on major ones "unencyclopedic content" strike me as trouble waiting to happen. Wikipedia is not paper. We have the space to be the equivalent of the combined contents of every 'fictional universe' encyclopedia in existence. What reason would we have to not do that? The standard claims that such details are 'unencyclopedic' ring hollow;

We are working to include articles on every little species of rodent, far more than any general purpose paper encyclopedia would ever contain, yet no one claims these are "unencyclopedic content". Brittannica has articles on New York City and other major metropolises - Wikipedia has articles on every po-dunk town in the United States (and many outside it)... yet no one yells "unencyclopedic" and slaps a dispute template on those either. On every other topic it is simply understood that Wikipedia is not paper and has the capacity, indeed the mission, to include the equivalent of an 'Encyclopedia of rodents' and an 'Encyclopedia of U.S. towns'. Just as we go much further than Brittannica or any other 'general purpose' encyclopedia in covering plants and animals, into the realm of specific encyclopedias on those topics, why would we not do so for fiction?

I'm all for removing speculation and including real world perspective, but I strongly disagree with any attempt to say that fiction should be the one area of Wikipedia which we restrain to remain within the limitations of a 'general purpose paper encyclopedia'. Wikipedia's coverage of U.S. civil war matters should be the equivalent of that in a 'Civil War encyclopedia'. Coverage of mammals should be the equivalent of that in 'Mammals of the World'. And coverage of Star Trek the equivalent of a 'Trek encyclopedia'. Granted, development of information on fiction has actually outpaced that of many other topics to date (towns and schools being notable exceptions)... but that is not a reason to restrict it. Indeed, it is rather an indication of the chaos which would ensue if we tried. --CBD 12:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The intent of this guideline is not to prevent articles being written about fictional topics, and if people are pointing to it and saying such, they are wrong. The intent is to insure that fictional topics are described from the perspective of the real world and not from the perspective of the fiction. The intent is to make articles like Lord Voldemort look like the article Jabba the Hutt (and the other examples on the project page). Part of this will be the minimization of plot summary; the article should not focus on the "biography" of a fictional character, even if it is framed in the perspective of "In book X he does this; in book Y he does this." As far as your points about exhaustive coverage of fictional topics go, there is a longstanding Wikipedia policy on this at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). — BrianSmithson 12:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a brief response to this bit from CBD: "We have the space to be the equivalent of the combined contents of every 'fictional universe' encyclopedia in existence." - I would point you to the copyright concerns expressed further up the page here. In particular: "writing from an "in-world" perspective will constitute infringement of copyrighted works" (by Postdlf), and also: "Lose that transformative context and you're simply creating a competing product for the Star Trek Encyclopedia or the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe.". The key point is that writing an encyclopedic guide to a fictional universe is a derivative work. Unless the context or dicussion is there, you are just repackaging the same information. Regardless of whether or not there is a market or readership for this, it is still derivative and wholly dependent on the original work. Without the additional text giving context, such a guide would not exist without the original work and derives entirely from it. Which means I am leaning towards thinking that this guideline should in fact be policy, though I agree with those who point out that many good articles have started from such "in-universe" beginnings. Carcharoth 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You make an excellent point. From my ignorant-of-the-law point of view, it sounds very reasonable. I am still hesitant to act on this, however, as we have yet to hear from a lawyer on this matter. (You're not a lawyer by any chance, are you?) — BrianSmithson 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't concur with the 'copyright' argument because it is directly contradicted by thousands of existing works of this sort. When Michael Perry was working on the book eventually published as Untangling Tolkien I had several long discussions with him about the copyright issues involved and the objections raised by the Tolkien Estate (specifically, concerns that he was reproducing the content of the timelines / retelling the story had to be addressed prior to publication). You cannot copy material directly or reproduce the story or some element in such detail that it could replace the original, but other reference works are entirely legal. Our encyclopedia entries clearly fall into the latter category. Keeping with the Tolkien universe - how could The Atlas of Middle-earth, Foster's The Complete Guide to Middle-earth, Salo's A Gateway to Sindarin, Day's various 'encyclopedias', et cetera exist if your copyright interpretation were correct? Ditto for the numerous Star Trek reference works. This is not a copyright issue so long as we aren't actually copying or attempting to produce a work which provides so much information that it would reasonably be expected to cut into sales of the original. Nor do I see an issue of 'encyclopedic' content given that Wikipedia routinely uses standards of inclusion and detail consistent with >specialized< encyclopedias rather than general ones. The six paragraph entry on Bumblebee Bat would be ludicrously large for something like Brittannica (which may not have an entry on them at all), but is roughly the same size as the entry in my Walker's Mammals of the World. Again, why would fiction be the one topic where we don't produce content in the level of detail of the specialized encyclopedias? What is different about this topic? As I said before, I don't have a problem with changing the way information is presented, but I don't think it is appropriate to cut/exclude information simply because the topic is fiction. --CBD 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to agree were it just fiction that is treated like this, but it isn't. Wikipedia's verifiability policy asks that an article have a third party source, something plot summaries, relying on a sole primary source, fail, along with website descriptions and phone book entries. There are many things Wikipedia doesn't allow, this isn't an attempt to target fiction solely, Telephone directories are specialised reference tools which we again do not replicate. Hiding Talk 19:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Phone books? I wasn't saying that we should include everything. General encyclopedias don't include phone numbers at all. They do include info on animals and fictional characters though... just not as many of them or in as much detail as specialized encyclopedias or Wikipedia. As to verifiability... surely the primary source is verifiable. We don't look for a third party source to describe the contents of the Declaration of Independence... we just cite the document itself. In what way is that not verifiable? --CBD 00:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you weren't saying we should include everything then I think we have to let consensus define what we do and don't include, and it's been a long standing rule that original research and overly long plot summaries shouldn't exist in wikipedia. Don't know too much about the contents of the Declaration of Independence, but we shouldn't interpret it without reference to secondary sources, since interpretations are original research. That applies to fiction as much as anything else. I can't declare Parliament as sovereign, but I can quote numerous sources who explicitly say that. When using sources, we can quote a primary source and we can summarise a secondary source. There's quite a few guides on the internet to using sources and when a source is primary and secondary. Hiding Talk 22:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a confusion here between describing and summarising a book, and interpreting a book. Obviously interpretations need to be sourced by referencing the work where the interpretation appeared (this would be a secondary reference). But when you are describing and summarising a book or fictional setting (obviously being careful not to add any interpretation or slant to the description), you often need to cite the primary source. This what I think people misunderstand when insisting on secondary sources. That only applies to interpretations of a book, IMO, not to descriptions of a book. The same would apply to plays, films and other works that can be referred to when writing a descripion of them. Carcharoth 10:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Different types of fiction

