Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Responses: Reply
Responses: Reply
Line 114: Line 114:
*:{{ping|Redrose64}} May I ask why you chose these specifics qualifiers, specifically that it should be a "character portrayed by a notable actor, and [that] filming took place"? If a character has their own page, we can assume that the character itself provides [[WP:N|notability]], so further proof of notability shouldn't be required. As for the filming aspect, what about a case wherein Directer A has stated he wrote a film script with the intention of using Character B but ultimately changed it to Character C before casting? Wouldn't recognizing this intent be worthy of noting within Character B's article (assuming, of course, that Character B is notable enough to have an article)? [[User:The Ghost of Art Toys Past|The Ghost of Art Toys Past]] ([[User talk:The Ghost of Art Toys Past|talk]]) 11:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Redrose64}} May I ask why you chose these specifics qualifiers, specifically that it should be a "character portrayed by a notable actor, and [that] filming took place"? If a character has their own page, we can assume that the character itself provides [[WP:N|notability]], so further proof of notability shouldn't be required. As for the filming aspect, what about a case wherein Directer A has stated he wrote a film script with the intention of using Character B but ultimately changed it to Character C before casting? Wouldn't recognizing this intent be worthy of noting within Character B's article (assuming, of course, that Character B is notable enough to have an article)? [[User:The Ghost of Art Toys Past|The Ghost of Art Toys Past]] ([[User talk:The Ghost of Art Toys Past|talk]]) 11:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
*::The RfC question was {{tq|Is it appropriate to include a fictional character's non-appearance in a film in the character's article?}}. I answered that with an example where such an event verifiably occurred. Now, apparently, I need to justify my example. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 12:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
*::The RfC question was {{tq|Is it appropriate to include a fictional character's non-appearance in a film in the character's article?}}. I answered that with an example where such an event verifiably occurred. Now, apparently, I need to justify my example. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 12:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
*:::I apologize if you were offended by my question. I did not mean you needed to justify your answer, but I wanted to understand why you mentioned the specific limitations that you did. Once again, my apologies if this was interpreted as rude. [[User:The Ghost of Art Toys Past|The Ghost of Art Toys Past]] ([[User talk:The Ghost of Art Toys Past|talk]]) 10:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
* '''Generally no''' unless there is significant discussion in a reliable independent source of the character's non-appearance. That would not include an editor's own comment that a character does not appear (per [[WP:OR]]), nor a similar statement sourced to a fan site, some other wiki, or a mere database. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
* '''Generally no''' unless there is significant discussion in a reliable independent source of the character's non-appearance. That would not include an editor's own comment that a character does not appear (per [[WP:OR]]), nor a similar statement sourced to a fan site, some other wiki, or a mere database. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
*:Pardon my confusion, but are you are basically stating "'''No''', unless the information is [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]]", correct? As '''all''' information on Wikipedia should be reliably sourced, I do not understand why this is not a '''Yes''' vote. I look forward to understanding your reasoning better. Thank you. [[User:The Ghost of Art Toys Past|The Ghost of Art Toys Past]] ([[User talk:The Ghost of Art Toys Past|talk]]) 08:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
*:Pardon my confusion, but are you are basically stating "'''No''', unless the information is [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]]", correct? As '''all''' information on Wikipedia should be reliably sourced, I do not understand why this is not a '''Yes''' vote. I look forward to understanding your reasoning better. Thank you. [[User:The Ghost of Art Toys Past|The Ghost of Art Toys Past]] ([[User talk:The Ghost of Art Toys Past|talk]]) 08:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:57, 20 May 2022

WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Plot timelines

This manual of style doesn't say much about timelines. I'm trying to formulate a short description of consensus best practices on timelines, but I think it would be pretty short and simple based on how consistently these are deleted or removed. Most of these fictional timelines were deleted in 2007-2008, and call back to a time where Wikipedia was still trying to manage the explosion of original research and content forks.

I pulled this list of AFDs from an older AFD I participated in, and organized it for a recent discussion where the related category was eventually deleted.

