Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 6

past vs. present tense

I have a question. when writing about fiction should you use present or past tense, and does it matter if it is discontinued for example.

thank you -Threewaysround 20:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction. If the work still exists, it "is". -- Gridlock Joe 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I am currently struggling with the issue of tense over on the article for Lord of the Rings, specifically with regard to the tense of the synopsis. Can someone please take a look at it (and the discussion regarding it on the talk page) and let me know what you think? Genedecanter 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We are also running into an issue of tense in some soap opera articles. For example, the character Pauline Fowler was recently killed off in the EastEnders series, after a 22-year run. The character is now gone from the serial, never to return. As such, it seems that, intuitively, the past-tense should be used in her article, rather than the present tense. --Elonka 21:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To add to Elonka's point, I think that previous events all soap operas and ongoing serials should be written in past tense as they happen in real time, so the events have passed and thus, should be written in past tense. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say I support Trampikey on this. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You are all treating the soap operas as if they are real rather than works of fiction. The time something airs is irrelevant; the episodes still exist despite the fact that they have already run. Ideally, the article on that character should include lots and lots of out-of-universe material, which can use the past tense (how the actress played the part, how the character was created, how critics reacted. Any narration of on-screen drama should be present tense. Use phrasing such as "In Episode 21, she does this this and this" to get around any oddness from using present tense. — Brian (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I quite agree Brian, and discussion on this topic seems to reveal some fundamental misunderstandings among a great many contributors concerning the function and use of tense in encyclopedic writing. In my debates on this issue on the Lord of the Rings page, the main defence of past tense for the synopsis is the argument that it should be consistent with the tense of in-universe articles, such as War of the Ring. But to me the difference between these two types of article is perfectly clear, since the latter is about an in-universe event/person/etc. and the former is about a real-world publication. Genedecanter 03:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wanting to write a plot synopsis in past tense is not treating fiction as if it is real, it's just treating the storyline as a past storyline, which it is. Equally, writing in present tense will not make the words that are written appear less real, at least not to me. When i'm reading something in present tense I dont instantly think "oh that must be fiction".

It is just a question of preference, but it's one that is shared by many editors and I think the project should allow for exceptions to the tense rule. Some synopses just read more coherently when written in past tense. Also, using episode numbers in the text is virtually impossible in the case of a long running soap opera. The information isnt avaliable and even if it were the numbers run into their thousands, not to mention that events occur over different episodes, which are condensed in the text — one small paragraph might contain months worth of episodes for instance. The article would be filled with numerous long numbers, which would just break up the text and make it awkward to read.

So long as an article clearly defines the storylines section (what is in universe and what is out of universe material) then it really shouldn't matter. Gungadin 16:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another reason that soaps should use past tense, is because they're routinely referenced to real-time, not in-universe time. For example, "Pauline Fowler died in 2006," "Luke and Laura were married in 1987." To change that to present tense would sound bizarre: "Pauline Fowler dies in 2006," "Luke and Laura marry in 1987"? We can't say, "In episode 21," because soaps don't work like that. --Elonka 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, "Luke and Laura marry in 1987" sounds just fine to me; in context, if you're reading a plot synopsis that spans years, you are following along chronologically. So it is entirely appropriate to write, for example: "Laura arrives in Port Charles in 1976. She does some stuff. She meets Luke, and they ultimately marry in 1987 to much fanfare." (pardon the bad writing, LOL).

As I've just noted at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2, some of you seem to be missing the point of the present tense "policy," which is to stylistically separate fiction from actual events. I understand that past tense "feels right" primarily because of the soap magazines and other summaries we're used to, but those synopses only cover the in-universe events. In an article here, we are presumably discussing both onscreen action and real-world occurances/analysis/impact. As someone noted above, the fact that a show exists in a tangible medium (film/videotape) that can be replayed keeps it perpetually "in the present," while by comparison a real-life event can never be relived. Laura disappears after the wedding (present tense) because Genie Francis left the show (past tense).

A decent example is the Alexis Colby article; in-universe events are described in present tense, and it is not awkward. Real-life behind-the-scenes discussion is in past tense. TAnthony 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How about if we allow for both styles? After all, a guideline is just that, a guideline, and not a policy. We've suggested a possible way of writing a soap opera guideline on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense, which allows for different ways of handling it. Anyone interested in the discussion is welcome to participate. --Elonka 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think y'all are making a mistake (the change to your project guideline will presumably go through with or without my argument against). If you're having trouble avoiding past tense in your articles, it simply means you are including too much in-universe material. If long-running comic book characters can have their articles in present tense, so can soap characters. You simply need to make the occasional reference to the real world. "During this story arc, Luke kills Laura and escapes to Mexico." "In the episodes written by Mayers, Steven is portrayed as a cold, calculating villain." "Jackson and Morgaine first kiss in the holiday episode from 1987. Fans reacted by writing letters of protest to ABC." It's all in how you present information. — Brian (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I should mention here as well, with regards to Pauline Fowler, I changed the tenses of the storylines sections to present tense last night and I think it works fine, so I now agree with this guideline! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This:

For articles about works of fiction themselves; the story that each work of fiction depicts does not change despite the continuation of stories across serial works or sequels, and as a consequence, the events within one work of fiction are always in the present whenever it is read, watched, or listened to.

is almost unreadable and is hard to construe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.19.112 (talk • contribs) 08:36, June 6, 2007

Timeline articles?

After coming across EverQuest timeline on AfD, and poking around found Category:Fictional timelines, a few of which are also up for deletion. Poking around, I saw the usual backstory/plot summaries, a few lists of episodes, and one truly bizarre instance of left hands apparently not knowing what the right hands are doing.

Narnian timeline is a featured list. The hell? Nifboy 12:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In and Out

Now that everyone is here discussing succession boxes, perhaps people can again explain why we have that ridiculous one-sided diatribe about in and out universe writing. The text is wholly biased. The simple reality is that describing plot is most simply and directly done with in-universe prose. I have seen some of the attempts to write a story out-univers, and they usually have 'in chapter seven the author makes fred jump off a cliff', etc, rather than 'fred jumps off a cliff. The only effect is to make the text longer, as seems to be the case in the example given. I have absolutely no problem with providing as much real world information as possible about a subject, but the text implies that in-universe writing is automatically misleading. This is nonsense. If anything, adopting an out-univers style gives a quasi-academic gloss to a plot description, by virtue of making it harder to read, and thus gives it a false sense of importance and veracity. Do people really take readers for such idiots that they do not understand that a subject being discussed is fiction? Sandpiper 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We talked about this quite a bit starting at Wikipedia talk:Manual of_Style (writing about fiction)/Archive5#Rewrite or merge with Wikipedia:Attribution and continuing on into the next few sections. The result was this change, although it has changed some since then. Maybe the changes didn't go far enough. Feel free to propose further changes here. - Peregrine Fisher 21:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any difference in the 'whats wrong with in-universe' section between the two versions? am I missing something? On the whole, I am not objecting to examples of the styles, but to the argument that one is better than the other. It is very biased. Generally, it claims that in-universe may suffer many faults, yet fails to note they apply equally to out-universe. The peculiar anology between flight, an entirely general and wide ranging topic, with a finn class starfighter. I know about such starfighters because the author described them. They have exactly the properties as advertised. They are entirely fictional, yet tightly described and impeccably sourced, because an author can create them any way they want. If the author changes his mind, then we say so. This is completely normal with any topic when information changes. What does updating an article have to do with in or out? Emphasis: emphasis should accuractely reflect the subject. Any subject. WP:NPOV. how is fiction different? Why are extra rules needed to properly balance an article about fiction, and what does this have to do with in or out writing? What does whether a source is primary or secondary have to do with faults in in or out universe descriptions? How is it relevant to the title of this section? Copyright makes sense, but perhaps this should properly explain the limits imposed by copyright, rather than implying that retelling a story is illegal. It isn't. Sandpiper 21:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Show us some before and after of what you would like to change. - Peregrine Fisher 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The guideline is biased to well written articles.. NPOV does not apply to project pages. The only reason this page is written as aggressively as it now is because of how big the problem is and how often in-universe gets abused. Writing out-of-universe does not only make a sentence longer (it doesn't have to..), it can often put a more accurate perspective on the information. Allowing the reader to know what part of the book some information is revealed can tell you a lot about how that story is being told. Sometimes it's good to note such things because different writers or directors will be working on different books, episodes, etc. The most important thing it does is gets our editors and readers to make a distinction between reality and fiction. This is true for most of the fictional articles on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And as pointed out in many past discussions, the guideline does allow writing in-universe when it makes sense. -- Ned Scott 03:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Ned on this one. (Don't anybody faint.) This has been discussed for about as long as the guideline has been in place. A month or so ago, the language was softened so that it made clear that in-universe writing can be used where appropriate-- such as for plot summaries. I was one of the more *ahem* vociferous proponents for clarifying that. The real problem is when entire articles (or substantial portions thereof) are written in-universe; a paragraph or so of plot summary does usually read better in-universe than out, and the guideline, as currently written, doesn't really discourage that. I really don't think it's the diatribe that Sandpiper thinks it is.