One point about the use of this "out of universe" style, is that it can vary depending on the type of fiction. Off the top of my head I can think of fictional universes in several different mediums: films, books, plays, television, computer games, collectible cards and gaming universes. Some franchises, of course, appear in more than one such medium. On the other hand, it seems that a clear distinction can be drawn between films and books on the one hand, and the other mediums on the other hand. Films, plays, books and serious television drama do have a more respectable, artistic, less fannish side to their fiction (eg. art house films, literature and costume dramas). Televisual entertainment, computer games, collectible cards, and gaming franchises are more in the realm of fandom, popular culture and light entertainment. My point is that it is easier to write in an "out of universe" style for literature (Shakespeare, for example) than it is to write about, say, Pokemon. Both are fiction, but there is a world of difference between them. It would be great if the articles about Pokemon and Shakespeare had the same approach, but the key difference seems to be the following:

• Fans writing for fans ("in universe" style)
• Editors writing for readers of a general encyclopedia ("out of universe" style)

I would encourage those fans wanting to write articles for other fans to consider the reader who does not know anything about a particular universe, but wants to read an authoritative introduction to that universe. That sort of "front page" article could then lead to the "in depth" articles that would be "daughter" articles of the main article, and it is these daughter articles that could be more "in universe" if required. This organisation also makes it easier to transwiki if the need arises. Carcharoth 15:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

More excellent points. Part of the intent of this proposal is to say that the Shakespeare method of writing about fiction should be applied to Pokémon, Harry Potter, and He-Man as well. I would caution against even the daughter articles you mention being more in-universe, though; this is where we get into biographies of fictional characters or xeno-anthropology about fictional alien species masquerading as academic encyclopedia articles. I hate to keep bringing it up, but Dmoon1 has done a great job transforming a very crufty Jabba the Hutt article based on this guideline. I don't see why the same can't be done with Crookshanks or Cybertron. — BrianSmithson 16:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The parent-daughter article structure has issues. If you compare, say, a list of minor characters from Star Trek to a category of such characters, the advantages are clear: they can be organized by series, and the context necessary to place each one in its correct fictional universe can be elided. Relationships between them can be described much more briefly by controlling the order of presentation. Because of these and other factors, the list achieves a brevity and integration of concepts that individual articles could not. This is part of the motivation behind the mergist philosophy. Deco 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in section on criticism of in-universe writing

My attention was drawn ro this article, and I find that there are some problems with its logic. The above section includes:

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 the simple expedient of 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 the encyclopedia reader better.

It may be true that in-universe writing can lead to skewed emphasis, but so can out-universe. This is not a valid criticism of the style, but of the editorial selection of content. It is equally possible to create an utterly skewed out-universe article by the selection of content. Similarly, there is no dificulty writing something in what I understand is meant by in-universe, arranging the content prioritizing important events. Frankly, I would expect any editor under either circumstance to think about the best organisation and presentation of material. I assume that every actual person biography in wiki is written in-universe, since they are real characters, but I do not see why they should en-block be criticised for poor organisation of their content. That would seem to be the implication of this paragraph. Sandpiper 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with in universe writing is that a conflict would be over editor's interpretations. A conflict over out of universe writing would be over sources used. The former is an OR issue, and should not exist. The second is a POV issue and is addressed through balancing quotes from sources. Living people biographies are actually held to similar standards through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Hiding Talk 21:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes have great difficulty understanding the viewpoint that referencing a primary source implies that you are using a primary source to back-up an original interpretation. The originality of the statement being referenced depends on what is being said, and the degree to which it is "obvious". Using a primary source to point out where something is written about a particular issue is different from using a primary source to back-up a speculative comment. Also, the use of sources does not remove POV, as you correctly say, but rather it is the NPOV balancing of sources that avoids any single POV. It all comes back to the editor having the writing and comprehension skills needed to successfully present various sides of an issue. The use of the correct sources and a suitable writing style (in universe or out of universe) are merely tools used to achieve that aim of NPOV and balance in an article. It is not the use of sources or the adoption of a 'correct' writing style that ensures NPOV, but rather it is the writing skills of the editor, aided by these tools. A bit like WP:IAR if you can write something that does the job. Carcharoth 01:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I,m afraid I still do not see your point, Hiding. To me it seems entirely a straightforward issue. The (primary source) book says this, the book says that. I see absolutely no difference between choosing sample passages to quote, than choosing sample writings from third parties to quote. In either case the editor here is the person who controls the feel of the article here. But I also do not see how your response addresses the shortcomings of the paragraph I quoted. Why on earth should someone writing in an in-universe approach be compelled to start an article with trivial details? Thats silly. As to the second point, that people might just as well read the book:equally daft. if they want to read the book then I am sure they will do just that. No one compells them to read a synopsis here, they can skip that section of an article if it does not interest them. On the other hand, if what they want is a relatively brief guide to the high points of some fictional work, then we provide precisely that. This seems to be a policy of leaving out information which it is likely someone has come here to find. Sandpiper 21:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There is, so far, no consensus for the removal of this paragraph. It spells out possible problems with in-universe writing, not inherent problems, and it serves a valuable purpose; even if it doesn't altogether disuade editors from in-universe writing, it describes some potential pitfalls. I'm going to restore it, pending more of a consensus for removal (which I doubt exists).--ragesoss 23:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the wording implies that such problems solely arise with in-universe writing, which is plainly incorrect. The problem applies equally to out-univers, so while I considered rephrasing it, it becomes meaningless to make a contrast between one case where something happens, and a second where it also happens, so deletion seemed best. Sandpiper

We seem to agree on everything but the style issue then, and out of universe writing is preferred because the style is felt more suitable in an encyclopedia. Hiding Talk 22:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph above is meant to lay open the inherent problems with one of the most comon forms of in-universe writings, the one where the article on the fictional character is written as if it was a biography of a real person. While this can work, in cases like David Copperfield where the work is effectively the story of the character's life, for lots of others it doesn't. Versions of Obi-Wan Kenobi from around a month back suffer rom this problem excessively. The article starts by giving details of the character's childhood (gleaned from a minor kid's novel) and only much, much later gets on to talking about his role in the Star Wars movies. Our-of-universe writing should not suffer from this problem. DJ Clayworth 02:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Example of styles

I've done a brief example of different styles for Witch-king of Angmar. See here. Is this the sort of thing that this guideline aims to encourage? Carcharoth 02:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

yep. the "More remote style - "as a story"" is the one to go for. Zzzzz 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In/out universe comparison

