Talk:Fictional universe/Archive 1

Science fiction universe

I think linguistically the examples are "Science Fiction Universes" as opposed to the Worlds they are composed of. Furthermore, I think the point of a Science Fiction World entry should be at best to discuss those places fully imagined and made real in a complete way, places like Dune, rather than places that are barely glossed as the story material is pursued, such as Dorsai. Sure, anyone can tell you that Dorsai looks pretty much like Scotland, except the whole planet is that way. All those fiddly little Fjords! But that's not world-building, and no effort is made to tour that world. The focus of the Dorsai series is variant aspects of culture in direct conflict. Sort of Snow's two cultures, but with five (or whatever; it's a bunch).

So an article that highlighted the well-realized worlds of SF, and gave examples from that part of the Genre--Vance, Banks, Wolfe, Park, etc.--would be more to the point.

Bible

Uh, the bible is listed as a see also? Considering it was randomly added by an un-registered user, Is that vandalism or are we really suggesting it's related to "fictional universes" 216.143.22.118 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Demonmoo

I find no evidence that Demonmoo is a well-known fictional realm, much less that it is a country near Ontario. It appears to be a virtual location of a computer game. I am therefore removing it. -phma

The -moo suffix suggests to me that it is a land found in a MUD, an online text based (usually) fantasy adventure. Should we put in something about Muds in the article?

Also, I'm removing McDonaldLand, because I don't like it there. -Tubby

fictional realm

I gather that Wikipedia is standardising on Fictional Realm instead of Fictional Universe, right? I've been converting things over to Realm instead of Universe, (eg: Fourth wall) but I'll pause and see if anyone complains. (Looks like it used to be Universe once upon a time.)Beat me to it if you want. Tenbaset 00:00 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Fictional realm and imaginary universe: is there really a need for both seperate entries? What constitutes the difference between a "realm" and a "universe"? Buffy the Vampire Slayer is cited as a "universe", but ~99% of that series took place in one town--what makes that a universe? -Sean 08:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1. I do not believe when we talk about universe in the way that we talk about the natural universe, but rather in the same way that philosiphers speak of "worlds," that is to say a self-consistent set of reality facts. A "cohesive fictional world."

2. The Buffy universe also includes a fictional reality of LA, a la Angel, one might note. This fictional universe would also go beyond just the natural universe from the shows, but would also include the other universes (alternate dimensions) portrayed in them. My understanding at least Notthe9 17:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine that "fictional realm" would refer more to a fantasy series, while "fictional universe" would refer more to a science fiction series. I don't believe I've heard the term "imaginary universe" too much. crazyeddie 22:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ficton (see also or alternatively Ficton_(disambiguation)???)

May I assert that "ficton" is another reasonable alternate word for this concept, at least among Heinlein and Spider Robinson fans? dafydd 02:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Is it though? I have long had a strong residual impression that a ficton is a relative or maybe even quantum entity, as in permitting of entangling of states or at least of superposition of states, in particular of truth and falsity values. Maybe making it particularly appropriate to representations based in/on media such as bits and/or Qbits, because that way each bit or Qbit of it could have a different truth or falsity value (and thus a different fact or fiction value?). In particular, which ficton's residents observe which fictons (in some fictons, even the one they themselves reside in / are implemented in) as fiction and/or fact. Factuality/fictionality is thus relative. And, also in particular, whatever it is that we ourselves are in is also itself a ficton.

For example, has it been proven, or even tested or researched, whether converging fictons have more tendency to regard eachother as nonfictional or in a fictional state whose direction (sign?) of change is toward less fictional, and/or whether diverging fictons have more tendency to regard eachother as fictional and in a fictional (or partially fictional) state whose movement tends more toward less factual, more fictional?

For instance, take pick choose or select (operations conceivably requiring or implying the or a principle or axiom of choice for all I know?), or construct (see constructed worlds?) two fictons, one in the past or present, the other in the future. Of the two, which is more likely to be expected, believed, observed, perceived, sensed, (etc etc etc?) as true and which less likely to be so? Which more likely to be rigourously proven or provable? Acheivable? (Etc etc etc?) Which is more likely to become more probable over time, and which less likely to do so? If you end up having to resort to construction rather than observation, experiment, marketing, hallucinating, deluding, (etc etc etc?), which will likely be more difficult to construct/achieve/perceive/experience/etcetcetc?