I do agree with Sandpiper that the "bird in flight" analogy is pointless, and I've been meaning to remove that for a while now. I think I'll go ahead and do that, since it sounds more fun than finishing up my taxes. - DCB4W 16:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I tinkered with the "What's wrong with In-Universe?" subsection. I reorganized the text a bit, added introductory comments and subheaders so that it flows a bit more cleanly, and removed the "bird in flight" bit. (And most importantly, I made the Finn class starfighter faster-- something that goes slower than the space shuttle just isn't a "space ripper.") I don't think I made any significant substantive changes, although anyone who disagrees is of course free to Be Bold. - DCB4W 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with DCB4W's changes. The section Sandpiper is objecting to was originally just a synthesis of various arguments people were making at WP:FAC when rejecting completey in-universe candidates. As such, it was added to the original essay that has become this guideline. Now that this is part of the MoS, I still think that the whole section could be stripped out with no ill effects; it's our place to say what to do, not argue why to do it (necessarily). — Brian (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think we very deeply need to explain why to do things. A guideline is not a policy, and if we want people to adhere to it, we need to explain to them why it's right, and why it reflects consensus of Wikipedia editors. DCB4W 02:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see that people are listening, but perhaps some here are suffering the same problem I sometimes have when writing a piece, that I know what it is meant to mean, just somehow it didn't come out like that when I read it back. The guideline as currently written essentially bans all writing in-universe. It seems that people here acknowledge a distinction between plot and other information, yet this is utterly not clear in the guideline. According to the list at the top, the only thing which it is in any situation (in or out of wiki) possible to write in-universe is plot of one sort or another. Yet later we get this guff about in-universe issues, and why it is bad to write a whole article that way. How can we write a whole article that way, when the list at the top has already mentioned lots of stuff which ought to be in an article which is exclusively out-universe? This is one of the non sequitors embedded in the guideline which mean it does not make sense.

If it is being implied that when regarding one article which is part of a larger work, split for reasons of length, which happens to be the plot summary, then I can't agree with a requirement for predomintly in-universe writing at all. If proper organisation of information means that a section which may legitimately be predominantly in-universe ends up in its own article, then it should be permitted to remain as an article under the style guidelines, and this correct styling should be clearly stated as legitimate.

Next, it needs to be clear that while a good article requires all sorts of things which are out-universe, an article can not be condemned because those things have not been written yet. In the nature of things, people are likely to write a plot summary or other primary source based info first, because it is easy to do. It should be clear in the guideline that other stuff is needed, but an article should be acceptable as a work in progress even if the only thing which has arrived yet makes it largely and legitimately in-universe. That is not to say the plot should be allowed to run away with itself, but it should happily exist indefinitely until someone feels minded to add out-universe context. That is how all wiki articles are created.

Perhaps I should try to be clear, I see the benefit of in-universe writing to simply describe information from the book. I do not regard this as an exclusive writing style, and see absolutely no reason why 'Fred kills the villain' should not be accompanied by a reference {ch12, Frodo and the phantom spyglass} as appropriate. But the central natural present-tense way to tell any tale is what I believe people are complaining about as in-universe. Perhaps I am wrong in that? If writing anything, in any kind of article, it should be done so as to make clear the source of the information. So as a matter of course I would expect a piece to explain where information comes from, such as when dealing with different books in a series. I am not convinced why this needs a huge piece of propaganda to push it. Referencing is a common facet of all information on wiki. I see this ideally as a somewhat mixed approach to writing about the story. But that is not what it says here.

If people are saying that articles should not pretend to be writing about a real event, then I entirely agree. However, even the most cursory comment in the header of an article is sufficient to tell readers that it is a fiction article. People do understand that sometimes things written in books or shown on TV are made up. Even in the 'news' items. To suggest otherwise by an over the top repetition that the subject is fictional is frankly offensive. No kind of article should continually (or even once) repeat the same information. It is just bad style. So to keep saying 'The author' wrote, 'Arthur is made to take the sword by the writer'. Ok, I know that is not in the text examples here, but I have seen it in articles written in misguided attempts to follow these guidelines. As to the examples here describing Wolventongue: Either might be a satisfactory opening to an article. It rather depends what else is in the article. The opening ought to be a summary af what is to come, so it all depends. Neither version is exclusively in-universe or out universe.

The new intro to 'what is wrong with in universe is just plain FALSE. It is not required to rely on third party sources. The policy states that secondary sources are to be preferred to primary ones. I have to say though, that failing to reference and comment on the primary source in an article about a work of fiction would be a glaring omission, which no legitimate encyclopedia would commit. Particularly in the context of fiction it may be that there is a great deal of noteable primary source material available, but a shortage of secondary material. In such a situation it is entirely correct to write an article based upon primary material exclusively. Again, this is much better dealt with by returning to that list at the top: it states already what other material ought to be in an article, which will not exist within the primary work of fiction itself. These other elements will require secondary sources.

The nonsesne para about finn class starfighters remains, I see. This is nonsense because it is incorrect to claim this is speculation by editors. If an episode reports a starfighter as having certain properties, then reporting it is simply doing what editors should do. We report information here, we do not create it. Whatever changes may happen to information reported in any article, is something for editors to sort out when it becomes necessary. No inference has been made by reporting established facts. The fact is not the existence of the starfighter as an immuteable certainty, but the existence of it within the book, as described. Whether it was Kincaid's or Hancock's is beside the point. Depending upon the reason for mentioning it at all, the people may, or may not, be relevant.

Ah, I see what that paragraph about sources means now. But it is still unclear. what you mean is:

It is worth noting that primary sources means not only the original work, such as a science fiction TV series, but also all other material published by the authors, such as guidebooks about the aliens, spacecraft, and weapons depicted in the series. A good rule of thumb is that if a potential source treats a fictional subject from a mostly in-universe perspective, it is primary source material itself. Such material needs to be cited with the same care as all primary sources.

The para on noteability and weight? Oh dear, more OR! I see absolutely no reason why in-universe writing need improperly report the noteable items about a character. Frankly, that is absurd. Exactly the same as writing half an article on 'tony Blair' about his best mates at school. It has nothing to do with writing about fiction.

Fair use: ..to avoid ...over long plot summaries ..is' ?Ye what? either it is not illegal, and there is no problem, or it is, and they must not exist. No room for 'avoid', which is somewhere in the middle. This needs to be clearer if there is any real risk of legal difficulties, or not. I'm also not convinced this is significantly an in-universe issue. Any work giving away sufficient plot detail in an 'out universe' style to break copyright laws seems to me just as much an issue. But also, while not an expert, I think the title is wrong. Fair use would refer to quoting passages, not reporting the plot. As I understand it, the issue is whether the material might be a substitute for the original, and thus infringe on the authors rights. On the other hand, if it is construed as advertising the original and thereby enhancing its value, it would not be an infringement. So an in-universe plot summary, which like a book jacket gave a flavour of the original, might in some ways be preferable to a stilted out-universe description. Sandpiper 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Y'know. In my succession box ramblings I;ve actually come over to being "on the fence" about this whole in unverse thing. I understand the arguments behind it, but in universe information is already so damn prevelant on wikipedia... It doesn't seem like the pencil pusher's who created the rule want to do the work of truly policing it. I know it's not a particularily valid argument.... but why have a rule that isn't truly enofrced. As I said... I'm on the fence about the whole thing so I could go either way. I'll probably go do some more enforcement of the rule and see what kind of discussion it generates.--Dr who1975 00:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a "rule" per se, it's a description of our best practices. As such, it tends to get enforced in places like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and Wikipedia:Good article candidates, where our best work is identified. Try to pass an in-universe article at FAC and you will see what I mean. :) I think the problem is that fans are by and large the ones responsible for covering various pieces of fiction in Wikipedia, and fans are most familiar with fan sites, magazines, and fan books (like the Star Wars Encyclopedia) that treat fictional material as if it were real. The average fan of Harry Potter probably hasn't done a search on it at JSTOR or iMUSE. However, we've got to remember that our articles should be written for an academic, general-use encyclopedia, and this guideline is trying to show how do do just that. — Brian (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a non-enforced rule, it's just a really big problem. I think of it like typos. Many guidelines end up playing the role of "teacher" for many users, myself included. -- Ned Scott 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny you guys should say its not a rule: many people use these guidelines to argue for wholesale deletion of material from articles, or even of the articles themselves. Wars start because one lot likes boxes, and another lot claims they are not permitted under these 'rules'. Sandpiper 06:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That happens with just about every single guideline we have. If people are going overboard then post a message here or something. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't resolve the difficulty that simply because something exists here it will be quoted as absolute truth. Sandpiper 08:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying we'll help you out in those situations. Unfortunately a lot of users don't understand that guidelines are not absolute truth, but that doesn't mean we get rid of the guideline. -- Ned Scott 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion is that it doesn't help someones case to go overboard on the assumption that if half is ignored things will come out about right. I think it better to just say what is meant. 86.129.67.106

Fair Use

The boldness of DCB4W's excellent revisions highlighted to me the 3 main arguments against in-universe. They can be summarised as that in-universe style lends itself to violating the principles of attribution, notability (for fiction), and Copyright/Fair use.

