Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:01, 22 December 2007

Archives
April 2006–June 2006 June 2006–July 2006 July 2006–September 2006 October 2006–December 2006 January 2007–March 2007 March 2007–August 2007 August 2007

• ]

Wrestling

I've been wondering for quite some time how wrestling articles should be written? I'm talking professional wrestling where it's scripted here. Do those articles have to follow this guideline? Because many I have seen do not. Are there clear guidelines on this somewhere I can read? Any help would be appreciated, thanks. - Shudde 03:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro wrestling doesn't really occupy a fictional world, which is the focus of this style guide. Their plots are fictional dramas set in a (more or less) real-world context. Most articles I've seen on the subject are very clear about what characteristics of a given wrestler are fictional. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few I have seen do not make it clear it's fictional. So this guideline doesn't apply because it's not based in a fictional universe? Seems confusing to me. - Shudde 04:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Shudde, I know what you are talking about and am very much inclined to agree that many articles on professional wrestling pose a problem in that they are not consistently written from a real world perspective, which is a general necessity for all articles. To that particular effect, I believe that the name of this guideline should not be interpreted too discriminatingly: Although pro wresting may be seen as a borderline case, fictional narration is a very fundamental aspect of pro wrestling, and therefore the careful distinction between real-world perspective and the plot must be made. There is no logic in saying "pro wrestling doesn't strictly qualify as traditional fiction and therefore this guideline doesn't apply". This guideline primarily deals with spelling out general style issues as pertaining specifically to writing about fiction. It is perfectly applicable for fictional aspects of any topic.

TCC provides the perfect explanation: Pro wrestling doesn't occupy a fictional world. It occupies our real world, while employing creative narration for the purpose of entertainment. Which is an accurate description of what fiction is, and also of what this guideline really is about. —AldeBaer 12:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it real? Dr Aaron 12:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's going to break your heart, but not all of it. I know this is hard to swallow, I couldn't believe it myself at first. Its true value is the entertainment though, and if that's not enough for those self-appointed #1 fans, they're certainly welcome here. —AldeBaer 12:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Writing as a fan

Maybe there should be a guideline on "writing as a fan", regardless of the topic someone is writing about. Sorta like WP:COI, but with emphasis on stylistic aspects. I'm seriously considering to compose a draft in my userspace. Any opinions? —AldeBaer 13:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful, in that it could summarize and emphasize, especially for newer editors, the most relevant issues (WP:WAF, WP:FICT, WP:OR, WP:RS), without needing to find all of the individual pages on their own. I think that a few WikiProjects try to set up a centralized guideline page for their relevant scope, but having a Misplaced Pages-wide page is probably beneficial, given the number of editors who get started with Misplaced Pages out of fandom. — TKD::Talk 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my opinion precisely. Meanwhile, I decided to make the larger round, and posted at WT:MOS and WP:VPP. —AldeBaer 14:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I like the "Writing as a fan" title better than the "neutralized" PRECON moniker. I think the opposite of fandom on Misplaced Pages usually boils down to a simpler case of WP:NPOV or WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a touch of WP:OR — or sometimes just fandom for a competing product. Over-proliferation of unencyclopedic fansite material is, I think, by far, the more widespread problem. — TKD::Talk 14:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. You see, the idea was to widen the scope, but that may not be such a viable option after all. I hope others share our opinion on this. —AldeBaer 14:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the existing fiction guidelines are applied patchily, if there are block-voters or admins protecting the article. For example, Spoo is a spectacularly non-notable fictional food, but gets a featured article. We've had a load of admins and experienced Wikipedians wanting it kept featured, yet it's probably less important than Malibu Stacy or Butterbeer, which don't even get articles.--Nydas 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Basic notability appears to exist, and from there on out it's just a matter of how good the article is referenced and written. It's not the most convincing example of an FA, but it is a good article. The proposed guideline would entail other things, e.g. when a Pete Sampras fan insists on calling him "The greatest tennis player of all time" without any reference. I plan on explaining how things like that are not good ideas and prohibited by several policies, including WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Of course, anyone could point fan-writers to those policies, but I'd like one central place where all the good and bad aspects of writing as a fan are combined in one readable guideline. —AldeBaer 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. Judging from the input I collected here, community consensus appears to be against such a guideline page. A shame, in my opinion, but so what. —AldeBaer 14:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not draft something in your user space as an essay and see what happens? I'd like to see it anyway. — Brian (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so would I. Some "essays", such as WP:DENY and WP:ATA, are very widely cited even though they technically don't carry the stamp of an official guideline. — TKD::Talk 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, (edit conflict) both of you. Despite my unjustified feeling hurt by an ignorant community that doesn't value or appreciate extraordinary ideas like many most of mine are, I acknowledge that I'm already in the planning stages. Now that I've boasted about how this would be a great thing, I'll have to write my ass off accordingly. I.e. as soon as I'm done licking my wounds. I'll drop a note here when I've come up with something halfway debatable. —AldeBaer 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should explain my being obsessed with that "official guideline" seal: I'm German. —AldeBaer 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This idea should definitely be explored. It could be the "glue" that could tie all our fictional guidelines together. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm making progress, rather slowly but steadily. I welcome anyone to be bold and edit ahead or drop by my talk page for notes, suggestions, criticism, encouragement, or any opinion you may have. —AldeBaer 22:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming of certain fictional characters

There is currently a renaming debate going on at Talk:Malcolm Wilkerson, regarding the title of the articles of the family members of Malcolm in the Middle. Posting this here since this is related to writing about fiction. Any input welcome. —AldeBaer 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Section on #Notability and undue weight

I reworded the section on Notability and undue weight . Ned Scott reverted (I assume he meant to revert only my last edit ). On reviewing my changes and as I saw nothing had been posted here, I decided to revert excluding my last edit and to come here and ask for opinions.

My rationale for the rewording was that I think the malpractice example employed in the Notability section was barely recognisable as such and didn't seem to be of much help to anyone who doesn't already know the relevant aspects of WP:PG. Please provide any input. —AldeBaer 08:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Remind me to get my eyes checked. I'm not sure what I thought I saw last night, but I can't seem to remember what reason I had to revert you. It is indeed an improvement. Sorry about that. -- Ned Scott 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Phew. Totally no prob. Any input by others still welcome, of course. —AldeBaer 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A silly matter, but guidance would be appreciated

There's currently a dispute going on at Celebrity Jeopardy (Saturday Night Live). It's a really picayune thing, but, hey, we want to get the little things right, too. I requested a third opinion, but they seem to be really backed up, so I figured I would come here. Basically, there is a section at the article that lists individual episodes of the sketch by air date and the "celebrity contestant" characters who appear. In one episode, there is a joke where the Burt Reynolds character momentarily insist on being referred to as "Turd Ferguson". He goes as far as to change the name on his podium. All in all, I count five lines from the transcript that make reference to this joke in any way. Another editor believes that, in the section identifying episodes of the sketch, the name "Turd Ferguson" should be referred to. I hold that it should not. I'll lay out my logic and reasoning rather than force you to read a long and silly argument.

1. "Turd Ferguson" is a joke name. It's effect is for one joke and then a callback to that joke.

1a. Because the section is otherwise a dead serious section, written from an out-of-universe perspective, listing a joke name alongside actual character names breaches the formal tone expected of the section.

1b. Mentioning this one joke in an otherwise serious section gives it undue weight relative to every other joke.

2. Within the section, the episode in question is already identified uniquely. No more information is necessary to do that.

3. The joke is already acknowledged in a section of the article that seeks to explain and contextualize the the humor.

There has been a considerable back-and-forth. I don't think it will be possible to resolve this with just me and the other editor involved. He has pledged to edit war and has kept his promise. If I'm wrong, I accept that, but we need other editors involved because left two our own devices, we will never agree. Croctotheface 05:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation

Consider merging the "Conclusion" section into "This page in a nutshell". G.A.S 06:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

eh, that would make for a very bloated nutshell. I might be better to just move the section up, maybe? -- Ned Scott 06:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good solution, sort of a compromise between "in a nutshell" and leaving it where it is. These pages should generally be inverted pyramid style, starting with general concepts and getting specific. In this case, you start with details and then restate in a "conclusions" section. I think it would serve almost just as well, in its current form, as an introduction. Croctotheface 06:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it might be needed to merge it into the lead paragraph. ("The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points" — WP:LEAD) G.A.S 06:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, that's one way to go, though there's also merit in a bulleted list. But I suppose that the logic would go something like: if the conclusion doesn't restate the basic points, it's not serving any function. If the lead isn't stating the basic points, it's not doing a very good job. If there is a section redundant with the lead, it should be merged and deleted. So, yeah, merge it up. Croctotheface 06:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages covers numerous subjects, including works of fiction: Articles range from ancient mythological epics such as Beowulf and The Ramayana, to literary classics like Les Misérables, to recently published phenomena such as Harry Potter and The Simpsons. Information about fiction falls into two broad categories: facts about the work of fiction itself, such as its authorship, publication, critical reception, and influence are termed out-of-universe information while information about the plot and concepts that are described within the work is often referred to as in-universe information.

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia of information about subjects notable within the real world, and is not a collection of plot summaries or an encyclopedia of fictional universes. However, since understanding an article on a work of fiction requires the reader know what the work is about, articles on works of fiction can and should include information about the elements within the work — All information should be provided in the context of the original fictional work. Articles should discuss fictional subjects such as characters, objects, events, or locations, from the real world's perspective and maintain a balanced use of both primary and secondary sources: Both primary and secondary information are necessary for a real world perspective.

The verifiability of in universe information is generally easy to ensure, as it comes from a reliable source, the series itself. This information should be supplemented by out-of-universe sources. Care should be taken to avoid original research or synthesis to advance a position. Information need to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article. Articles about fiction should give due weight in all elements of the article page, including text, images, elements of layout and even the article title. Editors should note that according to Misplaced Pages's fair-use policy the amount of copyrighted work should be used as little as possible.

I have added an example (above) for the lead paragraph. Comment please? G.A.S 14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I still favor the bulleted list. -- Ned Scott 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The most important points should be in the nutshell; the rest in the lead. G.A.S 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this has consensus. A nutshell should not distract from the respective sections, it should succinctly summarise the spirit of the page. I'm not hellbent on keeping the bulleted Conclusions list, but the current version doesn't have my support. Won'r revert for now, but I ask others to provide their input so as to determine consensus. —  23:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with AldeBaer, on the issue about consensus. I haven't reviewed the differences between the original version and G.A.S.'s new version, but it's clear from this talk page that there wasn't consensus to change anything, at least not in a 2 day period (when there hasn't be constant support from numerous editors).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. While I agree that the page should follow an inverted pyrmaid scheme, I'm not happy with the current lead. Let's go back to the old one for now and compare the two, garner consensus, etc., before we make changes. — Brian (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I re-instated the prior version for now. As a preliminary compromise of sorts, I included a link to the #Conclusions section in the nutshell box. —  05:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. GAS, no offense, but your changes look like crap. The "most important points" do not go in the nutshell, the nutshell is a brief explanation, and that's it. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem about the revert, but we should really work on having a proper lead that embodies the content of the guideline, as I believe the conclusions section is not necessary -- this is not an audit workIng paper.

