Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction

Template:FixBunching

Referencing

This guideline appears to say that referencing is mandatory. As far as I am aware, referencing is not mandatory. No wiki editor acting in good faith should ever delete any material simply becaus it is unreferenced. He is permitted to do so if it remains unreferenced after requesting references and patiently waiting a reasonable time for a response, with the very important proviso that he also believes it to be wrong information. Deleting information an editor believes true, but which happens not to be referenced is a severe violation of the whole principle of the encyclopedia. There are a number of quality standards which require referencing, but this is icing on the cake. It is perfectly in order for someone to write an entire article off the top of their head without references, which they or someone else can add later. It is a quality issue, not an inclusion issue. Sandpiper (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's ambiguous - WP:N certainly seems to support some level of deletion due to lack of referencing. But I think part of it is also that fiction articles historically have a particularly low standard of quality, and there is some desire to combat that aggressively - which I can understand. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandpiper, there's more to it than believing it to be wrong information. If no reference is included, and is it believed that no citable reference exists, then it is interpreted as WP:OR, and it may also be removed. The remaining discussion concerning WAF is just how much you can rely upon primary sources. That's where things become more confusing. -Verdatum (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that going overboard in one direction in reaction to someone going overboard the opposite way is equally unacceptable. Referencing has always been used on wiki to settle arguments. It is grossly overrated as a guarantee of accuracy and any recourse to referencing in an attempt to improve accuracy should be taken with great caution. However, once again this is an issue of policing wiki rather than really a question about lots of inaccurate content appearing anywhere. My interpretation is not ambiguous. Nothing in core policy is ambiguous: all riggle room is there because someone insisted upon it. It is the same sort of fundamental principle as the one which states wiki editors are required to carry out original research, because obviously that is the only way to create non-copyright content drawn from a balance of reputable sources. As you say, Verdatum, editors are permitted to remove challenged unreferenced information, but it would be vandalism of the encyclopedia to do so if they felt the information was valid.

This guideline has always been insanely twisted by conflating a polemic against in-universe content with a guide to what content ought to be in a well balanced article about a work of fiction. For example, it still contains the lie An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading... An in-universe perspective is a style of writing and can be used or abused just as any other. This guide has always been the home of a vendetta against something largely invented on wiki solely for the purpose of denegrating it, in-universe writing. In-universe writing is the normal way to summarise and describe a work of fiction. It is not the normal way to discuss background information about a work, but most encyclopedias would be baffled by creating this style distinction solely to ban it. Obviously, the way to summarise the plot of the work is with an in-universe piece of prose. That is what is always done. Obviously, the way to discuss the publishing history is by some more in-(real) universe prose saying it was this publisher first, then that, then out of print, whatever. Normal people do not argue about whether a particular section of an article is describing the fiction or describing the context. It is all just prose writing. The whole concept was popularised here for the purposes of arguing that articles on wiki should not be exclusively about the plot, and the result of this nonsense is still with us.

I agree that an article about fiction should not be solely about the plot. Exactly how much must depend on the specific subject and what is appropriate and needed for the discussion. This guide ought to say that the best way to describe the plot is in a style which will be natural to the reader, which is to say largely or exclusively in-universe. This should not be prescriptive, but natural. It may be entirely natural to interrupt the narrative with real world interjections, such as to explain that the story now continued in a second volume, or next episode, or whatever. But this has been taken to extreme lengths arguing that the narrative must be so interrupted, when good style and common sense say that a simple short story style is best. I personally find it equally objectionable to be given an instruction that an article must be entirely in-universe as out-universe. It should naturally swap between the two as most appropriate to the section in question. All this guide need say is that it should contain more than a simple plot description, list plot description as one essential element, and explain what other elements are needed.