I have just edited the initial paragraph listing typical examples of in-universe and out-universe text. This includes two excusive lists, which do not overlap, and implies that the first list is banned, but the second is allowed. This is also nonsense. To write an article about a fictional subject which fails to actually describe any detail of the actual plot/character/wheatever is absurd. Sandpiper 21:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the second of your changes. To imply that both "in-universe" and "out-of-universe" perspectives are equally welcome at Wikipedia is clearly not the intent of this style guide. You and I may not happen to like using the "out-of-universe" perspective, but the consensus that formed this guide clearly favors it as the preferred writing style. That's why they put it in bold and italics. Thus, I am loathe to see the meaning changed quite so radically. Respectfully, --GentlemanGhost 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He just reverted it back. --Chris Griswold 00:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it back to the original, as I agree with GentlemanGhose and Ragesoss that that edit changes the meaning too radically. Regards, MartinRe 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He did. he also wrote a note here, but it disappeared. probably forgot to save it. I recall asking where the debate establishing this consensus can be found, as I would like to read it. The consensus amongst actual writers of fiction articles is plainly to include descriptions of plot/characters/so forth, whereas the wording of this section as it stood implied that this was not permitted. plainly this section is going against established consensus. A look at this discussion page does not suggest the consensus is as you sugest.Sandpiper 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is in Archive 1 above, with the straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/straw poll which seemed to clearly indicate a very good level of support for it. (voting is evil, and all that, but 17/2 is almost 90% support) Regards, MartinRe 00:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think 17 is a very small number compared to the number of active contributors who have never heard of this policy, never knew it was being voted and have and do continue to edit in total ignorance that there is even a debate about how the articles they have been editing in present form for years should be structured. This is a typical case of one set of people making a policy completely separated from another set doing the writing. Sandpiper 09:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, plot descriptions are covered under "Exceptions" as "... 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, grounded with real-world language, and do not form more than a small portion of the article". Regards, MartinRe 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the exceptions bit. Specifically, it was one reason I deleted the bold comment from the first section, since essentially as a summary towards the start, it was contradicted by the section in greater detail below it. It is really not acceptable to imply something with a bold statement which is not true: I would not do it in an article.Sandpiper 09:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the guideline should say that the best articles use a combined style that skillfully merges both "out of universe" and "in universe" perspectives, always, of course, making it clear which perspective is being adopted at any one time. What is abundantly clear is that articles with no "out of universe" perspective are not acceptable, and articles with only a throwaway reference at the beginning to the fact that the article is about a fictional concept, are only paying lip-service to the idea of giving the real-world context of what is being written about. But equally, there are cases where the "out-of-universe" style overwhelms the "in-universe" information. Kind of a tension between style and information content. But I think this basic tension arises because "in universe" information that has little "real world" context will not usually be of interest to anyone except fans.

Maybe another idea is to always require the lead (summary) section to always be written from an "out of universe" perspective, to ensure that the general reader is not lost and knows what the context is. Kind of like a layman's guide. Any detailed "in universe" character arcs and synopses should be left until later in the article.

This would lead to a kind of 'combined but separated' style, with most of the article presented from an "out of universe" perspective, and the "in universe" biography (of a character for example) would either have its own section further down the article, or, if it got very big and was overwhelming the article, it would be spun out to a daughter article, leaving a short summary at the parent article, and using the "main" templates to link them. Carcharoth 02:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that we don't want a combined in- and out-of-universe style, for the reasons listed in this header and in previous discussions. That was rather the point of this guideline, and the view of those who have supported it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly support it. Wikipedia is not like those DK Publishing guides or the OHOTMU or Wizard magazine. We aspire to create professional entries for these subjects that are not written only for fans. Articles about fictional characters, places, items, and events need to be different from articles for real ones. A quick glance should tells omeone that the entry is about something fictional to prevent any confusion or misunderstanding. We need to be clear and accessible to non-fans, and these guidelines help us do that. --Chris Griswold 06:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This sounds as though we may be arguing at cross purposes, at least to an extent. I have absolutely no argument that any fiction article should make it immediately clear that it is a fiction topic. But that is not really what most of this guide seems to be about. Presumably deliberately, there are no hit count statistics on wiki articles, but I am certain there are fiction articles which contain virtually nothing more than a re-statement of main points about a character which get vastly more reads than totally factual articles about points of interest to academics. I would not suggest that articles on such things should be pruned because they are only of interest to fans of ancient mesopotamian civilisation, why should articles be pruned because they are directed towards fans of modern fiction? Wiki is not paper. Sandpiper

No, the "profesional writing" to me includes not writing beat-by=beat abridgements of plot summaries. It has become a specialty of mine to condense these. They aren't encyclopedic, they are fixated on the minutiae, they make articles much longer than they need to be, and they look awful. Plus, there is the fair0use issue. --Chris Griswold 17:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the fairuse/copyright issue debated elsewhere and it seems clear, from the debate, that wiki comes nowhere near crossing the border. As to minutiae, it would seem that one man's minutiae are another man's vital inclusion. My own recollection of doing english lit was that we were specifically expected to introduce elements of plot as widely as possible when discussing characters actions and motivations. This is what I do hear, except that given the OR rules it is my intent to give a 'fair representation' of the plot, and leave out conclusions and inferences.I tend to find that after making a fair summary of plot, most questions have been answered anyway, and a reader can draw his own conclusions. Collating important facts is exactly what we are supposed to do on wiki. Sandpiper 11:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to entertain fans of modern fiction. Modern fiction exists to entertain fans of modern fiction. Wikipedia isn't here to abridge fictional works, only to describe them when describing them serves the purpose of being an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Nothing here amounts to an abridged work, nothing is anything like long enough. I expect a fiction article to provide enough info for someone to read it and be able to appear knowledgeable on the subject. This plainly includes an understanding of the main plot points. I expect wiki on every subject to be fielding articles at least as comprehensive as the very best specialist article on that field. I see no reason why scope should be limited here. Such arguments seem to imply that wiki should deliberately leave out comprehensive articles about fiction. very odd.Sandpiper 10:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've edited down many plot summaries long enough to abridge their works. (Metal Gear Solid is still a mess but is a bit better now, Darth Vader had nearly 40K of text on the events of the movies alone, and there are others I try not to think about any more.) Wikipedia can cover the events of fictional works, but, again, in a summary style and in a style that acknowledges the fictionality of fictional events and attributes them to their sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes,Ok. We may agree on that one. I also have seen articles which I think are too long. Not in priciple too long, but too long for the purpose they are supposed to be fulfilling. Absolute length rather depends on the total amount of originating material, as well as what is being done with it, and I do agree that there is a tendency for articles to accrete little extra snippets all the time. But since we have moved to different point, I do not see that this guideline fairly considers the total length of plot description, nor the proportion of an article it might make up. All these things are depend upon the partiular circumstances and again are down to editorial judgement of what is important. Sandpiper 11:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, WRT hit counts, fan sites are generally much more popular than encyclopedias; this does not mean that Wikipedia should become a fan site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, what is a fan site? I personaly tend to look at articles about which I am interested, leaving aside fiction for the moment. Does that make me a fan of these sorts of articles? Isn't this rather a strange distinction? I think virtually the whole of wiki is written by fans of the subjects about which they write. Is the distinction that a sufficient number of people must be interested in a subject for it to become a fan site, and that then paradoxically we distance ourselves from it because it is popular?Sandpiper 10:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't address my point. Popularity has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works, and appealing to the masses (without any evidence, to boot) is a waste of time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it? I thought the argument being mad was that because something appeared on fan-sites it should specifically be banned from wiki. That seems to be how the argument is advanced. Whereas, far from evidence that content is bad, all the existence of fansites seems to imply is that many people are interested in a subject. If this is counted as any sort of evidence, then it should be in favour of inclusion, rather than against inclusion. Notability is an accepted inclusion criterion. in that sense, popularity does have something to do with how wiki works. Sandpiper 11:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to me that even some of the examples I have seen quoted of out- style seem to contain elements mixed in which are exactly the same as the in- style. I do not favour an exclusively in- format, I think such a notion is equally silly, for the reasons outlined in this article. However, it also seems to me that actual descriptions of the work naturally fit into what seems to be here called an in-iniverse, and I do not see the problem. Possibly we are meaning different things by the concept of in-universe, which I had never heard of before it was introduced in this debate. This article talks about the importance of including things like references to the source work through the text. Fine, no problem, I would be aiming for an article which presents information at appropriate points. But that doesn't mean it ought to do hand stands to keep the actual work at a distance. The tone of this article has gone over the top in trying to distance wiki from articles which could confuse fictional characters with actual biography, and in so doing has stretched the arguments being made to beyond the point where they are sensible. Sandpiper 09:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that, yes, in-universe perspective is acceptable for plot summaries and descriptions. However, in many cases, it is better if those summaries can be rewritten in an out-of-universe perspective, or at least grounded in out-of-universe language. Moreover, those summaries should be kept to a minimum. The majority of an article on fiction should not be from the point of view of the fiction itself. Many of the articles given the list of examples do contain sections of in-universe information. But the overall perspective of each article discussess the background, production, reception, etc., of the subject. Many articles on fiction give undue weight to plot and character descriptions, and that's what this guideline seeks to address. The plot and descriptions should be subservient to the purpose of describing the real-world implications of the fiction. — TKD::Talk 11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