I have, for the purpose of the rewrite of WP:FICT, recommended that we should see and edit the two guidelines (WP:FICT and WP:WAF) as one: This will help to synchronize the two and help reduce redundancy (As the case is currently, we have proposals that are more applicable to WP:WAF and vica versa; but we cannot see the results). If the result is too long, we can always split off the notability part per WP:SS and WP:LENGTH. Such a merge should not necessarily be seen as permanent. G.A.S 10:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The rewritten intro was too long, and poorly worded. There was some new stuff in there, for example, needing to cite the fiction itself, even though many featured articles don't do it. Some Final Fantasy articles use dialogue fragments to source plot info, but that practice pads out the references with trivial stuff and invites selective quoting.--Nydas 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Concept of undue weight

"Moreover, it is important that articles give due weight to all aspects of the subject, and to avoid placing undue emphasis on minor points. This concerns all elements of the article page, including infoboxes and succession boxes as well as images and of course all of the text." — WP:WAF.

I recommend that this be reworded from WP:UNDUE — something like:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Editors should note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

G.A.S 14:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The original wording is much better. -- Ned Scott 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Which one do you mean by original? If you are referring to the top one, why do you think it is better? G.A.S 23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For me, the first one is easier to understand. It says the same thing, but is simple, to the point. -- Ned Scott 02:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree: The first one is very difficult to read and make sense of it. How about:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Editors should avoid emphasizing on minor facts in articles, articles' infoboxes and images."

G.A.S 15:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"avoid placing undue emphasis on minor points" is probably the most important part of the whole thing. You're basically repeating yourself in your version, since giving appropriate weight is the same thing as not giving undue weight. The wording "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" could be interpreted by editors as we should have a full article on some villain if that villain destroyed the world, even if their only appearance is a single sentence that said "Bad Bob blew up the world". From the perspective of the fiction, it could be the most important thing, setting up a story, etc, but it's still just a small thing from the perspective of the real world. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern.

I still do not like the current wording; the concept is fine though. Would "appropriate to its significance to the subject in the real world" help? G.A.S 06:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, not in my opinion. It's a rather complicated matter, covered at length in WP:NPOV. One issue that comes to mind as far as RL relevance goes is the distinction between "actual" relevance and relevance by measure of mention in reliable sources. Such things cannot and should not be discussed in WAF. The basic reason to have this section here is to make prominent mention of NPOV both as a basic principle and as policy, and I tried to convey the spirit of NPOV as succinctly as possible, but it's not (nor trying to be) a substitute for reading and following the policy. A wording like "appropriate to its significance to the subject in the real world" would unnecessarily complicate matters and confuse new users. —  23:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Importance of in-universe information not otherwise connected to an article

I just came across a mention of wikipedia in an article in the The Times magazine. The writer made a comment which I think illustrates what people in the real world actually use an encyclopedia for. Loved the brothers, surely the best early evening road haulage based TV ever produced. I can still name all three siblings: Edward, Brian and David. And the surname? Hammond. I can't remember where it was set. Dudley, at a guess. Misplaced Pages doen't say.

Clearly the article has failed the journalist who wanted in-universe information about the plot. Now, this may have nothing to do with any existing policy, simply that the series is too old for anyone to remember enough details to have included this information. However it illustrates a point which no-one seems much interested in. One of the most important aspects of any fiction is the storyline. Not for purposes of illustrating a point being made in the article, but as an intrinsically noteable piece of information worth including. Sandpiper 08:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the failure is because there just are not any active editors who know about the show to fully flesh out that article, and not because of this guideline. The guideline doesn't say "don't mention things important to the fictional universe," or "don't mention the storyline at all." The only thing this article does is tell editors not to put undue weight on minor information, and don't write the article in a primarily in-universe tone. I think you just came across an article that shows how young we truly are. With 2 million articles, and something like 0.22% featured or good article status, so we're obviously behind in a lot of articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Places

I'm not sure if this is the right place to write this but I'm trying to find an infobox for a fictional place e.g. an infobox for a fictional, city, lake, river, forest, temple. if anyone can help --> --Savre 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We generally avoid such infoboxes, because they assert that the place is real. It's unlikely that the kind of facts that are used for real places are actually relevant for fictional ones. Say like, population won't really tell you much about a fictional place, since many fictional places can have different populations and still have the same effect in the story. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just who, realistically, believes an article which claims in the introduction to be about fiction, is about a real event? This is the same argument as that about spoilers: no one reads an rticle about anything unless they want to know something. Similarly, no one reads an article about fiction unless they want to be told some fiction. Sandpiper 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No one said anyone would confuse a fictional thing for a real one. The point is that it's wrong to write about a fictional place as if it's real. The population of Smallville is irrelevant in its own right; only if it's a salient plot point in one of the stories in which Smallville has featured does the information need to be presented. — Brian (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, it's getting old. It's one thing to make your opinion known, and another to insult a view that has widespread support. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms have fictional place infoboxes...--Savre 13:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

flawed analysis

I removed the following biased, POv and unsourced claim from the article:

The in-universe perspective describes the fiction from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real. Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Misplaced Pages articles. An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research. See also the sections on fair use, notability and undue weight, and templates.

Problems associated with an in-universe perspective include:

• Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavour.
• A plot synopsis written like an historical account.
• A fictional character article or section written like a biography.
• Description of fictional places written like a geographical account.
• Using infoboxes intended for real world topics.
• Discussing a fictional topic's appearances in major works and obscure spin-off material in equal detail.
• Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information.
• Trying to reconcile contradictions or fill gaps in a fictional continuity, rather than reporting them as such.
• Placing spiritual successors in the same continuity as the works that inspired them.

Where to start? Is anyone here willing to justify this rather ridiculous set of claims about in-universe writing? It would never be allowed to remain in an article for one second.

An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading:really, how? it might be inaccurate if it is wrong, but that is exactly the same with any other form of writing. Misleading? Come off it! in what way? Do you imagine even one reader of a wikipedia page has ever been misled into thinking a fictional biography from any page which starts '***is a fictional character in the ***books by ***'? If, so you are very unfamiliar with people and their general level of reading ability and comprehension. In what other way might such a description be misleading?

Gives undue weight to unimportant information. How? Why? any kind of writing might give undue weight to some aspect, and frequently does. How is in-universe writing different. An exactly similar issue might arise with a biography of a real individual which goes on endlessly about his schooldays. A summary should correctly summarise, giving greatest emphasis to the important issues.

Invites original research. Er, what? If it summarises a piece of prose then it summarises a piece of prose. This is absolutely within the remit of wiki editors to collate and report sources of all descriptions, including the specific primary source which is a novel (etc). If wiki editors can not be trusted to make such a summary, then you had better delete every single article.

As to the problems, disregarding aspects of a work: what? no one is arguing a wiki article should be entirely in-universe, that is as bad a sin as making it entirley out-universe. In fact, rather worse, yes, but omissions from an article do not cast any fault on things which have been included. Just show that something needs adding.

historical account...biography. Er, what is wrong with writing up a character story as a biography? This has two real advantages. First, It is a natural writing style readily comprehensible and it is probably the briefest way to write. As I mentioned above, does anyone really believe any reader has ever been misled by a section of an article written in in-universe style? Second, it allows the original story by an author to be re-told in a different style: this is significantly more informative to a reader interested in a work of fiction than re-telling a history simply as it appeared in the original work. The information is extracted and collated, just as any good reference work ought to do. I do not favour simply re-telling a book and presenting that as an article. The information should say something different to what a book does. It should present a story clearly, when an original work frequently goes out of its way to be misleading.

Using infoboxes etc Again, seriously, how many readers are so thick they don't understand when the into to an article says it is about a work of fiction, that in fact it meant what it said, and is about a work of fiction.

Major and obscure...in equal detail I mentioned that, this is about proper article balance, and nothing whatever to do with in-universe writing.

Using throwaway comments as information ye what? If character A is famous for making a joke, then say so. If it is a highlight of his career, then mention it. If not, if it's trivial, then leave it out. Repetition of last alleged point.

Trying to fill gaps ??? Ditto, it is bad style to invent article content, what has this to do with in-universe writing.

Spiritual successors, I just plain don't understand.

Sandpiper 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you make a lot of good points (though you could tone down some of your rhetoric so as not to antagonize other editors . . . :)). A lot of the problems we're ascribing to fictional perspective exist in other types of Misplaced Pages articles too. And the page could probably do with a revision. I think when folks view this guideline with an eye to changing it, they should keep this guiding principle in mind: Write an article about a fictional subject from the perspective of the real world" but understand that that does not mean that all of the prose must be from the perspective of the real world and that this does not preclude the inclusion of character biographies, plot summaries, and other "in-universe" sections as long as they do not overwhelm the rest of the article.

I wrote the original draft of this page after spending some time on Wookieepedia. I liked Wookieepedia; I wrote articles for it; I got one of those articles featured. But I was a bit confused why so many of Misplaced Pages's articles looked exactly like their Wookieepedia counterparts and little or nothing like their equivalents in more serious scholarship. That's what the guideline was intended to address, and if it doesn't, it needs to be changed.

In short, perhaps it's time to reframe the whole page as a standard Manual of Style page (using the other MoS's as our guide) and to stop trying to be persuasive. The idea that Misplaced Pages articles should look scholarly and not fannish has broad approval and consensus. Why are we continually trying to argue and "prove" this point? This guideline's persuasive phase is over. Let's change things to better explain how to write an article on fiction. — Brian (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So let be get this straight, because some of this isn't style advice, you want us to trash those parts? I'm not sure if I like that idea very much. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, as I understand, it was removed because it was not verifiable (Or WP:OR). G.A.S 06:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the change made to the intro, but more about his further comments: "Ditto, it is bad style to invent article content, what has this to do with in-universe writing. " or "Major and obscure...in equal detail- I mentioned that, this is about proper article balance, and nothing whatever to do with in-universe writing.".

And for guidelines, WP:NOR doesn't apply at all. WP:V, in context to the views held by the community, is generally documented on the talk page of said guideline. Sandpiper also seems to be thinking we live in a perfect world, where the majority of our editors working on fiction don't need things explained in a way they'll understand. That being said, I disagree with the majority of his comment. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as guideline content exist for the purpose of giving guidance, WP:OR is not applicable. (As the editors do not always need to know why things are done a certain way — If they want to know that, they can ask on the talk page.) Yes, I know this contradicts the current rewrite of WP:FICT due to the amount of explaining why something should be done.

As far as the guideline makes statements to support said view, I believe WP:V and WP:OR is applicable. It is nice to give such reasons, but its truth may be (and has been) challenged.

A possible compromise may be to include such content in the footnotes, so it does not have too much emphasis, but is available if someone wants to look it up. (But even then, it should be appropriately cited)

G.A.S 08:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're mixing up to things here: Grounding guidelines in and mentioning applicable policies like WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV is indeed very important to educate editors about our editorial standards.

