Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 14

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about "interesting" list information in fiction articles

I recently started work on Radek Zelenka, a popular semi-regular Czech side-kick character on Stargate Atlantis. I guess I have enough encyclopedic real-world information (two paragraphs, not yet added to the article) from various actor interviews and other 1.5 sources to justify a separate GA-to-be article, but now I wonder about the long WP:INTERESTING list of translations at the end of the article. The correctness of the translation is not an issue for me, but its encyclopedicness, and WP:WAF isn't really helping here. What do others think (in the GA sense)? – sgeureka t•c 15:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would fall somewhat under WP:NOT#IINFO; not that there shouldn't be one or two examples, but to list each line of a minor character claiming it to be "quotable" is excessive (otherwise, we'd have a full list of Ralph Wiggum-isms). --MASEM —Preceding comment was added at 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I found a happy medium that I didn't anticipate when I asked for more input. See Radek Zelenka#Translations (it's not ideal, but it's inline with WP:WAF and also doesn't rub off fans the wrong way). – sgeureka t•c 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I like it. Nice work! -- Ned Scott 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There is also the other option to simply transwiki the quotes (and translations) to wikiquote. Which I have done now, leaving an interwiki box. This doesn't clutter up the references section as much. – sgeureka t•c 08:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ahem

I have recently been seeing many cases of in-universe articles being brought up as all plot, even in AfDs. Please clearly note in this guideline that just because it's in-universe doesn't mean it's all plot (yes, the bold was necessary). Take Naruto Uzumaki, the main character of Naruto, for example. While the article is without question in in-universe, it doesn't state at all what he does in the plot, but describes the character itself (personality, backround, design, relationships, etc.). An all plot article that is also in-universe would be something like Naruto Shippuden (which isn't even approved by the Naruto task force, so an AfD wouldn't be a bad idea). Please clearly note that just because it's in-universe doesn't mean it's all plot in this guideline to prevent further mix-ups. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stating his personality, based on events in the (insert medium of choice for the character), is not only bordering on original research--unless they state it specifically--but based on plot actions. If you say he wears a red shirt, that's a plot element because it's verified by the plot. You talk about his fictional life in any way, it's based on what happens in the plots of his manga/anime life. The idea behind "in-universe" is speaking in a tone that presents the subject as if they are real. For that case to be so, and not be original research, it means you are verifying the information by things they've done...which are plot pieces.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes, I think we go a little crazy with our application of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. Let me give you an example. Bignole already illustrated the prevelant thinking on fictional subjects. However, on non-fictional subjects we do not seem as rigid. An article about a highway may say, "this highway is the main connection between Denver and Boulder." This assertion may be based upon a map that shows (but does not state) this fact. I have not seen a big push to call this original research, although it technically is OR. If, in describing a wrestling match, the article states, "another westler entered the ring dressed as a referee," we do not require independent, third-party sources. We do not say "dressed as a referee" is original research. I think we need to relax a little on the topic of fiction. Ursasapien (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The examples of the highway and the wrestler are misleading as they are real-world, can be observed, measured or photographed, and so common sense assumptions can be made about them. However, the representation of fictional elements in a plot summary is not limited by scrutiny from the real-world. If a plot summary says: "In the Dragonlance series of books, one of the characters is a type of dwarf know as a Kender", then if this is what the books said about a fictional character, then it could well be verifiable. WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR are highly pertinant to fictional topics because it is possible to write a whole article about Kender by pretending that they exist outside the plot of the Dragonlance books, when in fact they don't. Statements like "Kender are 4ft tall" may well be verifiable, but only because it says so in the plot, as well as being an example of over reliance on an in universe perspective. Kender is a very good example why this article, in its current form, should be merged or deleted because it contravenes WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SYNTH. Failing WP:WAF is a symptom of this weakness. --Gavin Collins (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
First, Gavin, why do you reply to a comment that is four month's cold? Do you want to participate in a discussion, because I think the best way would be to open up a new thread at the bottom and simply quote me there. That being said, I have replied here because I believe you will look here. I am fine with you moving our comments to a new thread at the bottom of the page. You say my argument is misleading. I say, to the majority of readers/users of the encyclopedia, all these arguments are asinine. Most people see statements like "Kender are 4ft tall" and "physically they are depicted as being quite short (about 4 feet tall)" as roughly synonymous. All I was advocating for was a little call to reason. BTW, why must you precede your every comment by a bullet? Ursasapien (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Summary style" section

I see that Guest9999 removed this section (which previously was in my proposed FICT rewrite, but the bulk of the text made more sense here since it's a style issue).

I will point out that non-notable lists of characters and other aspects (best I can tell) still has consensus; it is a result of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, that is mentioned in WP:N (see footnote #8), and based on WT:FICT talk, clearly spelling this out helped to identify that these lists are appropriate as to balance out the concerns of those that are upset at seeing how fiction is being treated. --MASEM 04:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I removed the section I've changed my mind over the issue and decided I broadly agree with the points it makes. Having said that I'm not sure if it's a great idea for active guidelines to be based upon proposed/disputed guidelines and historical pages. In regards to content/wording of the section could the last bullet point be altered as it seems to undermine a lot of what's written above. Could "notability/real world information" be changed to just "notability"; it's possible to get a decent article using real world sources that don't establish notability (usually primary or non-independent secondary sources) but without real world information the article is likely just a plot summary and shouldn't exist. It's likely a lot of sub-articles will be created by fans, (who may be unfamiliar with the guidline) without being "agreed to by consensus of editors". In these cases should creating a sub-article without discussion be considered being bold and as such subject to the BRD cycle (links to essay)? Also would examples of different outcomes be useful, such as:

Guest9999 (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The section itself is not so much directly relying on FICT, but as noted, more an affirmation of what is presently acceptable. And it is a tricky issue in that there's some notability aspects to it but really is more a MOS approach (eg based on WP:SS).
I recently dropped in the proposed version of FICT we've worked out, and the emphasis that is placed there is that for fictional works, the emphasis needs to be on real-world information as opposed to in-universe, so, as suggested there, development info from the creator in a commentary or interview is appropriate. It could be shortened down (I don't think there's any issues with making small changes that retain the spirit and intent of the section).
I love the examples above -- I think it may be a better in discussion of FICT (showing the range that notability and topics on FICT can be dealt with), but it could go either way.
The mention of splitting out a sub-article via editor consensus is basically to help to mitigate the proliferation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type articles. ("Hey, there's a character list for this really popular show, obviously this very obscure one needs it as well!") Yes, newer editors will still create those articles. This, like FICT, is a guideline and thus I don't expect anyone to be punished over it, and newer editors that do create such articles should be gently pushed towards this and FICT, while experienced editors should be aware but yes, likely being BOLD about it. --MASEM 13:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

proposal by Dorftrottel

I've always thought of WAF as not only reflecting consensus, but giving guidance on how to actually improve the encyclopedia.

Here's a little proposal for the plot summmary section. I believe we should try and educate editors about the important difference between writing about the plot (=real world perspective) and merely recreating the plot (=plot summary, too often in-universe).

Something along the lines of the advice to include only a "very concise outline of the plot for overview" and then "discuss the plot along reliable third-party secondary sources" would be hilarious. User:Dorftrottel 04:43, January 30, 2008

I'm not sure I follow.. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, many plot summaries are just that. They summarise the plot without any real-world context. And many articles consist of nothing more than a plot summary. I frequently come across talk page discussions involving the appropriate length of plot summaries. But one crucial aspect is always missing: Plot summaries are not, by themselves at least, encyclopedic. Therefore, a good approach would be to encourage editors to discuss the plot rather than just summarise it. User:Dorftrottel 09:02, January 30, 2008
Sure they are. Find an encyclopedia article about Hamlet that doesn't summarize the plot. DCB4W (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice twist how some folks suddenly use articles on classical fiction as counter-examples to justify editorial slackness. Ok, so: Hamlet may contain a plot summary. So much has been written about Hamlet that the article can easily be filled with perfectly referenced real-world material. Actually, several articles on the plot of Hamlet alone could be written and well-referenced. Then some on the language, and then some on the cultural impact of the play. The problem is with more recent, pop "culture" phenomena like Star Wars, as you're well aware. User:Dorftrottel 22:54, February 3, 2008
More importantly: Show me one encyclopedic article about Hamlet that does only summarise the plot, without discussing it. User:Dorftrottel 22:56, February 3, 2008
Ah, okay, I understand where you are going now. Yeah, that is a good way to think about it, in regards to discussing the plot. I like it. I guess it could be said that we are doing this with reception, but we can actually discuss much of the plot as it's own thing, with the reception being a source, to prevent the discussion from being seen as original research. It might even be a better way to present some of the reception information all together. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Incidentally, the according "ingredients" are already included in the how-to, in the #Contextual presentation section. So what I'm suggesting here in my own typically overblown fashion actually boils down to a careful rewriting of that section. I'll see what I can come up with. User:Dorftrottel 07:52, February 5, 2008

Meerkat Manor

WP:WAF states that fictional works should be written in present tense because fictional stories are not historical accounts. But in a peer review for List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, I/we wondered what tense should be used for the biographies of the real-life meerkats, some of them dead by now. I found the used Simple Past slightly awkward (some of season 3 is written in Simple Present), but when I tried to rewrite it using Simple Present, it was just as awkward. Suggestions, preferably from someone who has a good grasp of English? – sgeureka t•c 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Meerkat Manor meerkats doesn't have a fictional topic, it's rather an article about the real-world protagonists of the series, so WAF doesn't apply. (For the record: it may sound like splitting hairs, but WAF is of course not saying that "fictional works" should be written in present tense, it talks only about articles about fictional works.) User:Dorftrottel 04:32, February 2, 2008
Meerkat Manor meerkats are most certainly fictional. Although Meerkat is not fictional, everything about Meerkat Manor but the meerkats is fictional. Ursasapien (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. The meerkats are not fictional, nor are the events. AP adds overly dramatic narration at times, but it is not a fictional series, and most details of the meerkats' lives are confirmed by the Kalahari Meerkat Project that is studying them. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, everything but the meerkats are fictional. The meerkats names, their motivations, their emotions,- all fictional. Ursasapien (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Their names are not fictional, though AP occasionally changes names from their research names. Their motivations are based on the researcher descriptions of scenes, and quite a bit is, again, confirmed/supported by KMP. The emotions...well, that's a debate for another day as to whether animals have emotions. In short, the series is not fictional so the meerkats are not fictional, unless you want to call every documentary that actually had narration as a fictional work. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Their names are as fictional as Harry Potter's (as none of the animals have named themselves) and, yes, I would consider any show that anthropomorphizes animals to be fictional (Meerkat Manor is not truly a documentary). Ursasapien (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...so my pets names are all fictional because I gave them their names. Interesting idea, but completely irrelevant to this entire discussion. Your view does not match that of the researchers, and since they hold doctorate degrees in their fields, I (and the article) will continue to defer to their expert judgment. Meanwhile, the question of tense has already been answered. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether something is fiction, and to which degree it is (because fiction and reality are almost always both present in any given work of fiction) depends on what is dramatic narration and what is (sometimes inadvertent) unaltered documentation of reality. Consider The Living Desert, professional wrestling, or said Meerkat Manor as just a few glaringly apparent examples. The latter article appropriately begins with the statement that the series "[blends] more traditional animal documentary style footage with dramatic narration". The meerkats themselves are undoubtedly real. The dramatic narration is a property of the TV series, not of the meerkats and is appropriately discussed in the article about the series. Now, one could of course argue that e.g. classical Hollywood is based on a mixture of real-life facts and narration (made-up biographies/names/identities) for movie stars, but since an according narratization is not actively being pursued for the involved meerkats, there is nothing fictional beyond the series itself, and even that is only partly fictional. I agree that all articles should make an effort to carefully distinguish the contextual levels, but as far as I can tell, this is the case here. User:Dorftrottel 07:15, February 4, 2008
I'd have to agree that Meerkat Manor would not be considered fictional. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
So would past tense be best? I've held off writing much of it until I was sure one way or the other, while taking care of many of the other great suggestions I've had in the peer review. The tense one, though, has me all confused, since it is a non-fiction series and WAF doesn't apply. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would say past tense is appropriate. See also Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Tense. User:Dorftrottel 05:03, February 2, 2008

