Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Draft revision/Archive 1

I might add more examples in - like some of the ones given by Quack688 Dr Aaron 13:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! I've added a chunk about the possible alternatives when combining choice of perspective with choice of sources. I'm planning my next edit in a couple of days - I'd like to think for a while about these points first:

Nutshell statement? Maybe not now, but later, once the draft's taken shape, we can think of something which really sums it up.

Reference styles - do you have any citing preferences for the different styles of writing I mentioned?

Is there an article out there which meets all our standards already? If not, but it's close, and if we know something about the topic, I'd suggest we have a go about bringing it up to the level we want, to use as the prime example of our style revision in action.

I'm also thinking about a proposal regarding notability. Wikipedia:Notability (films) attempts to define some criteria which make a film notable in its own right. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) goes into some depth about fictional subjects, but not about what makes a work of fiction notable in its own right.

Perhaps add something there about extended notability as well. Like how the Discworld universe makes the Rincewind character notable and the All Your Base real-world craze made the Zero Wing game/universe notable. Quack 688 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! By way of response:

• I'm not big on the nutshell statement and I don't really like the old one.
• I don't have a citing preferencing for reference styles - I tend to use what articles already use. If you feel one style is particularly good, maybe drop it into the referencing section.
• I've added a bunch of examples - I really think the Firefly series is a great piece of writing. I think having good examples is the key to making this piece work.
• I wasn't keen to set specific guidelines for notability beyond what I said in the five key principles section. Personally, I reckon when you start perscribing set features of notability, you end up with overzealous admins putting lots of article up for deletion. On the other hand, if you think you can encapsulate the essence of fictional notability, feel free to have a crack at it.
• I agree an extra line about extended notability might be practical.

Dr Aaron 12:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I wanted "extended notability" mentioned was to give examples of subjects that are indirectly notable, but require different fiction/real-world balances. The section you added regarding Captain Jack and Leeroy addresses this issue nicely. Hopefully, that means we can leave the judgement of what makes fiction notable to common sense - if we have problems, we can always fine-tune later on, and possibly add another note about extended notability at that time.

The only question I have is regarding succession boxes. I personally don't have a drama if they're used when appropriate. By appropriate, I'm thinking of an epic novel series that tells a story for generations (such an epic could also use something like a family tree in the main article), or a starship that goes through a large number of captains (instead of duplicating all of the starship's history on the ship and captain pages, there could be a basic history of the ship on its own page, and more detailed histories of events during each captain's realm on each captain's page). OTOH, I don't think that a succession box for a list of something like two characters is appropriate. The primary purpose of these boxes, as I see it, is to make navigation between subjects with some sort of succession easier.

That's just a nitpick, though - overall, things are looking in great shape! Especially with those examples. I'll have another read tomorrow. Quack 688 13:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had taken the "critical view" of succession boxes from the existing MoS. Their justification is that fiction is malleable and changes to the fictional universe could change the succession. My view is that Wikipedia is equally malleable and can easily be updated. I agree with you that they can be valuable tool for fiction as well as non-fiction.

Seeing as we are writing a new MoS from the ground up, we mind as well take this opportunity to get rid of the ban on succession boxes and just focus on what should best go in an infobox. I've made the appropriate modification.

Thx again. Dr Aaron 11:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I put back a caution on succession boxes after looking back on some old discussion about their tendency to encourage the introduction of pages on non-notable characters. Dr Aaron 04:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked in here in a while - I'm glad to see it's still ticking along, and that it hasn't drawn any heavy criticism. Two things I'd like to ask about:

1) Notability - I'm still seeing WP:FICTION being thrown around a lot, with this paragraph being used to justify the deletion of fiction articles:

"Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article."

This quote from a user on a recent AfD is an example of the problem as I see it: "Being mentioned in the series isn't notability. Being mentioned in third-party critical analysis by reliable sources is notability."