Applying WP:OR to the writing of guidelines is what is not applicable. You can't just say, I challenge this or that statement of a policy, so I remove it unless it can be verified with reliable sources. Policy and guidelines are based on community consensus. —  10:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would rather that it is a bit more complicated than that:

• If someone go and make a statement such as According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable.", (as is done on WP:NPOV), they better be able to cite it.
• If we merely explain why a guideline is the way it is, yes, you are absolutely correct, WP:OR does not apply.
• If the explanation makes wild claims about why it is like it is; again, I rather it be cited.

Would there be a better way to say "Problems associated with an in-universe perspective include:"? Such as "The following problems arise when editors write from an in-universe perspective"? (With the appropriate rewording of the statements?)

G.A.S 16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking you are describing a WP:V problem, not a WP:NOR problem. Getting back on topic, normally guidelines "cite" their talk pages, and statements like those are made from the impression that users get while editing on Misplaced Pages. If those impressions are considered inaccurate, the guideline will normally lose consensus (or not obtain it in the first place). Still, it is good to find better ways to explain this so that it's easier for editors to understand how a guideline got developed. Maybe what we need is a "history of guideline" summary box on the talk page, that would act like a log. -- Ned Scott 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is one problem with the list though: it mixes the problem with IU articles with the symptoms of IU articles. Would it be possible to split the list accordingly? G.A.S 17:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible, yes of course. Useful, no. —  17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I contributed to this section. The main reason was to replace the claim that in-universe writing is unencyclopedic with something meaningful. I disagree with Sandpiper's view that in-universe writing is neither better or worse than out-of-universe writing. If you're going to have in-universe 'sections', then real world info may have to be discarded to maintain the in-universe illusion. For example avoiding mentioning episode names in a section about a TV character's development. For standalone works, this is not so serious.--Nydas 15:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in-universe perspective is never acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles. And even if they are written from the real world perspective, overlong plot summaries are strongly discouraged. —  13:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have stirred up a little debate. First, I made comments similar to the above previously. Absolutely nothing happened to remove the offending nonsense from this guideline. Thus, a little hyperbole is appropriate. I repeat, the claims being made about in-universe writing are nonsense, and while there may technically be no policy to say that guidelines or policy are not permitted to be nonsense, it is rather stupid that they be so. It is absurd to make a list of things which might be wrong with a piece of in-universe writing without admitting that exactly the same things might be wrong with out-universe writing.

To another point, I find a policy of permitting solely in-universe prose as equally absurd to one requiring all out-universe prose. However no one here is attempting to ban out-universe writing. Thus the faults with the guideline are in the way it attempts to justify a ban on in-universe information using spurious and unsubstantiated reasoning. I again repeat that when I did exams in english literature, we were expected to use in-universe information and write about fiction as though the characters were real. If it is good enough for school exams, why is it not good enough for wiki? Having now conducted a straw poll of others currently at school, this hasn't changed. Why does this guideline seek to take an approach different to the real world when writing about fiction?

Nydas (et al): Yes, I agree with any attempt to substantiate claims made in a guideline and explain why they exist. My difficulty here is that the reasons explaining why in-universe writing is discourged frankly do not support discouraging it. I imagine reasons have been produced because people feel such a guideline needs explaining, but if no one can in fact produce any good reason for having it...well, maybe it shouldn't exist. No one above seems to have disproven any of my objections regarding the inaccuracy of the guideline. People have argued whether it needs to be accurate, being merely a guideline, but no one has disputed my points. Do I take that as consensus that the sections I object to should be deleted? Sandpiper 09:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, and I reverted. You should give consensus a bit more than 47 minutes . — aldebaer⁠ 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In case you're actually interested in hearing reasons why in-universe writing is a bad thing in WP articles:

An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research. In other words: It goes against all our core content policies. It also ignores community consensus as to what we do not want Misplaced Pages to be or become, which states that "Misplaced Pages articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." But most importantly, in-universe writing defies the sheer idea of when a project can conceivably be regarded encyclopedic in nature.

Sandpiper, you ought to realise that in-universe perspective diminishes article quality, and as long as you do not understand or accept that, you may want to abstain from editing encyclopedia articles on fiction-related subjects, let alone our guideline on the topic of writing about such subjects. WAF is your friendly guideline to help you improve the articles you're working on. You don't seem to grasp that, and I regard your recent activity here as somewhat disruptive attempts at weakening the guideline, so please cut it out. — aldebaer⁠ 09:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Aldebaer, you are not giving any reason to substantiate this policy. You are simply re-quoting it. Why is it inaccurate and misleading~? What is specifically inaccurate about it, and how does such an article mislead? In what way does it give undue weight? I'm not sure there is even one single article still on wiki which is wholly in-universe, which seems to me the only situation in which any misleading is possible. I have no problem with covering real world aspects, what does this have to do with having no in-universe prose in an article? Then you re-state your claim again without substantiation: How does it diminish article quality? I do not see that it does, and have never yet seen any good explanation of why anyone thinks it does. You have not provided one here. Sandpiper 08:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already given an example of real-world information being sidelined in order to maintain an in-universe point-of-view, TV show characters. You can either describe the character's development with reference to key episodes, or you can do it in-universe. You could have a double section with an in-universe 'fictional biography' and an out-of-universe 'character development', but that's probably unnecessary duplication. Real people don't have episodes, so there is no counterpart to this in the real world.

Many fictional things have their backstory changed, or have an incoherent continuity. If a fictional character's father is stated to be a soldier in one instance and a scientist in another, there's no good way to handle this from an in-universe perspective. You can choose one for the character biography, and then mention the other job in a continuity section, but why should Misplaced Pages privilege one over the other? Another option is to say the father was a soldier turned scientist, but this is original research, glossing over continuity errors instead of reporting them. This situation could happen for a real person as well, and there you'd mention both jobs, and the sources, and leave it up to reader. It should be same for the fictional character, rather than trying to in-universify it.--Nydas 10:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible to present inconsistent information using an in-universe approach. This would be done 'one source suggests that his father was a soldier, but it has also been reported he was a scientist', (with references, even!). It is not unknown for sources to disagree and for this to be included in articles. However, I do not insist on a slavish attachment to an in-universe approach and in the context of fiction in this situation I would break the in-universe narrative by explaining the contradiction. Perhaps a purist would argue that I am therefore no supporter of in-universe writing at all. What I am, is a supporter of clear writing and presenting facts in articles. This is frequently best done using in-universe passages, which is what people naturally do when talking about fiction. Sandpiper 08:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the list with a paragraph loosely based on my response above. Thoughts?--Nydas 22:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think examples could make up an explanatory sub-page. But replacing generally applicable guideline content with a rather specific example, I don't think it's a good idea. — aldebaer⁠ 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

The section explaining secondary sources is misleading. I think that two concepts are being confused. Secondary information about a work might in fact come from primary sources, for example the author writes a piece explaining how he came up with the ideas, why he lived in paris and what effect it had on his work. This would not be a secondary source, but a primary one. It would be secondary information bout the main subject of the article which ought to be included, but still a primary source, unverified by others. Another secondary source might, for example, claim the author had never ever visited Paris and was lying. Sandpiper 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I tentatively agree and tried to clarify on the difference in meaning between information vs. source in a non-confusing way. Please note that information provided in the required secondary sources as well as with the work of fiction itself should be considered secondary, or external, information. E.g. the name of the author on the cover of a book can safely be treated as secondary information, since it's meta-information provided by the publishing house, it's usually not part of the fiction (although there are counter-examples). —  01:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

More templates

I found the following templates for fiction related problems; would there be use in adding them here, or listing them? Or, alternatively, would it be possible to merge them into a more generic template that uses parameters to achieve the same result?

• {{Fiction}} (Links to Misplaced Pages:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction)
• {{Nonfiction}} (Links to Misplaced Pages:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction)
• {{Plot}} (Links here)
• {{In-universe}} (Links here)
• {{Vg-in-universe}} (Links here}*
• {{animanga-in-universe}} (Links here)*
• {{comics-in-universe}} (Links here)*
• {{ME-in-universe}} (Links here)*
• {{SW-in-universe}} (Links here)*
• {{Book-in-universe}} (Links here)*
• {{Film-in-universe}} (Links here)*
• * These appear to be sub templates for {{In-universe}}

G.A.S 11:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Plot}} and {{Fiction}} would be useful additions, provided helpful explanations are given as to their usage. {{Nonfiction}} is irrelevant here. And the lot of in-universe derivates should be redirected to {{in-universe}}, but that's another story. —  01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a TfD on the multiple in-universe templates, and the result was to just merge them (in a way that would allow a trigger to give a custom category), but I guess no one got around to it. I'll take a crack at it tonight. -- Ned Scott 02:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it might be already like that.. but not.. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Intrepretation

