Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/sandbox

Archive 1 Archived by Dr Aaron 10:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e@ 91.92.248.103 (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page active again

Back again - I've removed the historical status because I'm reworking the page and about to have another go at changing the world. Who know's - I may get there eventually.Dr Aaron 11:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thoughts

Good effort. The bottom half is okay, but tthe top half has problems. It relies too heavily on notability, which is only a guideline. I'd kill that section. It's also far too strong in its wording on sourcing, sourcing is ultimately the goal, certainly, but I think you need to soften the authoritarian voice a little there. Even our policies allow that sourcing happen over time, that needs to be reflected here. The detail and scope area has some good ideas in it but again relies on notability and again may be overly prescriptive. Hiding Talk 13:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went through and re-ordered the front to place the policies at the front, since they have primacy. I added a section on NPOV, because we do see a trend at times in comics articles for people to present the powers and the like as they are now, rather than adopt a NPOV and present the contradictions, and undue weight is important because at times we do see articles which cover the last three issues in great detail and summarise the previous six hundred in three lines. Hiding Talk 17:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually hate any changes people make to my writing, but I definitely think your revisions are a distinct improvement! I think your changes to ordering and the tone capture better what I was intending to create. I really like the NPOV section as well. Thanks for your input! Dr Aaron 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATT

"Articles should not include unreferenced critical analysis of the subject, influence of the work on later creators and their projects, and conflicts between different fictional sources (e.g. books and films)."

This is supposed to mean "Articles should not include unreferenced critical analysis of the subject, unreferenced influence of the work on later creators and their projects, and unreferenced conflicts between different fictional sources (e.g. books and films)." Right? Could this be expressed more clearly? --129.241.127.227 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good pick up - except Brian beat me to fixing it. Cheers Dr Aaron 10:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the draft

Over all, I like this. It doesn't change too much from the current guideline, and it's a big step toward merging our three or four guidelines on fiction into one all-encompassing MoS (perhaps we can push it further?). I did make a few changes, mostly stylistic (I hate bold print and would prefer to avoid it where possible, but I'm not going to revert war over it). The only major changes I made were to add back in a list of in-universe no-nos and to change one statement to say that articles on fiction should prefer an out-of-universe perspective rather than strictly mandating one. We have a whole section on exceptions, so mandating OoU seems strange to me.

In addition, a few questions and further suggestions:

(1) As we're merging in more than just the IU/OoU perspective issue, is the "in a nutshell" part needed any more? I don't think most broader Manuals of Style on Wikipedia include the "in a nutshell" template, and this one's getting broader if these changes are accepted.

(2) I wonder if we shouldn't delete the heading "Key principles" and just make all parts 1.1–1.4 equal in emphasis to "Perspectives in fiction" (making them == heads rather than === heads).

(3) I think the discussion on fictional canon should be moved out of "Attribution" to "Neutral point of view" where we discuss potentially contradictory stories that take place in the same fictional universe. We also need to emphasize that the concept of canon should be determined from outside sources and may be reserved to those franchises or universes that actually recognize such things (like the Star Wars universe). Fans should never try to decide what is and is not canon themselves (nor should Wiki editors).

(4) "An article should clearly distinguish between sections of the article based on the fictional source material and real-world references." I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

(5) I don't like the "See also" smack in the middle of "Attribution". Can we move it to the end of the section?

(6) ". . . or substantiate the facts behind it in order to avoid these problems." I don't understand this bit.

(7) "Articles should . . . endeavor to encompass both fact and fiction." I don't understand this bit.

I think Dr. Aaron is right that his original revision was a bit too bold to gain consensus, but this one seems like it's headed in the right direction. I still firmly believe that Wikipedia should only have one place for editors to look for our best practices on writing about fiction, and this revision is moving that way. — Brian (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and contribution. Sorry for changing your dot points to numbers, but it will allow me to respond to your points in a more logical away:

(1) I’d like to get rid of the nutshell statement too, but I was trying to keep the page as close to the current page as possible. I don’t think it is too broad, but I agree that it isn’t necessary.

(2) Again, I like the idea, but such an approach would place a much bigger focus on the changes. This may increase dissent, but we'll see what other people say.

(3) Agree & moved it to NPOV. Please add to it if you can think of a good way to emphasise the point.

(4) It is a confusing statement and fairly redundant. Scrapped.

(5) Moved, as you suggest.

(6) This section was just added by another contributor. I moved it to the ATT section (it fits better there) with a slight clarification.

(7) I've changed it to: Articles on fiction should have a level of detail appropriate for the subject. They should endeavor to both summarise the fictional subject matter and place the fictional work within the context of the real world.

Re:". . . or substantiate the facts behind it in order to avoid these problems." That's a direct quote from our NPOV policy and directs that rather than say some fans think Superman is the greatest Superhero, we instead write that Superman was the first costumed superhero, and achieved a lasting popularity, with his adventures still being published almost seventy years after his first appearance in 1938. Also, our notability guidelines are guidance, they should not be presented as having the same weight as policies. Hiding Talk 13:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good change to the nutshell comment. Dr Aaron 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding, this page is only a guideline, so I don't think it's a good idea to separate the notability stuff from the rest of it. We're not presenting anything as policy (presumably, this will remain a guideline). I strongly think we need to be working to merge in our other guides on writing about fiction (of which Notability:Fiction is one), but you keep de-emphasizing this aspect. — Brian (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not de-emphasising it, I'm given it the appropriate emphasis. ~~Maybe even I'm over-emphasising since WP:N is only a proposal at the moment.~~ Guidelines aren't policy, and we shouldn't treat them as if they are, and we should not represent them as if they are. If you want to merge notability here then feel free to do so, but let's be honest, the key principles are our policies. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, so we shouldn't grant them equal weight. We shouldn't present guidance as anything other than guidance. Notability applies generally, not authoritatively. Notability is not a key principle. Key principles are our policies. If you want to merge the notability section here, then do it in its own section. I'm heavily uncomfortable with the notability and MOS sections being in a Key Principle section, but am conceding ground there. And Wikipedia articles should not be notable, which is what the nutshell was stating. There's not even real consensus that topics should be notable on any given value of notable, so to me it feels redundant to state it, it's not like we're stating articles should be well written, or articles should be formatted correctly, or articles should use wiki-links in the correct manner. Hiding Talk 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, WP:N is back to being a guideline, although a protected one at present. Edited accordingly. Hiding Talk 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]