While I can understand the first two arguments, Fair use is a bit of a red herring. The WP guidelines are pretty much written around Fair use of images, and to a limited extent film & multimedia. In universe plot summaries, assuming they are not plagarised, they typically involve re-writing creative concepts using new words. This makes even the longest, most detailed plot summary not a copyright violation in the conventional sense. It may be considered a derivative work but that is more meant for new fictional works set in someone else's fictional world or using their ficitonal characters. But if that is a case, someone will complain and WP:OFFICE will kick in.

In summary, I can't see the fair use argument as a compelling justification that should be left in. The fact that overly long in-universe plot summaries are of limited notability, often violate WP:ATT and are just plain crufty should be reason enough to discourage them.

Of course, I personally think that limited in-universe plot summaries and biographies in the context of a wider well-sourced article isn't too problematic. But I'll let other people to continue to fight the good fight on that issue.

Regards, Dr Aaron 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

While I understand your points, this was debated to death in the past. There are compelling reasons why a completely in-universe article is a fair use violation and might get Wikipedia into trouble. — Brian (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you could give us a quick summary? Sandpiper 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to read the archive (first discussion in the provided link) because IANAL, and there were two real-life lawyers arguing the point there (Postdlf and TheronJ). But the gist of it as I understand it is that an article that is completely or primarily in-universe is, by definition, a derivative work based on the original fiction and thus must rely on fair use laws to support its existence. People have been sued in the past for creating such works (one example is a Seinfeld trivia book, and another is some Twin Peaks thing that summarized an entire two-season television series with an 11-page plot summary and was found to be a fair use violation in court). It's thus safer and "more free" for Wikipedia if we ensure that all plot summaries and in-universe material be tempered with out-of-universe analysis, background, etc. to, er, cover our asses, so to speak. — Brian (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I recall the discussion & I take your point - it doesn't hurt to leave the section on Fair Use in, even if I do think it is less important than the other two reasons.

Realistically, I doubt that plot summary on wikipedia has a reasonable grounds for being sued as a derivative work; factors such as profit is not being derived from the potential derivative work and that it isn't reducing the income of the copyright holders make wikipedia articles less of a target. Still I should never underestimate the litigative nature of Americans (just joking). Perhaps an 11 page plot summary can violate fair use, but I'm not positive that writing it out-of-universe will fix the problem. Better to avoid having the 11 page plot summaries in the first place. Dr Aaron 07:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Seinfeld case concerned a book of questions based on the work. A point against it was directly quoting 5% of one episode, and that making questions based upon a sufficient number of 'facts' from the series was a violation of original thought. I didn't notice the word in-universe at all in the judgement. It was acknowledged to be an entirely different way of presenting the information. How is this an argument against in-universe writing; an out-universe description containing the same facts will have the same problem. I havn't found a ref to twin peaks judgement yet, but what you say implies exactly the same, it is the quantity of original thought that is the difficulty, not how it is expressedSandpiper 07:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, like I said, and I'm not going to try to argue law with you. You might want to ping Postdlf and TheronJ if you wish to get into another discussion about this. — Brian (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not really a question of law. I havn't time to read all the discussion yet, but a couple of points are clear. I am not the only editor who thinks that the issue of copyright is completely separate from the issue of in-universe writing. Second, that writing this guideline so it conflates the two makes matters much worse, because the whole page reads like rubbish. People like me are absolutely not going to respect a guideline which is plainly rubbish. If you want it respected it must accurately state the situation. There should be a much better section explaining about copyright and even citing the online cases, but this must not be mixed up with an obsessive objection to in-universe style for plot summaries. It destroys your case. There is an important legal issue about coyright difficulties, but you just do not present it. Sandpiper 08:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The original debate involved four real life lawyers, actually. :) Brian's summary is pretty accurate, as I understand it. (I am a lawyer, but I am not a specialist in that field, so I concede that my comprehension may be fairly shallow. The person who actually seems to do this field for a living, lquilter, might have been the best informed of the four of us, so of course the other three of us did most of the talking.) I do have a few comments to add.

1. In a sense you're right, because the "out of universe" prophylactic can be utterly trivial. I don't for a moment think that the Seinfeld Aptitude Test would have passed muster had the questions been phrased, "11. What candy do the writers have Kramer snack on while observing a surgical procedure from an operating-room balcony?" instead of "11. What candy does Kramer snack on while observing a surgical procedure from an operating-room balcony?" The thing that shields Wikipedia is that it's educational-- actual education and analysis are transformative. That's why the amount and scope of copyrighted material that we use is the crucial element relative to the rest of the article-- are we writing an educational article or, like the Seinfeld Aptitude Test, merely "repackaging" the copyrighted content for its audience?
2. The latter issue is why you're mostly wrong. The problem isn't that writing in-universe is inherently bad for certain purposes. The problem is that making all or most of an article an in-universe tends to more resemble a repackaging than a transformation of the original subject. That isn't fair use. And while you're right to report that an especially egregious violation in the Seinfeld case (Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group [1], about which I think I'll eventually start an article) was the substantial recitation of that one episode, it was also noted that the Seinfeld Aptitude Test covered nearly every episode that had aired at time of publishing. Damages are awarded per episode sometimes, but the question of violation is based on how much sampling the publication in question takes from the entire body of the original source material. In Castle Rock, that meant that nearly the entire book consisted of copyrighted material that had been repackaged without consent of the copyright holder. What does that have to do with in-universe writing? Nearly nothing, if the in-universe writing consists of short blurbs (plot summaries, etc.) in otherwise encyclopedic articles. But if we're discussing entire articles that are so written, we have to remember that essentially the only way to write an in-universe article is to repackage the original source. And since we have to look at the activity-level effect-- what happens across Wikipedia-- remember that those articles build up. There are literally hundreds of articles about Star Wars related subjects on Wikipedia, and if all or most of those articles are written in ways that use more protected materials than we can make a fair use claim on, we have a big problem.

My issue with the earlier draft of the guideline was always rhetoric. Clearly there is an amount of in-universe synopsis that can be defended under fair use guidelines; Castle Rock specifically mentioned publications such as Soap Opera Digest that encapsulate copyrighted speech. The old draft discouraged editors from doing things that we can clearly do, and I rather vociferously disagreed with that language. However, it did and does address a legitimate problem. (Actually, two problems, if you consider sheer cruftiness an evil in itself.) You're risking the mirror image of the previous draft's error; it threw the baby out with the bathwater in discouraging too much, but you risk throwing out too little. DCB4W 00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another arbitrary but necessary section break

