User talk:Erachima/draft

Draft

Praise and comments

It is a good draft. G.A.S 09:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

G.A.S

• (A bit off topic?) Regarding the use of lists: A good way of defining content for a list would be to say something like: "When writing these summaries write just information to identify the episode. Make summaries specific to that episode (as in, a description that would normally not be confused with another episode). If possible, keep summaries under three or four sentences." — Template talk:Japanese episode list#Parameters G.A.S 09:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• but are generally unacceptable in articles because they do not significantly aid in understanding the work as a whole.→but are generally unacceptable in articles because they do not significantly aid in understanding the work as a whole. G.A.S 09:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• This should ideally be a rare occurrence, and editors should consider other options before creating an in universe article that is justified solely on stylistic grounds.→This should ideally be a rare occurrence: editors should consider other options before creating an in universe article that is justified solely on stylistic grounds. G.A.S 09:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Convert the "Principles" and "Articles on fictional concepts" sections into definition lists. They are much easier to read. G.A.S 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• (Update)When considering how to include in universe information in an article, there are several key points that must be kept in mind: --> Editors should consider the following key points when deciding on the inclusion ofin universe information in an article:
• must be --> should be
• Establishing the notability of the subject is the first step in writing any article. If you have not yet taken the time to assert the notability of the work of fiction you are writing about by including information about its real-world history and reception, then summarizing its plot will not help increase its quality. --> Editors should consider the notability of the subject when creating articles. Articles should assert their the notability by including information about its real-world history and reception, which can be obtained in secondary sources: Articles' quality are not increased by summarizing the works' plots.
• The Articles about works of fiction should follow relevant portions of the Wikipedia:Manual of style, especially the style guide for fiction. Many WikiProjects also have their own stylistic guidelines. --> Articles about fictional topics should follow the relevant portions of the Manual of style, including the style guide for fiction. Often WikiProjects also have their own stylistic guidelines.
• When writing, you should assume your readers have little or no personal experience with the article's subject. For instance, if a work of fiction prominently features invented terminology or words redefined for the purposes of its story, then these terms should be briefly defined in the main article on the work, even though "any fan would know them". Similarly, avoid using unnecessary jargon; the Martians in a sci-fi book may have a different word for water in their language, but the Wikipedia article on the book should probably still refer to it in English. --> Editors should assume that readers have little or no personal experience with the subject: if a work of fiction prominently features invented terminology or words redefined for the purposes of its story, then these terms should be briefly defined in the main article on the work, even if "any fan would know them". Similarly, unnecessary jargon should be avoided: if Martians in a sci-fi book have a different word for water, the Wikipedia article on the book should still refer to it in English.
• The accuracy of in universe information is generally easy to ensure, since it comes directly from the original work, which is a reliable source for this purpose. This information should be supplemented by out of universe sources when possible, however, and care still must be taken to avoid original research or synthesis to advance a position. --> The accuracy of in universe information is generally easy to ensure, as it comes from a reliable source. 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 on an element of the plot or fictional universe should not be included simply because it is interesting, it should also be important. Things such as detailed retelling of combat sequences, "expanded universe" information that was revealed only in supplementary materials, or the personal history of background characters may be very interesting for fans of the work, but are generally unacceptable in articles because they do not significantly aid in understanding the work as a whole. --> Information on an element of the plot or fictional universe should not be included simply because it is interesting, but because it is also important. Details of combat sequences, information revealed only in supplementary materials, personal histories, or backgrounds of characters are generally unacceptable in articles because they do not significantly aid in understanding the work as a whole.
• Articles on fictional concepts:
  • two main cases --> two main scenarious.
  • merge the examples sections into this section
• When quoting/etc, use references. e.g. <ref>Refer to [[WP:NOT#PLOT]]</ref>
• More suggestions will be added later. G.A.S 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy-melon

This is generally excellent. As you admit, the wording needs tightening up all over, but I would support a descendent of this draft as a replacement guideline. I also have a few points:

• Move the definition of fictional articles into its own section
• I'd argue the universal use of "fictional topic" rather than "subject"
• Conditional tense used throughout - I shall be most disappointed if after getting on for a Mb of discussion we still have imperative clauses in the final wording!
• The "what to do with fictional articles" section to be prose rather than bullets - prose is almost impossible to interpret as a checklist to deletion
• I would say that the "examples" section should either be expanded or removed - a few examples are worse than none at all. I understand that a search for extra examples may be in progress, which is good to hear.