Several new proposals for Template:Episode list and other notes

I've made a bunch of proposals for the episode templates {{Episode list}} and {{Japanese episode list}} (such as dedicated "Director" and "Writer" fields), as well as a method of translcuding season pages onto main LOE pages, plus other notes. Input from anyone interested would be greatly appreciated. See Template talk:Episode list#Revamp -- Ned Scott 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples

Do you have any other examples for television series, because Buffy and Arrested Development (in case no one has reviewed the FA criteria and recently viewed those pages) are not the best examples to be using of FA rated television show articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

1.5 sources (suggested section)

To be incorporated in the #Primary and secondary information (below the two established sections would be best imo).

1.5 sources is a working concept introduced to deal with the fact that many sources related to works of fiction can not properly be regarded as either primary or secondary sources in the strictest sense.

1.5 sources can contain aspects of primary as well as secondary sources, and therefore care should be taken in evaluating those sources and determining their individual value for backing up particular information in an article.

To that respect, e.g. an interview published in a special interest magazine or together with the primary source, such as commentary included on a DVD, is closer to being a primary source, while an interview published in a mainstream news outlet can be regarded as more of a secondary source. Also, special interest meta works, such as science fiction encyclopedias, should be evaluated for criteria such as whether or not that work itself relies solely on the primary source itself or if additional secondary sources are being employed.

Another generally relevant criterion is whether or not the source is focused purely on in-universe aspects, or whether real-world aspects are considered, as outlined above.

If carefully evaluated and incorporated, 1.5 sources can provide and back up valuable information not available elsewhere.

Examples of 1.5 sources include:

  • Interviews with, as well as commentary by cast and crew
  • Meta works and tie-in non-fiction or "not-pure-fiction" works

Thoughts, suggestions?

  • Sorry for the slow response. I see where you're going with this, and I think something like this would be a good idea. These kinds of "1.5" sources are some of our most common sources. We'd need to be careful of WP:NOR, but as long as we're not trying to assert a new idea that shouldn't be too much of a problem. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Needs revision

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Wait for WP:FICT and WP:WAF to be revised - Ursasapien (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

After three weeks (12/22 - 1/13) of discussion: The poll section currently stands at 10 Support, 6 Oppose, 2 Comments. The comments were essentially:

  • Suggest we roll it back to it's early 2007 state and merge off some sections.
  • Wait until the new WP:FICT is posted, then mark WP:EPISODE historical.