I don't mind a mention stating that in-iniverse description may tend to present a story in a way which seems more like a substitute for the original work, and thus may make an issue of copyright violation worse. But it seems to me that you agree with me, that the issue of in or out description is largely a fig leaf which would not protect anyone from copyright problems. Pretending in the guideline that it does, is a serious mistake. Worse, by attempting to blame everything at the door of in-universe writing the whole guideline is undermined. In-universe writing is an entirely natural way of presenting story, when that is appropriate. This whole business of in/out is a completely unnatural concept to a passer-by. First time I met it was when someone posted something on a talk page, and I wondered what rubbish he had just invented and was pushing. It is an unknown concept to most people, so writing an entire guideline that way reads completely like pushing an idea which no one respects. I think the nutshell also needs revising, because its meaning is not self-explanatory. Sandpiper 06:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(De-indent) Well, your experience does not hold true for everyone. In my case, I was totally unfamiliar with in-universe (completely in-universe) treatments of fictional elements in an academic context. I was familiar with books like the Star Wars Encyclopedia, but any academic treatment of a cartoon character or spaceship I had (and have) ever seen does not treat its topic as if it is real. — Brian (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I was unfamiliar with the concept and distinction. It seemed to me entirely natural that an article discussing a fictional topic will intermix the two styles as appropriate. Even the examples given here continue to intermix examples of in-universe description, eg. ...the Slibvorks of Blastio are infected with the Kroxyldyph virus by a bio-warfare special operations unit on a clandestine mission. Now, the writer of the example may argue that this is preceded by The story tells how..., but this is a very short example. If the piece contained three or four sentences of description, then it becomes ridiculous to start each one The story tells'...Then it says... It goes on with...And later says... And a bit more about.... Similarly, the example introduction about Wolventongue is somewhat contrived. It introduces valid real world information which ought to be included, but that is because the next section of in-universe comes from a different book. If it were all from one book, then the reasons for the interruptions of the narrative disappear, and it becomes entirely artificial to just invent some. Sandpiper 08:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I think what's happened is there is an out-of-universe writing style ("The author introduces . . . ") and an out-of-univere article style (one in which background information such as creation and influence are examined alongside character biography or plot synopsis). Perhaps the guide is conflating the two too much? In my opinion, this guide is much more intended to prevent Fictional biography of Batman from masquerading as an encylcopedia article on Batman. This is more important than whether certain sentences are written "Batman kills the Joker" or "Bob Kane has Batman kill the Joker." — Brian (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, someone else sees the point. (no, thats not sarcasm). I have amended the article a bit to make it clearer, but it still needs work. Particularly the 'what is wrong' section. 'Sources' starts with an incorrect quotation of sources required for articles, and is a general point about all styles of writing. It has no business being a subsection there, but probaly ought to be amalgamated with the section lower down suggesting sources. Sandpiper 22:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Brian. I think the core point of the guideline is to prevent entire articles from being written in-universe, rather than individual sentences or even paragraphs. In every case I can think of, in-universe is the most natural way to write a plot summary or to discuss character development. In virtually every case, it's the most convenient format for the reader as well. I think previous drafts of the guideline did pointlessly discourage that. I don't think the current version can be fairly read to make that mistake. That said, I like most of Sandpiper's tweaks. DCB4W 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, often times even character development, and many other things, can be written OOU if you have additional real world info. If the creators of the work say that character X was inspired by something or a real life person, working that into a character development section would basically be giving it an OOU perspective for that note. I would like to encourage editors to seek out and find such information, to find things we don't just learn by watching the show itself. OOU perspective isn't really about reformatting plot summary, it's about encouraging real-world information where it makes sense. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OOU perspective isn't really about reformatting plot summary, it's about encouraging real-world information where it makes sense. Can we add this to the MOS? Dr Aaron 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'add' is quite the right word, but I think it seems to be the intention that it ought to mean what you are suggesting. Sandpiper 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ned, I dont necessarily disagree, but I feel it depends on how long the article is. In a short article, things wiill be mixed together more. In a longer one, they may get sectioned apart. Sandpiper 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If we have a related note to a plot element then it should be placed with the description of that plot element. Think of it like in-line ref tags. Aside from basic background info, plot summary that has no such related real-world notes probably shouldn't be in the article. -- Ned Scott 20:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you on this one. Certainly there's no copyright or philosophical reason not to have a detailed synopsis of Hamlet in its article, for instance. And I think it will often be more readable to have a distinct plot summary section, followed by development as a separate section or subsection.DCB4W 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN, no one is saying one size fits all. Note the last part of my message that Dr Aaron likes, "..where it makes sense". Hamlet is one thing, we don't have a problem with people adding "Hamlet-cruft", and it's freakin' Hamlet, which has major significance. Hamlet has inspired other works and people, and has a very significant impact on the real world, so including more detail there makes sense. I really doubt we are disagreeing at all, but just that what we think the other person is talking about is getting confused. -- Ned Scott 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the one-size-fits-all issue was part of my original problem with the guideline. This isn't the "Writing about fancruft" guideline, or even the "Writing about Sci-fi" guideline. I don't think we should mold the guideline to address areas of abuse in specific genres, and trust or hope that the editors in loftier subjects will have the sense to use their discretion. The point of a guideline is to guide that discretion to begin with. Most of the directives of the guideline make sense from a general viewpoint. Copyright must be observed as readily with regard to Flowers for Algernon as for The Phantom Menace. Attribution must be provided for articles about the Aeneid as well as As the World Turns. Succession boxes are only slightly more appropriate for "Presidents of the United States in The West Wing" than for "Captains of the Starship Enterprise." This is a guideline that, by its own plain terms, applies to all fictional subjects; the basic rules, therefore, should address fictional articles generally. With regard to "where it makes sense" exceptions being implicit, I seem to recall arguing a couple months back that irrational applications of this guideline were prime WP:IAR candidates. Glad to see you've come around to my viewpoint. DCB4W 15:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

speaking of Hamlet, it should be mentioned that some works are out of copyright, so fair use issues would not apply. 86.129.67.106 17:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs more examples of "good" articles

All the character articles listed (e.g. Jabba the Hutt are for characters who appear in a large number of titles. It's quite easy to write a very detailed, very thorough, very organized and very strongly out-of-universe-tone article for such characters.

Characters who appear only in one medium, (like Hank Hill, which I'm currently trying to clean up), on the other hand, are much more of a challenge. I'd like to see more "role models" for how the "biography" sections got turned into, presumably, a more respectable season-by-season account of what was said of the character. Or however these things are supposed to be organized.209.59.32.53 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are some comic book character articles that might work as a model. Captain Marvel (DC Comics) for one. — Brian (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Greatest need for cleanup

Another thought: Of all the complaints that might be made about the practice of in-universing, one has always struck me as the most in need of attention.

There's a bizarre tendency on Wikipedia to follow the usual fan wiki practice of sketching out a coherent fictional universe, if necessary by including a little straightforward extrapolation in order to respect all details presented (e.g., reconciling Star Trek series by saying the USSR reconstitutes itself sometime after 2000). This should be unnecessary in any truly out-of-universe description (and it's a good alarm bell that deeper changes need to be made). But it's unencyclopedic, annoying, and absurd to see this done in articles on joke-oriented series like Futurama and Family Guy, where disrespect for continuity is frequently part of the absurdist humor.

Check some of them out, especially the articles on characters; these articles, while usually containing some out-of-universe elements, often seem to stop just short of speculating on the layout of Bender's body compartment. I'd like suggestions for how to take a hatchet to some of these articles; if nothing else, I'd like to encourage everyone to work on one of the most profound manifestations of inappropriate "tone" in fiction articles.209.59.32.53 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've even seen people try to create "canon" for Looney Tunes characters, arguing, for example, that Daffy Duck has x number of children because they were featured in this that and the other short from 1943. It's ludicrous to create canon when there isn't any. I thought this MoS said something about not discussing canon unless the universe in question has specifically indicated what is and is not canon, but I can't find it now. The best thing to do in the cases you mention, though, would be to remove the offending material on WP:OR grounds; if there's never been an official source declaring some minor factoid canonical, any assertion in Wikipedia that it is or isn't is original research. This goes doubly for fan speculation about Bender's body compartments, etc. — Brian (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The need to enforce

There are far too many articles written competely in-universe style. In my opinion, even when those articles are carefully adding "fictional" instead of just kickstarting with e.g. a planets galactic neighboorhood and the different races living there, they are still a pain. Often, they contain absolutely zero information of any relations between the subject and real-world relations. That's because fiction fanboys hate actual research, and they rather write about the hundredth minor character (which appears only in a misprint of a special edition of the non-canonical cartoon series), instead of adding anything actually encyclopedic (yes, it's a valid term in this case) with regard to, say, the production history. I strongly believe this must change. We must make it clear what Wikipedia is not. I'm not sure how this could be achieved (in a way that not only rids us of cruft-only articles, but also of the people who are adding it). Maybe we need a new class of article space, between deleted and released, so that people can work on it when logged in, but the public does not witness the embarassing state parts of WP are currently in. —AldeBaer (c) 16:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out my in-progress draft of User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction); if this gets approved, it will unite notability with a need for out-of-universe perspective. I also just helped to establish an Annex at Wikia for fiction articles that will ultimately not belong on Wikipedia, but don't have a specific Wikia or are not in the correct format for those Wikias.a — Deckiller 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an excellent proposal. I, for one, strongly endorse it. —AldeBaer (c) 17:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I steadfastly oppose it, and I encourage others to also, for obvious reasons. I anticipate your effort will falter, Deckiller. Tcaudilllg 01:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, DK. I see you added the "proposed" tag to your rewrite of N(F). Have you made the rounds and announced the proposal yet? Probably worth dropping a more prominent line here, at FAC, FARC, and village pump if you haven't already. I look forward to reading the proposal. — Brian (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've announced it at a few WikiProjects, WP:FICT, and the Pump. My wireless is a bit slow right now, so I haven't made all the rounds. The proposal itself needs more polishing for sure, but I think it's a good start. — Deckiller 22:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's because fanboys hate research, I think it's because new editors don't know to read guidelines before making articles. The way Wikipedia makes guidelines known is insufficient, and more often than not people simply don't know about these things. -- Ned Scott 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• If/once the rewrite is complete, the opening paragraph will have to be rewritten to say something like:

"Wikipedia contains numerous articles on fictional worlds and elements from them. As a major part of establishing a fictonal article's notability, the approach to writing about these subjects is extreme important. Articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events, or locations establish and discuss such things as their significance outside the narrative itself and their process of authorship. These guidelines describe some approaches to writing a proper article on fiction; these will help to establish the 'out-of-universe' requirement of notability."

