Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Style guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Style guidelines page.

Contents

[edit] Guidelines

I'm sorry, but until I wrote this, there had been absolutely no discussion on your proposed style guide at all. Perhaps you can try to explain here clearly, what you are trying to do. better yet, return the discussion to the HP project page where about two people have seen it so far. I think that most would not agree at all with your suggestions.

Frankly, as far as I understand your suggestions, I do not agree with them. I certainly agree that the HP articles need more critical discussion, but the difficulty of including it is that it is hard to obtain sources other than the highly respected websites such as hplexicon, mugglenet leaky cauldron, and a handfull of others (though there are several now which have received commendations from J K Rowlings herself). Writing literary criticism seems to attract a lot of people complaining that it is original research. On the other hand, including plot information from the books is a pretty factual exercise, with a plain, clear, recognised source for the information and is plainly NOT OR. While I to some extent agree that an article should explain where the information is coming from 'In book 2 Harry...', I'm afraid that I think adding precise references to every single point mentioned is both unnecessary, and frankly renders an article unreadable. It is not our business to list plot elements in such close detail that we are pinpointing the exact location of every fact included. Sandpiper 21:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just getting things started. Clearly a manual of style is desperately needed, and it has to begin somehow. Feel free to discuss things here.
As to your other points, many of the items you mention are taken directly or slightly modified from an existing guideline, the manual of style for fiction articles. Many, many of the Harry Potter articles deviate substantially from that guideline, which "In a nutshell" states:
Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.
Barring some very good reason, Harry Potter articles, as articles on works of fiction, cannot deviate substantially from an existing guideline.
As I understand your comments above, you think that editor-created interpretation is acceptable? I firmly disagree. Editor-originated interpretation is the very definition of original research. The fact that it is hard to find sources for such content is immaterial; when we can't find suitable sources we don't resort to creating content ourselves. We keep looking, we refer to the sources that are available, and we discuss the known, verifiable facts.
As to sources, again, this comes from existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You're quite right: we shouldn't be getting so closely detailed that we need to pinpoint the source of every sentence, but we should be following good style by providing sources where they are appropriate. Exploding Boy 01:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Having taken a look at your comments on the WP:HP talk page, I can't see any major areas of disagreement. Exploding Boy 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
yes, I know, everything has to start somewhere, and I do agree that it would be heplpfull to have a guidline for creating consistent pages. The last time I looked closely at the guide for fiction it was being rapidly rewritten by a handfull of people, and I'm afraid it is not, from my experience, widely accepted. There are two standards on wiki. What someone has written regarding what people should do, and what everyone else actually does. From time to time, these two become so contradictory that the matter gets sorted out. In the meanwhile, most people continue in ignorance of the 'official' line, if only because it was entirely different when they themselves did read it. I do recall that the style guide I read actually used some HP articles as examples: now we are being asked to rewrite HP to accord with a guide which used erroneous HP examples in the first place. A somewhat circular line of reasoning.
I have always felt that the very existence of wiki is a contradiction with the policy of NOR. Wiki has a rather skewed idea of what is original. What we really have is articles written by consensus and committee. All the people contributing, between themselves, decide what is accurate and worthy of inclusion. The trouble is that then someone comes along and starts arguing that this painstaking work to create a view is wholly inadmissable, essentially because the people concerned have spent a lot of time and indeed original thought, collecting and collating what they consider to the important facts about a subject. Wiki is impossible unless this process happens. Even the straightforward articles can not be written unless there is an editorial decision on which facts to include, and which to leave out. We are not permitted to invent facts, and nor should we be. But we have to select them. HP is not a straightforward subject. My view of what to do about the speculative regions is that we should report them. This is really no different to my view on any subject. If a point becomes contentious, do not delete it. Explain why it is contentious and what the sides of the argument are. That is not inventing theories, it is reporting current events. Maybe all the HP articles should have a 'current event, subject to change ' tag on them. Sandpiper 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if the guideline on writing fiction is evolving, we still have to conform to existing policies; NOR and Verifiability are particularly relevant. Yes, articles are ultaimately collaborative. We have to make decisions about what details are important enough to report. But we can't collaboratively decide not to follow policies.

