User talk:El Sandifer/Fiction

Good starting point

You have pretty clear explanations here. Of course, I hate the fact that most people won't ever read stuff like this, and it often needs to be scaled down into a simple point. That said, I have very few disagreements with the content of this essay/proposal/whatever it is. The most I can say is that some people *do* think that covering imaginary people is the point of a fictional article, and not simply as a matter of looking at cultural impact. But even then, I think most of those people would still agree that cultural impact is a necessary ingredient.

My only real substantive comment would be about what is considered the appropriate amount of information for the plot summary. You focus on brevity, and the end result to be achieved. Maybe this is the shortest way to sum it up, but "as brief as possible" can scare the shit out of a lot of people, and may prove controversial. I find that the best way to do that is to talk about what's almost always considered inappropriate. Take this article, which was merged for being pretty crufty:

• In works where the character does something, it's described in scene-by-scene detail. (E.g.: every scene he gives chase through.)
• The article mentions every appearance of the character, even if he doesn't do anything worth more than a sentence of description.
• The article goes into a detailed description of his abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. (A common problem in video game articles.)
• Although not a problem in this article, a lot of articles go into detailed physical descriptions too.

Obviously, that kind of information is easily weeded out in a "brief as possible" sort of guideline... but because "brief" and "possible" are subjective, and open to abuse, it may be better to just say straight up "tell us this, but don't tell us that". Randomran (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm more inclined to tie it closely to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, a guideline that is very focused on those distinctions. But "as brief as possible" may be overly strict language.

The proposal is, certainly, wordy, but I am exceptionally determined that this is necessary in this case. This is a proposal about nailing down a complex issue. It needs to work the matter through thoroughly, carefully, and meticulously. This isn't about establishing bright line tests - it's about formulating and formalizing an essential part of the approach and method of the encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. But on the wordiness, you also have to remember that readability trumps all on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, a detailed and meticulous guideline can't do much if people don't understand it, or lack the patience to treat the subject with such meticulousness. Sometimes, a simple test has to be a proxy, even if it means sacrificing accuracy. That's a very frustrating thing for those of us who favor accuracy. Randomran (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You could probably get around the fight between brevity and depth by judicious shortcutting. For example, shortcuts per section could go something like: WP:IMPACT, WP:PLOT?, WP:RWINFO, WP:AUTHORIAL, WP:SOURCING, WP:LONGFORM, WP:ELEMENT. Hiding T 08:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Extreme long-form works

I know that it is the fashion to group various works together and refer to them as extreme long-form works, but from an academic perspective, I think this might be a contraversial proposal. I know that characters like Superman have been the subject of comic series for many years, but it is debatable whether his story consistutes a single story arc is debatable.

It seems to me that this section is running against the academic grain. In studies of the various story cycles, such as Greek Myth or the Bible, which is made up of groups of stories that have been grouped together, it seems to me that academics tend to place more empahasis on the fact that the origins and authorship provide evidence that do not form continous story arcs at all. Likewise with works that you refer to as extreme long-form works: it is probably better to characterise these as a series of adaptations of single story recreated at different times by different authors; the perception that they form a continous arc is superficial.

My first concern is that "Extreme long-form works" tend to lend themselves to synthesis, and I would prefer that WP:FICT steer clear of them althogether.

My second concern is that my idenifying these works (usually characterised as having in universe time lines) as being worthy special treatment is a repeat of your proposal that Spin-out articles are treated as sections of a larger work. I was not a fan of that proposal on the grounds that notability is not inherited as you know, and I am even less of a fan of it now on grounds that WP:FICT cannot offer exemptions without being in conflict with one or more of Wikipedia content polices.