In my opinion, the section WP:WAF#Presentation_of_fictional_material effectively distracts from what is being said wrt out-of-universe-perspective in the first section:

Plot summaries can be written from an out-of-universe perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") essentially contradicts the very good list of examples for actual out-of-universe-perspective. It should be reformulated to complement that list and clearly focus on the demand for real oou-perspective, not just careful (not to say weasely) reformulation of what really is completely iu. —AldeBaer (c) 10:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's possible, even likely, that the two issues are being muddied, but I think both are important. If you read real, scholarly plot summaries, they usually include plenty of references to the real world and often frame things from the perspective of what the author or director or actors are doing as opposed to what Macbeth or Bugs Bunny or Spock and McCoy are doing. — Brian (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly... writing about fiction should primarily use the real world reference frame. What I meant was that the second section can be interpreted as contradicting this by encouraging a simple reformulation like in what episode this or that character first appears. And that's not enough for a real oou-perspective (or frame, I like that term even better). —AldeBaer (c) 11:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's what the guideline should be explicitly stating: "Articles about fiction, like all articles, must be written with the real world as their primary frame of reference," directly followed by the list of examples as to what consitutes the real world frame (the author or creator; the design; etc). Also, articles like Non-fiction and Reality may be useful see-alsos. —AldeBaer (c) 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I like where you're going with this. How extensive do you reckon the necessary changes would be? Are you arguing for a removal of the in-universe/out-of-universe terminology? I drafted the guide with that language in the beginning because I was borrowing ideas from an earlier piece by UncleG and because I had seen it used by fans of various fiction franchises (such as the Star Wars wiki). That said, I'm not married to the language, and a change to "real-world frame of reference" might not be a bad idea. — Brian (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alde, do you think the changes to WAF will have to result in changes to my WP:FICT rewrite? Or is it mostly wording? — Deckiller 15:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the important points can all be addressed by rewording / reorganising parts of WAF. It doesn't really touch FICT, as WAF applies only to articles with subjects of already-established notability, in other words: the "jurisdiction" of each guideline would stay the same. —AldeBaer (c) 15:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. The only real major change with the WP:FICT rewrite is that it is more in line with the main notability guideline (out-of-universe information needed to show notability, even for sub-articles). Then, I guess WAF will be to go into the details of what to do with that information once the article has it (notability), and how to write it/write the in-universe. Sounds good. — Deckiller 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the relationship between FICT and WAF here: User:Deckiller/Notability_(fiction)#Progressing_after_notability_is_established. — Deckiller 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian, to answer you question: I do like the iu/oou wording as well, it's a matter of taste really. As this may be a guideline many new users will be pointed to who are not yet familiar with tangent issues re WP:5, I'd prefer frame of reference because it seems very unambiguous, although I'd throw in a short explanation as a safety net anyway. I'm throwing together a draft in my sandbox right now (I don't expect it to be a giant rewrite, more of a clarification of what is already there). —AldeBaer (c) 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your rewrite is good, but it still seems to be mixing up real-world information and real-world perspective/frame of reference. Perhaps we need to take a long, hard look at this MoS and separate things based on this dichotomy: Does this bit relate to real-world information, or real-world frame of reference (describing what the author or actor is doing as opposed to the character or starship)? — Brian (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a differentiation between info and frame of reference is important. Notability is all about including/showing real-world informaton and organizing such articles/what to do with non-notable or questionable topics (the plot of War of Peace might help to make it notable, but why and how?). After this is established, the article needs to be written correctly and suggestions on adding more types of real-world information can be provided: this is WAF's arena. — Deckiller 02:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

rewrite, second round

Please take a look at my second round draft. —AldeBaer (c) 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that my draft is written with the intention to make the guideline more to the point. I incorporated aspects covered at great length in sections 4 Reliable sources and original research, 5 Notability and undue weight and 6 What's wrong with an in-universe perspective?, and I'd suggest dumping those sections if my draft or a version derived from it finds consensus here. —AldeBaer (c) 17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I want to do a side-by-side comparison of the current draft and your revision before I fully support the changes, but I'm leaning toward the belief that we should replace what's here with your version. I do have a few suggested changes, though. Do you mind if others directly edit the draft, or would you prefer we propose changes here first? — Brian (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm assuming you're not proposing dropping sections like the list of sample articles or the list of suggested sources for real-world information? — Brian (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd only drop the sections named above, as I've tried to incorporate their content into my proposal, the rest should definitely stay. I don't mind anyone editing the proposal at my sandbox at all, you're welcome to edit at will. —AldeBaer (c) 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll take a look at it this weekend and possibly merge in the remaining sections so folks can more easily make a side-by-side comparison. — Brian (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the rest of the sections over to my sandbox. I put those I suggest dropping into a separate section at the botton. Please note: Anyone is invited to edit the proposal. —AldeBaer (c) 11:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just so you guys know, I had a HUGE problem today, so I'm not going to be around for a while. If you want, you can push forward my controversial WP:FICT rewrite, but I left a note that I'd tweak it in response to some criticism. — Deckiller 05:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Haven't taken an in-depth look at these drafts yet, but they seem pretty good at first glance. Great job to all of those helping to improve WP:WAF. Activity has gone down a bit here, so a lot of others might not be aware of the progress and discussion being made. Might help to prod some talk pages and stir up some talk page activity to help with the adoption of updates. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Having looked more at AldeBaer's version, can't say that I'd support it. While it's true that some sections aren't technically in the realm of what WAF is, they add greatly to the guideline, and I think they're being used in proper context. (such as the "Notability and undue weight" sections)-- Ned Scott 06:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have any specific suggestions, you're welcome to edit the proposal. —AldeBaer (c) 12:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of this I replied to on my talk page: I was thinking more about this today. It might simply be that we need to drop the sections for WAF, like you said, but maybe make some kind of glue / in-between pages for WAF and FICT. Like a guideline series for fiction that flows well, with pages leading into other pages. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(You're right, better to keep the discussion in one spot.) I think the idea sounds promising. To a certain extent, it is part of my proposal - although I hadn't thought of the possibility of multiple pages, instead I made extensive use of intra-page links, so as to mirror the actual interconnectedness of the aspects involved in writing about fiction by linking from and to the different sections wherever appropriate. The question is, which seperate areas/topics are to be covered? —AldeBaer (c) 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

AldeBaer, I like your rewrite. Unfortunately, this talk page doesn't seem to have the eyes that it used to. Perhaps the best way forward is for you to just be bold and instigate the rewrite. That'll at least garner some attention, even if it's from someone who reverts and then comes to complain here. — Brian (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Manual is Out of Touch

I'm sorry but this manual is just a bit OTT when it comes to in universe perception. For one it presumes that all or even most people reading say Lou Beale are looking for some real life information on character development and writing. That is not the case... most are looking for a character biography and plotline descriptions. And as such they are very hard to read, let alone write, in an out of universe style. The manual further tries to note that if said article is in universe and past tense it will mislead people. That is offensive to anyone with even a small bit of logic. That is to say the logic in some of these guidelines is out of touch and misplaced. Take for example the aforementioned Lou Beale article. Now let's compare her to The Artful Dodger. Lou Beale was a character on a television show that airs several times a week and who was killed off in 1988. The Artful Dodger is a character in a novel that was written over 170 years ago. These two situations can not be treated the same. Oliver Twist is eternal, it can't change. The Artful Dodger will always be a character in the present tense. EastEnders isn't eternal and it changes from day to day in real time. Lou Beale was a character at a point but she isn't any longer... the fact that episodes with her still exist doesn't make her a present character, and I doubt if anyone in the world outside this encyclopedia would say "Lou Beale is a character". I understand that Wikipedia aims to be based firmly in reality, but in regards to fictional characters that is not truly possible, and even when it is it's a very very murky line to try and draw. I propose the manual be subject to a massive rewrite which would differentiate between books, films and television series tenses for example. As well as allowing a greater amount of in universe writing. -MichiganCharms 19:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There are other websites out there that do the "fictional biography" thing. This is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. It may have things that a paper encyclopedia doesn't have, but it's still supposed to be written like an encyclopedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The thing with Wikipedia is that it's an academic source and should be written like one. Academic sources aren't written like fan pages, which is what MichiganCharms is suggesting we be like. — Brian (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This argument I see mostly with people who haven't looked at academic sources dealing with fiction too much. I've read several academic theses and books on fiction, including the types of fiction many articles are written about. ALL of them use in-universe perspective quite extensively, both in extensive plot summaries and in characterization. This is necessary for the sheer fact that you can't talk about something like, say, "The Role of Women in the Works of J.R.R. Tolkien" (just as an example I pulled out of my hat) without describing extensively how the women characters act and interact and the context in which they do so. To write all of this in an out-of-universe perspective is plain illegible. --OliverH 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So are you arguing that academic sources and fanpages look the same? Or would your hypothetical "The Role of Women" essay include lots of critical commentary and notes on Tolkein's professed views on women, etc. etc., to accompany the plot descriptions and characterization summaries? I think it would quite clearly be the latter, which is what this guide is advocating. — Brian (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said that they look the same. The point is, however, that they can include plenty of in-world contents. --OliverH 08:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided to dig around in Google Books, and I have not found a single source (academic or otherwise) that talks about women in Tolkien's works from the perspective of the fiction itself. Here are some quotes (forgive the lack of accents on Eowen's name; I'm not on my trusty, easy-to-use Mac):

Wood, Ralph C. (2003) The Gospel According to Tolkien: Visions of the Kingdom in Middle-earth. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 0664226108.