With regard to an article describing the plot of a work of fiction, this must be based upon the primary source itself. It is absurd to say this can be based upon secondary sources. All wiki articles are created by editors summarising a source. There is no difference to the process involved in accurately summarising a primary source to that involved in summarising secondary sources. It relies upon original research done by editors and can not be guaranteed by any number of additional references. The primary source is an unimpeachable one when it comes to the actual story line, and has the added benefit that since there is only one, there is no issue in resolving contradictory views. The policy of NPOV is relevant, because there is a requirement for editors to honestly report a source in a balanced way which applies just as much whatever kind of source is being reported. A plot summary is an essential part of a description of a work of fiction, is always included in any discussion about such a work, and is a useful piece of encyclopedic information in its own right. It requires no secondary source to justify its accuracy. As to noteability, very few articles on wiki contain references for the purpose of establishing their own noteability. This is usually presumed, as for example by the simple publication of a book being evidence that it is sufficiently noteable that there ought to be an article about it. Now, as to other facts about the work, these may require sourcing. Reviews may be cited to say the character was weak, the plot innovative. But as a general principle of all wiki content, sources are only needed after an argument develops over accuracy. Sandpiper (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are arguing that a work of fiction is notable just because it is a book, I don't support that view, nor do I support your view that just because the primary source is a book, then you don't have to cite book pages or at least chapters (or scenes for films). The fact is that works of fiction can be accurately referenced just as easily as secondary sources can. Citations should be provided, if only because:

• The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation (WP:V);
• Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented (WP:OR).

It is true that most plot summaries are not referenced, but just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it does not mean that this practise is appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of published works is the scope of WP:BK, there is no need to go off-topic of WAF here.

So perhaps I've missed something, but I've never known a policy or guideline that strictly states when it is necessary to specify locations (page, chapter, scene, etc.) for an inline citation. I realize that holding strict to citation practices, one should provide an inline citation to the primary work when discussing aspects of the plot. I'm always happy to see such a citation, and I'd certainly never remove it. However, when the primary source in question is the article's topic, I've never had any problem with an implied citation for simple uncontroversial and unsynthesized facts about the work. Anyone who feels otherwise can easily add the citation themselves. -Verdatum (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing the plot summary should be encouraged, particularly for nuanced points or critical plot details (eg who the identity of Kaiser Soze is in The Usual Suspects), but it is general not required (eg it won't be purged ala WP:V's claim about unsourced information) in the article building process. However, once you start up the quality ladder to GA to FA, you are going to be asked to source the plot. So it's best to encourage it from the start. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries are implicitly referenced to the primary source, which is an appropriate source for them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that is what a lot of editors would like to believe, thereby relieving them of having to provide any citations. But I think WP:V and WP:OR are pretty clear that that view is not soundly based. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that plot summaries sourced to the primary source are clearly verifiable, and do not violate NOR assuming that they are, in fact, accurate. The question is whether every plot summary needs a footnote stating the obvious - that it is based on the thing it is summarizing. This is clearly not the case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Whenever this issue has come up on one of the main policy pages and I have taken an interest, the result has been as I stated. The view has been that no good editor would challenge or delete valid content merely because it has no attached reference. References might be helpful or perhaps even desireable, but are not essential. Gavin Collins, I asume you posted a precise quote of the rule as it currently exists. It seems to say (1) if you include a quote it is i necessary to say precisely where it comes from, (2) material challenged or likely to be challenged...must be attributed. Thus no requirement to attribute anything which has not been challenged or is not likely to be challenged. The sentence starts by talking about 'burden of evidence'. Obviously the whole section is talking about what to do in a confrontational situation, where a challenge has taken place. This says nothing explicitly about what the proper behaviour of an editor is when faced by a non referenced situation, but obviously the answer is (1) add some references himself or (2) do absolutely nothing, because he sees no problem with the text aside from it not having a reference. Our task is to make articles better, which means adding to them and correcting mistakes, and also obviously not tampering with sections which have no obvious problems. The opposite reductio ad absurdum argument is also clear: if the above were not true then every single point, virtually every single word, would need to have its own reference. Is the word 'a' acceptable english usage? Do I need a ref to prove it?

With regard to ...editors would like to believe, thereby relieving them of having to provide any citations. ye what? Did you know that 'wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit'? This does not mean 'anyone can edit so long as he reads five million policy pages first and swears to follow every one even when they are unclear and contradictory'. It means he can just go in and add a line to an article contributing a fact. The proper act of another responsible editor coming across the new information is to accept it gratefully, unless he has some reason to worry it may be wrong. Only then does an issue of attribution or deletion arise. Masem makes the proper point, general referencing should normally be regarded as an 'added value' addition which is not normally required simply to create an article. It is perfectly fine to write a style guide explaining that referencing is useful, and considered necessary in the best articles, but it is not acceptable to imply it is mandatory in any kind of article about fiction, because it simply isn't.