i doubt that people are interested in the real world implications of 'Romeo and Juliet', if they look up an article. I doubt if they are looking for the real world implications of 'Queen Elizabeth I', to compare the debate to a more or less contemporary actual biography. More likely, they are doing their homework, and, certainly want some literary criticism they can add to their own essays, but they also would want a clear plot outline, because I am sure that would also be needed for their essay. I draw this comparison because I do not see why a modern popular fiction should in principle be treated differently to a classic. The main practical difference is that a classic such as this has hundreds of years of existing debate and analysis which wiki can draw upon. A book written last year simply does not have this amount of available background. Worse, when considering a work which is part of an unfinished whole. It is simply not possible to follow the prescriptive approach outlined here and fully show the work in context. This may mean that the greater part of what can practically be included, is plot summary. Sandpiper 11:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a plot summary may well be the majority of an article in progress, but it's not ideal. I do want to say that I haven't found recent works particularly problematic in terms of finding out-of-universe information. Sure, you might be a bit light on one or two aspects that you'd like to cover, but, certainly, if something's notable enough, someone will have written about it, somewhere. Or the creator(s) might have given an interview or two, so that you can glean some information about production decisions or such. I edit articles related to machinima, an art form that, by most accounts, turns 10 next month. Most machinima productions are much newer that that. Yet, I generally don't have undue trouble finding at least some out-of-universe information for a reasonably notable topic.

For example, we're beginning to split the major Red vs Blue characters into their own articles because we're realizing that there's a lot of out-of-universe information left. Donut was the first to be split (for no reason other than I thought his article was going to be manageable to do but not too short). For his character, there's not so much on the critical reception side for this particular character, but, to make up for it, there's a fair amount of information on the voice acting and the running gags that the Red vs Blue creators had set up for the character. (Sorry for talking about RvB so much, but, given the scope of the work, and the fact that it's still an ongoing series, it's a major part of WikiProject Machinima right now.) — TKD::Talk 05:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at rev vs Blue, never having heard of it before. Took me a while to make sense of it. I don't want to really comment on its organisation, because I think my initial reaction to it might be unfair, it packs in an enormous quantity of information. But my initial reaction was that the out-universe style, exemplified by packing in external detail, considerably confused me when trying to gather the most central information about what this subject is. Second sentence should have been plot description! However, it seems to me that the majority of the article is in-universe description and so the article does not comply with this guideline as currently written. Sandpiper 00:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My first reaction was why was I being told loads of details about how it was made when I still hadn't a clue what it is. The in-universe plot summary, or at least some of it needs to be right at the head so people know what this is about. Otherwise it is only comprehensible to people who understand it already. It is very complicated and does not want to start with so much technical detail. Next, I found the series plot descriptions difficult to follow because characters were introduced without[[note added after, i intended to strike this para, but it got included anyway, after i redrafted to the para above Sandpiper 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)]]

The point about the lead is fair; I've reversed the order of some sentences. However, I don't see how the "majority" of the article is in-universe. By what measure? I count about 17,000 characters (or so) of text for out-of-universe information, and 14,300 characters for in-universe information. Note that I'm excluding external links and the reference section. Two paragraphs of plot near the beginnnig are actually out-of-universe; one describes how the storyline is structured among episodes, seasons, and extra videos; another describes the creators' conscious limitation of relationship to the Halo universe; this is out-of-universe because it describes details of how the creators framed their plot in relation to that of the work off of which the graphics are based.

The rest of "Plot" is indeed in-universe, and, I think, summarizes about 7 hours of video as tightly as possible. The Characters section is also in-universe. But the lead, Background, Production, Reception, and Distribution are not. Am I missing something? — TKD::Talk 00:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I just now noticed the extra paragraph that you started to write. Most of the characters have a brief apposition to explain who they are. The reason that "technical details" are mentioned up front is that (1) it would be a grave omission not to classify the work as machinima in the lead (it would be akin to omitting the fact that Star Wars is science fantasy); and (2) most people don't have a clue what machinima means, so that has to be explained at some length. — TKD::Talk 01:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(reindented continuing discussion back to margin)

I aded my last comments about 2 in the morning, so apologies for a greater than normal incoherence, and lack of willingness to study the article for longer, so as to give a more precise reply. I just did a bit of copyediting with the aim of making the prose flow better, grouping related facts and trying to remove repeatedly repeated phrases like red and Black, all of which make an article harder to read. see what you think. Copyediting complex prose can be difficult when you are not quite sure what a technical sentence is meant to mean, becaue it is highly complex and includes lots of jargon, so feel free to intervene if you think the meaning has been changed too much in the interests of readability. Now as to the section word counts. I am entirely happy to ignore the reference list. I am less happy about the issue of including, or nor, linked articles. For example, it links Covenant Elite, which is a relatively long article virtually all in-universe. I am not convinced that Covenant elite ought to include more out-universe detail, because I strongly suspect that much which could be included is already largely covered in the parent articles. But if this is to be regarded as farmed-out content from the red and blue page, then arguably it should be included.

However, accepting the error of my figures, I think you also demonstrate that the page as it stands still fails to follow the guidelines written on this guideline page. The guideline says ...provided that the fictional passages are short, grounded with real-world language, and do not form more than a small portion of the article... and Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective. (the line i have now three times stuck out.) I have no objection to the amount of In-universe in red and blue, but it could not be described as a small portion of the article. Nor could it be said that the R&B article takes exclusively an out-universe perspective. So, R&B fails to follow the guidelines as currently written. Which brings me back to my argument, that given R&B is generally shaped up as an entirely acceptable article, the guidelines need to be changed. Sandpiper 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How so? It includes a six-paragraph plot synopsis that is clearly grounded in real-world language (headers such as "Season 1" and "Season 2" and names of actors who play the parts), and a three-paragraph Characters section (well, two paragraphs and a list). Now you could argue that these nine paragraps are largely in-universe, but this guideline clearly states that "[Explaining a fictional element's role in its own milieu] 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, grounded with real-world language, and do not form more than a small portion of the article." Nine paragraphs out of 34 does not strike me as an overabundance of in-universe information. — BrianSmithson 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an admirable attempt; thanks for your efforts. There were some inaccuracies introduced, but I'll take into account what you modified in fixing those up. I think you're operating under the misconception that Rooster Teeth Productions created the Halo universe as well as Red vs Blue. Actually, Microsoft's Bungie Studios created Halo; RT did a parody of Halo (among other things) *in* Halo. So there are three distinct universes: our universe, the Halo universe, and the Red vs Blue universe (which is based very loosely on the Halo universe).