I know this is useless to say, and i hope i will not be banned, as this is not vandalism, but i am not fond of this rule. The fact of the matter is, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia written for the people, by the people. If you want to know how a certain character was developed, look in Encyclopedia Brittanica. If you want more information about a character than you can get from a person who never read the story. Look where the fans write. Look on wikipedia. We are supposed to give our own introspective on the subject. Well......thats what i thought when i first came here. --Gen. S.T. Shrink ** 00:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I must say, you thought incorrectly. First, the Encyclopedia Brittanica doesn't really cover fictional topics all that much. If you want to know more about a character, watch the show/film. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not YouTube or iTunes, or some other place that would provide you with a free substitution for watching a film or television show. We are not here to broadcast our personal opinions, that's why Misplaced Pages is a laughing stock already, because people don't understand that. If you want to broadcast your opinions, you can start your own website, or join a forum. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and not the place for original thoughts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinions, no. Information, perhaps. Still, i believe in all earnasty (misspelled) that wikipedia is a wonderful thing. And to understand it at its heart, its soul, is not what i said, i just happen to be the kind of person who wont rest until they know the color of the characters great-great-grandfather's toenail. I think wikipedia is written by the people who know the subject matter the best, the fans. Which is why i get irritated by people who say something is wrong, or bad, before knowing it, and knowing it, can be shown through wikipedia. I am, at heart, a fan, at soul, a human. but at fingers, and computer, an editor, which is why you will never see me blank this page, or any other, because i dont agree with it nessicrily (also misspelled). I will maintain a professiaonal attitude, and not edit things with my own opinions, and if you assume by my previous comment, i have been doing so. No. I am but a humble fan, who enjoys literature, and thinks it should recieve all the attention, it deserves. --Gen. S.T. Shrink ** 02:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The color of a character's GGGF's toenail is irrelevant, unless there was actually some significance to it. You are incorrect again. Wiki is written by the people, and that usually happens to be "the fans," but it is not written for the fans, nor is one to say that you can only write an article if you know the material. It generally happens to flow that way, but there is a reason we are an encyclopedia, and not a fansite. If someone wants to know some ridiculous theory about why some character does what they do, they can go to a fansite, as that isn't what Misplaced Pages is for. There is a big difference between the quality of articles that look like this (something I gather you would prefer), and ones that look like this (something that follows all of the guidelines and policies and basic principle of what Misplaced Pages is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you gather correctly, my personal preferance is the first, because when i read something, I get caught in the details, as many do. For that reason i have refrained from editing something and including GGGF's toenail information. However, i wish you would stop refering to me as incorrect, as i am merely stating my opinion, not including in an article information about Dorian Gray's toenail, as opposed to his portrait. --Gen. S.T. Shrink ** 03:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What I stated you were "incorrect" about was what Misplaced Pages is about. You can assume what Wiki is about, but it's clear for all the policies and guidelines that this isn't the place to write up fictional biographies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, i agree with that, although, when i began many articles, had enourmous articles, on gggf's toenail, and in recent times have been completely reduced to a shadow of their former selves. Also, i like fictional biographies. They bring life to the people, and perhaps wikipedia isn't a place for it. But, it is a place for learning about dissacharides, Charlemange, and Napoleon. So, why not have an article that refers ever so slightly to a characters role, especially a large one, as opposed to putting them in one scrunched up article. --Gen. S.T. Shrink ** 03:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's called summary style and undue weight to the unimportant things. If you'd like expanded fictional biographies, you can create one over at Wikia, which isn't an encyclopedia. I'm sure a lot of people like fictional biographies, but that isn't what Misplaced Pages is for (or about). There are other venues that can provide you the opportunity to create, expand, or read such things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, we have reached a crossroads. Misplaced Pages is wonderful, though it may not apply to my *ahem* "special interests". Be that as it may, I still think that it is unfair to do so with certain articles, and leave the rest, in universe. Not that that article is completely in universe, not by a long shot. But, it is far more in universe than this one. --Gen. S.T. Shrink ** 21:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny, because Batman and Superman don't follow that train of thought. Misplaced Pages isn't here to rehash every plot that ever happened, especially not in comics where they run twenty different universes in parallel with each other. The important moments get mentioned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is funny. Thats why I chose Apocalypse as opposed to Batman and Superman. --Gen. S.T. Shrink ** 21:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, well I can choose a ton of articles that fail every single guideline and policy, not just this one, but that doesn't mean we should leave them be just because some editors like them that way. Misplaced Pages may be written by the people, for the people, but those "people" encompass everyone, not just fans. It's about quality.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• gasp* Was this an LOL from out the keyboard of he whom hasth had perfect grammer? I never took you for the leet type. Oh, and occasionally, opinions on quality differ. The problem is....if it differs too much, nobody likes it. --Gen. S.T. Shrink ** 21:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, consensus was reached a long time ago on what consistitutes "good quality", we even have a guide to write better articles. The reason we have notability guidelines is because we have to discriminate, otherwise we'd have far more than 2 million articles on Misplaced Pages; most of those articles would be utter trash (i.e. You and me creating articles on ourselves, turning Misplaced Pages into MySpace). We also created guidelines for different types of articles; because this is an encyclopedia, we need for articles to have consistent quality and style. A normal encyclopedia is grounded in reality, and since we have a notability guideline that says we have to show why a topic needs mentioning, fictional articles are thus grounded in reality.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I enjoy fiction, but random articles of pure vanity is utter nonsense. But..... I suppose, it is possible that it could happen, and god knows we need another MySpace. But, it still seems like details are better than many articles give them credit for, especially if they are a major plotline in the story. --Gen. S.T. Shrink ** 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it filters back to the guideline on summary style. Something can be important, and be summarized into a nice sentence or two, maybe a couple more depending on that the event is. You don't need panel for panel description of a comic just to say that a character had a confrontation with another character. You have to remember, those companies (Marvel, Dark Horse, DC, etc etc) make their money on telling stories, and I don't think they'd appreciate Misplaced Pages simply laying out scene for scene what happens in their works.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, money is the root of all evil. Well, this seems to clear up everything nicely. --Gen. S.T. Shrink ** 22:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Then forgive my evilness, because I'm about to give a quick 2¢ . . . Col. S.T. Shrink seems to prefer that encyclopedia articles on fictional characters take the form of fictional biographies, while Bignole supports the ideas of this guideline page. Well, I just wanted to add that there's no reason the two can't coexist. In other words, there's no reason a character article can't include a section titled "Biography" that relates the character's fictional biography as related in the original work. Where I tend to dislike such biographies is when they are written by the fans taking disparate primary sources and trying to weave them all into a whole. However, there should be no problem when appropriate sources exist that do this work for them. For example, The Essential Guide to Characters is a Star Wars book that gives character biographies or several personalities by weaving together the events of hundreds of films, novels, comic books, video games, etc. I would have no problem using it as a source in a Star Wars article to give a brief (three- or four-paragraph) overview of the character's life in the fictional universe. I disagree with the good General with regard to the color of the g.g.grandfather's toenails, though; that's just beyond trivial. :) — Brian (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the approach that we're finding to be reasonable over at discussion on WP:FICT. For a character that is notable out-of-universe by secondary sources (such as Superman) providing sufficient but brief highlights of the fictional character as to allow any reader to understand the notability of that character in outside sources (eg: you need to say that Superman can fly if a secondary source talks about how they chromakeyed C. Reeve to make him appear as if he was flying). But these need to be brief as noted. Key highlights, not day-by-day biography. --Masem 23:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Number 1. Thank you for your 2 pennies. Number 2. Am i a Colonel, or a General. Number 3. GGGF's toenail in green. (that was taken from JK rowling. Number 4. You are right of course, that the two can coexist and do, very well......in some articles. Ill give a direct example. WikiProject Harry Potter, goes in our dear Bignoles direction, while some others, go in mine. There are a good amount of your idea-ed articles, though far more are either Jason #1, or Jason #2. Therein lies the problem, as anyone can edit, anything can happen. Which (i realize now) is why this page exists. --Gen. S.T. Shrink ** 23:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In many ways a worse problem is that a few people will come along here, write up a policy, then go off and start slashing swathes of fiction articles which had happily existed for some time, on the basis of the policy they just invented. There is something to be said for letting people get on with it without all this instruction creep. Tose arguing above that wikipedia is not for fans are badly missing the point. Te reality is that the word 'fan' is most often use pejoratively, not as a neutral term meaning someone who supports something. I imagine a very large proportion of hits on wikipedia are from fans of one subject or another, because people will naturally want to look up information about what interests them. I do not see why wikipedia should restrict itself to information that people have no interest in in, but merely need to know for one reason or another. There is a very big overlap between these two reasons for using an encyclopedia and I see no reason why wiki should not cater for both. As the cited guideline above says, wiki should cater for all levels of interest in a subject, both shallow and deep. This ought to mean including considerable detail about fiction. Maybe the colous of someone's toenails is going to far, but their eye or hair colour might not. Britanica might not cover this, but I dare to suggest this is because they do not have the resources to write such articles. We do. Sandpiper 09:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree "fan" and "editor" are not separate groups and likely have a huge overlap; I consider myself one. However, I would suggest (for purposes of discussion) a typical "fan" is less like those us here and likely has a strong interest in only one or two main areas, and sees WP as a way he or she can write all about the fictional work they love. Which we definitely don't want to stop, but we do want such "fans" to become aware of what WP is aiming to be, and not what it appears to be at the present.

And I don't mean to speak for all other editors , but I don't think everyone is pitching for a "change-and-burn" approach to works of fiction. We want other editors to take on the action for themselves, and provide good examples of what works.

But the last point: WP needs to be verifiable. To be verifiable, it needs to have no original research, support from secondary sources, and written neutrally. Fictional elements that we are looking to try to improve generally are written by summarizing the fictional work its from; short summarizes usually can't elaborate enough to add this, but lengths of some fictional works extend for proverbial pages, and one must consider how much speculation there is. These usually lack the secondary sources needed for being verifiable. And most importantly, for neutrality, there must not be undue weight placed on any one aspect of a topic. It should be obvious for many fictional works, there is a lot of excess weight placed on the fictional elements of the work and very little on the real-world aspects.

And its not that this will cut down fictional works to pieces. While it may not be a perfect example, Final Fantasy VIII and its sub articles is generally seen as an excellent way to approach writing fictional elements. There's at least 4 sub-pages from the main work (world, characters, and two specific characters), but each is combining fictional in-universe info with a roughly equal amount of secondary sources. I do understand that most fictional works will likely never see this because of the lack of secondary sources, but that falls back to the notability guideline and thus should be used to consider how reasonable the elements of the fictional work should be described. --Masem 13:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Why is it that some folks are able to ignore the difference between an in-universe plot summary unsupported by reliable sources and neglecting all real-world aspects, when there is quite a number of excellent counter-examples of good or featured articles on fiction-related subjects that demonstrate how much the article benefits from proper encyclopedic treatment? — aldebaer⁠ 09:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment above about 'undue weight' implies an entirely different understanding of the issue to mine. No article on wiki is 'finished'. Every single one of them can be improved. Some modestly, some vastly. I do not regard an article that merely contains a plot summary as presenting 'undue weight' at all. The implication of such a statement is that the summary should be slashed so that it was of comparable size to the sections on other elements of a work...which in this example don't exist. So the logical conclusion of following that line would be deletion of the article. Entirely the wrong result. The absence of coverage on other aspects of a work means that the article is incomplete, and additional sections need to be added. None of this says very much about the usefulness of in-universe writing to tell a story accurately and briefly. The summary might be too long, or not, and it might internally place undue weight on some element of the story, or not. This is an issue of judgement depending on what is being written about.

I also do not see why secondary sources are required to simply write a plot summary. This is well within the abilities of most readers as a trivial issue of summarisation. If wiki editors are unable to do this for a fictional book, they are equally unable to do it for a book about a fictional work. The kind of summarisation bias you are describing is equally possible in any case where something is being rewritten for presentation on wikipedia (on all topics), and does not justify exclusion of material simply extracted from the primary source. Reporting of primary source material is normally an important and necessary element of proper coverage of anything. It is the very first thing an encyclopedia ought to do: to define what is being talked about. I don't see it as at all surprising if many articles about fiction spring up as a simple plot description with nothing else. This is entirely appropriate both as the necessary first step for creating any meaningfull article, and represents a useful reference work in its own right, whether anything else ever gets added, or not. Sandpiper 19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say "secondary sources are required to write a plot"? A plot is its own source, primary, because it can be easily verified by watching the movie. That doesn't mean you can't use secondary sources, but I don't believe there is a requirement that says one must use them for plots. That said, the "undue weight" is in reference to an article about a character that gives priority to the fictional information over the real world information, like who created the character, etc etc. If an article is just a plot, then that means it's got a whole mess of problems other than style.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANIME/MANGA's character guideline

We're putting together a draft for a basic layout guideline on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles). Thought it might interest some other people here as well. See Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Start of drafting character guideline. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a careful revision

In a lengthy exchange that began somewhat "sub-collaboratively" and slowly developed into something much more useful, we decided to jointly work on a proposal for revising the intro. We kicked several ideas around on G.A.S' talk page, and finally settled on the below. Please note that depending on consensus, this may be the first in a series of careful changes, but we think it's better to proceed step by step. We therefore prepared a wording that could also stand as a useful change on its own (in our opinion). But first things first, so please provide your opinions and thoughts on the following. — aldebaer⁠ 20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC), G.A.S 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for revising the intro

Misplaced Pages contains numerous articles on fiction-related subjects, fictional worlds and elements from them.

When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline and the more specific notability guideline for fiction-related subjects by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate.

Next, if the subject warrants inclusion in Misplaced Pages, editors should consider what to write about a subject, and how to best present that information. Because these questions are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should address both these questions simultaneously in order to create a well written article.