If the draft proposal gets approved, it might be worth looking at that notability page, just to make sure it's consistent with the new MoS. Even if we don't use a strict criteria based on sales figures or awards, like for film notability, I still think there needs to be some thought into what makes a work of fiction, and by extension subjects within that work of fiction, notable in their own right (either as their own article or as part of a larger one). If we leave a conflict between the MoS and the notability guideline, one of the two will be replaced, and I'd prefer it if our work survived that face-off.

2) I really liked the way that inconsistencies like Bart's age and Bender's chest capacity were dealt with in my examples on the MoS talk page in out-of-u style, but with in-u sources - I'd like to add another section including those examples, but I'm not sure where to put it, and you've done an excellent job tidying up the draft, so I'll leave it in your capable hands. There should also be a note that, in my opinion at least, reasoning like that presented in Bart's example doesn't constitute original research, as long as all the facts are properly sourced, and the chain of logical reasoning isn't broken.

Actually, one last point on examples in general - I'd like to see a couple of very short (two, three line) examples of each writing style contained within the article of the draft, just to make it clear what each writing style actually is, before linking to articles that use all these styles in various combinations. Quack 688 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I had another look at WP:FICTION - the examples there actually make it easier to change the policy-in-a-nutshell at the top of the page. Look at the list of examples, especially those like Noonien Soong and Horses of Middle-earth. They've got no cited examples of influencing the real world, yet they're listed as examples of the guideline. I'd suggest that leaves the way open for us to consider an edit of the guideline - one that reflects not only our MoS views, but that reflects the examples listed in its own policy. Namely, that for the plot outline of a work of fiction, it's advisable to include examples of how it impacted the real world, in terms of sales of otherwise. But once the work itself is accepted as notable, you don't have to prove how Noonien Soong influenced the real world before writing an article about this character. (Of course, any examples of real-world interaction for such characters are more than welcome.)Quack 688 07:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that WP:FICTION examples are not the best: while they are notable, the pages are not all written to explain the real-world significance or even the in-universe significance!

I take your points about

• giving examples of the writing styles in the example boxes and
• incorporating the bart/bender example

I'll think about the best way to integrate them.

That said, it seems like the revision has stalled a bit - not many people seem to be making comments. I'm tempted to be bold, but I really do want more feedback. Particularly from people who like the current manual of style! Dr Aaron 07:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I liked the "disputed - please visit discussion" box on Wikipedia:Notability - what if you threw one of them on the main MoS page, then point them here on the MoS discussion thread? It'd be sure to get some attention. Of couse, no need to do that right now - I'm happy to wait until any new changes are made, and we get some last feedback from the local MoS "community", as small as it is, before putting it out there for everyone. Quack 688 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm going away for a few days, but I might do that when I get back. Cheers, Dr Aaron 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Other additions

Perhaps other things should be included as well. For instance a repeat of the use of italics for titles of works of fiction, and the use of quotes for titles of episodes/chapters when writing the article. A list of the useful "reference" templates, imdb script etc. I don't know. Surely we can distill more useful guidelines from the various WProjects. When it comes to these articles. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the edits

I just went through the history to look at what has been changed - I like the new version even better, although I did just slightly change the formating of the "see also" statements so they are more of a reference at the end of a section rather than seeming like a link to a main article. Thanks Dr Aaron 10:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical status

I noticed that this page has acquired a historical status. Basically, I've tried to affect some positive changes to what I consider to be a poorly written and often ill conceived guideline. While I've had some really great and critical support for my efforts, there has been a core of people who prefer to retain a status quo that I doubt will actually influence people on Wikipedia to write better articles.

As such, I am abandoning my efforts to change the policy - someone can put this up as an article for deletion. I've ceased to care and rather than continuing to write increasingly embittered monologues, I instead will try to walk (limp?) away with a modicum of style.

I've saved a copy of this draft for my own records, and I might try again in a year or two (although I doubt it), or should someone contact me for a copy.

Dr Aaron 13:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)