Reporting speculation is fine, if it comes from verifiable secondary sources. In other words, even in every Wikipedia editor thinks that, say, Harry and Hermione are in love and will end up getting married, we can't report on it unless such speculation exists in external sources as well. If that view is prevailing enough among the fan community, and we can provide links or references to demonstrate that, then we can report on it, yes. Remember that according to WP:VERIFY,

Jimmy Wales has said . . . "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

So, again, I don't think what each of us is saying is particularly different. What we need to be avoiding is poorly-written articles cluttered with pointless minutiae about characters, places and events, or articles that Reader's Digest-ize the books. What we should be striving for is encyclopaedic articles that conform to our policies and guidelines, cite their sources, and provide the relevant, important information in a manner that will be useful to readers. Exploding Boy 16:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some relevant information

[edit] Original research

From Wikipedia:No original research (an official policy on Wikipedia):

"Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that have not been previously published by a reputable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'"

The policy on original research exists to exclude

editors' personal views . . . their personal analysis or interpretation of published material . . . That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

However,

"research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged."

[edit] Verifiability

From Wikipedia:Verifiability (an official policy):

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research."

[edit] Writing about fiction

From Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles:

"The advice about factual articles also applies to articles on fiction subjects. Further considerations need to be made when writing about fictional topics: they are inherently not real. It is important to keep these articles verifiable and encyclopedic."
"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."

[edit] Continuing discussion

"The advice about factual articles also applies to articles on fiction subjects. Further considerations need to be made when writing about fictional topics: they are inherently not real. It is important to keep these articles verifiable and encyclopedic."

Indeed, but what consideration? The fact that they are not real means that no independent verification can possibly exist outside the works themselves. This is not true of most subjects. It is our job to do the best we can, not to refuse to write articles because we are waiting for god to come along and make an official statement that HP really does exist in an alternative universe and someon from wiki can go, take photos and report it. That is not going to happen. It is inherently necessary to take a lower standard of verifiability in these situations. How can fiction be verified? Sandpiper

"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."

which quite plainly is a contradiction with a strict policy on NOR, since in this situation there simply has not been time for a body of such analysis to have been formed. We have little choice but to report the raging debate. Sandpiper

Come back to this issue in 2 years time after the last book has been published (assuming all goes to timetable), and most of these difficulties will have resolved themselves. The issues which are currently consider of greatest interest and importance will have been explained. JKR will probably be more willing to talk about why she has done things. There may be rather more academic assessments of the series as a whole. The hit count on these pages will fall enormously, and then HP can settle into a rather more historical description, rathe than what is presently still a news item about a current and ongoing event. Sandpiper 12:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Following the guidelines is designed to prevent editors from violating NOR. Exploding Boy
No, guidelines are made by people who want to see things done their way. Sandpiper

No, that's not true at all. Guidelines represent consensus. That is why they are actionable. If they were merely arbitrary rules created by those who wish to claim ownership over certain articles, they wouldn't last long. Exploding Boy 20:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actionable? I thought wiki ran by consensus. The HP articles certainly do. Most contributors have never heard of the guidelines, but do agree about what should be in the articles. Essentially, the guidelines are unknown to anyone actually writing, so it would be fairest to say they are being comprehensively ignored, so, of course, there is no disagreement.

Yes. Guidelines are actionable. What this means is that they must be followed unless there is some very good reason not to. "I don't agree with the guideline" and "I've never heard of the guideline" are not good reasons. The content of an article, even if created by consensus, can be changed if it violates a guideline or guidelines.

As you say, Wikipedia does, to some extent, run by consensus. Like (most) policies, guidelines represent the consensus of those involved in discussing them. Guidelines are somewhat more fluid than policies in that they can and do change, but only via discussion and consensus.

Simply put, Harry Potter articles cannot deviate from existing guidelines or policies. Exploding Boy 00:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You miss my point, that while 17 people voted in favour of the fiction guidelines, 1700 have been merrily editing to entirely different standards. While wiki is not a democracy, this does suggest that the consensus is to continue as we are now doing. Sandpiper 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that they haven't been involved in creating the guidelines, or are unaware of them or don't care about them, doesn't mean that they shouldn't, or can't, be held to them. Exploding Boy 06:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manual of Style writing about fiction

I had a look at the source page from which this has been derived and a couple of points occur. One is that some of the plain inaccuracies here are quoted directly from that page. For instance, criticism of in-universe style despite the fact that (I assume) it is used entirely successfully for articles about real people. if it works there, there is no reason it can not work in articles about fiction. In-universe articles are not uniquely prone to editorial bias or poor organisation of material. The examples given on the style page strike me as significantly inappropriate when applied to HP, and indeed that page states that in-universe biog/plot descriptions are acceptable. Most HP articles are not in-universe in the sense which I believe is meant in the style guide. The important heart of this debate, to me, seems to be that articles should not consist simply of a plot description (I agree), and articles should make it quite clear that a fictional character is being discussed. We already do this to some extent automatically with the various boxes containing information, and there is also a comprehensive system of articles talking about real-world matters, which I do not think is envisaged in the style guide. The guide is suggesting the inclusion of elements which here already have their own articles (eg book publication details)