As far as your concerns about the other articles go, no one is arguing that Covenant Elite or Red vs Blue (season 1) is ideal. Featured Articles are judged on their own merit, not on linked or even child articles; If such were the case, we'd have very few, if any, FAs. I might also add that, if you do want to count child articles, then Red vs Blue production is entirely out-of-universe.

I'd also disagree that Covenant Elite should remain mostly in-universe. The article goes to great lengths to explain the alien race as a real species, but doesn't provide much information as to (1) why Bungie made various decisions in creating the back story; (2) the characters' effect on gameplay balance; (3) how they were received by players and game critics; (4) or influences from other science fiction or earlier Bungie games. — TKD::Talk 01:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on archive of discussion

I read the archive. It would seem others have raised the same objections as myself, that no one editing had even heard of this. Perhaps posting a link on the (how many thousand?) fiction pages affected? One weeks consultation? well, yes enough time for those who wrote it or were already aware of it to vote. It was also suggested by someone that it would be impossible to get this passed as an offial policy, and I see why. Sandpiper 09:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to propose anything about which can be written in a in-universe style but not in an out-of-universe style, nor any reason to use in-universe style at all but that you like it. I'm not seeing anything here to actually convince anyone that Wikipedia would be a more-effective encyclopedia by not using out-of-universe style exclusively.

As for guideline/policy, that was mostly because the entire MOS is guideline, and because nobody wants articles to be deleted because they're in an in-universe style, since they can be rewritten. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, which perhaps indicates that people are very jumpy about this. I did not propose changes to suggest that in-universe be preferred. What I did was delete items which inaccurately implied uniquely bad things about in-universe writing. No one has addressed my objections yet. Sandpiper 10:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The debate seemed to suggest that a number of supporters felt this should be a suggestion to writers, and specifically not compulsory. Eminently sensible, I feel. But not entirely carried through to the tone of the guideline? Sandpiper 10:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In-universe writing is a bad idea on Wikipedia, though. That's rather the point.

As for "suggestions," the whole MOS is like that. This doesn't mean that the problems with in-universe writing (problems I've confronted again and again, on Darth Vader and Raiden (Metal Gear) and Metal Gear Solid and List of Hoenn Gym Leaders and Jason Todd and many others) that you removed aren't still major problems with in-universe writing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As was noted at the closing of the straw poll, about a dozen or so WikiProjects dedicated to fiction had heard of the proposed guidelline's existence. BrianSmithson has (re-)written a number of the example articles on the guideline page, and what would essentially become WikiProject Machinima did a three-month reworking of Red vs Blue. — TKD::Talk 11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But not all of them! It might not have been a requirement, but if possible, it would have been an idea to notify the WikiProjects listed at Category:WikiProject_Fantasy, Category:WikiProject_Fiction and to look through Wikipedia:List_of_WikiProjects to find other WikiProjects that might be interested. I personally only found out about this when I saw it mentioned at the Community Portal. Carcharoth 11:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting to at least start the plot summary of a film article I'm working on to be out of universe and an editor just switched it back saying we didn't have to follow out-of-universe for plot summaries. While I see you say it's okay, I also see that you would prefer it be out of universe. So should I revert back and cite this Talk page? The article was Serenity (film) and here's the [[1]] to the change plange 03:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think in that case that it's that big of a change. What he edited out is kind of redundant: You are writing the plot synopsis in the Serenity article, so you don't really need to say, "In the film Serenity." P-Chan does good work; you can definitely have good faith in him.--Chris Griswold 05:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, so in general though, should we try to write the rest of the summary in more out-of-universe style? plange 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you have in mind. --Chris Griswold 08:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the rest of the article does an admirable job of setting the "real-world" context of the film. But the plot summary is far too long. I just read it, and I feel like I don't need to go and see the film. That is definitely the sort of over-long, overly-detailed, plot summaries we should be avoiding. Carcharoth 11:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This would seem to be an issue that an article written under the same title might be formed differently, because it has very different aims in mind. If there is really no difference between reading a summary of a film plot, or indeed the entire script, and going to see the actual film, then I don't see how the cinema business continues to exist. People go to see the actual film because it is a better experience than reading about it. Indeed, people go to films because they have already read the book, that is why producers are willing to pay for an existing story. People go to fims despite the fact they can watch the same thing on a little screen on their living room, because the experience is better. It may be that this guideling really needs to be expanded, to ecknowledge that there are different kinds of fiction articles. Some of a summary nature, which only need a relatively small amount of plot to show what is being discussed, and others which go into much greater detail to satisfy the experts. Now, that would be a policy i could support, and it might work well. Sandpiper 12:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is waaaay too long-- you should have seen it yesterday though! It was literally a blow-by-blow which I trimmed down a lot. But it still needs work and so we enlisted the help yesterday of User:The Filmaker who helped get Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith to FA status and is a non-fan-- he ordered the movie from Netflix last night and will hopefully have something within the week. In regards to Sandpiper, I don't think this is the place for that kind of stuff. We have a link to the script at the bottom and in the case of our fan group, we already have 2 wikis for the kind of detail you're wanting, one at Fireflywiki.org and the other at Wikicity:Firefly so we're trying to write for the non-fans, which I believe falls in line with the purpose of Wikipedia. Fans already have tons of resources in the style of writing you want to do. In regards to the kind of stuff you might be wanting to detail, i.e. perhaps weapons used, etc., I think you can still get into detail but have it be from out-of-universe, right? Just my 2 cents plange 15:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandpiper suspects from the last comment that sandpiper is being misunderstood. Sandpiper is coming at this from the POV of what is written in the guide, not really from a particular example which you guys say is good or bad, just what is on the style guide page. Sandpiper is saying that actually what is on the guide page is contradictory, and while people might have in mind criticising a vast blow by blow account of a plot, what you are actually doing is equally criticising an article which is only a few paragraphs. Sandpiper 00:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, can someone point me to a good sci-fi example of out-of-universe? It would really help to have something to compare to. I thought the examples on the project page were good, but I'm still feeling the need to see one in action that people hold up as the goal to achieve. Thanks! -plange 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Plange. Did you check out Jabba the Hutt? More space opera, I know, but it's a good example to look at. And what about spoo or Dr. Who or Red vs. Blue? — BrianSmithson 21:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw those, but I guess I'm too literal-minded and was hoping for one that was a movie article, not a character or book or TV show :-P plange 22:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Red vs Blue has a duality as both a serial of 77 episodes and 4 feature-length films of 19–20 episodes stitched together. If you're looking for a more conventional film article, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones were recently promoted to FA. — TKD::Talk 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