Generally speaking, if an article (or even a list, but this is seperate issue) does not provide evidence of notability of its subject matter, then it can be characterised as a content fork that is highly likely to fail WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've read that section and I don't see any of your concerns as particularly valid. I don't think it is fair of me to comment on the Superman article, since I was heavily involved in re-writing it at the last Featured Article Review, but if my experience in that taught me anything it's that there is an abundance of material to summarise. As this page points out, Superman has seen continual publication in stories for a very long time, longer than most of us have been alive, and many of those stories have recieved commentary to the point that it is possible to build a good article from them. I'm not going to say the articles in Category:Superman storylines are of featured article standard right this second, but when you consider the length of time Superman has been published and by extension the number of stories he has featured in, and then you consider the size of that category, I think it shows that current practises are working quite well. I don't think there are any exemptions being offered here, just the simple stating of the fact that when there's a lot to summarise, we do that per guidance. Nobody asks for us to write an article on WWII on one page, why should we have separate rules for fiction. That feels like a walled garden approach. Hiding T 08:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You are free to ignore my concerns, but the evidence supporting my arguments is provided by yourself. Looking at the Superman storylines, articles like Brainiac (story arc) appear to me as content forks, as they don't provide evidence of notability in their own right. No exemptions are being offered, its true, but I think they are being implied, but that might be me being a tad suspicious. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The evidence which supports my argument is the size of the category. If that category was full of 2000 articles, I'd take your concerns more seriously. That it contains, what, 32 articles? that tends to support my view that things are working as is. I'm never sure what your view is since you dance around a little. I can't work out if you would like the category empty, or just full of articles that tick the boxes. I'm not sure how well you appreciate the way articles are created and molded on Wikipedia, and that they don't have to tick the box today. What we tend to look for is a strong liklihood that they will tick the boxes eventually. Can I ask you to do me a favor? Have a read of m:eventualism. I'm not asking you to swallow it hook line and sinker, but it does give you an understanding of why some of the stuff on Wikipedia is the way it is. Of the competing philosophies which created Wikipedia, it's the one I hope is most right. Have a nose around the rest of the essays, there's a lot of thinking in there and I think looking at the competing philosophies affords a better understanding of Wikipedia. Me, I just found m:Factionalism useful for my current state of mind. Hiding T 10:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - as it stands, the Braniac story arc looks like a needless spin-off full of plot. The "unifying the titles" section is interesting, but it's worthwhile as part of an overall publication history of Superman. But it's window dressing - it has no real relation to the topic of the article. As it stands, Braniac (story arc) fails this proposal, and if there is any language that suggests otherwise, please point to it so I can fix it.

Now in practice, among the various significant comics review sites, you can actually stitch together an article on this story arc that satisfies this proposal. But as it stands, I agree, the article is inadequate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, I've looked at this section and the arguments a bit more. First off, I agree - the section was too permissive previously. I've added a reminder that real-world perspective is still the determining factor in spin-off articles, and added a strong prescription against recentism that is all-but explicitly aimed at comics editors (who are among the worst and most serial offenders).

Now, as for the philosophic argument, I agree that the claim that Superman forms a continual narrative is problematic. I've in fact got a published article saying that in as many words. On the other hand, there is nothing even remotely academically contentious about treating Superman as a single unit, even while recognizing the various shifts that have happened within that unit. Part of that is that it is difficult to draw firm delineations on authorship when Superman has appeared in multiple titles, with multiple authors, not all of them credited, and under multiple editorial directors who have provided varying degrees of line-wide direction. So yes, I agree that the structure breaks down on the micro level, but exactly where it starts to fragment is tricky. The Braniac story arc is easily read as a single story arc. Thus far, the entire Geoff Johns run on Action Comics is also probably readable as a single narrative text. What about the runs that have tied in with it? Around here it gets tricky.

That said, it is clearly true that Superman comics have dovetailed via cliffhangers and resolutions, with relatively few breaks, over nearly 900 issues of Action Comics and 700 of Superman. And the shifts have generally been subtle and small between one era and the next. And there is, as I said, a coherent concept. The problem, I think, is in my use of the word "Superman narrative," which I had meant in a loose sense of "narrative," but agree, in hindsight, that that is probably a bit too academically fancy. I've fixed that.

But I disagree that there is anything academically controversial or out of fashion about treating Superman as a single topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is contraversial. If you were to place a similar section in the article Fiction, it would be taken out on the grounds that it is origininal research. Unless you can come up with reliable secondary sources to support your contraversial views, I suggest dropping this section altogether. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What, a source that shows that treating Superman comics as a single subject is academically non-controversial? Gavin, I'm a published scholar on this topic - I've in fact written specifically on the question of how to consider the extreme serialization of superhero comics. (And, fwiw, I attack actively the idea that reading them as a single coherent story makes sense) I think the position that there is anything controversial about treating Superman as a single topic is the one that requires support.