Please note that this page is a guideline, not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. However, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally a good way to improve articles on fictional topics.

Discussion

It seems to be a more detailed, better explained introduction to this page. It doesn't appear to contradict what it later states in the body. Seems like a good idea to include it to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Seems good to me for the most part. I don't like the "this page is not policy" thing, though; maybe reword to "This page is a guideline, not policy" would be better so as to avoid giving the impression that this page has no force behind it. I would also suggest a few copy editing-type changes, but they're minor. — Brian (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• I don't like it. It's too long and complicated. The 'not policy' paragraph is redundant with the guideline box. The 'what and how' paragraph has nothing to do with fiction in particular and leaves the reader scratching their head about what exactly it means. You don't need a paragraph to describe the notability issue. Finally, it doesn't mention the basic thrust of the guideline; avoid an in-universe perspective.--Nydas 09:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The notability part makes FICT and WAF flow more seemlessly into one another, in my opinion. What and how: The idea is to further explain the existing —but unclear to some— distinction between WP:NOT#PLOT ("what") and in-universe writing ("how"). Since in-universe perspective is really unique to this guideline, it may be better to introduce it in steps of top-bottom categorisation. Also, the intro should be carefully worded so as not to immediately alienate users consulting it in good faith. — aldebaer⁠ 10:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reworded the last paragraph per Brian's suggestion. Here's the original for reference:

To avoid any confusion: This page is not policy, it merely summarizes aspects of policy with particular regard to writing about fiction and should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. However, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is in the best interest of the article you're writing or editing.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AldeBaer (talk • contribs)

• Last paragraph might still need a tweak, but looks good so far. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Looks good - support its inclusion. I propose a very minor stylistic change: "editors should consider what to write and how to write about the subject" → "editors should consider what to write about a subject, and how best to present that information.". I also instinctively dislike the use of second person in the lead, so I suggest "is in the best interest of the article you're writing or editing" → "is generally a good way to improve articles on fictional topics". I maintain my personal opinion that "topic" is preferable to "subject", which might be interpreted to exclude ephemeral concepts and include only characters, locations, events, etc; and also preferable to "concepts", which might in reverse be construed to exclude characters, locations, etc in favour of aforementioned ephemeral topics. However, that is a stylistic matter with minimal importance - it can easily be changed at a later date. In general I support this rewrite, with or without the ammendments I propose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy-melon (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 October 2007
  • I agree with the all the tweaks you proposed. — Dorf⁠, was: AldeBaer 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I prefer "subject" due to the fact that I believe artices are written about subjects, whether those subjects are ephemeral or not within the fiction (in real life fiction is fiction is fiction). I also believe "topic" is too broad. Is there maybe a better word? G.A.S 22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I see both your points, but although the words are not completely synonymous, both do convey the same essential and necessary meaning. They're just apporaching the same from slightly different angles. Imo, the change from "fictional topic/subject" to "fiction-related subject/topic" is more important. How about leaving it alone for now, since it can be changed at any later time if necessary? — Dorf⁠, was: AldeBaer 23:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. G.A.S 08:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I implemented the rewordings Happy-Melon suggested. If there are further general or specific reservations regarding the proposal, please state them. I, for one, think it's ready to be instated as is. — dorf⁠, was: aldebaer 11:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. G.A.S 12:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revision of the revision

A version of the intro with unnecessary words removed:

Misplaced Pages contains numerous articles on fiction-related subjects, fictional worlds and elements from them.

When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline and the more specific notability guideline for fiction-related subjects by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate.

Next, if the subject warrants inclusion in Misplaced Pages, editors should consider what to write about a subject, and how to best present that information. Because these questions are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should address both these questions simultaneously in order to create a well written article.

Please note that this page is a guideline, not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. However, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally a good way to improve articles on fictional topics.

I would prefer the initial sentence avoided mentioning 'fictional worlds', as this is a concept which is more prominent in sci-fi and fantasy, not so much in other fiction.--Nydas 18:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that you have a (mostly admirable) preference for as-tight-as-possible wording, but I think "nicety" is a quality that should also come into play, and to that effect omitting those words as unnecessary wouldn't be my personal preference. With regard to 'fictional worlds': I see your point, and I considered to exchange it myself. But I couldn't think of a better description that would retain the message that the guideline deals with articles on works of fiction as well as elements from them. — dorf⁠, was: aldebaer 18:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not fully reading from the same song sheet here if you feel this guideline must encompass works of fiction as well as fictional topics. I thought it had been agreed somewhere, sometime, that WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:BK, WP:FILM, MOS:FILM, etc etc etc, covered these issues. Surely the purpose of this guideline is to cover how to integrate information about fictional topics into an encyclopaedic coverage of the work as a whole?

I like some of Nydas' suggested ommissions, but disagree strongly with others. In particular, "generally" is a crucial weasel word which stops the wording being prescriptive (non-descriptive policy guidelines being a pet hate of mine). I approve of the removal of "next" and "numerous", but none of the other ommissions. Happy‑melon 19:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph already explains that it is a guideline, and 'a good way' does not equate with 'the only way'.--Nydas 19:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy-melon: One of the basic aims of the guideline is to explain the very point that there is no such thing as "fictional" topics. Topics are always real-world topics, and that should be carefully considered, particularly when writing about fiction-related subjects.

To you and Nydas: Ok, since you both are against the word "general", why not leave it out. — dorf⁠, was: aldebaer 19:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is about fiction - but not the specific media it appears in - and as such includes works of fiction and fiction related topics - and yes - to cover how to integrate information about fictional topics into an encyclopaedic coverage of the work as a whole. As for the suggested changes; The purpose of this part is not to provide tight wording, but to invite the editor into reading the rest of the guideline by providing a quick overview thereof. And in this case, some colouring in does help. Regards, G.A.S 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's not the problem, Nydas. The problem is that removing "generally" leaves the guideline saying that adherence is always beneficial. Of course, in our experience, it is always beneficial, but it doesn't leave any room for legitimate exceptions. The problem with the current wording of WP:FICT is that it works only when applied to the articles its authors were thinking of when they wrote it - namely, all the fancruft that litters wikipedia and really ought to be burnt. By making it too specific, they made it inappropriate for the majority of fictional articles which have some real merit. We shouldn't fall into the same trap: keep it loose, keep it general, and more editors will willingly fight their AfDs inside the box rather than simply ignoring the guideline when it doesn't go their way (which is what is happening with FICT).

Dorf, that's a really good way of putting it, and you're abolutely right. However again that's not quite my point. What I mean is that we're not directly telling editors how to lay out an article on a novel, or a film - we have other guidelines for that. What we're saying is how to write about the fictional topics within the article - how the "characters" section of a film article is laid out would be within the scope of the guideline. But that's actually got nothing to do with the work of fiction itself. When and where to create a sub-article for a major character is for WP:WAF, but again that's not actually about the work of fiction. Do you see what I'm getting at, or am I just rambling incoherently?? :D Happy‑melon 20:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not rambling incoherently. Apparently, I misread your prior comment as agreeing with the removal of "general", but the reason you gave to keep it has my full agreement. Generally conveys the message that we obviously can't take into consideration each and every special case. That's also why it says "following the basic notions" as opposed to just "following this guideline".

When and where to create a sub-article for a major character is not for WP:WAF, it's for WP:FICT. WAF is a how-to page. It is supposed to address frequent problems in articles on fiction-related subjects, be it an article about a novel, a video game, a manga character, or even e.g. that entertainment branch which labels itself "professional wrestling" (since it also employs narrative devices). The most pressing issue to that regard was and is in-universe perspective, with the question of what at all to write (WP:NOT#PLOT) a close second. — dorf⁠, was: aldebaer 20:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, in fact all of these words were carefully chosen:

• numerous-Without it; it could be seen as WP including only articles on fiction-related subjects.
• more specific-it is, isn't it?
• related subjects-WP:FICT only covers fiction related subjects, not works of fiction themselves.
• Next-the editor must first establish notability.
• from one another-crucial to clarify that the questions are two sides of the same coin.
• simultaneously in order-Emphasize the two questions are equally important

Regards, G.A.S 20:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC).

Fully agree, although that's probably redundant to say :D — dorf⁠, was: aldebaer 20:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Even with numerous, the sentence could still be read in that way.
• The specificity of the guideline is implied by its name.
• The intro already establishs that it is about fictional topics.
• You could start every sentence with 'next'. It's never necessary.
• That the questions are two sides of the same coin is already implied by 'complementary'.
• See above.

Anyone coming in via the {{in-universe}} template is going to be baffled by the lack of explanation of 'in-universe'.--Nydas 07:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Numerous" — this is already in the current version.
• The intro already establish that it is about fictional topics.-Yes, but we need to clarify it here since the name is not so clear. Editors may assume that it is equivalent to WP:FILM or another notability guideline that is about the media and work itself.
• "they should not be interpreted in isolation" (without " from one another,")-it is unnecessary vague: in isolation from what?
• "simultaneously in order" - these last two has been adapted from WP:NPOV's lead. It may be unnecessary; but it softens the wording while emphasizing it.
• "next"-almost never necessary. It is not crucial here, but helps.

{{in-universe}}-the template can redirect to that specific section.

Regards, G.A.S 09:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

{{in-universe}}-Comment: The revision will replace this part:

Misplaced Pages contains numerous articles on fictional worlds and elements from them. Like with all Misplaced Pages articles, a fictional topic's notability has to be established by and including reliable secondary sources. Once this is done, the approach to writing about these subjects is the most important consideration to make. Articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events, or locations should discuss their authorship and their significance outside the narrative.

And that part does not really say anything about an out of universe perspective (except for one sentence — that sentence can be moved to "Real world perspective", and the template can redirect to that section. G.A.S 09:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I've also been considering to create a section redirect for real-world perspective (e.g. WP:FICTIONISREAL). Nydas, could that solve at least that problem? — Dorftrottel⁠, was: aldebaer 15:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, since most of your concerns are rather stylistic in nature (although I'd rather stick to the current wording for quite the same reasons G.A.S laid out above) and since some of them concern the current version just as much (e.g. not literally mentioning in-universe), would you basically agree to the rewording? It would be nice to get this over with, since all others have given their basic agreement, minor tweaks (which can be applied at any later time) notwithstanding. — Dorftrottel⁠, was: aldebaer 15:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a veto or anything, go ahead with the change.--Nydas 15:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't implying anything like that. But your comments are of course welcome, and G.A.S and me wouldn't want to ignore any serious concerns. At any rate, thanks, and as you know the wording isn't final of course. — Dorftrottel⁠, was: aldebaer 16:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus found through editing

If you disagree with a change, do not revert, edit. If you do not disagree with a change, or have no opinion either way: Do not revert OR edit.

Your editing action is your opinion on the topic. You must provide your reasons for an edit, undo, or revert. "Does not have consensus" is not a reason. I mean, well duh, we know you disagree, because you reverted. but please explain why! --Kim Bruning 04:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit perplexed. What exactly are you referring to, Kim? — Brian (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking recent history, several folks have been reverting out changes without a proper rationale.