"The first [complaint repeatedly raised against The Lord of the Rings] is that Tolkien wrote a boy's adventure story that effectively excludes one-half of our race. Tolkien is a male chauvinist, these critics charge, because he includes only a handful of women characters, and because he depicts these few women in highly idealized terms. Quite to the contrary, we shall discover, Tolkien's women are not plaster figures. Galadriel the elven princess proves to be terrible in her beauty--not treacly sweet and falsely pure; in fact, she is an elf whose importance will dminish once the Ruling Ring is destroyed . . . . Yet even this brief defense of Tolkien's women characters misses the essential point -- namely, that Tolkien honors our universal humanity by insisting that the desires of men and women are fundamentally the same . . . ." (p. 2)

Donovan, Leslie A. (2003). "The valkyrie reflex in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: Galadriel, Shelob, E'owyn, and Arwen", Tolkien the Medievalist. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 0415289440.

"Focusing on the significance of Tolkien's existing women characters rather than their infrequency, Helen Armstrong, however, asserts that 'Despite the conventionally, even doctrinally male-centred aspects of Tolkien's world, he also bucked the same system . . . by creating active heroines' (250). In accord with such views, Lisa Hopkins writes that 'Power in the works of Tolkien is often to be found in the hands of a woman' and that 'women in Tolkien are not portrayed solely in the light of their relationship to men' (365)." (p. 106)

Pienciak, Anne M. (1986). J. R. R. Tolkein's The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings. Barron's Book Notes. ISBN 0812035232.

"Tolkien has often been criticized for generally ignoring women in his books. . . . In The Lord of the Rings thus far, you have met only Lobelia, Goldberry, Arwen (Elrond's daughter), and now Galadriel. Galadriel is a figure of great power. She seems wiser than her husband, Celeborn, and wins over Gimli the dwarf with her kindness. She is the one who first called together the White Council that originally drove Sauron from Mirkwood. She's also the possessor of one of the three elven rings. Equal even to Sauron's power, she can read his thoughts, yet he can't find her.

"Galadriel, however, represents an idealized woman, as do Arwen and Goldberry." (p. 90)

Porter, Lynnette R. (2005). Unsung Heroes of The Lord of the Rings: From the Page to the Screen. Praeger/Greenwood. ISBN 0275985210.

"A Commonweal article states that 'Tolkien always seemed a little theoretical in his presentation of women,' but on screen, E'owyn (as well as Arwen) is 'specific, mercurial, and commanding.' The result is that when E'owyn defeats the Witch King, audiences could feel 'battalions of women cheering her on.'" (p. 91)

Straubhaar, Sandra Ballif (2004). "Myth, Late Roman History, and Multiculturalism in Tolkien's Middle-earth", Tolkien and Invention of Myth: A Reader. The University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813123011.

"Certainly a case can be made for blondness in Middle-earth to stand as a marker for primevalness; although for Third-Age Gondorians, in all their self-absorbed hauteur, it can hardly be seen to stand for ethnic superiority. It should perhaps be added here that the blondness of a wide array of Tolkienian figures (of varying descent), such as Goldberry, Galadriel, and E'owyn, has caused at least one lifelong reader from our world . . . to form the early impression that: 'all women are milk-pale maidens with waterfalls of yellow hair -- a delusion that landed me in no end of trouble, and one that, even now, pains me like a war wound.'" (p. 107)

Can you offer some counter-examples, Oliver? I'm genuinely interested. — Brian (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I first suggest you read what I stated. I am not going to prove points I never made. Your citations don't disprove anything I said. Not the least, they are textual fragments and do not demonstrate at all that the texts cited do not contain extensive in-universe information. --OliverH 08:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Added: From one of your quotes: "She seems wiser than her husband, Celeborn, and wins over Gimli the dwarf with her kindness. She is the one who first called together the White Council that originally drove Sauron from Mirkwood. She's also the possessor of one of the three elven rings. Equal even to Sauron's power, she can read his thoughts, yet he can't find her." This is in-universe perspective. So you even managed to prove what I said. --OliverH 08:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't cherry-picked my examples. I was absolutely unable to find any academic source on women in Tolkien that read like a fanpage with no out-of-universe context or wording reflecting the actions of Tolkien as opposed to his characters. But I think you and I are not in fundamental disagreement (although your initial post was supposed to rebut a point I had made). Reread the guideline; it never says that all information must be in an out-of-universe perspective. It says that a mixture of both in- and out-of-universe is preferred and that the article should use the real world as its frame of reference. As for the Galadriel example, in the very next sentence from the one you quote, it changes to the perspective of the real world. No article should be strictly one perspective or the other; rather, it should use both where both are called for. — Brian (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oliver, you're missing what is being said. Saying something like "Feminism is turned upside down in movie "Kapow" when the character "Judy" blah blah blha..." You might want to read up on what "in-universe" is. Stating what a character did is not the same as stating it as if it happened in real life. In-universe is writing as if it's a historical fact that they really did that, when what they did was on a film. There is not a real "Jason Voorhees" haunting a Camp Crystal Lake, thus an article written about him should not be written as if he really exists. Secondly, you wouldn't write a fictional biography anyway, that isn't what an encyclopedia does. Notice how when you mentioned in-universe you were talking about how it reflects to the real world, and not as if it was the real world. That is what people are talking about. Obviously you cannot explain some real world context without detailing a scene. The difference is that when you are talking about real world content, it is implied that the details you are going to use to explain the "Role of Women in LOTR" is going to be fictional events. So no, in-universe tone does not equate to a simple statement that explains what a character did in a film, when you are using it to explain a theme, symbol, etc of a genre, film series, or character representation (or whatever else might be out-of-universe). The in universe tone is referring to things like, "Freddy Kreuger was born in 1914, to mother Amanda and 100 fathers". No, he wasn't, because he isn't real. In reality, Freddy was given birth to by Wes Craven, his creator.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. Unless Wesley Earl Homer Leopold Craven is a very strang example of a male of homo sapiens sapiens, he most definitely didn't give birth. And Freddy Krueger most certainly wasn't given birth by anyone, since he isn't a person at all but a role. The point is you can be a stickler with everything. If you want to use the characterization of a figure in a book or movie, you have to characterise him first. More likely than not, you will have to illustrate the character's perspective as if such a thing really existed. The character doesn't have a perspective, he's a collection of text excerpts in a book. But you will be able to learn next to nothing about the story if you don't understand the perspectives of the actors, even though they are fictious constructs. Now, if we're talking about Kafka etc. we could argue aplenty whether such a thing as a character perspective exists other than for the main protagonist, but that's really a different issue. If you look at Cliff Notes etc. you will find plenty of characterizations in there which describe the character in his or her context within the fiction. Point being: I fully agree that an article should not be written entirely in this perspective. But that shouldn't be used as a deadbeat argument against any and all articles which do not (yet) contain out-of-universe text, or very little of it. More often than not, this could easily be corrected while keeping most of the "offending" material as support. Instead, it is all too often summarily dismissed as "cruft", which really is absurd in its suggesting that plenty of reading aids etc. are supposedly full of "cruft", too. Especially, if a page is deleted on such accounts, it creates a humongous amount of work for someone making a new page the "right" way, because he has to rewrite all the in-use information that he could just have adopted otherwise. --OliverH 12:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said. Were you insinuating that to get a characterization of a character that one must user their perspective? Ok, that's fine, but you don't write it as if it's real, you write based on what the character says. If he doesn't talk, like say Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, then you have to find scholarly work that discusses his motivations. They will base their opinions on his actions, and explain that by things he does based on things real people have done. That's out of universe. The "out of universe" tone required of articles is meant that you cannot write an article as if the character is real. No "character biography" type of stuff. It seems like you are taking this too literal when it says write in an OOU tone. There will be "in-universe" information, when describing things in an "out of universe" tone. That is what it is referring to. Read Jabba the Hutt or Padme Amidala for a good example of how it should be written, and how it can be written.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think Oliver is in broad agreement with us. He seems to support the idea that an ideal article on fiction should include both real-world and fictional-world information where appropriate. No one is saying that every sentence in an article must be in out-of-universe perspective, and the Tolkien examples I quoted above show why this is so. Rather, Oliver seems to be objecting to some editors' deletion or redirection of pages that have little or no out-of-universe info (forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, Oliver). That sort of behavior is covered by notability and is beyond the scope of this guideline, though. — Brian (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD's are usually a completely different story. I've seen pages kept that should have been deleted, and pages deleted that weren't really that bad. It really depends on the group of editors discussing. You can cite all the guidelines and policies in the world you want, if you find an Admin that decides to count votes instead of read arguments then you're usually screwed in that aspect. But, like you said, it's beyond the scope of this guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'm not suggesting a fan page type thing... but isn't it a bit hard to justify an academic source prviding an article on Pokemon? I mean it gets to a point where certain articles aren't actually academic and treating something like Pokemon as if it were a serious literary work is kind oif a joke. -MichiganCharms 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What about

