User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm currently working on getting this to serve as a guideline that pulls together all the relevant stuff on fictional topics. Please help if you can.

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles about fiction are about works of fiction in the real world, not about the fictional worlds themselves.

Wikipedia is primarily interested in the real world. In every article about a fictional item/subject, the importance of that fictional item/subject both within its fiction universe and within the real world must be identified by the article. There are no hard and fast rules on such things, but things to look for are publication on notable and high profile fansites or books, evidence of significant attention within the fan community, or evidence that the person expressing the view is a particularly notable fan. Although academic commentary on popular culture texts can be esoteric or obscure, when it is available it has an important role to play in such articles. Care must be taken in such issues to only report significant viewpoints, as per WP:NPOV.

Contents

[edit] Diegetic vs. Non-Diegetic

In fiction, there is a distinction between diegetic and non-diegetic information. Diegetic information exists in the world of the characters, and is known to them. Non-diegetic information does not exist in the world of the characters, and is unknown to them. That Achilles was angry over the death of Patroclus is diegetic information. That the rage of Achilles forms the theme of The Iliad is non-diegetic information.

Wikipedia articles on fictional topics should be about non-diegetic information, with diegetic information included only when it is necessary to provide support or context for the non-diegetic information.

[edit] Fiction in the real world

As an article and a topic, Captain Kirk has more in common with the article creationism than with the article George W. Bush. That is to say, it is not a biographic article, and should not be written in the style of one. What is relevant to it is not diegetic information about the life of James Tiberius Kirk, but non-diegetic information: what real people have said about him, debated about him, praised about him, and criticized about him.

A character's fictional biography is relevant only insofar as it provides background for other claims. Biographies, plot summaries, and other fictional information should be in articles so that the other aspects of the article make sense. So, for instance, to understand the popularity of Daleks, you have to at least in part understand that they're monsters from Doctor Who. To understand the claim that they became more psychologically complex, taking on a different thematic relationship with the Doctor, you have to understand the reworking of their origin in the 70s. But these facts are context for the real points - that they were insanely popular with children, or that they began representing different things in the show.

Note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that articles consisting purely of plot summaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia.

[edit] When to create an article

Because articles on fictional topics are focused on non-diegetic information, one should always ask whether there is enough non-diegetic information about a topic to justify a new article instead of an addition to a previous article. An article on a fictional character should not be written unless there is too much non-diegetic information to reasonably put into the article on the book or television show they appeared in. In the event of a large number of minor characters, none of whom have a lot to talk about individually, but when taken together provide a large amount of information, it may be prudent to create an article like List of minor Babylon 5 characters.

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) deals with the hows and whens of splitting a fictional subject into its own article in greater detail.

[edit] Importance must be identified

In every article about a fictional item/subject, the importance of that fictional item/subject both within its fiction universe and within the real world must be identified by the article. From a fictional perspective, it's often easy to see why an item or subject is important. After all, in the entire continent Kanto, only a few characters have appeared in Pokémon, and all of the ones that did in some way advanced the plot. And so it's obvious why (to a fan), within Pokémon, a given minor character is important - they advanced the plot in some way.

But Wikipedia isn't about Kanto or any other fictional universe. And so alongside the diegetic importance of the character, an article about Pokemon (or any other fictional text) has to answer the question "what impact has this had in the real world?" The importance the work holds within its fictional world is of lesser consideration. This ties into the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Consider an actor who has done nothing but bit parts in a bunch of TV shows such that none of his characters have any notability outside of their fictional universes, but the actor is notable. Wikipedia, as a general encyclopedia, must emphasise the real world actor over the bit parts in the fictional universes and not the other way around.

Sometimes topics are more notable in the real world than they are in the fictional worlds they come from. Spoo is mentioned only sporadically in Babylon 5, but took on such a cult following among its fans that its real world importance far outshines its fictional world importance. Similarly, Kirk/Spock doesn't even appear in Star Trek, but is well-deserving of an article because of its role in Star Trek fandom.

[edit] What to include in the article

[edit] Interpretation and criticism

Literary interpretation and aesthetic criticism are both relevant and important aspects of articles on fictional subjects. But by their nature, both are POVs, and need to be phrased as such, especially when the interpretations would not be intuitively clear to anybody looking at the text.

Comments from the creators of fictional texts about their intentions are, by their nature, significant . By their nature, they provide excellent information about the development history of the fictional text. However when creators offer interpretations of their own works, these interpretations must be taken as one notable perspective out of many, not as the sole possible truth. (See intentional fallacy)

[edit] Identifying significant viewpoints

Care must be taken in such issues to only report significant viewpoints, as per WP:NPOV. The mere fact of an opinion's existence and dissemination does not mean that it is of sufficient importance to include on Wikipedia. Some questions that are worth asking before judging a perspective on a fictional work worth mentioning include:

  • Is the person giving the opinion significant? (An academic studying the text, a creator of similar works, a well-known critic, etc)
  • Is the fact of the opinion's publication significant? (Was it published in a well-known magazine, published by a respected and selective website, etc)
  • Has the opinion otherwise demonstrated importance? (Has it been mentioned by or responded to by the creators of the text? Has it been the subject of substantial discussion among fans in a high-profile forum? etc.)

If the answers to all of these questions are no, odds are good that the opinion is not worth reporting in the article. Remember that WP:NPOV demands and requests only the reporting of significant viewpoints - not trivia and ephemera.

[edit] Academic perspectives

Although academic commentary on popular culture texts can be esoteric or obscure, when it is available it has an important role to play in such articles, especially since, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is by default interested in academic perspectives.

As an example, an academic commentary on Tom Bombadil tends to consider the prevalence and role of enigmatic characters in various folk tales and sagas, and takes into account the sequence of composition of LotR, the state of the Silmarillion at the time, and the accompanying changes in purpose and tone. These are all issues that deal with the character as it exists in the real world.

Fan commentary tends to focus on continuity: is Bombadil an Ainu? Does that mean that Ainur entered Arda before Melkor arrived? Some have made heated attempts to prove that he is Illuvatar. Whether any of these things are true is wholly irrelevant to Wikipedia.

Note also that many non-academic published sources tend to be written to a fan audience, and so claims about the significance or quality of the fictional text are likely to be overinflated. Furthermore, many focus purely on the fictional world, and do not provide adequate context for the real world. Remember that Wikipedia is interested in things that affect the real world. Speculation about the events or nature of a fictional world - even published speculation - is not in and of itself relevant to Wikipedia.

[edit] What to do with diegetic information

Many excellent resources exist for the cataloguing of diegetic information within various fictional universes. Extensive diegetic information should, assuming license compatability, be transcluded to these projects. When another free content project has substantial coverage of a topic beyond what is appropriate for Wikipedia, it is appropriate to include a small template linking to that project's article on the subject. A link of such templates can be found here