List of deleted timelines of fictional events

I found a 2007 discussion about this, which was was short but negative. My best description of our current practice is that plot information should be presented as prose instead of a bulleted list with dates. I'm interested to hear if anyone else has a better summary of our current practice. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken, fictional timelines — either in an article or as an article — are not allowed. As per MOS:PLOT, "Plot summaries should be written as prose, not as lists or timelines." As such, I am uncertain what you are seeking to discuss. Can you please clarify? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exemptions for religious scripture

Is the exemption to in-universe perspective for religious scriptures justified? Why does, for example, the fiction at Moses#Biblical_narrative get special treatment over something like Lord of the Rings? - Khendon (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no exemption. We live in the same universe as Moses, and the Biblical account dovetails with the section right below it labelled "Historicity". The blurred lines between fact and fiction is true of a lot of mythical culture heroes, including Gilgamesh or King Arthur. I'm sure those lines will be blurred for us thousands of years from now, but if anyone reads this, I hope this proves I was a real person. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on including non-appearances of characters in films

This has been discussed at WT:Comics many times (one, two three, four, five), and I'm putting this here to get more/outside perspectives.

Over the last three decades, there have been many superhero films. During development, many characters are considered for inclusion, but not used. Some planned films die in Development hell. Some characters are alluded to in the film, but not actually present. Examples for your consideration include a director tweeting that a character was considered, an obvious Easter Egg, unfilmed scripts, and visual references to the character.

With every new film, there is a wave a editors wanting to add these non-appearances to character articles. There is a large volume of websites catering to fans, and reasonably-acceptable sources can usually be located to support any Easter Egg. The best-sourced material of this kind is often included in franchise articles like Spider-Man in film, but those pages do not always exist.

Is it appropriate to include a fictional character's non-appearance in a film in the character's article? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