--Kim Bruning 04:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not one written down on the talk page, but many of us already understood the rationale. Still, I understand your point, although your 3rd example was discussed on the talk page. Regarding Sandpiper's changes, he tried to make very big changes that changed much of the meaning behind this guideline, to a viewpoint that most of us disagreed with (which is also discussed in general on the talk page with Sandpiper, we just didn't discuss the exact edits). -- Ned Scott 05:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Does not have consensus" means that I trusted that several people wouldn't agree with the edits in question. Turns out, I was right with that, and so my reverts made sense. Regarding G.A.S' rewording of the intro: As you can see above, his edit and my subsequent revert sparked a fruitful collaboration in which we decided to jointly propose a rewording. You may want to comment on that proposal, or on the specific edits in question. What is your opinion about the edits that were reverted? Were they useful, do you agree with them? — aldebaer⁠ 18:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

While trying not to appear too defensive, I'd like to point out that regarding my revert of SandPiper's edit, I commented on this talk page afterwards. An edit summary simply isn't the place for that, it's there to summarise what is being done in the edit. The talk page is for presenting rationales. Also, I figured that reverting on the basis of "no consensus" is appropriate when it concerns an edit with this summary. — aldebaer⁠ 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the comment entirely appropriate: I think I gave it a week for anyone to explain how the current guideline was plain non-factually correct, which is pretty good going around here. To date, still no one has explained why they believe the guideline is factually correct rather than someone's erroneous and unsubstantiated opinion.Sandpiper

Ahhhhh... well, I can see where you're coming from, but surely, you're the better (wo)man, and can rise above that? :-)

That and note that typically, it's not a good idea to revert if you think that others don't agree. It's happened more than once that on some page, everyone thinks that while they themselves are unsure, everyone else won't agree. - So they all edit war over the page, and after a week or more, it turns out they actually were all in agreement to start with! :-P So the rule of thumb is: Only edit or make reverts that you personally agree with and want done. Makes sense? --Kim Bruning 20:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (No big harm done so no foul here, of course, but could have been done nicer :-) )

It is good to be mindful of these things. A self-check every so often isn't so bad :) -- Ned Scott 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I checked myself and I'm male. Better, I don't know. I won't sheepishly stand by when someone with the declared interest of weakening this guideline instates a clearly controversial edit. I know it's not the kind of thing that will get me love and hugs, but I'm not here to be loved. — aldebaer⁠ 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's ok to do things, but then make that your edit summary, so we all can respond to you appropriately. And yes, yes you are here for love and hugs. Otherwise wikipedia isn't fun for yourself and others, and why else would people volunteer? --Kim Bruning 22:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC) <3 *kerhug* O:-)

Some professional enthusiasm, wild curiosity in social matters, PC addiction? Attention whoring, power games, POV pushing? —— I just despise mindless "fan enthusiasm" that pervades not only Misplaced Pages but seemingly every non-discriminating volunteer community I've ever come across IRL. That's why I also despise userboxen, and wikilove, and barnstars, and "sign here!!!" pages which are the warning signs of the unwashed masses. Those (granted: mostly innocuous) "systemic POV pushers" are worse than the worst ideological POV pushers, trolls, and vandals combined. I'm here to see if I can make a difference. Trying kind words where I feel they are appropriate, roundly reverting where I feel it is appropriate. — aldebaer⁠ 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Every wiki writer is an obsessive, most people do not get paid for writing here, and those that do are not being paid to write an unbiased encyclopedia. Try to separate your dislike for the style from the merits of the content and accomodate those who feel a good modern encyclopdeia ought to include such and such. Sandpiper 08:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you can run from Eternal September but you just can't hide. In the mean time, it's usually a good idea to be nice to people, because what happens if for instance that moron you just met who's trolling about there being no gene for blue eyes (truely a sad commentary on failing high school systems everywhere, the unwashed masses expand by the month) turns out to be a molecular geneticist? O:-) --Kim Bruning 02:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to be polite as far and as often I can, occasional slip-ups notwithstanding. I do consider it polite to tell another user if I don't approve of a specific edit or comment s/he made. And I believe I could tell the geneticist from the crank. Cranks usually betray themselves early on if you really listen to them for only short while. Also: Nice phrase, Eternal September, didn't know that one. Does that mean the only way to another spring is through winter? Where do I sign up to push for Winter then? :-P — aldebaer⁠ 08:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I should probably have posted the paragraph here before dropping it in. But the sheer listiness of this guideline was bugging me. Restore the list if you disagree.--Nydas 22:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. :P Listiness is par for the course in Manuals of style on Misplaced Pages, and this one is actually less listy than most. But I really think the list is important and that the example paragraph, while useful, doesn't convey the same information. — Brian (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, although this guideline is so long, it feels like it's chasing its tail with regard to the in-universe issue, whilst not offering any other guidance. There's no information on how to write about continuity, when to fork a fictional character, what images to use, how much 'fan reaction' or 'fan controversy' to include, etc.--Nydas 07:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why me and AldeBaer would like to revise it (There are more planning details on my talk page, i.e. longer term goal, etc; but the above needs to be passed first). G.A.S 08:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Any reason this revision planning is going on on personal talk pages and not here? It's not like you're exactly hiding anything, but it seems a bit "behind closed doors"-ish. (Not intended as a slight; just a question! :) — Brian (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea was to prepare something half-way debatable for further discussion here. We certainly intended to wait for input and suggestions from others, which is why I notified all the "recent regulars" (, , , , , , ). To speak only for myself: I didn't know how others would welcome the proposal. And, like G.A.S said, the kind of step-by-step rejuvenation we had in mind requires going through the guideline top to bottom, starting with the intro. You may think of the joint proposal we made as really just a slightly more thought-out proposal by one user. — aldebaer⁠ 09:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) We can move it, but the reason was that the discussion originally started as from related discussions. And as AldeBaer said, we wanted to come up with something presentable first. G.A.S 09:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've sat here for an hour reading and commenting and despite your circular letter comment on my user page (the template didn't work?), still don't know where this major re-write is happening. Sandpiper 08:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mythology?

Does this guideline apply to mythological topics? (My feeling is that it should not – fiction and mythology are not the same, although there can be some overlap. Misplaced Pages should probably have a different MoS guideline for writing about mythology and religion.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, religion isn't considered "fiction"...as I'm sure you can understand what that's so. If by mythology you are referring to things like Roman Gods and Greek Gods and the like, that wouldn't be fiction either. I would go over to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mythology and see if they have an manual of style for religious and mythological articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In some ways, yes, but we allow a lot more in-universe information. For something to be considered a part of mythology, or say, a classic, usually means it's had a very big impact on the real world, and has done so for a very long time. It's enough to justify a lot more "plot" than the average article on fiction. The real world-relevance is justified in tons of other articles that are linking to the main article for context. Or something like that, for a lack of better words. But yeah, what Bignole said, I'd see what those other WikiProjects have since there are so many other things to consider. -- Ned Scott 07:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point

These edits refers:

• Diff per WP:WAF and removed defaultsort, it would be necessary if the page was titled "Usagi Tsukino"
• Diff fixing redundace by rm fictional character, as protagonist already includes that meaning
• Diff Welllll, protagonists can be real people, too. I think we're supposed to be pretty explicit about the fictionalness. You're right to remove 'character', though
• Diff rm Tautology: Even though a real person can be a protagonist, the context of the first sentence clarifies this as fictional (e.g. metaseries, character)
• Diff The point is to provide the most fictional-related information as possible, read WP:WAF and take a look at this exemplar, WP:CMC/X
• Diff Undid revision 165082009 by Sesshomaru (talk) (none of those examples have redundant wording; "title character" is enough
• Diff Read what the Manual of Style says about making fiction clear. You must identify a fictional character as fictional. Not all protagonists are fictional.

This might not have been the point of this guideline. So for the purpose of the guideline, when is the wording that shows someone/something is fictional getting out of hand? In the above the word "Protagonist" already makes it clear that the character is fictional, but some editors insists on adding "Fictional" or "Fictional character".

*Extract from article: "A protagonist is a term used to refer to a figure or figures in literature whose intentions are the primary focus of a story"; Encarta dictionary: "main character: the most important character in a novel, play, story, or other literary work".

Regards, G.A.S 08:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that you could have a non-fictional protagonist in the case of a historical or semi-historical work. I think it's completely fair to say a character is a protagonist and the work they are in is of a certain fictional type ("fictional", "historical fiction", etc.). Some cases may make it very obvious (Sailor Moon is no way a historical fiction) but I really see no reason to state the word "fictional" when describing a fictional work, and probably even more so would want to see it on sub-articles about fictional elements. --MASEM 12:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I side with whomever it is who is arguing that "protagonist" implies fictional. I would argue the same for "the main character" or even "a superhero in the anime series blah blah blah". As long as it's strongly implied that the subject under scrutiny is fictional, there's no need to spell it out with "fictional character". There is no way someone is going to stumble on this article and think, "Oh, this person is real!" The "fictional character" bit is not necessary. — Brian (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not necessary, but certainly accurate. I thought the point of the opening line was to describe the subject in the basic sense. Also, you shouldn't assume that a reader does or does not know that "protagonist" or "main character" or whatever is equivalent to "fictional". Main character could be used in non-fiction, if you are reading a book that is an auto-biography, or even a regular biography. Technically, the main character is the one the book is about. "Protagonist" and "Antagonist" implies a specific role in the series, so what if a character is ambiguous?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - Reply to Masem) What you say is in some way true, but Protagonist and Antagonist is (almost—except for the incorrect use of these words) exclusive to fiction, or works of fiction. For instance, in Braveheart, the protagonist is William Wallace. However, the real William Wallace is not the protagonist of the similar events in history, just as Adolf Hitler was not the antagonist in WWII. Does these two words not establish, per definition, that the person is a character in a work of fiction (Based on real events or not)? G.A.S 12:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

According to some definitions there are uses of the word "protagonist" to apply to real people in real situations; it would be a stretch but not inaccurate to call the real William Wallace a protagonist for Scottish Independence. But by saying "William Wallace is the protagonist in the fictional film "Braveheart", you've established the more known and generally more accepted definition of protagonist. But I think this only applies to historical fiction when there's a possibility of confusing real world events and fictional retellings. No one (we hope) is going to mistake Sailor Moon as an accurate account of a real world event, and thus once "protagonist" is used, it establishes the work as fictional in that case. I understand the need to be terse with words, but I see nothing really wrong with saying "a fictional character in a fictional work" as to strongly establish the fictional nature of the article in question.--MASEM 13:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but (1) the use of protagonist as proponent is an unusual usage of the word, and (2) "fictional character in a fictional work" has the potential to mean a character in a (fictional) work of fiction within a work of fiction. G.A.S 14:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re Bignole: Should, in such a case the sentence rather say "the protagonist in the fictional work xxx" instead of "the fictional character, protagonist in work xxx"? G.A.S 12:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

When I look at the way I wrote Jason Voorhees, I didn't get into his "role" in the film till the second paragraph, because I trying to give all the basic info on the character in the first paragraph. Though, that's just my example and I'm sure it could be written anyway. I would assume it could easily be the editor's choice, and if it's something that is causing controversy at an article--two or more editors reverting back and forth--then a simple discussion on the talk page could solve that problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The point I am getting at, is if we decide "protagonist" sufficiently shows a character is fictional, it could be added as an example (As WAF has been quoted quite a few times in the example). But what you say is true.

