Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction

Template:FixBunching

An editor is urging abandonment of Fiction MOS

I hadn't wanted to bring this up, but a WikiProject Comics editor, over the course of a couple months now, has gone from merely saying he doesn't want to follow this MOS to actively advocating for the abandonment of what he calls this "idiotic manual of style".

The editor, Dream Focus, does so near the bottom of Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man. The article itself is a blatant, blanket violation of every aspect of this MOS. It has been nominated three times for deletion, and each time rescued by, and I'm sorry to use this term, fanboys who treat Wikipedia like free server space for their fan sites.

I'd like to ask any concerned members of the Fiction Project, including admins, to please, please go this article with an eye toward deleting it and helping to establish that the writing-about-fiction MOS matters. (A task force of several editors put a much shorter, up-to-MOS-standard version on the main Spider-Man page.)

When it's gotten to the point where fanboys are now urging others to ignore the MOS for writing about fiction, and turning Wikipedia articles into fan sites, that will, in the long run, hurt Wikipedia's credibility. In the short run, it denigrates all the thought, care, hard work and consensus here that led to the writing-about-fiction MOS. Please see Fictional history of Spider-Man and see for yourselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This style guide itself is not entirely clear as to its objectives. If I had to guess...the primary thrust seems to seem to be that one should minimize synopsis or description of works of art and literature for the "common man" but instead provide a scholarly analysis of the work's significance and place in real history with emphasis on a comparative art/literature approach.

There is, however, a pretentious danger to this emphasis. While this all appears very highly academic at first glance, most writers and artist tend to say such academic analysis is usually a crock that many times attributes significance or intent that quite often is not there, especially by author intent. So whether you can quote a published thesis or book or not, such pure scholarly analysis is often pure ego of the analyst. Worse there tend to be more numerous opinions on the possible significance of the work than can be published in one locations - everyone who analyzes the work for academic credit has their own opinion. Picking foremost authorities on art and literature is most often simply a popularity contest at a given point in time and space in the academic world. Its all subjective opinion.

Perhaps a more reasonable format would be one that combines a simple abstract of the historical and bibliographic occurrence of the work, synopsis information for the common non-academic, and limited and ever changing critical commentary on significance topped by introduction or use of artistic technique. Accuracy and of course organization are of course still key to wikipedia reputation, but I think the part where Wikipedia positions itself an authoritative source of scholarly critique (telling people how they should think and react to various works) is maybe not so important or desirable.

The governing body of Wikipedia fails to remember that comparative literature-art approaches were originally intended for "learning via discussion" but often are corrupted "to persuasion through learning" neither of which Wikipedia should attempt. I suspect recognition of this and the failure to serve the non-academic crowd is the source of rebellion against your prescribed format. That the objectives and intent of your format is not entirely clear except via interpretation of multiple examples.

99.61.36.244 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of full names in character articles

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Buffy Summers#Full name regarding the inclusion of her middle name in the lead sentence, and whether or not it is significant enough to mention. Given this guidelines area of focus, I felt it would be appropriate to ask people to weigh in at the article talk page their opinion on the use of "full names" for fictional characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential changes to WAF

There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present fictional characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listing commonly used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for this page to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple(r) English

Is there a chance this MOS will have a Simple English version? or any other Wikipedia guidelines, for that matter?Alphapeta (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Chronology in "In fiction" sections?

What about articles that have "In fiction" sections such as Quileute people? Should the order of the list be chronological or by importance/notability? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're best bet is to always say a neutral as possible. In that case, chronological order is always the best way to go. Who is to claim that one thing is more important over another. It's too subjective. Best to stay objective and neutral.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"In-Universe" is inside our Universe

Ontology

The study of Being and existence; includes the definition and classification of entities, physical or mental, the nature of their properties, and the nature of change.

Metaphysics

Resignation of Shirley Sherrod

To summarize:

The Department of Agriculture reacted to the story of Fox News.

Fox News carried the story of a conservative blog-site.

The conservative blog-site carried the story of a video submission.

The video submission "creatively edited" the historic wisdom-tale Ms. Sherrod was telling an audience.

And finally, the historic wisdom-tale Sherrod told concerned her realization of the fictional world she had been living in prior to her experience with a poor white farmer ("I won't help a white farmer, because white people aren't really poor.")

Now, telling this last story, accurately, in its complete form, and all its essential details is the crux of the whole controversy; this tale was edited to reach an entirely different conclusion.

Similarly, fiction of any kind has an artistic, metaphorical, and emotional reach that non-fiction simply cannot faithfully reproduce. Its power over the public conciousness demands a certain respect in its treatment, both in general and specific cases. That is why the details matter. That is what makes an "In-Universe" discussion a necessary element of the analysis of a story's real-world impact. --TheLastWordSword --208.83.126.102 (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Universe" in "in-universe" refers to the universe as bounded by the fiction of the work. Harry Potter's universe involves wizards and muggles and magic; Star Wars' universe involve Jedi and aliens and space battles, etc. "Out-of-universe" is speaking to how the fiction impacts "our" real world. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This btw is the reason why I prefer the "in-universe" vs. "real-world" nomenclature.
I believe 208.83.126.102's actual confusion regards in-universe presentation on the one hand and plot summary based on primary sources on the other. The former is a big no-no, the latter is of course a necessary element for almost all articles related to a work of fiction; and they are not the same, as some people believe -- although the guideline imho clearly differentiates, if one cares to read it. --78.35.214.158 (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Jump to Conclusions?

Is it appropriate for a style guide to use the pun "jump to conclusions" in its introductory section? Jiyuztex (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What wording would you propose? I for one believe it does no harm and guidelines don't necessarily need to be all "serious business". Most of our editors (including myself) aren't professional writers; a matter-of-factly general stance, supplemented by a collegial and, in the right dosage, occasionally informal tone can help draw readers into the page and keep them reading. However, I should openly declare a possible bias as to the current wording insofar as I am the original author. --78.35.214.158 (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)