Meanwhile, off the top of my head, Umberto Eco's essay on Superman, Geoffrey Klock's book, Will Brooker's Batman Unmasked. Those will do for superhero comics. For television, take your pick of the numerous books on Buffy.

But really. Where are you getting the idea that it is in the least bit controversial to treat Superman as in some way a unified subject? Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting Superman is contraversial. It is just that I have never heard of the term "Extreme long-form works" used or defined anywhere other than in your essay.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. We could, I suppose, simply use "serialized works," which is more often the generalized term used. However, technically speaking a two-part TV miniseries is a serialized work, and so I'm hesitant to go in that direction. Then again, by its nature a very short serialized work is going to be fairly tough to create compelling sub-articles on, so perhaps we need not worry about opening that door a little wide. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Second concern

I menitoned my second concern regarding a repeat of your proposal that Spin-out articles are treated as sections of a larger work. Am I correct that you are proposing to split articles on the basis of WP:AS whist ignoring WP:AVOIDSPLIT? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly trying to thread the needle - but I don't think I'm ignoring AVOIDSPLIT. The fact does remain that fiction is, at times, exceedingly difficult or impossible to deal with well due to WP:AS. Splitting is clearly necessary. The question is when to split, and what splits are appropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You're trying to drag this back to a notability issue, and I'm strongly disinclined to. For me, this is a question of formatting and navigation. The question is, how do we organize a lot of coverage of a fictional work? And the answer to that should be - before any other issues are considered - that articles should be organized and split up based on real-world context, not on other grounds. That is, our choice of what articles to create should be based on the work as a cultural artifact, just like the rest of our coverage is.

Right now, our coverage of fiction does not meet that criterion. and I think, in the case of something that is a subtopic of a larger notable work, that's the more important clean-up. But at least in terms of this proposal, I'm remaining agnostic on notability at the moment, except to say that I think that getting this in place and enforcing it is a better first priority. If, after this is enforced, we look at coverage of fictional topics and still see a sea of crap articles that should be deleted, I'm all for revisiting notability at that point. But the more I look at it, the more I feel like we basically have a sea of articles that fail at the basic task of being encyclopedia articles, before any issues of notability are considered. So let's deal with the more fundamental problem with, say, Zack Allan - that it makes no pretense of being about anything related to reality. If we still have major problems with fiction articles that this proposal doesn't fix, I have no prima facia opposition to a notability guideline that further restricts article splits. This proposal is agnostic on that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So if this article is not about inclusion criteria for fictional topics as standalone artilces, when you say "This page documents appropriate practices in writing about them", do you mean that this covers the same ground as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It covers similar ground - "appropriate practices" is probably a weak phrasing. As I see it, WAF is a manual of style guideline. But the problem is that there is strong precedent for treating MoS guidelines as a weaker level of policy than guidelines. The arbcom has specifically ruled that edit warring to enforce MoS guidelines is particularly egregious. Whereas repeated reversion to enforce, say, RS would not be frowned upon in the same way. Furthermore, WAF is very concerned with small mechanics. I view this as a straight guideline-level counterpart to WAF that firmly enshrines principles that previously were present by implication in WAF, NOT#PLOT, PLOTSUM, and other pages. The relationship between this and WAF is roughly that this defines the role of fiction in a factual encyclopedia, and WAF offers mechanics guidance on how to write about it appropriately. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand what you are saying, this proposal is a deliberate POV Fork from both both WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Since you refuse to say that it is neither an inclusion guideline, nor style guideline, it sounds as if you are just trying to describe the coverage of fiction from your own personal perspective. I don't approve of this approach at all; I think you should put it forward at one or more of these forums and work through the existing Wikipedia framework, rather than trying to create you own. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a difficult time understanding how you could come to this conclusion while assuming good faith. But first of all, WP:POVFORK wouldn't even apply to a policy proposal. Second of all, I do not refuse to say that it is neither an inclusion guideline nor a style guideline - in fact, I will say, outright - this is not an inclusion guideline. This is not a style guideline. This is an outright content guideline, meant in the spirit of pages like WP:RS and WP:V.. It is not a "personal perspective" at all, but rather an attempt to move some crucial principles out of the controversial NOT#PLOT, the low-level WAF, and some of the more agreed-upon attempts at a notability guideline, and gather them into a general guideline that gives appropriate teeth to attempts to clean up fiction articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what a content policy is if not a set of inclusion criteria. This content guideline, although it is not an article, is effectively a POV Fork because it has been created to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints of Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines, which you admit yourself. If you have any proposals to improve pages like WP:NOT, WP:RS or WP:V, why not put them forward at the relevant talk page, instead of creating your very own polcies and guidelines? It seems to me that policy forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and result in unnecessary duplication of standards.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we are using different definitions of inclusion policies. I do not consider, for example, WP:NPOV to be an inclusion policy, because it does not govern the specific inclusion or deletion of articles, but rather the internal content of articles. An article that irreparably fails NPOV will be deleted, but this is not the primary purpose of the page. And so that's the distinction I'm drawing. If you draw no such distinction, then yes - this is an inclusion guideline, though one concerned with article content rather than article existence. In what ways, however, do you consider this to be a fork from existing policy? I believe it is wholly compatible with normal practice and existing policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fork from WP:FICT in the sense that you are trying to construct a set of inlcusion criteria without calling it such. You refer to this as a "content policy", yet it offers no new principle on content that is not already included in existing policies. If it offers nothing new then I fail to understand its rationale, other than to conclude that it is just a vehicle for your opinion on the approach to covering fiction. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Which, if there is nothing new in this proposal, amounts to no change whatsoever as to what the approach to covering fictional topics is - in which case this is just a consolidation of several guidelines into one, which is still a useful act. Unless you see something that is a concrete change to existing practice, in which case, let's have it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is still the same, that Serialized works seem to be getting a free pass from WP:AVOIDSPLIT just because they are serialized. Maybe it is the emphaisis in this section on Fictional subjects of particular note, which do no need to provide evidence of notability, but it appears that Serialized works are exempted from this requirement. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I see your concern. I'll see if I can phrase langauge around it - my intention here is not to give a pass to serialized works, but more accurately to expressly target them, as they are responsible for the vast majority of our fiction spin-off articles. While there are good reasons for this (which I don't think can be ignored in crafting a policy), the point is not to create a pass but rather specifically identify an area where care needs to be taken with spin-off articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've strengthened the language to make clear that this is not about giving any sort of pass to lengthy serialized works. The section now says: "This is not, however, an automatic license to create spin-off articles. Indeed, special care must be taken when dealing with serialized works to make sure that frivolous spin-offs are not created. It is very easy to spin off a large number of articles on topics that cannot really sustain an article. Such articles should be merged back with their parent articles or deleted. Articles should only be spun off based on how much relevant real-world information is available, and on how well-sourced the resulting articles can be." Does this address your concerns? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Goof start, but...