Pick, specify, describe, hope for, want, attempt to acheive or observe or render palpable (or "virtual" as some dictionaries of 'natural' language might suggest) (etc etc etc) one that is five years in our future. Is it more likely that you, or we the species inhabiting this planet, or we the consciousnesses populating some location or definition or somesuch, will be able to achieve such a one than it is that we can achieve one that is five years in our past?

The core or kernel here is that it is a property of the notion or objects I am trying to refer to (regardles of label/token chosen by which to label such a notion) that in at least some of them at least some inhabitants or potential inhabitants of them have at least some degree or extent or portion or ration or measure (etc etc etc?) of freedom as to whether to believe in, observe, perceive, experience, be ontological with respect to, (etc etc etc?) at least some of them (possibly including their own and or possibly including those of others).

Just because some people in some states experience inability to perceive some of these whatevers as factual need not have any impact at all on what other people, maybe even in the very same universe/locus/whatever/[insert the label your choice of language or formalism uses for the notion I am trying to refer to here] perceive as to the truth or falsity of zero or more, up to and probably including each and every one, of the actual (ontological? or whatever actual actually means in the state it is to be observed as meaningful or unmeaningful in or by the person or persons possessing faculties capable of perceiving meaning or having a notion of meaning) truth or falsity of each such bit as perceived (or not perceived) at or by or in the neighborhood of any other such bit or notion.

In other words, who or what perceives or experiences who or what as factual or fictional is not a fixed propery of all such notions nor even universally distributed within all such notions.

We could construct, define, or specify a ficton, lets say arbitraryone, in which our world is factually fictional (has a value of false?) within arbitraryone; another, lets say arbitrary2, populated with entities some of which consider us factual but not factually their authors, others of whom consider us fictional despite our being their authors, etc etc etc; meanwhile be living ourselves in such a notion, lets call it 'SolIIIuniverseOURS', in which some of us experience some parts, narratives, plotlines, timelines, timecones, accounts, (etc etc etc) even within 'SolIIIuniverseOURS' as true, others of us experience those some parts as false, and so on.

The homgeneity that some folk seem to expect or imply by attempting to force their ideas of which bits are true bits and which bits (or Qbits, or ... etc etc etc) are false bits (or Qbits, or ... etc etc etc) down others throats or even entire universes or universes of discourse is simply out of line in the field that some might consider an intuitive label for to be fictonics.

Knotwork (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested SciFi Example

The longest running fictional universe in the Science Fiction category is constructed by the German series Perry Rhodan. Published continuously since 1961, the story creates numerous detailed descriptions of components of its fictional universe including galaxies and planets, races and creatures, technology, languages, mythology, etc.

--Ferzkopp (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Readability

Is it just me, or is this article not very readable?

It is fairly dense, with lots of thick paragraphs. dafydd 02:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It should be divided into paragraphs.

Series only?

A fictional universe is a type of constructed world unique to serialized, series-based, open-ended or round robin-style fiction.

This makes it sound as though it's unheard of or impossible for stand-alone novels to be set in an imaginary world. --Jim Henry | Talk 16:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and "Brave New World" both have wholly consistent and explained fictional settings, but are single novels. The second paragraph contradicts the first. I'll alter it. Serendipodous 12:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy proposal

Please see: Wikipedia:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Canon (fiction)

The content of the article "Canon (fiction)" is mostly duplicated here and at List of fictional universes anyway. The concept of canonicity needs an article devoted to it away from the contemporary fan-fictio use of the term: this merge would allow this to happen. Vizjim 11:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Something does need doing with the Canon (fiction) entry but I prefer the move, split and rename options you give on the talk page [1] and not this merging one which would only serve to introduce the problematic elements of the mergee in here and I think it could cause problems with this page which is fairly well constrained and solid. It may be that a compromise could be made - you could have the canon (fan fiction) elements there and the canon (fictional universe) ones here (with links off to the fan fiction one) but I'd still lean towards mentioning canon in passing here and linking through to the other two entries as canon (fictional universe) here would be a heavil stripped down version. This might be a good thing but it would be a war to keep it from bloating nad taking over. So I'm still going for moving, splitting and renaming and then interlinking the various elements. (Emperor 00:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