I am not convinced that much of the main style guide needs to be specifically repeated here. this page should highlight matters which specifically apply to HP, and how we deal with the specific difficulties of a phenomenal success, which is still incomplete. Sandpiper 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "in-universe style" cannot apply to articles about real people or things, since the "universe" the term refers to is a fictional one. Real people and things exist in our universe.
Yes, one of the big points is that articles need to be more than just plot descriptions, rewriting large portions of the books, or minutiae about what characters do or how they feel, all of which are problems on Harry Potter-related articles. By creating a guideline we can say: these types of things should not be the focus of HP-related articles. By having a guideline we can perhaps avoid the creation of articles like Snape's worst memory in the first place.
One of the things that has been happening over the last couple of days is that this guideline, which is specific to HP-related articles, has been becoming more HP-focused, which is exactly what we want. Exploding Boy 00:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
er, then a rather clearer definition of these terms in-universe and out-universe is needed. I have seen In-universe defined as meaning writing as if the subject was real. Which seems to be exactly the style adopted when discussing a real subject. The 'universe' concerned is whatever universe the subject naturally comes from, which might be a fictional one in the case of a discussion of Albus Dumbledore, but is a real one in the case of George Bush. (Wait a moment, what am I saying? George Bush lives in the real world? Perhaps we should adopt an out-universe style in all articles about politicians, to make clear that everything they say is fiction, and any facts presented about them are unreal.) Sandpiper 00:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional characters and dates of birth

There's something wrong with a lot of the Harry Potter articles, e.g.

Harry Potter (born July 31, 1980) is a fictional character...

is wrong. Fictional characters can't be born, and it makes it read as if they're real life people. So these need to go, but be mentioned later in the body of the text. But it's wrong with all of them. — Dunc|☺ 13:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Issues with "Guideline"

First off, who decided this page was an official guideline extension of the MoS? ANd more importantly, much of the info in here conflicts with global guidelines. For instance, as per WP:SPOILER, articles should not be segregated into spoiler-free and spoiler sections (in other words, you can't say that you don't want spoilers in the lead). Admittedly, the guideline is still occasionally disputed, however you are degrading article quality by specifying that content must be segregated in violation of Wikipedia's disclaimer. I'm removing the guideline template. David Fuchs (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The MoS question has been resolved, as this page has now been moved to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter and is now proposed as a style guide for articles that are part of that project. --Parsifal Hello 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Regarding spoiler notices, there has been and still is extensive discussion on the talk page of the guideline, which was substantially changed a few months ago.

the Harry Potter project use of spoiler notices is being discussed here:

Harry Potter discussion on WP:SPOILER talk page.

Interested editors are welcome to join the conversation. --Parsifal Hello 04:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the page does appear to be dead, so we don't appear to be in any serious rush... David Fuchs (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

I've added a new section about the formatting of the book titles, which I think reflects current practice. However, I've somewhat inadvertently added a fairly sweeping clause extending this to the games and sountracks. I'm sure that italics are appropriate for the films, but not so sure about games and soundtracks. What does everyone else think? Happy-melon 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Games, definitely. But as for soundtracks, I'm not sure... I don't think anyone would hate you for italicising them as well. David Fuchs (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Goblet of Fire" or "The Goblet of Fire"?

I personally think that the inclusion of the article in the shortened version is better style and sounds better; hence me initially writing the policy as such. Fbv65edel clearly disagrees, hence him changing it in his rewrite. So, let us form consensus: which is the preferred style? "Philosopher's Stone" or "The Philosopher's Stone"? One thing I'm sure we can agree on is that it should be standardised. Personally, my vote is for The. Happy-melon 17:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorceror's Stone Question

Did I actually read that part correctly?
"Rowling has stated[3] that she regrets allowing the name to be changed. All articles within the scope of the Harry Potter WikiProject should therefore use the title Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in all instances."
Are we actually conceding tio the wishes of JKR's regret? Sorry, but that isn't an encyclopedic view to take in this instance. As the book was in fact published in an alternate form (different title with illustrations), it should be noted at the first instance of mentioning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)