Well I have to say first off this is a good start, but like any draft, it needs work. First off is the first statement:

he single most important rule about coverage of fiction on Wikipedia is that fiction is covered as a cultural artifact in the real world. We are primarily interested not in things that happened to imaginary people, but rather in the social impact that given works of fiction have. All aspects of an article on fiction must work to establish real-world importance. Those that are not should be removed.

I've bolded the problem sentence here. This can and probably will be used to remove any mention of plot, which we have general consensus that at least some plot is necessary to understand context. It would also remove gameplay from video game articles as well, unless they had a significant impact on later games. I don't think that is what you intend, but that's how those two lines read. This furthermore contradicts in a way the section on plot (note there is nothing to direct what to do for gameplay or other miscellaneous sections that might be relevant only for specific segment of fiction).

Since we are primarily interested in fiction as a cultural artifact, the plot of the work of fiction is not our primary concern. That said, understanding commentary and reaction to a work of fiction does require an understanding of what happens, and so our articles should include a brief plot summary as part of their larger coverage.

This summary should be as brief as possible while still providing the necessary context to understand the cultural impact of the work. The purpose of a plot summary is not to allow the reader to vicariously experience the work of fiction. It is to explain and condense the plot to essential elements, and to provide context for an unfamiliar reader.

An article that is primarily plot summary should not reach good article status. Articles that are purely plot summary should be deleted.

If this is suppose to be a policy page governing all of fiction I think it may be too narrow for lists. The intent seems well placed, but the wording would likely exclude any chapter or episode summaries as that could take up a significant portion of the list.

An author's interpretation of a work of fiction should never be reported as simple fact, but should be clearly attributed to the author. Active effort should be made to find perspectives other than the author's for all articles dealing with fiction. An article that has no perspectives beyond that of the work's creators is unlikely to sufficiently establish real-world context.