just had a look at star wars III, and I see it follows the same format as red and Blue. While both of these include a majority of out-universe fact, the way they do it is by farming out the in-universe information to subsidiary articles, e.g. Obi-Wan Kenobe, which is largely in-universe. Do we take it that this is a satisfactory way of formatting such large articles, because it would be hard to say that by itself Obi-Wan conformed to this guideline, and equally hard to say that taken collectively with its subordinate articles, that SW3 did so either. Sandpiper 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Can I get your opinion on this article? I just re-worked it (significantly cut a VERY long, blow-by-blow synopis) and added new sections (Synopsis, Arc significance and Production details). What do you think? is this more what you're looking for? plange 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a line to the list of examples of out-of-universe information. I think this will help address at least one of Sandpiper's concerns; he or she is correct that some plot summary and character description is perfectly fine in articles about fiction. The intent of this guide was never to disallow such information, only to encourage its judicious use and coupling with the information on the second list. — BrianSmithson 21:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpler way to express all this

I'll try again. Maybe a simpler way to reduce the off-putting nature of "in-universe" writing for most readers of a general encyclopedia is to write as if the reader has never heard of what you are writing about, and to FULLY explain things. There is too much of a tendancy to just wikilink to other articles and rely on them to explain things. But in the tangled maze that is some of the sets of articles on a particular invented world, someone who doesn't know about the subject at hand will have to click around and read many articles before beginning to understand what is going on. Obviously the typical fan reading the article won't have to do this, which is why I see such articles as having been written by fans for fans. But if the reader has to click around then the reader is likely to become bored or get distracted by something else. The "one stop" concept may be helpful here. When writing an article, try and ensure that a reader clicking on the link and arriving at a page about a particular topic, will be able to read the whole article and come away with a reasonable understanding of the topic. Either that, or a link at the top of the page to "overview article" will direct the general reader away from a specialised expanded article back to the more general summary style article. A good example of this in a non-fiction area is the article on Isaac Newton. The main page has summaries of the biographical aspects of Newton's life, but these sections then link to in-depth articles that go into more detail, as summarised at Template:IsaacNewtonSegments. This is an excellent way to organise articles, and I think many of the articles about fictional worlds would benefit greatly from this.

To sum up, the articles on fictional universe need to be written for a general audience. The "out of universe" style then naturally flows from this requirement. Carcharoth 11:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well now, that sounds fine. Can we swap what you have just written for the content of the project page?

No? well, ok, I am not really suggesting trashing the whole of the style guide. Some of it is merely presentational. My initial complaint is that it argues for one form of presentation using biased arguments. I have been trained, while here, not to accept such inclusion on pages. seems odd to have a lower standard of inclusion on pages about how to organise the encyclopedia, than on those it is presenting. Especially when people argue so vehemently about such points within articles.

It is becoming apparent to me that the guide is in fact too narror. It envisages one book, one article, whereas the reality is that there might be one whole article discussing the history of one work, who wrote it, influences, etc, etc, and then numerous articles about separate facets. So one character has one article, and indeed a link to a main article where factual background is to be had, but not a total repetition of that same information.Sandpiper 12:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that writing for the unitiated should be encouraged, I don't agree that such writing necessarily "naturally flows from this requirement." I mean, consider this: "The Enterprise is a space ship used by the Federation, an group of allied planets and alien species. The first mate is Mr. Spock, a Vulcan. The Vulcans are a species of emotionless beings from the planet Vulcan. The Enterprise is headed by Captain James T. Kirk, a man known for his bravery as much as for his promiscuity." That's a bad paragraph off the top of my head, but I would think that by its definition of terms such as "Mr. Spock", "Vulcan", and "Federation", it would be understandable to someone unfamiliar with Star Trek. Yet it is still in-universe. In short, a reminder that our editors should not forget the unitiated is a good idea should this guideline ever been expanded to include other elements of style in fiction articles. But a change to this won't remove the need for cautioning against in-universe perspective. — BrianSmithson 21:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your recent change to the article, Brian. I think that helps to clarify things. I also have a thought as to a compromise would make the disputed sentence less rigid:

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

This qualifier could be used to indicate that in-universe content is not strictly forbidden without making it seem like we don't have a preference towards out-of-universe. --GentlemanGhost 22:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue against that. However, I made a similar change early in this page's development and was soundly opposed. I can't remember what the exact verbiage was in my revision, but it was in essence the same as yours, if I remember correctly. -- BrianSmithson 22:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Much as I hate to legislate for the few, I think there are a number of Wikipedia editors who work on the more fannish fictional subjects (Star Wars, Star Trek) and seem to have a prediliction for in-universe. They need to be discouraged.

I also think it might be useful to start a (necessarily incomplete) list of articles that need to be turned from in-universe to out-of-universe. Maybe a template would help. DJ Clayworth 02:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As I comment below on smaug, I still do not understand exactly what this conversion means. Someone has had a go at Smaug, yet I see an article which is still mainly in-universe description, as I understand the meaning, with no bad consequence that I can see, and with little prospect of changeing it. How is this to be reconciled with this guideline? If the standard is changed to 'overall' out-universe, does this imply a framework which is clearly out-universe into which segments are fittted, likely including an in-universe description, but the actual sizes of segments would not be defined arbitrarily, depending instead upon the actual circumstances of the article? Sandpiper 23:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As this discussion would be more appropriate there, I've added comments at Talk:Smaug. Carcharoth 09:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Context involving the reader

I've seen many cases of articles, lately that suscribe to the usage of using the directive of "you" in summeries, rather than the more accepted prose of "the player", "the reader" or "the character". This is somewhat concerning to me, as it coveys a sense of instructions given to the reader, rather than the appropriate use of encyclopedia, which explains from the third person. I feel this would be suitible inclusion in the guideline page as to help dissalow this. Also see discussion on my talk. Comments...? -Zero^Talk 12:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The third person, "the reader", and "the character" is definitely better. I am sure there is already something about this in the MoS in general, but can't find it at the moment. Carcharoth 13:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid the second person. — TKD::Talk 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"you" in that context should strictly be "one". It's similar to using "they" instead of "he or she" - it's basically the English language changing - "one" is considered old fashioned by many. Using a more specific phrase ("the X") gets around this problem quite well. --Tango 16:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

III agree thereshould not be any use of second-person in these articles. --Chris Griswold 17:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example

While looking through an area I work in, I found some classic examples of articles that, by falling into this "in-universe" style, fail to communicate key information. See here for details. Also, it would be nice if someone could comment on this if they have time, as I don't want to misunderstand what this guideline is about before doing any such rewriting. Carcharoth 13:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally i feel that the "in universe" example provided a better and more complete understanding of the subject. it seems like the first is about the Nazgul and the second is about the publication history of the Nazgul and where to find more info. I feel that a combination would be ideal.--Elatanatari 05:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would second that. Any supporter of this style willing to have a go at Smaug, so we can see what is intended. O do not see quite where this failing to communicate by virtue of its style. Sandpiper 12:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think someone has done what you asked for. See this diff here. Carcharoth 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

so they have, but I'm not sure where that gets us. Most of the text is exactly the same. Which is in a way what I am concerned about, is the article now deemed satisfactory, and what have the alterations made to it really got to do with this policy? It is still mainly made up of in-universe narrative, which seems to me perfectly fine, aside from the fact that it actually is a rather muddled description (giving away parts of the dragon's horde before anyone actually mentions it being killed, etc). The changes made to section it up and add some useful detail where possible are all general good editing.