• Captain Marvel (DC Comics) (comic book character)
• Felix the Cat (classic cartoon character)
• Palpatine, Padmé Amidala, and Jabba the Hutt (Star Wars characters)
• Link (The Legend of Zelda series) (video game character)
• Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (an article covering the characters of the game, as well as their creation)

Just because the article is in poor shape doesn't mean the manual needs to change. It means editors need to get to work on the article. There are plenty of other articles that are good examples. That article doesn't even look that bad. Just because you find it to be a joke that someone could write something about a fictional subject, and it be more than pretending like that subject was real, doesn't mean we should abandoned that idea for yours.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This article is here to show that this is about the real world: so people shouldn't write something as useless as the Kree-Skrull War article. Alientraveller 18:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the answer is simple... Wikipedia should contain no articles on anything fictional besides broad plot descriptions. I think it's a fundamental flaw to say "You can write about fictional things" and then try and dictate that they must be written completely out of universe, it's a flawed concept. - MichiganCharms 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure that? Star Wars is a broad concept. But, let's got deeper. Star Wars Episode III is a more detailed aspect of that idea. That is featured. Let's go even deeper. Jabba the Hutt is a fictional character in that fictional univese. That's a featured article. That's an article about a fictional character that has tons of out of universe information. So, tell me again what the problem is? It seems that either you just find the topics silly, which is your right, but has no bearing on this guideline... or, you just don't have the capacity to write an article about a fictional topic without making it entirely in-universe, which again is not a problem with this guideline. If you are having personal trouble with a topic, there are plenty of editors that could help you. If you just don't like the topic, might I suggest not going to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia features excellently written and well-referenced articles on fiction, even about detailed aspects. With my all but forgotton proposed rewrite I aimed to emphasise that notion; that fiction articles are not exempt from striving for such encyclopedic qualities as real world perspective and references. I just happen to believe a clearer guideline could particularly help new users understand that we are not a fanon repository and what writing about fiction entails. —AldeBaer (c) 01:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that was long. I'm not sure it proved anything except that the people talking have their own views. My own remains that an in-universe style is almost always the simplest and most direct way of describing events within a fictional world. It is the way anyone who was not being pretentious for appearances sake would write it or describe it to someone. Of course, interject real world points into such a narrative where they are relevant, but never insert gratuitous real-world interjections just for the sake of it. All it does is make the text less readable. Wiki may aspire to be an 'encyclopedia', whatever that means, but it absolutely must not aspire to be an encyclopedia exclusively for ivory tower academics. That would be rather pointless. I think there is seriously bad karma awaiting people who deliberately make articles harder to read or understand. Sandpiper 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

A Man In Black has been deleting the infoboxes on fictional battles from a lot of articles — e.g. Siege of Barad-dûr, Battle of Manticore, Battle of Mon Calamari, Battle of P3Y-229, HMS Thunder Child, Battle of Wolf 359 — without previously discussing doing so on the Talk pages. When reverted, he has cited the section on WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes as support for his claim that such infoboxes are "in-appropriate". I see guidelines like "As with all infoboxes, trivial details should be avoided", but nothing calling for a blanket prohibition. What do others think?
—wwoods 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I'm somewhat biased against everything that in my opinion is cruft-enabling. Beyond myself, I'd agree that consensus appears to be in favour of such infoboxes, and I can (albeit reluctantly) accept that. But I do not take it as pure coincidence that some of the articles employing the box are also {{in-universe}} candidates. —AldeBaer (c) 07:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that these infoboxes treat the events as if they are real. Instead, the infobox for something like the Battle of Mon Calamari should include information such as what book or movie the battle appears in, who wrote the storyline in which it is featured, and maybe that's about it. There's no need to know all the fictional weaponry used and who the "commanders" were — that's material more fit for a fan page, not an encyclopedia article. — Brian (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My sentiment exactly. —AldeBaer (c) 07:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, using infoboxes for primary source information is simply an example of in-universe perspective and should be avoided whenever possible. As suggested by Brian, using infoboxes for improved contextual presentation from an underlying real world perspective is a much better idea, since not only is the in-universe approach unencyclopedic, but it also actively distracts from the real world frame of reference. With infoboxes, this "clash of civilizations" culminates to the point where those two perspectives' mutual exclusiveness becomes apparent. Thus, pleading for the use of infoboxes for in-universe info includes pleading against use of infoboxes for real world information, in my opinion. —AldeBaer (c) 07:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Presuming a fictional battle is noteworthy enough to have an article at all, IMO the infobox serves the same purpose it does on any other article: summarizing the who-when-where-what of the thing. If all you're going to say about the Battle of Mon Calamari is the real-world frame,

"The Battle of Mon Calamari is a fictional battle in the Star Wars saga, taking place four months after the Battle of Geonosis. This battle is first shown in the Cartoon Network animated series Star Wars: Clone Wars."

it would be better to make it a redirect to the article on the book or movie, or an entry on a [{List of Star Wars battles]].

—wwoods 00:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, one shouldn't be writing the article as if it really happened in the first place. Wikipedia is an out of universe encyclopedia, and fictional articles should primarily be in an out of universe tone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I do expect an article on a fictional battle to include a summary of the fictional who/what/when/where/why of it. It's pertinent to list the fictional combattants, the fictional generals, the fictional events, the fictional weaponry, etc. However, I agree with Bignole and AldeBaer that the article needs to focus just as much or more on the real-world who/what/when/where/why. Who wrote the story that the battle appears in? What role does the battle play in the story? Who was the production designer who was in charge of the action sequences (for a movie)? What did the actors say about their performances in the battle sequences? Were there any camera tricks played (as in Gladiator)? If the article is just a summary of a fictional event, it should be a redirect, as Wwoods suggests. — Brian (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since we're talking, how about War of Heaven, a religious belief in a war between the forces of Heaven and Hell, in which Michael led the "good" angels, and Lucifer the "bad', and for which there are canon army sizes and such. An infobox seems to definitely serve a positive purpose there. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I came upon this discussion through an infobox for a fictional President of the United States, Mackenzie Allen. This one is particularly bad because the "THIS IS IN-UNIVERSE" flag is the title of the series, Commander in Chief, which also happens to be an alternative title for the real-world office. For that reason, it's more confusing than most, but they're all confusing. Infoboxes for real people or events serve a purpose in that someone might want a fast summary of key facts. It's much less likely that someone would have a need for that kind of presentation for fiction. Delete them all. JamesMLane t c 03:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

After some time has passed without any specific input on my proposal, I have now taken the bold step of instating it. Please edit at will, and like I said in my summary, revert if you judge it necessary. I don't insist on this version, and I would welcome all consensus-conducing input, including rejection. —AldeBaer (c) 10:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Deckiller was doing a proposal?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

His proposal is for WP:FICT. —AldeBaer (c) 11:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn someone had one for WAF that I read just within the past week or so.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of another proposal, but I've had this one up for about 2 weeks now. Above are threads relating to it, maybe you read about mine? —AldeBaer (c) 12:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was yours I read, and I just didn't pay attention to the name that was attached to it. 12:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated to the rewrite, we seem to have lost the Exceptions section back in March [2]. While no change was intended with the edit, I don't really think it was a good move. I've restored what I felt was one of the more important parts here, but there may be a better place for it. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraf you "reinstated" is important, but you realise it was still there in slightly rewritten and even extended form, do you? —AldeBaer (c) 09:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite is OK. I was concerned about the examples in the previous version perpetuating Wikipedia's institutional bias towards sci-fi and fantasy, glad to see that they're gone. --Nydas^(Talk) 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the rewrite isn't OK. Italics are heavily overused throughout the article making it condescending and difficult to read. There's a lot of unneccessary wording, and too many arcane phrases like 'process of authorship'. The explanation of why not to take an in-universe perspective is very weak; 'not considered encyclopedic' is scarcely a reason at all. An in-universe perspective could be considered encyclopedic; it depends on the parameters of the encyclopedia. The reason we don't take an in-universe perspective is because it is inaccurate.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First off: Thanks for your input. Let me reply to the different issues you brought up.