On that point: A few more examples might be useful. G.A.S 13:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WAF has been quoted as a reason to use "protagonist"? The word doesn't show up on the page. To me, the term "fiction" is describing the basic element of the topic, that it falls into "fiction" and not "non-fiction", as those are the two division of the literary world. What about characters like Pauline Fowler? Soap characters and their shows could easily be confused as "real". Their shows are based on present times, so they are born, age and die throughout the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, in this case it was quoted to use "Fictional protagonist" and "Fictional character, protagonist" as opposed to just "protagonist". But your point is clear. Thanks — G.A.S 13:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler could just be called "a character on the soap opera Blah Blah Blah", and I think we'd be fine. The insistence on the word fictional is redundant, I think. — Brian (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundant to what though? To character or to Soap opera? We have Non-fictional characters. William Wallace would be more accurately called a "non-fiction" character, than a "fictional character".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-fictional character: "A nonfictional character (sometimes called a historical character) is a fictional character..." Talk about a contradiction! But on that topic: William Wallace is a person in history, or a character (based on a real person) in the film (Except where it is a historical film).

Maybe the guideline should rather read character in a fictional work (et. al) as opposed to fictional character. This would be a lot less ambiguous. G.A.S 14:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to give preference to the idea that "character" is inherently "fictional" by definition. As for William Wallace, Braveheart was based on true events, but not everything that happened in the movie happened in real-life--that's why it's a fictional retelling. It's pretty accurate, but not entirely. Like 300 for another example. That's a big divergent to the fictional realm, based on a real world event. The "characters" in that movie were technically "real" and thus "non-fiction" characters...but not all their actions or the elements that surrounded them, like monsters and such, were.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case the wording should be "William Wallace is a historical character in the film Braveheart" where the use of "Historical" establishes that the character is based on a real person. The assumption, I believe, is that once "character in film/soap/novel/cartoon", etc. is used, the reader knows that we are talking not talking about a real person, as most films are not historical in nature. Even if we need to clarify when we are talking about a person in fiction, we should be careful not to make the sentence long-winded. G.A.S 14:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How often do we have character forks for historical characters and fictional versions of them? This guideline could probably use some pointers on such things. As an aside, almost every aspect of Braveheart is historically inaccurate.--Nydas 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It just seems to give preference to the fictional aspect. To me, when describing that character in the first line, the point should be to state what division of the literary world, or film world, they reside in. That's either fiction or non-fiction. It may seem redundant to some, but that's under the assumption that everyone thinks the word "character" denotes fictional status. I certainly don't think it's something that needs to be mandated either way, as far as this page is concerned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of universe vs. Real world

It seems to me that the wording "out-of-universe" is unnecessarily complicated. Would there be, in principle, problems if this were to be replaced with "real world"? G.A.S 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

None from me. OoU has a lot of currency on Misplaced Pages, though, so it might be worth including it at least once somewhere as an alternate. — Brian (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately — yes. But it seems the term "Out of universe" is used almost exclusively on Wikis. G.A.S 13:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean just on this page? I think the first instance of either you could go: "...must have real world content (also known as out-of-universe)..." --or something to that effect. This way, you can say, "here's another name for what we're looking for," but just the more simplified name throughout the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, within this guideline. I think it could work if "...real world content (also known as out-of-universe)..." is used the first time and thereafter only "real world content" is used. G.A.S 13:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I only ever met 'in-universe' when some people here started pushing against it. Before then I naturally used in-universe description when appropriate, and out-universe description similarly as appropriate. As I was taught, in school, for answering literature exams. This war is a very wiki thing which has to do with the faction who do not believe fictional accounts belong on wiki, not with the real merits of the writing style. I still have yet to see any justification for disliking in-universe writing other than 'because I think its bad'. It seems to have been invented here for the reason of banning it, which seems in itself thoroughly bad. Sandpiper 08:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! You figured it out, Sandpiper. You've shot to the heart of the real reason this guideline was ever written in the first place. Amazing! (It must get tiring.) At any rate, you continue to misread the guideline as banning all fictional perspective in articles when it, in fact, does not. — Brian (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think the front page of this article provides examples of why a primarily IU style is not encyclopedic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless it has changed since I last looked, no it doesn't. It makes claims about why such an approach might be bad, generally without pointing out that exactly the same, or 'mirror' problems apply with ou-universe approaches. If it even handedly argued both ways, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. It is inaccuracy I dislike in anything written on wiki, including policies and guidelines. As to misreading the article, no, it is clearly written to bias the argument against the inclusion of any in-universe approach. That is not reasonable. Sandpiper 18:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that everything under "The problem with in-universe perspective" isn't an example of what's wrong with the perspective? So, are you saying that we should rewrite WP:V to talk about why it's ok to NOT put sources in an article? I mean, because you are basically saying that any policy or guideline page that does not say what the "other side" isn't just as good would be bias, correct? It's built on consensus. Consensus is this is an encyclopedia and ALL articles, whether they are fiction related or not, must be written from a real world perspective. We live in the real world, not fictionland. Misplaced Pages wasn't created to cater to fanboys and their original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already gone through the list item by item at least twice on this talk page explaining why just about every comment applies also to out-univeres writing, or to any wiki article on a non-fiction topic. No one has justified the points yet or explained how my arguments are wrong. Yes, if there are valid reasons for not putting sources in an article then we certainly should say so, because if we do not, anyone reading the alleged justification will see that it is false and simply ignore it. But I do not recall ever arguing that sources should not be used wherever possible. If you can make a valid list which does not attempt to 'make a case' by piling up possible problems with one approach without explaining that they can also apply to the alternate approach, then please do so. My continuing objection is to people claiming that difficulties uniquely apply to one approach when they also apply to others. The fact that a difficulty exists whatever way an article is written is absolutely no argument for singling out one of those approaches for derision and favouring another. Moreover, it brings the whole policy into disrepute as obvious nonsense. Sandpiper 10:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion, and not one shared by everyone....actually, not one shared by the majority, since consensus hasn't changed this page yet. Sorry, but we're an encyclopedia and we're written for the real world. This isn't a fansite, or a place for substiting watching or reading some fiction. IU writing is relevant in places, but not as the primary tone for the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How many people have actually contributed to this page, compared to the numbers merrily editing away in total ignorance of this debate? The fact that it is a guideline, not a policy, inherently means that there is not consensus to make it a hard rule, merely a general guideline. It recognises the fact that while some may consider it an aspiration, many don't. Sandpiper

Actually, it's not a policy because policies are generally things that are not based on a case-by-case basis. In other words, you will always verify information. You will never create original though. Don't confuse being a guideline and being a policy with the fact that there just isn't enough people saying "make it a policy". Consensus is consensus no matter how you slice it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A key difference (there is probably more) between writing about a real-world topic and a fictional topic is the fact that at some point, the fictional topic is going to rely on primary sources (the show/work itself). That itself is not a significant problem, but if you look after that link, it's the aftermath of using primary sources: "To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should (1) only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable either from the primary source itself or from another source. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.". In-universe articles often far exceed requirement #2. Real world/out-of-universe articles typically fall into the secondary source, which WP editors are allowed then to include comments and ideas that would fail requirement #2 above as long as we are sourcing them correctly.

I am not saying that one cannot write an in-universe article relying solely on in-universe information that meets the requirements above, but that is a very very difficult proposition. It is the fact that it is very very hard to do so means that we need to discourage people from taking that approach and to use summaries only of plot, characters, and the like.

I'm afraid I am a little bemused by this. Exactly what sort of claims do you feel people are making based upon a primary work which are not straightforwardly verifiable simply by reading/watching that work? I don't see exactly what you feel is 'very difficult'. Sandpiper 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done it myself and its very difficult to avoid: describing the unstated emotional attitude a character has when doing something, or impressing a speed or rate of how something occurs when no such indication is given, or other such situations: filling in "color" words that are not present in the original material even if it suggests it. If Homer says "I'm angry!" and then shakes Bart, we can write without synthesis "Homer angrily shook Bart", but if Homer never states his emotion before doing that, "angrily" is synthesizing the situation, even if Homer looks angry. Writing even brief plot descriptions without color can be rather difficult because the resulting work is rather bland and usually you likely are to have some interest to make the plot sound exciting or great because of your appreciation/knowledge of the work. I will say that likely no plot description on WP is synthesis-free, but the better ones keep it to a minimum and focus more on reporting exactly what happens. Sticking to a synthesis-free description is very difficult, and if you let it go, usually what happens is that newer editors jump on and start adding analysis and evaluation and a lot more OR and speculation and what-ifs to the plot. At least three articles, I've seen the plot section build up to beyond acceptable, had to cut it down to the basics, and still watch as people wanted to color it up with details that aren't spelled out exactly in the work itself or supporting material. --MASEM 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, do note that WP:NOT#IINFO applies both to real-world and to fictional articles. WP is not meant to supply a dissertation on a topic, but to give the general reader enough information to understand the topic at hand as, if needed, to conduct further research armed with a better understanding of that topic. We're not trying to teach people, but instead we're trying to inform them. For a scientific article, that means hitting enough high-level details to be able understand how its used and to seek out other references to read more, if needed; for a fictional work, that means giving the basics of plot and characters to understand why they have made a cultural impact and to seek out other references to read more. --MASEM 13:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how wp:not affects how something is writtten, as opposed to whether it is written at all. The general consensus amongst editors seems to be that a quite lengthy description of fiction is appropriate. As bignole mentions, very few of those editors seem to have been consulted about wording of this guideline. Sandpiper

Perhaps we should proceed by someone producing an example of an article which falls foul of these guidelines. It seems to me that this guideline is over prescriptive and therefore needs softening to reduce its excessive claims. But maybe there are no existing articles which people here believe fall foul of it?Sandpiper 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There's Category:Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. Is that what you had in mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianSmithson (talk • contribs)

need for infinite imaginary universes

No, the intro won't do. in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded sounds as though the 'real' world being talked about is the imaginary world invented by the author. Sadly, I havn't time for a further critique just at the moment. Sandpiper 08:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note Intro refers to the paragraph in the Real-world perspective section and not the lead paragraph. — G.A.S 10:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoo as an example article

Can we scrap Spoo as an exemplary fiction article? I make no secret of my dislike for it, although I am not the only one: see Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Spoo, Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Spoo/archive1, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spoo.--Nydas 09:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has complained, so I've removed it.--Nydas 19:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter lawsuit

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_en_ot/harry_potter_lawsuit This should be something to keep track of. It could provide a little bit more information on where the line is when it comes to copyrighted fictional material in encyclopedia's. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Generally accepted standard"

Evidences?Geni 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the facts that this has been established well over a year, that it is used as a standard in thing like AfDs, GAs, FAC, and a general standard across the various projects, and the fact that your argument against it is based off of a very small community of editors, it is you that has to prove that this is not generally accepted. TTN 01:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC standards are not guidlines. Argumentum ad Antiquitam is a logical faclly and ah links to back up your claims?Geni 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The featured articles represent various views of the community, and they are fine with it, which is the opposite of what you're trying to assert. If something is broken around here, it is usually fixed. You'll see that the only challenges to this are from people like yourself, which would mean that the rest of the community feels that this is fine. Please do not try to use the "Oh, only a few people deal with this." argument, as I just gave four different mediums that this is referenced in. Then there is the fact that even without this, the standards are already set in WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N, so you have your true answer right there. TTN 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