I'm not sure that is nessasarily the case, particularly that last line. A lot of less notable works of fiction have reviews, but they do not really review the perspective of the work or element. If they do is often is a vague comment like "It was filled with chiches" or "It was a great work of fiction."

Finally for "Elements of fiction" a world overview might be considered permissiable under specifal considerations as well. The most obvious examples would be those that fall under "Extreme long-form works," but other reasons can include multiple related titles such as .hack or Disgaea. That is usually handled, as the links show, in a series page.じんない 21:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn on lists, but should probably add some language to the effect that "fictional topics important to understanding the work as a whole but which lack significant real world perspectives are often dealt with via list articles that provide brief summaries of the topics." I'm not entirely convinced that .hack or Disgaea are not, ultimately, extreme long-form works, but I've reworked that and the lead section you found problematic to better clarify. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think the brief 1 line mention at the bottom is enough for lists. First, shorter works such a 1 season TV shows or video games without sequals or spinoffs currently have lists. This has become ingraned to the point it has become in some Wikiprojects common practice to begin splitting these off even before they reach B- or even C-class. I know you are reluctant to deal with lists, but face it: unless we have another seperate policy on lists specifically (guideline won't matter because people will refer back to this and other policies) it will only cause more chaos and turmoil than currently.

Basically something like

Listings of elements of fiction

At times there may be certain elements, such as characters, chapters, episodes or other narrative devices that are nessasary for a more complete understanding of the work as a whole. These elements may not be notable enough to warrant their own article but none-the-less their removal will leave the reader missing of important context by which to judge the real-world importance and impact of the fictional work. However for more casual readers uninterested in context this can bog down the article. Because of this it has become common practice to split certain types of elements into lists.

Lists may contain a lot more plot than their parent article because each element must be described. However, the overall length of each element is usually one to two short pargraphs. In addition lists must still conform with our other policies and guidelines and show verifiable real-world importance. If they cannot they will likely be remerged or deleted.

I admit my typing is a bit wordy, but I think something along those lines is nessasary if this is to be a policy on fiction as a whole; fiction includes list of fictional elements after all.

Fair enough. My aversion to lists is probably unnecessary, given that this is not a notability guideline. I don't want to base the issue on notability (a word I'm generally trying to avoid throughout this page), but I'll work up a section on lists. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

List section added. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

to summarize

This is a very informative essay. Like your old proposal at WP:FICT, it spends a lot of time explaining and justifying, before it hits the point about what the "rule" actually should be. So I went over it and tried to extract the rules.

1. Fiction as cultural artifact: establish and explain real-world importance
2. Types of real world impact: real-world importance can be social, cultural, or artistic
3. Plot: articles that are only plot should be deleted, unless real-world impact can be found. plot summaries should be concise.
4. Real-world information: real-world information should be relevant to the work, and not any old anecdote
5. Authorial intent and NPOV: the author's intent is just one point of view, and other points of view are necessary
6. Sourcing: primary sources are acceptable to verify aspects of the plot, provided there is no WP:OR. but secondary sources are necessary.
7. Extreme long-form works: covering the plot of a multi-episode work may take multiple articles.
8. Elements of fiction: fictional elements should meet the WP:GNG, while articles about episodes or other story sequences should consist of more than just plot

It seems to me like this is all one big essay to support the value of WP:NOT#PLOT. You explain what that real-world information is necessary, and the kinds of information that are necessary to meet this requirement. You also try to reign in excess plot summaries, and state explicitly that articles with nothing other than plot should not exist. This is true for 1-4

You also state that secondary sources are necessary in 5-6, which brings in some of WP:N.

So... WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GNG... isn't that more or less what people at the deletionist end of the spectrum are pushing for? Randomran (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm staying just short of the GNG, because I'm not demanding the secondary sources be independent. Nor am I setting up presenting only the author's view as a reason for deletion. I'm trying to stay actively away from notability here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a distinction worth making clear. But it sounds to me like the guideline would fundamentally be NOT#PLOT, if we were to put this in a nutshell. Randomran (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - which is part of my motivation in proposing it, given that there does not appear to be consensus for NOT#PLOT in WP:NOT, even though there is consensus for its main contention. So moving it to be situated in an independent guideline that contextualizes the issue seems to me desirable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! Randomran (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)