I can't say exactly what the current standard for noteability of a book is (for book read any relevant media you wish), but the simple fact it exists and has public circulation implies it is a valid contender for an article in a reference source. Obviously, there are more books in existence than there are wiki articles, but in principle wiki is an unlimited encyclopedia. It is likely either wiki will fail, or it will simply grow indefinitely at the rate technology permits and contributors can write. Currently, if a book has received enough publicity for someone to think it worth writing about it (obviously, not the person who wrote it), then it is likely someone else may want to find out about it also and it deserves an article.

I notice no one has disagreed with my comment about the guide: For example, it still contains the lie 'An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading...' An in-universe perspective is a style of writing and can be used or abused just as any other. This still needs to be rectified. It is an even longer standing problem with this guide than the implication about mandatory referencing which seems to have crept in. Sandpiper (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that some editors like to think that not providing notations is not really necessary when citing a primary source, but in my experience of rewriting the article Kender, coverage that does not cite its source usually turns out to be inaccurate or original research. If you look through the archive, you will see that original research cleanup template was disuputed, but when we went through the article line be line, it was found that most if not all of the unattributed content had to be rewritten or dropped althogther because no source could be found to support some of the descriptions being made. As WP:WAF says, reference all information and cite your sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I have created a proposal at Wikipedia:Fiction for a new policy page discussing fiction issues in general - pulling heavily from WAF, but also from NOT#PLOT and some of the more agreed upon proposals to come up in notability debates. The goal is to create a single policy page that clearly establishes core principles of what it means to write about fiction in an encyclopedia about fact. I welcome comments and criticism at the talk page there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing this guideline so that is supports yours is out of order; if anything it should be the other way around. The round robin of changes: FICT, WAF then PLOT with each new change an attempt to water down each guideline so the other can be watered down is out of order. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries

There is a disparity between the written guideline and what actually happens. 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This section is, bluntly, very bad advice, and completely contrary to actual practice:

“ Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes"). This gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material. This style of writing should be preferred for plot summaries that encompass multiple works, such as a series of novels. Such conventions are not as important for plot summaries of single works, such as novels that are not part of a series; nevertheless, some real-world language at the beginning of such summaries is often good style. The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. ”

That's appallingly bad advice that will result in unreadable plot summaries. A good plot summary cannot work if over-laden with constant breaking of the suspension of disbelief, and keeping too detached makes the plot summary essentially unreadable: We need to strike a balance.

Furthermore, the last sentence is either essentially meaningless or appallingly bad. Are we seriously saying that we should make authors constantly redo their work on the plot summary as the article develops further, carefully keeping it in check so that it never becomes the slightest bit more developed than any other section? Are we living in the real world here? And worse, are we seriously saying that a section, otherwise fine, should be hacked to pieces merely because of length comparison? There is not a single other case in all of Wikipedia where we are stupid enough to recommend that good work be thrown away because it's too long compared to other work.

I propose all of this be replaced by something resembling these guidelines:

“ In general:

• Try to cover the main points of the plot, without getting bogged down in relatively insignificant details. If an incident is not particularly notable, then it should not appear in the article.
• A plot summary is not meant to substitute for the original work: it's primary purpose is to provide the reader with basic information about the work, such as the main characters, their motivations, and what happens in the story.
• More complex plots may require longer plot summaries, but should not devolve into covering every insignificant incident.
• Plot summaries should attempt to strike a balance between making it clear how important plot points are to the work as a whole and providing context for other sections of the article, which may provide criticism or analysis of specific sections of the plot. A good summary should, as much as possible, do both.
• The length of the plot summary should be appropriate to the article in question. An article on the critical reception of the work might only need a brief plot summary to put it in context, whereas the main article on a work that has had extensive critical analysis of its plot might require much more, simply to put the later sections discussing this analysis in context.
• Works where no or little discussion of the plot would ever be possible (usually because few or no reliable sources discuss it in any depth) should keep their plot summaries short. However, a plot summary should not be deleted or trimmed solely because it is temporarily more developed than the rest of the article: if the plot summary is likely to be fine once the rest of the article catches up, it should be left as-is.