  • No - A character's article should be focused on the history and real-world development of the character. I don't see how including this kind of information informs a reader about a character, as there's no development, analysis, or lasting impact. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First, thank you for bringing this topic to greater discussion. Now, if I may, let me hypothetically propose a scenario. Pretend that a treasure trove of notes by Stan Lee were uncovered, in which it reveals that he considered including Spider-Man in the original Avengers team. Would this information be worthy of inclusion in articles? And, if so, how is that different from any other "verifiable non-appearance"? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this hypothetical, I would include the information in the article The Avengers (comic book), since the material is relating to the creation of that comic book. If the notes explained that Spider-Man wasn't included because of the themes and long-term plans for the character, and if those same comments are not already present in Spider-Man through other sources, it might be worth a mention in the development section of Spider-Man. However, I would craft it so the focus was on Lee's idea of who Spider-Man is, not on the near-membership in a superhero team. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Argento Surfer: Thank you very much for this reply. I think I understand your position much better now. It is not that such information doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia, but that such information doesn't belong on the character's page and should rather be restricted to the "source" (aka movie) page. Is that correct? If so, I can certainly see where the thought process comes from better. Does this stem from the way many character articles are separated by media (comic history and then appearances in other media)? I dislike that separation myself, as one can affect the other — such as how the tone of '60s Batman TV show altered the tone of the comics, as the program was popular and DC wanted to capitalize on it. If a character's non-fictional, behind-the-scenes history integrated all media together, would that affect your stance? And, as always, thank you for the continued discussion. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: I agree with Argento Surfer on this, as they are almost always trivial. BOZ (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally No unless it was clear during production that the character was to appear (having been cast etc) and forwhatwver reason that never made it to final. But this be beyond the scope of rumors, and come from sources of high quality. --Masem (t) 14:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cases like that would have to be an exception, and should be allowed, unlike the vast majority of things that people seem to think we should include. "So-and-so was one of the names listed on a computer screen", "so-and-so's equipment appeared on screen", "so-and-so was mentioned by name or by description" etc, just add nothing of value at all. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted, I agree that situation should be exceptional, hence my "no" to the general question --Masem (t) 21:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As by way of perfect example news that the planned Wonder Twins film being canned is something to note re appearances on the Wonder Twins page. --Masem (t) 22:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, it depends on how much trivial is the case. If things have gone beyond the mere idea, if there's someone noteworthy to say about the case (as in Dr. Octopus case, Morbius, of the characters initially removed from the Snyder Cut) then it makes sense to mention them. We do have whole standalone articles about Category:Unreleased films, this is a similar idea. As for Easter eggs, they should be left out in most cases. However, if they cause some continuity snarl so that later works have to fix it, then yes. There was an Infinity Gauntlet in the background in Thor, this made no sense when the stones started to appear, so they had to take a moment in Ragnarok to point that it was a fake. Besides, those things may actually be a case of foreshadowing; but as it's difficult to recognize those, we should only mention this if the creators confirm such an intention or if the foreshadowed thing actually happens later. Cambalachero (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if it's a significant character portrayed by a notable actor, and filming took place. See for example the last paragraph of Peeves: if you have read the books, and are familiar with Rik Mayall's work, you'll understand why he was perfect casting for that role, and it's a crying shame that all his scenes were cut. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And if it's not a significant character portrayed by a notable actor, and/or filming did not take place? BOZ (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: May I ask why you chose these specifics qualifiers, specifically that it should be a "character portrayed by a notable actor, and [that] filming took place"? If a character has their own page, we can assume that the character itself provides notability, so further proof of notability shouldn't be required. As for the filming aspect, what about a case wherein Directer A has stated he wrote a film script with the intention of using Character B but ultimately changed it to Character C before casting? Wouldn't recognizing this intent be worthy of noting within Character B's article (assuming, of course, that Character B is notable enough to have an article)? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC question was Is it appropriate to include a fictional character's non-appearance in a film in the character's article?. I answered that with an example where such an event verifiably occurred. Now, apparently, I need to justify my example. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if you were offended by my question. I did not mean you needed to justify your answer, but I wanted to understand why you mentioned the specific limitations that you did. Once again, my apologies if this was interpreted as rude. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally no unless there is significant discussion in a reliable independent source of the character's non-appearance. That would not include an editor's own comment that a character does not appear (per WP:OR), nor a similar statement sourced to a fan site, some other wiki, or a mere database. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon my confusion, but are you are basically stating "No, unless the information is reliably sourced", correct? As all information on Wikipedia should be reliably sourced, I do not understand why this is not a Yes vote. I look forward to understanding your reasoning better. Thank you. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the examples given by the OP are essentially trivial facts that are no doubt verifiably true, and which may merit a mention on fan sites, Twitter and so on, but but which have not, so far as I can see, been the subject of substantive discussion in reliable independent sources - hence my Generally no opinion.
    You have said Yes (conditionally), on the basis (in part) that verifiable non-appearances are potentially important to a fictional character's article. That of course is true in some cases, but more often than not editors want to add a non-appearance on the basis of mere verifiablity and bare mention rather than on reliable sources that actually discuss the non-appearance. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends Not appearing can itself be notable if the reason behind it is important. Senorangel (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends - Summoned by bot. Like any info in any article, any info can be added if it's properly sourced and significant. That's easy. It seems the issue is that there's a wide range of interpretation of what's significant. Die hard fans will labor over the most intricate details of the plot, while non-fans might argue for avoiding a plot summary altogether. My personal feeling is to give some leeway to the detail oriented editors, unless the info they want to add is truly excessive, such as overusing multiple lines of dialog (going into Copyvio territory), or including scene by scene summaries. So long answer short, discuss on a case by case basis, but don't make a blanket rule, except for this one. ;-) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtempleton: Unless I am mistaken, what you are saying is not necessarily true, specifically about allowing leeway concerning intricate plot summaries. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia specifies that articles on creative works should include "concise" / "succinct plot summaries" (WP:PLOT & MOS:PLOT), thus the allowing of "intricate details of the plot" should not be allowed. "For fictional elements," according to MOS:PLOT, "details of creation and other relevant real-world information are more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element within the work." In other words, unless I am mistaken, including the fictional history is essential only because it provides context to the production/behind-the-scenes thrust of the fictional element's article. Thank you. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    a wide range of interpretation of what's significant Sorry for being unclear - the primary issue is not which appearances are significant, but if a non-appearance of a character is significant, such as an unfilmed script, or Doctor Octopus' tentacles being shown in the background unattached to Doctor Octopus, who is not otherwise in the film. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (conditionally) — While an article devoted to a character should include their canonical, fictional history, my understanding is that the majority of the article should inform the reader of the history behind the character — as per WP:NOTPLOT, the emphasis of articles should be on "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the article's topic. As such, I believe that verifiable non-appearances are potentially important to a fictional character's article, similar to how a comic book series' article could include a never-released storyline, a movie's article should include an unproduced sequel, and an author's article would mention a major unfinished work. This is all reliant, of course, on a reliable source discussing/confirming the non-appearance, that including the non-appearance doesn't impose undue weight on the article itself, and that any/all "verifiable non-appearances" are not presented as a simple list. Thank you for reading my thoughts. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally no, and I'm taking my cues from the experienced editors bringing this up, and trusting that they need some input from the wider Wikipedia community to help with misguided editors. There may be some extraordinary circumstances where a character's non-appearance looms large. (Maybe their death in the last episode is a major storyline in the current episode.) But that should come from meaningful coverage in a reliable secondary source -- not there mere verifiability that they're not in that piece of media. There is an endless list of media that people haven't appeared in, and if we start doing that, it's finally time for me to demand a "List of media Shooterwalker has not appeared in" list. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]