I have become more convinced that every single fiction article ought to begin with a one-sentence paragraph containing a 'dictionary definition' of the subject, clearly stating what it is, where from, author, and that it is fiction/fantasy/whatever. I also think articles should include a 'factual description' of the fictional item expanding on this definition, 'facts' drawn from the story which describe the fictional thing in question, in a separate section to one describing the 'plot', about what happens to the thing. Now is any supporter of this guideline willing to comment on this article? Sandpiper 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the first paragraph should be one-sentence, but it is a good idea to include the information you mention in the lead section. I'm not sure what you mean by a section on "factual description" about the thing

What I mean is description from within the text, distinguished from the plot. Dragon coloured red. 500 years old, named Smaug. And specifically, where there is a wealth of such material, chosen to be illustrative of the character, thing, series setting if it is an article about a whole work. I like the unique isolated sentence because it draws the eye and should tell the reader that this is/is not the article he wants. Sandpiper 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Smaug looks better, but it still draws only from primary source material. This guideline suggests that secondary sources be consulted, as well, as doing so will allow for a more well-rounded overview of the subject. Smaug could probably be made a featured article if someone made use of the literature on Tolkien. -- BrianSmithson 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the potential for Smaug to be expanded and properly referenced. I will add comments at Talk:Smaug. Carcharoth 09:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

well fair enough. I do not object to exploring different aspects of a subject. My difficulty remains that Smaug still has these perceived shortcomings, and as a result fails to comply with the guidance on this page. It is just about a certainty, that while some people may interpret the guidance as meaning that Smaug has acquired part of what it needs, but is awaiting the arrival of other parts, other people will interpret this guidance as meaning that, plainly most of Smaug is plot description, grossly in excess of the guidance, so therefore most of that description must be deleted. That does seem to be what this guidance says in its current form, which is one of the issues I am having with it. It envisages a particular situation, and does not say that it is perfectly OK for an article to exist which is largely description, with a future objective of adding the missing material. So long as this guidance is saying that an article should explore the listed out-universe elements, I have no problem. I have a problem when, as currently, it arbitrarily claims that there must be less description than out-universe fact, thereby giving scope to wholesale deletionists to cite this as grounds to virtually delete the entire article. Sandpiper 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns were my exact reason for voting "guideline" rather than "policy". I reaize that Wikipedia articles take time to grow. And for 99% of articles on fictional subjects, the earliest version will likely be a direct paraphrase of the character/vehicle/location's role in its own universe. But because this is guideline, I wouldn't think it would be an actionable objection if someone tried to delete something using this as justification. A well-rounded article that approaches the subject from a real-world perspective should be the goal (and that is what this guide attempts to achieve), but I don't see the benefit of declaring all-out war on articles that don't comply. — BrianSmithson 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So do I take that as support for re-wording the guideline to make it plain that such an article should include an 'appropriately sized' synopsis, which size can not arbitrarily be measured simply by reference to the current length of the article? I think this will require more than the single line amendment made to the guideline list of out-universe examples. Sandpiper 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. The purpose of Wikipedia guidelines is to describe best practices. Best practice in this case is to have an article that includes plot details as but one of many different aspects of a topic. I do agree that no arbitrary cap needs to be put on plot synopses and the like (so no line that "Plot synopses should constitute no more than x% of the article's content" or somesuch). But I still feel that "This is not inherently bad, provided that the fictional passages are short, grounded with real-world language, and do not form more than a small portion of the article" covers the situation. The counter examples you are throwing up (Smaug, etc.) are incomplete articles in my opinion. — BrianSmithson 17:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Replying to myself, but I've been reading through Featured Articles on works of fiction. See for example The Brothers Karamazov, The Country Wife, The Giver, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, The Old Man and the Sea, Oroonoko, The Relapse, Starship Troopers, A Tale of a Tub, "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", and Watchmen. In light of these (some of which should probably be listed on the project page as examples), I would support a rephrase of the line to "This is not inherently bad, provided that the fictional passages are short and do not constitute the main portion of the article." The note about "grounded in real-world language" I still think is a good idea, so it could or could not be included depending on what others think. In short, though, I think I see why Sandpiper is having some trouble with the guideline. The idea is to force editors to do some research and cover a topic from multiple angles, not solely or even mostly from the perspective of the fiction itself. — BrianSmithson 18:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I have trouble with precidely this 'forcing'. Editors do not come to wiki knowing everything possible about a subject, what they are most likely to know is the plot. That is therefore the easist part of an article to write, so is very likely to be done first. yet this wording still invites the next person to come along and delete what has just been done by the previous editor, on the grounds that 100% of the article was plot description. That is unrelistic. I am specifically objecting to a guideline which is inviting exactly such a deletion. It needs to be reworded to make it clear that this is not the intent. Sandpiper 01:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines should be written for the ultimate benefit of readers, not editors. An editor who read/viewed a work of fiction may be enthusiastic about it, and may be inclined to create a plot summary about it, but that does not mean a plot summary is worth reading. I suggest it is the responsibility of the editor to first think of the reader, and come up with a rational of why the article will be worth reading, before writing the article. On rare occasions, a pure plot summary may be worthwhile (for example some plots are so well known that they are used as metaphors, so a person seeking to understand the metaphor will benefit from the plot summary) but in most cases a more critical approach is more worthwhile. Gerry Ashton 02:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

may i point out that not all FAs are of equal quality? as shown by the controversies over the pokemon featured articles. any examples used should be carefully evaluated to ensure they do indeed follow the guidelines, rather than changing the guidelines to match the articles. FA status does not imply an article is perfect by any means. Catherine breillat 11:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. However, they are an indication of what Wikipedia editors have deemed exemplary work, and as such, the consensus view of what a good article on fiction looks like. Of course, some of them are still controversial, as you mentioned (older ones especially) and do not deserve to be used as examples here (I did not add the FA Batman, for example). -- BrianSmithson 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(deindenting, replying to Brian) I think that I'd be fine with this. Perhaps the "grounded in real-world language" part might sound better as "grounded in real-world language so as to provide sufficient context" or something similar? I think that focuses on the end rather than the means; "context" implies an understanding, and real-world language is how that goal is achieved. — TKD::Talk 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tense

I proposed a little while back that it be made a guidelines that plot summaries be written in present tense. It seemed to get some support, and then was moved to an archive. Could we include it in this style manual? DJ Clayworth 02:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's already guideline, at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction. If we want to expand this guideline into a general-purpose one (rather than focusing on the in- versus out-of-universe stuff), it should definitely be included. — BrianSmithson 03:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. DJ Clayworth 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

are you saying thatpeople are already expected to look in more than one place to find guidance on how to write a fiction article? sheesh! Sandpiper 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they are expected to look in several different places. Check out Template:Style for the complete list. But more specifically, creating an all-inclusive style guide for fiction-related articles has been under discussion and is a definite possibility. Welcome to the wiki, where things do not just spring fully formed from the forehead. -- BrianSmithson 00:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