”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is here to inform not to imerse. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that forgives simple bad writing advice. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a bald assertion that the wording is bad just because you disagree with it. Plot summaries can and should be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works. If they don't, they are composed in an imersive style which basically reads like its got "its head up its ass". If you are into that sort of in universe coverage, Wookieepedia is the place you can find lots of it. Here at Wikipedia, articles should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In-universe and literalist bible articles

I was reading the Elisha article, and to me it deserves the in-universe template. It's written through and through as the characters actually existed and the events described (often supernatural events) actually took place, when we have not a single corroborating source to rely on. I tagged the article with the in-universe template and it was promptly reverted with the indignant comment "since when is it Wiki policy to describe religious books as works of fiction?" Is Wikipedia a place for religious people to vaunt their special claims? Which religion takes priority? Alan Canon (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Elisha then beheld Elijah in a fiery chariot taken up by a whirlwind into heaven. "
• "The very touch of his corpse served to resuscitate a dead man."
• "That Elisha inherited the wonder-working power of Elijah is shown throughout the whole course of his life. "

Whether the Bible is fictional or not is disputed, so it is probably best that we don't blindly apply policy as if it is. The biography should have some "according to"'s added, though, I agree. --Tango (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In-universe plot summaries should be deleted or re-written - redirect all to the bible. no.. only joking. Don't we have any sort of "this religious article needs re-writing to have a NPOV" or something {{Bibical in-universe}} ?

I don't regard the Bible as fiction. Fictional works acknowledge that they're not real. I'd regard it as an unreliable source that other people regard as a reliable source. Andjam (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

For both non-fiction and fiction (whereever you may classify the bible) , excessive coverage of the content of the work without establishing context for that work is not helpful. That said, I would be very very careful applying WAF to the Bible (That's a brewing storm waiting to happen). --MASEM (t) 12:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Elisha is 75% "plot summary" (by paragraph, even more by words, I think), that doesn't seem to be a very good way to write an encyclopaedic article. It is tagged as start-class, though, so I guess the people writing it are aware of that. The basic principles behind WAF probably do apply to biblical characters and stories in the vast majority of cases, but it isn't worth the drama that would be caused by explicitly applying the policy. Just apply the principles behind it and nobody will notice! --Tango (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Scrubs

Feedback is requested at Talk:List of characters on Scrubs#Main character merges to decide how to handle the main characters of Scrubs. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. "

We should kill this text. It only makes improving articles difficult if otherwise good material is being cu for length alone in the early stages, when it would be fine later on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this sentence is fine because we have to give priority to other material than lengthly plot summaries. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not a paper encyclopedia, so that's not really our major concern: What is a concern is that this particular sentence forces much more time to be spent on plot summary, because it forces you to constantly rebalance the plot summary as the article expands. I'm not saying that we should remove the other guidelines that say that we need real-world context and so on, but this sentence' is just asking for us to throw out otherwise encyclopedic plot summaries, just because they're a little more developed than the rest of the article, then recreate them later. That's meaningless work that distracts from the other sections, instead of prioritising them. Alternatively, we could put a restrcition on it, e.g. "In a well-developed article, the length of a plot summary..." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it, because in other contexts I've come to appreciate you as a smart guy, but you're missing the point very much like all "inclusionists": Yes, we are not a paper encyclopedia. But we are an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic articles simply cannot consist at any time of merely a recounting of the plot. There is nothing more to say about it than that. Please just accept that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. 78.34.241.15 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read things before you respond to them. I'm trying to have a serious conversation on unfortunate consequences of a single badly-worded sentence; pretending that I'm suggesting deleting everything in the guideline related to balancing plot with other sections does not further discussion in the least. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In your above comment, you're explicity starting from the premise that We are not a paper encyclopedia. I think your logic in taking that premise is beyond flawed, so naturally, that's what I responded to. Everything you said after that is based on a foul premise, imho. 78.34.241.15 (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, that sentence, taken at its word, forces more work to be done with the plot summary: Instead of writing it once and being done, it would have to be expanded every time the rest of the article is, because, in most FAs on fiction, the plot summary is three to five paragraphs. "careful balancing" would mean that an FA-quality summary would have been deleted long before the rest is ready for FA, forcing needless duplication of work. The rest of this guideline is ample for the purpose of making sure we have real-world context, without causing extra work involving the plot. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)