This is my proposal for moving forward. After the new WP:FICT has been posted, I will mark WP:EPISODE historical and we will move on. I am still concerned that this is a stalling technique to keep this instruction-cruft, but in a spirit of cooperation and consensus I am willing to wait. Ursasapien (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It is obvious that there is NOT a clear consensus for a merge or change. There is plenty of discussion on WP:EPISODE as well and it can NOT be discounted. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No. It is obvious that consensus is clearly in favor of deprecating WP:EPISODE. The discussion there mainly focuses on the lack of consensus and necessity for the guideline, followed by "Uh huh, it is too important because I said so." The noise to signal ratio notwithstanding, WP:EPISODE is instruction creep- pure and simple. Ursasapien (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with AnmaFinotera. WT:EPISODE is way too heated (even if it's few strong voices) to consider simply closing this down. WP:FICT rewrite is still going forward and includes concepts that cover the general EPISODE idea, but still leaves room if EPISODE needs more specific guidance. --MASEM 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
First, I clearly proposed waiting until WP:FICT is posted. Second, I do not understand why the vocal fringe can shout down consensus and there is nothing that can be done about it. Ursasapien (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus to shout down. The "vote" above does not include any of the discussions going on at WP:FICTION or WP:EPISODE, or the insane number of discussions elsewhere (including, currently, ANI, RfA, and I believe RfC as well). This is a MUCH bigger issue than the relatively small amount of discussion going on here. If/When a new form of WP:FICT is posted, then this discussion should be revisted in light of what the new guideline states. Deciding to make decisions on a possible future version of the guideline is not conducive to anything, and if the new version is not accepted by the community at large, then the discussion becomes moot. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, there is no consensus for the guidance in WP:EPISODE. I suppose I also agree that since there is no consensus for it (based on ANI, RfArb, RfC, AFD, et al) then discussion is moot. The guideline is effectively historical, whether someone marks it that way or not. Ursasapien (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are interpreting "no consensus" as being "well I'm right" and, in face most of the discussion has NOT shown that there is a consensus against Episode but the actions of specific editors in applying it. There is a big difference. From this discussion, and others, the only thing obvious is that there is no consensus for removing the guideline, there is no consensus for merging it, and there is no consensus for keeping it as is. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
My comment has nothing to do with my rightness or wrongness. What I am attempting to do is analyze the discussion and determine what the consensus of editors suggests on how to move ahead. There are a few voices that say, "EPISODE is fine the way it is, leave it alone." The vast majority of voices say, "EPISODE is redundant and too specific, we should fold it in to the new WP:FICT and WP:WAF (and perhaps WP:TV)."
I do not see this as an issue of editor behavior. Some editors will continue to get rid of episode articles as fast as they can. Other editors will continue to create episode articles as fast as they can. A third group of editors would like to find a middle road, but all of that has little to do with this dispute over this over-specific, prescriptive, and completely redudant guideline.
WP:EPISODE is instruction creep. WP:EPISODE is redundant. WP:EPISODE is prescriptive. WP:EPISODE is unecessary. WP:EPISODE is useless. Yet, WP:EPISODE is held on to like some toddler's security blanket by certain editors that probably have not read it carefully in the past month and are unaware of what it truly states. It is time that this useless guidance go the way of the dinosaurs. Ursasapien (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No consensus? Sorry, that is a false statement. See my elucidation at WT:EPISODE#SH 7. Instruction creep? No: it only clarifies what is stated elsewhere in Wikipedia policy. That might make it redundant and unnecessary, true, but it developed because many editors don't know how to adapt general guidelines to specific cases. It is designed to make wikipedia policy easier to understand: a quick reference guide, as it were, pointing people to all teh relevant guidelines, and showing people what they mean in a television context. So, thus, it is not useless. If people misuse it or misapply it, then that is a separate issue.Gwinva (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If we continue to make progress and we revise WP:FICT, we need to revise this guideline as well. There are sections that could be transfered to WP:FICT (which specifically speaks to notability) and sections of WP:EPISODE that can be merged into this guideline. Ursasapien (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How about I give 10 days for discussion and then if no consensus to keep WP:EPISODE becomes evident, I'll redirect it to this guideline per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. Ursasapien (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. It should definitely be a redirect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This is perhaps somewhere that a longer response period would be warranted. (Perhaps until January 7?) I say this only because we are entering a holiday period when many interested people will not be available to comment. I can't say which side will be favored, but it would be wise to avoid complaints that either result was snuck through when everyone was on holidays. Eclecticology (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I will definitely leave the discussion open until January 7. Ursasapien (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose (merge of WP:EPISODE) — The issue with tv episodes is certainly large enough to warrant its own guideline — details of which should be hashed-out there. Certainly, this page should refer readers to the related page. --Jack Merridew 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain how WP:EPISODE is not an example of instruction creep? Should we have WP:TVCHARACTERS or WP:FICTIONAL_SETTINGS? I do not share your belief that TV episodes are any larger issue than any other fictional concept and do not believe it needs a seperate guideline. Ursasapien (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
If you think WP:EPISODE is an example of CREEP, then I assume you plan to propose a merger for the film notability guideline, and every other notability guideline that is a subpage of the general one? FICT is a manual of style. You cannot have both a manual of style and a notability guideline working from the same page, one is about style the other is about content inclusion. Secondly, you cannot redirect an active guideline page, based solely on the discussion from the people notified on this page. You need a little larger audience to gain a broader, less biased consensus on this issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:EPISODE is primarily a style guideline (at this point). The notability aspect is already taken care of (or will be shortly) at WP:FICT. I would be fine adding a bullet or two to WP:FICT that speaks directly to episode notability, but I think the guideline already covers it nicely (answering what demonstrates notability). I am proposing that the bulk of "How to write a good episode article" be added to this guideline. Ursasapien (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
To BN: Secondly, any editor can, most certainly, improve any guideline when they choose. I am going to the extra length of attempting to get some discussion. It is the "people on this page" that primarily use this disputed guideline. This guideline does exactly what you say it should not, mixes notability with style concerns. Some editors have been using the style sections to redirect articles to lists without getting "a broader, less biased consensus." I think WP:NOTE handles any notability concerns. Add to that WP:FICT which handles notability of "characters, items, places, and other elements within a work of fiction." Perhaps an argument could be made to expand the guideline to Wikipedia:Notability (television), with WP:FICT handling the "depth of fictional coverage" issues. However, WP:EPISODE is too micro focused, redundant, a mix of style and notability, and being used to disrupt rather than improve the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
As Bignole has said, there are many other guidelines that are broken-out as subpages, so no, I don't view this as instruction creep. And from what I've seen, WP:TVCHARACTERS might not be a bad idea. The tv episode issue is a large issue; and, yes, there are other articles "covering" fictional things that are large issues. TV Episodes are merely the issue being discussed. --Jack Merridew 12:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - While I may feel that the fiction guideline is not perfect. If we are ever to have realistic policies and guidelines the kind of policy cruft found at EPISODES needs to be severely trimmed. Eclecticology (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It really says nothing new about notability in WP:EPISODE. I think we need consensus on the notability guideline vis-à-vis episode articles (we need it on everything fictional, but this is what we're discussing now). If the community backs the enforcement of notability on the articles, then it should be kept, as it will be referred to often. If consensus is against it, then mark it historical. Until we have said discussion, however, I support keeping it separate. I (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)₵