Wrt italics and possibly redundant emphases: I believe these are justified by the fact that many fiction articles are in a poor state because some don't realise that the same underlying rules and goals apply to fiction articles as to all other articles. Considering e.g. this edit of yours: Granted, it's an obvious fact that articles on fiction are articles like all others, but emphasising this does no harm and it's useful, in my opinion, to start the guideline with that simple statement as the rest of the guideline goes on to explain the specifics of writing about fiction with regard to that basic premise.

Wrt unneccessary wording, would you say that it contains more of it now than prior to the rewrite?

Arcane phrases: E.g. "Process of authorship" is not so terribly arcane, but what term would you prefer?

Wrt to in-universe perspective: The relevant sentence "Many non-Wikimedia wikis and independent fan-maintained websites take this approach, but it is not considered encyclopedic." was in the old version, I simply appended the explanation "partly because it makes exclusive or near-exclusive use of primary information." I don't particularly like the original wording, but I couldn't think of a more appropriate wording. How would you rephrase it? —AldeBaer (c) 10:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The guideline uses italics so heavily that it loses its impact and interferes with readability. It's not consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) and the italic-heavy style is not used on other policies and guidelines. Whilst there are fewer unnecessary words than before, this is a guideline which editors are going to keep coming back to. It should be as concise as possible.

I've replaced 'process of authorship' with just 'authorship'. The google search shows a lot of jargon-heavy uses and not much straightforward stuff. Authorship isn't perfect; it mostly relates to copyrights. Creative process is one alternative, but that's jargonish as well.

I would break the section explaining why in-universe is wrong into three sections. The first would explain that the in-universe habit of passing fiction off as fact is inaccurate and misleading. The second section would explain that an in-universe perspective gives undue weight to an article, for example, describing a character's appearances in major films and spinoff novels in equal detail. The third would explain that in-universe often attracts material that is original research or unverifiable.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• MOS:ITALICS, like all of MOS, applies primarily to articles, not to Wikipedia namespace. I made (admittedly extensive) use of italics to emphasise words and concepts that relate to WP:5 and in my opinion form the backbone of this guideline.
• "Creative process of authorship" sounds very good to me indeed.
• Also, I fully agree that this guideline should be as concise as possible, but it's a complicated issue including many different aspects. If you have any ideas on how to condense the guideline further without omitting anything crucial, just go ahead.
• I see what you mean wrt to clarifying the section on the in-universe approach. Reminds me of Ned Scott's idea of establishing several different pages (additional to WP:WAF and WP:FICT). Maybe you could put a proposal in your userspace and link to it from here, like I did with my rewrite? That way we could determine consensus, as this seems like a potential big change. —AldeBaer (c) 13:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason not follow the manual in this case? Some sentences have a quarter or more of their words italicised. Common terms like perspective and impact surely do not need italics.

'Creative process of authorship' doesn't really mean anything. My preferred option would be a short list of examples to give a general idea. Something like: 'Articles on fictional topics should take a real-world perspective, discussing things like creative influences, critical reaction and cultural impact.'

I don't think it's necessary to make large changes to clarify the reasons for not taking an in-universe perspective, just a few sentences will do it.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) What did you have in mind? —AldeBaer (c) 15:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of saying 'not considered encyclopedic', have something like 'An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research'. Preferably with examples of each.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that rewording, let's do it. I wouldn't include examples though, as I think we'd better avoid establishing some kind of "minimum requirements". Those are specified by the policy pages we link to (WP:5 et.al) and this guideline should rather contrast and complement policy by providing specifics on how to write a good article on a fictional subject, and not merely how to avoid the worst. That's the approach I took in the whole rewrite: There used to be a section on bad examples, which I considered very unhelpful for the specified reasons. —AldeBaer (c) 11:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean specific examples, just general ones like framing a fictional character's article like a biography.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are in the guideline... —AldeBaer (c) 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I added the last four as examples of undue weight and original research.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's misleading to cite "undue weight" in that sentence - the undue weight policy applies to minority viewpoints and how they should be treated to conform to NPOV. "Unimportant" information is not necessarily a minority viewpoint (in fiction, it is frequently widely accepted canon). Dcoetzee 22:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Canon that only appears in supplementary materials is a minority viewpoint.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides the fact that primary source materials contain voluminous amounts of unimportant canon, to say that any canon is "a minority viewpoint" is a misunderstanding of what constitutes a minority viewpoint. By definition, this is material that is widely accepted as true and authoritative in the context of that fiction. No one would contest the atomic number of nitrogen, but that doesn't mean it belongs in our article on chemistry. Dcoetzee 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the real world, canon that appears in spin-off material is a minority viewpoint, even if it's 'true' and authoritative in the context of the fiction. For example, the Han Solo article dwells extensively on the character's history in spin-off novels, whilst skipping over the films.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox fictional conflict

I've adapted the Template:Infobox Military Conflict so it is more appropriate for fiction articles. I've trialled the new template on Battle of the Pelennor Fields. The two changes are a depictions section and labelling the in-universe information. One small glitch is that it adds a blank line to the article.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. Fictional battles should not be treated like real ones. For a less in-universe approach, see Template:Infobox Me battle. Carcharoth 21:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples

I'm not keen on Characters of Final Fantasy VIII as an example article. It uses fragments of dialogue to establish character traits, a practice which we should probably not be encouraging. Some of the paragraphs are heavily in-universe. There is almost no indication that these are video game characters, for example, there are no screenshots. The article relies heavily on a single source for much of its out-of-universe information, an article written for a female gamer website.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You could list it on WP:FAR. —AldeBaer (c) 09:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See the responses on the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII talkpage. If you want to ditch the best example we currently have for that type of article, go on ahead. I find it quite ironic that an article worked on by one of the heaviest advocates of WAF and FICT is being considered too "in-universe" by another user. Also, the dialogue system has been used for numerous FAs without anyone else complaining; it's better than the alternative, which is no sources for these summaries (and even this is accepted in plenty of articles), which would mean that we couldn't tell if it's speculation or not. — Deckiller 05:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with dialogue fragments is that they can be used to misrepresent plots by cherry-picking the 'right' fragments. It's not unusual for fans to have unrealistic views of certain characters, for example, thinking villains are misunderstood. Take a look at Nelson Muntz, a blatantly one-sided article. Most of it could be 'sourced' with dialogue fragments, even though it would still be completely wrong. More generally, there is no way to know if the dialogue fragments have been selected appropriately. There may be important plot points which aren't specifically mentioned in the dialogue. The only way to tell if dialogue fragments are an accurate representation of the plot is to watch/read/play the work of fiction itself.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think it's a good tool to use because the other option is no dialogue fragments, and then it's completely in the dark. It can also make certain questionable statements stick out like a sore thumb (statements that aren't made clear in dialogue or other sources), while showing that the information derived clearly from the (without speculation). — Deckiller 18:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are a preferable alternative to dialogue fragments. The guideline should explicitly state this.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but not mandatory for a decent article (especially since plot summaries in secondary sources are rare). — Deckiller 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Should it be mandatory for exemplary articles, though?--Nydas^(Talk) 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. Preferred if available, but not mandatory. — Deckiller 08:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)#

If it's not mandatory for the very best articles, then it's not really preferred, is it?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Preference does not equal mandatory in any scenerio, even the very best articles. Especially when the preference is something that is unavailable for some topics. If it's something universally attainable (like concise prose and inline citations), then it becomes extremely important at the high levels. — Deckiller 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are more a matter of good sourcing. For lack of reliable secondary sources, I think dialogue is a good way to source things, as long as not much interpretation is being applied (which could lead to OR; the article text should read essentially as a rewording or summary of the dialogue itself). Whether text is in-universe or out-of-universe though is a separate matter from whether it's sourced using primary or secondary sources - you can source in-universe material with secondary sources as well. I see this type of article as difficult to write about in an out-of-universe way because games, much less their characters and plots, often aren't a subject of serious research or critical review. There are some notable exceptions, like Lara Croft, who pops up in research as a symbol of the sexualization of women in games, but minor characters in Final Fantasy games are unlikely to achieve that kind of prominence. I think in the long term, unless more people begin to study these subjects, the only hope might be to condense, merge, or move such character material to another wiki. Dcoetzee 08:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly comment at...

I'm proposing a rewrite of the guidance offered by the WikiProject Comics, and would appreciate input from the wider community. Thanks. Hiding Talk 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Television article review process as a fictional article noticeboard

I've made a proposal to expand the review process of the television wikiproject into a fictional article notice board, to better clean up articles in line with this guidance and that at WP:FICT. I think we need an area where we can bring issues within articles to the attention of the wider community, and this seems a useful way of doing it. It would mirror notice boards implemented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process#Expansion. Hiding Talk 15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)