People like me? Your meaning? Oh and the silent majority stuff convinces no one. You claim AFDs so links? FAC requirments basicaly include haveing an image. Should we start redirecting every article that does not have an image?.01:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs)

OK, there is no point in this. Either prove that this is limited, or you can go do something else. TTN 01:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the FAC criteria carefully. It says, "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." That means there may be articles were it is not appropriate to have images. FAC criteria does not say you must have images, it says that they should be present when appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How many cases can you think of where an FA has passed without an image?Geni 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How many cases have you seen where an FAC has failed because there were no images?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion and consensus to make this a guideline. -- ReyBrujo 14:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/straw poll was the straw poll to review consensus. -- ReyBrujo 14:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries & sources

Do plot summaries and character descriptions require 3rd-party sources, or are the works themselves sufficient? So far as I can tell the standard practice across tens of thousands of articles on novels, plays, movies, video games, and the like is that 3rd-party sources are not used or required. Is there a significant difference of opinion among engaged editors about this? Are there any guidelines or policies that address this directly? The question has come up at Talk:Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys)#Deletion of Plot Summaries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, recently at WP:FILMS. For the most part, if the source is easily accessable (i.e. I can go rent the movie, read the book, etc etc) then the source is primary and it's the work in question. But, this only applies to facts taken directly from the source, and not interpretive opinions. You cannot say "John felt discouraged" and cite some episode of Television Show X, if you are simply making a personal observation based on John's reaction. That would require a third-party source, or in the least a primary source interview with the writer, director, actor discussing such an emotion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Similarly problematic would be attributing character traits to characters in fiction when such is never spelled out. For example, you may have a piece of fiction where a character drowns puppies for fun, but you can't call that character evil unless the author does or a third-party source does. You can, however, say "Character X drowns puppies" and source it to the primary source material. — Brian (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

i think there is a problem with, or at least the potential for a problem with editors interpreting plots differently. I can see how plot summaries are useful but my concern is that they are original research. I definetely think it needs a strict guideline on how to write them and avoid personal interpretations and following the WP:SYN policy. --Neon white 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Only original research if you include your personal opinion--which would only be the case of interpreting motivations that are not explicitely stated. Primary sourcing is still sourcing, and there is no policy or guideline that states you have to have third-part sourcing for everything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue of third party sources do however play a role in whether an article should be created or not, refer to WP:FICT for more detail. G.A.S 18:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT

I feel that a recent rewording of WP:FICT now directly contradicts this guideline (among others) - I have brought up the issue here - if anyone would like to comment. ]

Fan magazines 'mostly' unreliable

The guideline currently says: "Publications affiliated with a particular work of fiction (e.g. fan magazines), are mostly not considered suitable secondary sources about the primary works..."

Fan magazines are often not affiliated with the work, and 'mostly' sounds like a recipe for 'special exceptions' for favoured franchises. We should have something more discrete, or just leave out the sentence altogether.--Nydas 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ahem

I have recently been seeing many cases of in-universe articles being brought up as all plot, even in AfDs. Please clearly note in this guideline that just because it's in-universe doesn't mean it's all plot (yes, the bold was necessary). Take Naruto Uzumaki, the main character of Naruto, for example. While the article is without question in in-universe, it doesn't state at all what he does in the plot, but describes the character itself (personality, backround, design, relationships, etc.). An all plot article that is also in-universe would be something like Naruto Shippuden (which isn't even approved by the Naruto task force, so an AfD wouldn't be a bad idea). Please clearly note that just because it's in-universe doesn't mean it's all plot in this guideline to prevent further mix-ups. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stating his personality, based on events in the (insert medium of choice for the character), is not only bordering on original research--unless they state it specifically--but based on plot actions. If you say he wears a red shirt, that's a plot element because it's verified by the plot. You talk about his fictional life in any way, it's based on what happens in the plots of his manga/anime life. The idea behind "in-universe" is speaking in a tone that presents the subject as if they are real. For that case to be so, and not be original research, it means you are verifying the information by things they've done...which are plot pieces.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, I think we go a little crazy with our application of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. Let me give you an example. Bignole already illustrated the prevelant thinking on fictional subjects. However, on non-fictional subjects we do not seem as rigid. An article about a highway may say, "this highway is the main connection between Denver and Boulder." This assertion may be based upon a map that shows (but does not state) this fact. I have not seen a big push to call this original research, although it technically is OR. If, in describing a wrestling match, the article states, "another westler entered the ring dressed as a referee," we do not require independent, third-party sources. We do not say "dressed as a referee" is original research. I think we need to relax a little on the topic of fiction. Ursasapien (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs revision

Template:RFCpolicy If we continue to make progress and we revise WP:FICT, we need to revise this guideline as well. There are sections that could be transfered to WP:FICT (which specifically speaks to notability) and sections of WP:EPISODE that can be merged into this guideline. Ursasapien (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How about I give 10 days for discussion and then if no consensus to keep WP:EPISODE becomes evident, I'll redirect it to this guideline per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. Ursasapien (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. It should definitely be a redirect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps somewhere that a longer response period would be warranted. (Perhaps until January 7?) I say this only because we are entering a holiday period when many interested people will not be available to comment. I can't say which side will be favored, but it would be wise to avoid complaints that either result was snuck through when everyone was on holidays. Eclecticology (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (merge of WP:EPISODE) — The issue with tv episodes is certainly large enough to warrant its own guideline — details of which should be hashed-out there. Certainly, this page should refer readers to the related page. --Jack Merridew 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how WP:EPISODE is not an example of instruction creep? Should we have WP:TVCHARACTERS or WP:FICTIONAL_SETTINGS? I do not share your belief that TV episodes are any larger issue than any other fictional concept and do not believe it needs a seperate guideline. Ursasapien (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think WP:EPISODE is an example of CREEP, then I assume you plan to propose a merger for the film notability guideline, and every other notability guideline that is a subpage of the general one? FICT is a manual of style. You cannot have both a manual of style and a notability guideline working from the same page, one is about style the other is about content inclusion. Secondly, you cannot redirect an active guideline page, based solely on the discussion from the people notified on this page. You need a little larger audience to gain a broader, less biased consensus on this issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE is primarily a style guideline (at this point). The notability aspect is already taken care of (or will be shortly) at WP:FICT. I would be fine adding a bullet or two to WP:FICT that speaks directly to episode notability, but I think the guideline already covers it nicely (answering what demonstrates notability). I am proposing that the bulk of "How to write a good episode article" be added to this guideline. Ursasapien (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As Bignole has said, there are many other guidelines that are broken-out as subpages, so no, I don't view this as instruction creep. And from what I've seen, WP:TVCHARACTERS might not be a bad idea. The tv episode issue is a large issue; and, yes, there are other articles "covering" fictional things that are large issues. TV Episodes are merely the issue being discussed. --Jack Merridew 12:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ridiculous suggestion. We have enough TV content added every day to make a specific guideline useful. Eusebeus (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per Bignole. Hewinsj (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - While I may feel that the fiction guideline is not perfect. If we are ever to have realistic policies and guidelines the kind of policy cruft found at EPISODES needs to be severely trimmed. Eclecticology (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really disagree with what you said, but "needs to be severely trimmed" seems kind of odd, given how short WP:EPISODE is. -- Ned Scott 02:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• It really says nothing new about notability in WP:EPISODE. I think we need consensus on the notability guideline vis-à-vis episode articles (we need it on everything fictional, but this is what we're discussing now). If the community backs the enforcement of notability on the articles, then it should be kept, as it will be referred to often. If consensus is against it, then mark it historical. Until we have said discussion, however, I support keeping it separate. I (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)₵

• I can't really see anything in WP:EPISODE that isn't already covered here - WP:EPISODE is just examples and rephrasings of this portion of the MoS. The only exception is the disputed section of WP:EPISODE, which deals with notability of episode articles. That may or may not deserve to stand on its own, depending on whether there is consensus for it. Johnleemk | Talk 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support merge. The WP:FICT guideline is adequate to cover all the issues addressed in WP:EPISODE, only it supports a much more sensible case-by-case attitude rather than the disgusting behaviour which has emerged from that one. Rebecca (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Get your facts straight, Rebecca. The page you are thinking of is WP:TV-REVIEW, which encouraged "batch" discussions. -- Ned Scott 02:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support a merge, or maybe a taking down of the guideline tag on WP:EPISODE and bringing it to the level of a WikiProject MOS page. It does look somewhat out of place in Category:Misplaced Pages content guidelines. Their is currently something which seems to merge the media notability guidance at Misplaced Pages:Notability (media), so maybe whatever doesn't get merged here can be merged there. Hiding T 22:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Too many guidelines with too narrow a focus for each results in an inconsistent patchwork and makes it hard for editors to keep track of everything. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Somewhat support the idea, but there's no reason to not have an episode specific example page. If anything, I think WP:EPISODE should still be a separate page, but incorporate Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article. Notability should still be mentioned, but in the sense of quoting WP:FICT, or something like that (like how we do for WP:WAF now). With that, you have enough good advice that fills up a page, and is now a style guideline. You could even call it a sub-page of WAF, but from an organizational standpoint I think it should be it's own page. -- Ned Scott 02:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose television episodes are not the only sub-sections of fiction to have more specific MOS and guidelines, such as Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles). Both have more specific needs that are better covered in a full guideline built on WP:FICT. Unless and until a full television MOS is written (the current one is um, inadequate, to be polite), Episode is the only real content guideline available for dealing with an already very contentious issue (indeed, its hatred by those who want to make episode articles for every last television series in existence despite them not meeting notability is the only reason both are now under fire). Collectonian (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (to merging in WP:EPISODE) At least in the sense that there is nothing wrong with providing more applicable approaches that summarize and apply existing site-wide guidelines for specific projects. WP:EPISODE may be a bit too instruction-y and need a bit of softening up, but while it logically falls out from WP:PLOT, WP:N, WP:WAF and WP:FICT, it is sometimes necessary to connect the dots in big bold letters to make sure newer editors are aware of how all these policies work together. --MASEM 06:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can people also consider WP:EPISODE as it was in its early 2007 state? It might be an idea for instance to restore some of the advice of the old page, move some of the current directions to WP:TV/how to write an episode article and let the true "notability directives" be included in WP:FICT again. Just a thought. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support a merge, or removal. Until the WP:NPOV issues are dealt with, weaponised guidelines like WP:EPISODE will always do more harm than good.--Nydas 11:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• You do understand that a merge would not "weaken" the guideline advice that it contains, but simply mean that the same advice is organized differently? For example, I support a merge, but just not to this exact page (I support changing WP:EPISODE's focus back into a style guideline, and letting WP:FICT handle the notability issues). Also, how some people have handled mass redirects of articles, regardless if they were right or wrong, was not a method encouraged by WP:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 17:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)