  • I can't really see anything in WP:EPISODE that isn't already covered here - WP:EPISODE is just examples and rephrasings of this portion of the MoS. The only exception is the disputed section of WP:EPISODE, which deals with notability of episode articles. That may or may not deserve to stand on its own, depending on whether there is consensus for it. Johnleemk | Talk 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Somewhat support the idea, but there's no reason to not have an episode specific example page. If anything, I think WP:EPISODE should still be a separate page, but incorporate Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article. Notability should still be mentioned, but in the sense of quoting WP:FICT, or something like that (like how we do for WP:WAF now). With that, you have enough good advice that fills up a page, and is now a style guideline. You could even call it a sub-page of WAF, but from an organizational standpoint I think it should be it's own page. -- Ned Scott 02:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose television episodes are not the only sub-sections of fiction to have more specific MOS and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles). Both have more specific needs that are better covered in a full guideline built on WP:FICT. Unless and until a full television MOS is written (the current one is um, inadequate, to be polite), Episode is the only real content guideline available for dealing with an already very contentious issue (indeed, its hatred by those who want to make episode articles for every last television series in existence despite them not meeting notability is the only reason both are now under fire). AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose (to merging in WP:EPISODE) At least in the sense that there is nothing wrong with providing more applicable approaches that summarize and apply existing site-wide guidelines for specific projects. WP:EPISODE may be a bit too instruction-y and need a bit of softening up, but while it logically falls out from WP:PLOT, WP:N, WP:WAF and WP:FICT, it is sometimes necessary to connect the dots in big bold letters to make sure newer editors are aware of how all these policies work together. --MASEM 06:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can people also consider WP:EPISODE as it was in its early 2007 state? It might be an idea for instance to restore some of the advice of the old page, move some of the current directions to WP:TV/how to write an episode article and let the true "notability directives" be included in WP:FICT again. Just a thought. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You do understand that a merge would not "weaken" the guideline advice that it contains, but simply mean that the same advice is organized differently? For example, I support a merge, but just not to this exact page (I support changing WP:EPISODE's focus back into a style guideline, and letting WP:FICT handle the notability issues). Also, how some people have handled mass redirects of articles, regardless if they were right or wrong, was not a method encouraged by WP:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 17:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't agree, a merge would weaken the guideline, since it wouldn't have the privilege of being a named guideline and it would be subjected to more scrutiny.--Nydas(Talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "I don't agree" It doesn't work like that. If you merge one guideline into another, it's still a guideline. You're also very mistaken that WP:EPISODE is a "weapon". Long before the page even had the shortcut WP:EPISODE, people were listing tons of episode articles for deletion, trying to discourage them, and so on. The only difference now is that when they do, they can also mention a page that lists the reasons why it's a good idea to not have an article for every episode. -- Ned Scott 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • And now they won't be able to mention such a page. It's not unrealistic that this will lead to a fall in the deletion rate. This means that important pre-Internet TV episodes might stand a better chance of avoiding being tarred and feathered to induce a non-existent 'fanbase' to improve them.--Nydas(Talk) 11:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How would that stop them from mentioning the page? That doesn't make any sense at all. The "deletion rate" didn't increase because of WP:EPISODE. WP:EPISODE was created to help prevent articles from being created that would have to be redirected/merged/deleted. WP:EPISODE actually discourages deletion and encourages keeping articles that have potential, even if they don't directly show it in the article text. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - This guideline is a prime example of what happens when you devote far too much space to a guideline topic which needs very little. The content of this guideline would be far better served as small subsections (or a few sentences) within WP:WAF and WP:FICT. As it is the content has been expanded so much that the guideline now states things that were never stated or even remotely implied by the originating guidelines, and coupled with the highly aggressive and even threatening wording it is definitely what one could call "weaponized". Even if it were toned down enough there's still not enough content to really be its own, separate page; FICT and WAF handle the task quite nicely, along with WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. etc. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no problem merging appropriate things of WP:EPISODE into WP:WAF, but I'd really like to wait with that until the new WP:FICT is up to explain the need for established notability. I'd also like to WP:EPISODE to be marked as historical or something and linked from WP:WAF then. I know that there are older WikiProject-specific guidelines for episode coverage are out there (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Episode style sheet, which I rewrote a little in the past few weeks), and I much prefer to direct interested editors to a guideline that has pretty much wikiwide concensus as opposed to local consensus that may be out-of-date. – sgeureka t•c 09:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - per yukichigai. Additionally, there are editors who have used this suggested guideline to beat, revert, harass, and go on an all out campaign to rid wikipedia of Television articles. I will not point out specifics here unless requested to, however many of you are already aware of this. Merging this with already existing policies will bring a larger body to the issues outline television articles and bring more calm headed individuals to both sides of the controversy this article has caused. I strongly support merging as pointed out by yukichigai. --Maniwar (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think there are some distinct issues with Episodes that aren't present in some ofthe other fictions, and which need a distinct guideline. A major problem is that newer shows almost always have half a dozen websites about some TV genre reviewing them. IGN would be just one example. As such, it becomes way to easy to say 'well, i've got this web-review, so the article is notable', and boom, we swell back up with bloated plot summaries, quote and trivia sections, and one or two sourced sentences about the online reviews. Further, the relative explosion of every show's 'fan guide to the show' book publication also creates a sort of incestuous situation. Often, the publishing house owned by the broadcast network and/or production house publishes a book, or series of books, about the show, with tons of trivia and quote and so on; in fact, over at Scrubs, there's an Italian guy doing just that with our content. We need to address those issues of diluted, and possibly deluded, notability, and FICT isn't the place, because novels and films are far less prolific enterprises, and reviews about an author's efforts often reflect a year or more of work, as is the case with most films. Thus the meaning of a book or film review is greater than the episode reviews. The problem, in another light, si that we can incorporate all teh reviews of a movie or book into one section on one page, whereas for each episode, there could be a full section there (again, of only a couple lines.) I would say that the involvement of persistent or major media would be needed to separate any episode from the notable (example - Oprah's 500th show on losing weight is less notable than the one where Tom Cruise jumped the sharkcouch. ThuranX (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would strongly object that film or literature is different. In our contemporary times, Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo automatically give all films reception/critical information. Many books are followed almost immediately by "fan-guides" (see Harry Potter). The basic fact remains that this "guideline-cruft", in it's attempt to be directive, has grown increasingly unclear, ineffective, and unnecessary. What we need is a broad, descriptive, consensus-based notability guideline for all fiction. Ursasapien (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability sections added to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal #5