Strong oppose. The concepts of canon in fiction and the idea of fictional universes are too different to consider merging the articles. A look at "what links here" on either of the pages shows how widespread the terms are, and how different their cited uses are. By definition a "fictional universe" is created whenever any fiction writer anywhere puts pen to paper, but that has little to do with "canon" as defined by writers and readers of specific fiction. The articles are in need of cleanup, but they are still needed as seperate entries. Rob T Firefly 10:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose: Two very different things, to have one redirect to another would imply they are not. For example, by interpretation the Whoniverse can include many book adventures if they count as alternate universes but still are not canon. Basically to merge them would imply they are the same thing and they are most certainly not. The articles should be watched to make sure they do not stray into one another's territory, however.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ficton vs. Fiction

Since this seems to have come up several times, please note that "ficton" is a distinct word, and not a misspelling of "fiction". Phasma Felis 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since ficton simply redirects to "Fictional universe" and does not appear anywhere in that article, I'm afraid your link explains nothing. "Ficton" also does not appear in Wiktionary, and the first page of Google Hits consists solely of hits on misspellings of "fiction". What is a "ficton"? LordAmeth (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph makes no sense whatsoever

I would give it a grammar cleanup, but I don't think I understand what it is saying. I think it's saying that all works of fiction take place in a fictional universe, which is true, but that definition contradicts the definition given at the top of the page, which says fictional universes have to have their own rules and histories. Serendi^podous 05:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. If we let Gone with the Wind into the club, than conceivably any work of fiction whatsoever could be said to exist in a fictional universe. Serendi^podous 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Er... yeah. Sorry if that bothers you. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Better example?

"Such multiverses have been featured prominently in science fiction since at least the mid-20th century, notably in the classic Star Trek episode, "Mirror, Mirror", which introduced the mirror universe in which the crew of the Starship Enterprise were brutal, rather than civilized"

What makes that the most notable example? - Sounds like a parallel universe rather than a true multiverse. A much better example IMO would be Planescape, which is a D20 campaign setting that entirely revolves around multiple linked universes (They even call it the multiverse in-canon) and the affairs and adventures that take place within it. I wouldn't want to go change anything though in case I'm the one misunderstanding the point =p --85.62.18.8 (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek's Mirror Universe is probably the most widely known example of a parallel universe; so much so that it is often parodied- characters from "evil universes" in shows like South Park are often shown wearing goatees, like Spock did in "Mirror Mirror." Serendi^podous 14:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Philosophical Concept of Fiction Being Real

Shouldn't this article mention, however small the mention may be, something philosophical and metaphysical concept of how all fictional universes must exist in some form. I know it hasn't been the prevalent in actual discussion of fiction but it is important to the concept of fictional universe's. A common argument for this concept is:

"A Fictional Universe is completely and utterly real for the inhabitants of that universe and therefore must exist outside of mere fiction. after all, who's to say that we are not fictional creations of mind ourselves."

Not an actual quote of anyone I know but still the point still stands. It is a pretty powerful concept and I think should be addressed in some way by this article. 71.176.171.21 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already too much OR in this article as is, which is probably unavoidable until a professional literary/film critic can actually locate some genuine scholarship on this subject. And anyway, what you said could be true of all fiction, not just fictional universes. Serendi^podous 19:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fanfiction?

Is fanfiction of the Fictional Universe?

Fanfictional Universe anyome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.32.11 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Retcon vs Reboot

"Crisis on infinite earths" is quoted to be a retcon (a continuity retelling), while it's a reboot (a new continuity starting point) 217.126.95.23 (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)KalEl el Vigilante

What is a metafictional multiverse?

Pluralized form of fictional universe...

Metafictional crossovers anyone in metafictional multiverse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.8.243.164 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a Listing of Fictional Universe examples

It would help amplify the meaning of Fictional Universe if there were a listing of examples in literature and media. Some are mentioned in the text of the article, yet it would be useful to have a more complete listing. This could be in the form of a separate Wiki article with link from the main article. Tony (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a List of fictional universes. Serendi^podous 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Link to Micronation

Can someone explain why this page links to Micronation? A micronation is neither fictional, nor a universe. In fact, it's almost the opposite of both. Dybeck (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I've just removed it. WP:BOLD and all that. Dybeck (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)