When people come to wiki thay have a choice: they can spend all their time reading the rules and discussing how they can be improved, or they can go off and edit an article. I suspect that these two tend to be mutually exclusive. Hence my comment. The longer, more complex, and spread about in different places this guidance is, the remoter the chance that people actually editing will read it. Sandpiper 13:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would it be bad to put a guideline in several places; to say "use the present tense" both in this guideline and Check your fiction? I know that if, like me, you're a software developer then you probably have nightmares about data integrity, but that isn't really an issue here. DJ Clayworth 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is an issue, becaus two different sets of people may well be altering the two versions into entirely unrecogniseable forms. But my own gripe is with placing related info on different pages, which means that people with less than a lifetime to spare researching all the advice, will miss half of it. Sandpiper 01:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking on a template

Ugh. Check out Template:WBToonChar. People have been slapping this on everything from Bugs Bunny to Witch Hazel (Looney Tunes), and it's horrible. The top portion isn't bad; it provides information concerning the character's first appearance, voice artist, etc. However, the bottom half lists such information as "known aliases", "known rivals", and (worst of all) "known relatives". This is ludicrous, as these characters are 1) not real people, and 2) change aliases, allies, enemies, and relatives from cartoon to cartoon. Bugs and Daffy can be allies in one short and rivals in the next.

At any rate, this template has led to a dispute at Daffy Duck. An anon is trying to add a "son" to Daffy's "known relatives" based on a one-liner from an episode of a '90s TV cartoon. I'm trying to argue the same points that I've raised here (that Daffy has no relatives, since he's not real), but they aren't buying it. So, my question is what tactic do folks here recommend for combatting this template and this dispute? Would I be right to request that the template be changed? (The one level-headed animation editor I could call in on this seems to have left the project.) -- BrianSmithson 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

hmm, then I guess you probably wouldn't like the {{JAustenCharacter}} template I made :-) I was pretty new then and posted it on the Novels project and didn't get any objections.... Should I yank it? I've only applied it to Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bennet. plange 03:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you could let him add the relative with the {{DisputedAssertion}}, call for consensus, let the editors state what they think, and decide whether or not to include it. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a "Relatives" section since it is separated from the "real" section. -- ReyBrujo 03:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that, if you remove the "Background" part of the infobox, all that information will flow into the article (which I guess is much worse than having all collected in a small section inside the infobox). Unluckily, it appears that the folding method does not work with other skins, only with the classic one, so there is no way of hiding it for some users and show it to others. That is why I (for now) do not want to edit articles with numerous fans ;-) -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference from Jane Austen is that her "universe" has a finite beginning and end, and she makes an effort to keep things consistent and logical. The WB shorts are quite the opposite. Daffy Duck has gone from being an insane enemy of Porky Pig to a sidekick of Porky Pig to a rival of Bugs Bunny to a mentor of Plucky Duck. Bugs Bunny destroys the moon in one of the Marvin Martian cartoons, yet later shorts show that the moon is, in fact, still there. Assuming that this happened in one consistent "universe" is absurd. -- BrianSmithson 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha plange 20:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Template Request

Can we have a specific template for pointing out that something needs to be cleaned up to meet these guidelines? I just kludged one together in a two-step process at Edenborn, by subst:'ing the {{wikify-date}} template and adding a clause pointing here. If whomever tackles this task doesn't have a better idea that approach could be used. GRBerry 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

can you provide a link to what you've done so far? plange 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as you are using classes messagebox, cleanup and metadata to keep consistence with the other Cleanup sections, it is fine. We created the {{External links}} one, with the date as optional parameter (having two, one with date and one without, is a bit nonsense, especially when you have the bots running around replacing one with the other). -- ReyBrujo 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there's {{cleanup fiction-as-fact}}. — TKD::Talk 07:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Something I've always wondered (primary sources)

"Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source." -- wouldn't the fictional stories a character appears in be the primary source for information on that character? Or, to put it another way, why aren't (for example) the Superman comics useable as a primary source for an article on the character Superman, or why can't/shouldn't they be used as such? Dr Archeville 01:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman comics are primary sources for the article on Superman, you are correct. This is not a problem, as Wikipedia has no problem with primary sources. The problem comes when these are the only sources used or the principle sources used. The best articles will rely most heavily on secondary sources. -- BrianSmithson 01:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They are allowed as primary sources. Overly reliant is the operative word here; the most useful articles about fiction will have analysis and context, rather than simply plot details. And going beyond plot details into analysis based on the primary sources is, by the Wikipedia definition, original research.--ragesoss 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, I see... thanks! Dr Archeville 12:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some examples might also help:

• Saying "Superman saved Lois from the evil Lex Luthor by using his X-ray vision and his other superpowers" is something that can be verified using a primary source.
• Saying "In comic Dwobble, issue 54, Superman saved Lois from the evil Lex Luthor. The plotline involved Superman using his X-ray visions and other superpowers to overcome Lex Luthor" adds a bit more information, but not much.
• Saying "Superman saved Lois in many of the storylines of the comics and films. One of these scenes was in comic Dwobble, issue 54, published in November 1994 and written by Stan Gettysburg and illustrated by Ian Smith. Another such scene was in film X (2003), where actress Y played Lois Lane and actor B played Superman. This recurring theme has been compared by Professsor Z in his book N (published 2004) to that of a maiden in distress being rescued by her knight in shining armour." - this latter example has much more that can be traced to other sources, some of which are secondary or tertiary sources.

Carcharoth 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"saves" --Chris Griswold 08:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Mustn't forget those tenses. Carcharoth 10:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Character question

I added a sentence into the lead about an award the actress won for playing the role of the character the article was about (my attempt to try and add some out of universe perspective) and someone just reverted it saying the article was about the character not the actress. Was about to reply back about my reasoning, but thought I'd check here first. Here was the edit. plange 20:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say as pertaining to this styleguide, that whole article is on notice. It's entirely in-universe. --Newt ΨΦ 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I TOTALLY agree, not a news flash for me I assure you-- this article is lower priority for us on our project; we're working on the higher profile ones first (our project is only a couple of weeks old). It was just that during the course of things if I notice something to add, I add it so that later when it's re-worked I'll have some out-of-universe things to expand on. That was the case with this one, but someone just reverted it, so hence my question. Should I revert back and cite my reasoning? plange 21:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mega Man Zero character articles

An editor has brought to my attention the fictional writing style implemented in these articles. As a fan of the series and one that does not specfically posess a style inherent consistently writing from a point of view outside of it, could some one assist composing these articles to the MOS quality....? I'm currently going about adding references and clean-up attempts. -Randall Brackett 12:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The relevant articles are contained below:

v • d • e Mega Man Zero video games Games Mega Man Zero · 2 · 3 · 4 Music Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero (1 · 2 · 3 · 4)

-Randall Brackett 13:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)