I have added some specific information on determining the notability of television episodes to the newest proposal for WP:FICT. See what you think and adjust as you feel necessary. Ursasapien (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Working on a proposal for WP:WAF

I am working up a proposal to improve this guideline by merging in sections of WP:EPISODE. Please look at it here and feel free to edit and improve it yourself. Ursasapien (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, do you think we need a section on "Dealing with problem articles"? Ursasapien (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians need advice for how to deal with problem articles. At least that much is clear. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if we need to work this with the present WP:FICT drafting at the same time - notability issues are spread across both of them. If this is meant to be a manual of style approach, this one should not talk about but defer to both WP:NOTE and WP:FICT appropriately, and primarily state that articles on fiction should have certain sections, should have plot information written in a certain tone, and the like. It is not that this page should not mention notability at all, but I think given the current somewhat hostile backlash against fiction and notability policies, centralizing such issues may be better than having two guidelines that might eventually conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 14:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur completely. I will work on this, but you should feel free to edit it and show me exactly what you are thinking. Ursasapien (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break point 1

By far, I still prefer the way WP:EPISODE summarizes the issues relating to episode articles. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are expressing a preference for a detailed, "idiot proof," and (in my opinion) rather prescriptive guide. I continue to contend the current WP:EPISODE is redundant in several spots, inadequate in others, and too narrowly focused overall. I think guidelines should work the same way we recommend for articles on fictional subjects. Let's make an excellent, concise, and complete MoS guideline for writing about fiction. Then, if there is more guidance necessary than can be pragmatically put into a readable guideline, let's split out a "List of . . ." type of sub-guideline with an outline covering major areas like serialized fictional works. Then, if that sub-guideline becomes too large to be comprehensible (and only when consensus agrees this is so) we can consider a specific sub-sub-guideline on a particular fictional element. BTW, not everything needs to be spelled out precisely. I think guidelines that are more general and open to interpretation are easier to gain consensus and are actually better for Wikipedia. Ursasapien (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not looking for an idiot proof guideline, I just don't want to have to tell an editor to look at three different pages and then explain to them how they relate to each other every time I mention them. A narrow focus isn't bad, and it does little more than say "this other guideline says this". Aside from the mass redirects/mergers that got everyone upset, which the arbcom case hopefully has cooled down, there isn't an issue with WP:EPISODE being "abused". There are ways we can better organize the guidelines, and I wouldn't mind having less "notability" advice (but having some with a link to WP:FICT for more info), and focusing WP:EPISODE as a style guideline. The real issue has always been how we deal with such articles, not the guideline that says what to avoid. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I just don't want to have to tell an editor to look at three different pages and then explain to them how they relate to each other every time I mention them.
I think we are in agreement here. That is why I think there ought to be one comprehensive guideline on determining the notability of fiction-related subjects (WP:FICT) and one comprehensive guideline regarding manual of style for fiction-related subjects (WP:WAF). Part of the current dust up is that editors who have been stating they are just enforcing guidelines have been sending protesting editors to 5-6 different guidelines (WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:EPISODE, etc.). Ursasapien (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I can see where you are going with this. I still don't see WP:EPISODE as bad, but if we can achieve the same thing within WP:WAF and WP:FICT, then it has my support. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Ursasapien's last point here. This is really annoying to find half a dozen discussions on the same thing. It seems that we get one discussion on one page and when it starts going south for the initiator they go to another page. Then more people notice the first discussion and start taking part in it---only to realize that 4 others have been started and so go take part in those as well. We're fighting the same battle in multiple areas. I don't see why we need NOTEFILM and EPISODE, when we can simply have them both be part of FICT--only have separate sections on each of the mediums.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, ideally, if the rewrite of WAF/FICT goes through and is considered guidelines, I would not include medium specific guidelines as these fall under specific wikiprojects. WP:FICT needs to be as streamlined as possible, text-wise, so that it is clear when articles are and are not notable; NOTEFILM and EPISODE can build from there to give case-specific information. If WP:FICT is doing it's job right, NOTEFILM/EPISODE and other similar project-level guidelines aren't saying anything new, just likely changing words that apply to generic fiction to ones that work for the specific medium. (WP:FICT can easily have a section on project-specific notability guidelines too). --MASEM 14:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree with you that there is a need for "medium specific" guidelines. We should be able to develop a FICT that is comprehesible and concise and that explains clearly were the "bright white line" of notability can be seen. Additionally, I think FICT needs to clearly state that depth of coverage/amount of seperate articles needs to be determined by notability, not style concerns (if that is where consensus leads). Perhaps, project specific style instructions can be created that refer back to the two key guidelines (FICT & WAF), but the current situation is untenable. We have more and more instruction creep with more diluted consensus and less clear direction. Ursasapien (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break point 2

There seems to be a general consensus that the style functions of EPISODE should be merged into the general Writing about fiction guideline. The notability portion has already been merged into WP:FICT. As there has been no further comment on the merge for five days, I consider this discussion closed and have redirected WP:EPISODE. Ursasapien (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall anything being merged over to FICT. When checking the history, I don't see anything in FICT that covers the content guideline of television shows. Short of you blanking EPISODE and just putting the archived pages over here, I don't see any merged content either. Just because people are talking about a draft doesn't mean there was consensus to go ahead with a merge. Secondly, you don't blank guideline pages like that, you should keep them as historical record by placing the historical tag at the top of them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought the new FICT was posted. It certainly has the relevant, non-repetitive parts of EPISODE merged in. I just checked. The history can always be accessed as the guideline has not been deleted. I am not one to delete stuff like that. I even went to the extra step of adding EPISODE's archives to WAF's talk page, but you undid that.Ursasapien (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It's included in the current proposal, but not in WP:FICT directly, yet. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The deadline has passed. No arguments to keep WP:EPISODE, that pass WP:BURO/WP:CREEP muster, have been advanced. It could be userfied and put in User:Bignole's user space if he wants a historical copy, but I think any redeemable parts of WP:EPISODE have already been merged into the proposals for WP:FICT and WP:WAF. WP:EPISODE is abominably redundant, juridique, and unecessary. The pseudo-guideline, itsself, causes confusion and disruption to the project. I think it ought to be redirected immediately. Ursasapien (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deadline? What deadline? And Bignole isn't the only one who will revert you if you just try to blank WP:EPISODE again. While I can understand your BURO/CREEP concerns, you are way over-reacting. As it stands right now, it still is a guideline, and it still has consensus. If we can do the same job with FICT and WAF, it has my support, as I told you before. The fact that we can make a guideline better does not mean that the guideline in it's current form must be rejected. -- Ned Scott 09:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
(Part of this is copied from my comment on Ned's talkpage) I had set January 7th as a reasonable time to end the discussion/RfC. As I saw it, editors were generally in favor of merging WP:EPISODE and this had been done in both the drafts already. I took it upon myself, yesterday morning, to boldly redirect EPISODE to WP:WAF. I was reverted twice and called a vandal. That, incidentally, is why the merge tag disappeared from WAF. I had already redirected EPISODE and felt the matter was settled. I do not think EPISODE is even necessary. All the "clean-up police" need is WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. Bignole contended EPISODE needed to be archived/marked historical. I do not see a purpose for this, but I have already archived it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. I propose that we make Wikipedia: Television episodes a disambiguation page like this. I honestly can not see another way forward. Ursasapien (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with the merge. And all the clean up police really need is WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:EP and WP:CONSENSUS. The trouble starts when one side of an argument writes up a page, tags it as guideline and then says, "can so, look". We need to move beyond that. We need a centralised area where we can discuss what to do with contentious articles on fiction, and we need to generate consensus and respect the consensus making process and the consensus. Hiding T 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully the rewrite of WP:FICT is close to local consensus and ready to present to the world at large for consensus. --MASEM 15:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:EPISODE does reflect current consensus, and a merge wouldn't be changing what it said, only how we say it. We've got WikiProjects and deletion sorting pages and several talk pages to indicate this. This was never just one side of an argument. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you interpret Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters#Wikipedia:Television_episodes but it's quite clear to me that the arbitration committee made it a finding of fact that it is applied inconsistently. Since guidance reflects general practise, I fail to see how you can claim it has consensus amongst all Wikipedians. To me the evidence of the arbitration case points to the fact that there are at least two sides to the argument as to the consensus on interpretation of our guidance. However, you seem to be taking my comments as a personal attack, when they are applied more in the general. We need to move beyond pointing to guidance and back to seeking to build consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. All the wikiprojects and the deletion sorting pages show is one side of the argument. You need to re-read WP:CONSENSUS and note that the views of those who edit must also be taken into account. You also need to be aware that we have no binding decisions and that we don't even have to settle on a decision, have a guideline or worry overly much about it. No-one is going to judge Wikipedia and find it lacking. It is what it is and the world accepts it as such. Improve articles through editing. Hiding T 11:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"Like many editing guidelines,..." implies that WP:EPISODE is no different from many of our guidelines seek to correct something that, but it hasn't happened all at once. General practice or default behavior does not always make a consensus. If it did we wouldn't need guidelines. Now you're saying that AfD arguments, WikiProject discussions, and many many other discussions on this topic only reflect one side because the other side didn't get consensus? The arguments were fairly considered, and the consensus is that not every episode should have an article simply because it exists. I'm not the one who needs to re-read consensus. -- Ned Scott 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. I think it's best if I bow out of this because you don't seem to be understanding my broader points. What do you think a list of afd outcomes tells you? Do you think it tells you anything about articles which have never been nominated? Do you think it tells you about the opinions of those that have never participated? I'm not quite sure you are understanding exactly what I am saying but I will try one last time. The consensus in guidelines and at an afd cannot be considered a global consensus, especially not given the size of Wikipedia. Guidelines tend to reflect the shape of those that have edited them, and articles tend to reflect the shape of those that edit them, and consensus tends to be somewhere in th middle of the two grounds. Most certainly the consensus is that not every episode should have an article. There is, however, no consensus on which particular episodes should and should not. Like all things on Wikipedia, individual cases arrive at different outcomes or take longer to get to the same place. It's not about having hard rules, it's about reasoning with people and discussing rather than forcing the issue and being downright rude. Still, never mind. I remember when WP:N was drafted and people said, but we've got WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV they do what you want WP:N to do, why do we need this. I guess at some point someone will propose WP:TVCHARACTER and then WP:SOAPCHARACTER and then WP:BITPARTACTOR, and we'll get to do it all over again. Meanwhile, the articles will continue to grow. Hiding T 16:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we don't actually disagree on this. I get the feeling that our own personal definitions of these things are not being properly expressed between us. When I see an AfD, I do my best to think of how different people would react to it. I take in account similar past experiences, the current statements on the AfD, my own view, and similar comments made in other discussions. Often I have supported something, but taken the position of opposition because I knew that there would be reasonable opposition that should be represented, but that not everyone could track every discussion. One situation was about allowing a soft-redirect for redirection spoilers. At the time of the discussion, people who didn't like any spoiler warning were not active, but it was obvious there were those who wanted to limit and/or remove such warnings. I think this same reasonable judgement has been used by those who helped make these guidelines. I'm not looking for hard rules, but I do want to limit common misconceptions and loopholes. These guidelines are far from perfect, but I don't consider that a lack of consensus. Again, how some people handled the situation of merging/ redirecting really isn't really a reflection on the guideline, but a reflection on the lack of guidance we have for dealing with such situations. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, how some people handled the situation of merging/ redirecting really isn't really a reflection on the guideline, but a reflection on the lack of guidance we have for dealing with such situations. This is where you miss my point. There is plenty of guidance and policies for this. They are at dispute resolution, consensus, editing policy, civility, assume good faith, verification, neutal point of view, no original research and what we are not. Those are our methods of dealing with these situations. Our methods do not include disruption, gaming the system or edit warring. They do not include instruction creep. Our methods include accepting that sometimes things go against you. They include collaborating. They include compromise, give and take and listening to the other side. they include reaching the best outcome. They include writing an encyclopedia. As the arbitration committee declared, we have plenty of guidance on handling the merging/redirection situation. It's called discussing to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. If that means an article with a lot of citation needed tags in it and a couple of templates on it, then so be it. If that's what the consensus is, then that's what the consensus is. For me, how some people handled the situation of merging/ redirecting showed the lack of respect for WP:CONSENSUS. The answer is not to keep writing more guidance. It is to keep talking to other collaborators and toedit the articles with respect to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Tag things as needing citations. Wait a month. If they haven't been cited, remove them. We don;t have to have all articles in compliance with this disputed guidance at any point in the forseeable future. Luckily we have time on our side. Do you really believe your stated preference on this or any dispute is the one that will ultimately be the final decision? That's not the way to contribute to Wikipedia. Any contributor to Wikipedia must accept that their contribution is but sand in the shifting winds of time, more likely to be disregarded than recognised as the ultimate truth. Edit the articles. Don't write guidance on how you would like articles edited. I offer this from my own experience. I wrote half the policies and guidance you guys quote in arguments. It didn't change anything then. It won't change anything now. You need to edit, and lead by example. Meh. Forgive me, I've droned on long enough. I'll go back to my rocking chair. Remember, WP:BRD. Hiding T 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? Because it doesn't sound like you are talking to me. Unless you are lumping me together with every other user you've encountered. I don't miss your point at all, rather, I don't think you are understanding me, or the logic behind my thinking, or what I actually support here. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you write Again, how some people handled the situation of merging/ redirecting really isn't really a reflection on the guideline, but a reflection on the lack of guidance we have for dealing with such situations. If you did, then yes, I'm talking to you because we already have the guidance. Maybe you need to clarify what you meant or explain the logic behind your thinking if that's what is causing the issue. I'm fairly certain up above you wrote Again, how some people handled the situation of merging/ redirecting really isn't really a reflection on the guideline, but a reflection on the lack of guidance we have for dealing with such situations. Hiding T 09:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. We have ineffective guidance on how to deal with the situation. TTN, more often than not, leaves tags on articles, waits a long period of time, and starts the discussions himself. He's not the only one. Take a look at the talk pages of List of Air episodes sometime. That was a "while ago" for me, long before I was heavily involved with guideline and policy pages, and I completely understood the frustration there. It took a long time to overcome the objections of one or two editors, for just one show. It still didn't end until somewhat recently, when those sub-articles were merged/redirected to larger ones. Our existing processes and strategies on how to deal with these articles on a large scale suck.
  2. "As the arbitration committee declared, we have plenty of guidance on handling the merging/redirection situation." No, no they didn't.
  3. "Do you really believe your stated preference on this or any dispute is the one that will ultimately be the final decision? That's not the way to contribute to Wikipedia." What do you believe is my "stated preference"? Apparently you know nothing about me, because I sure as hell do give slack to articles, avoid forcing things, and accept that my idea might not always be the one used.
  4. "Our methods do not include disruption, gaming the system or edit warring." It's a bit too convenient to say that when two sides in a dispute are both edit warring. I sure as hell don't game the system, nor would I call cleaning up bad articles to be disruption simply because other people are bothered by it. I make it a point to be very honest on Wikipedia, even when I end up making myself look like a fool, or look weak, because I'm not afraid to apologies or admit when I'm wrong. I make it a point to consider what other people say, and to keep an open mind about articles having their own situation that needs looking at. That does not, however, mean that when we discuss something, or when something is clearly unneeded, that we do nothing when a vocal minority decides to revert everything we've done.
  5. I don't think you're qualified to judge our motives, our personalities, or our goals. Maybe, just maybe, some of us think these guidelines are actually good advice, and not just tools for deleting what we personally don't like. What I personally like or not has little to nothing to do with my position here. I loved having screenshots on lists of episodes, and I still do. I even argued to keep them for a long time. But eventually, I realized it wasn't best for Wikipedia, and I even helped remove them. When I transwikied a few hundred articles over to Wikia, and started the guideline pages there, I strongly encouraged editors to not make pages simply for the sake of making pages, and to keep things focused. Why would I care, it's not on Wikipedia anymore? Because it really is good advice to not have an article for every last character, element, or episode simply because you can.
  6. I want to see us evaluate things on a case-by-case basis, when it's reasonable; meaning you don't have to discuss every last detail simply because one editor decided, on their own, to make fifty articles. When you know there's going to be an objection to an action, I believe in discussing things first. I believe that the more you try to force something, the more it's going to come and bite you in the ass later on. I prefer to make lasting edits, ones that I don't have to baby sit. That's why I've taken over a year and a half to move things like Digimon articles off en.wiki. I believe that it should be fundamental information to be able to identify and understand basic things about main characters, with or without real world information. I am not black and white, I am not an extremest. It is not fair to treat me as one. -- Ned Scott 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. No they don't. This is why, for the past, what, six months I have asked people like you, Bignole and others, if we can come together and create a central area to hold these discussions so that more interested parties can comment and so build a better consensus. The problem isn't with what is being attempted, it is in how it is being attempted. Yes it takes time. But we have all the time in the world. Where is the need for rush? Our existing processes and strategies do not suck. They only suck if you feel your implementation is the desired outcome and must happen now. Hiding T 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yes they did. Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
  3. Then I am unclear why you are arguing with me, and why you have reverted me and other editors twice on this very page. Hiding T 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. I am unclear where in my words you draw the assumption that I am either attacking you personally or one side only. When a vocal minority arises, however, my approach would be to listen to their concerns. Yours, if I read your words right, would be otherwise. You also, unless I read you wrong, seem to indicate that if your version of how an article should look is different from someone else's, you will fight to maintain your version. That is how I read "nor would I call cleaning up bad articles to be disruption simply because other people are bothered by it". Apologies if I have misread that statement. Hiding T 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Some of us wrote these guidelines intending them to be advice. I'm not sure therefore how your statement applies to me. I am also unsure where you think I am judging you or others. Like I say, from the start you seemed to have taken every word I have said and every action I have performed as some sort of personal affront, judging by our conversation here and your reversions and comments and edit summaries. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to be able to surmise that some people are deletionists, some people are inclusionists and some people are other than those. I am helped in that assumption by people categorising themselves as such. Therefore I find it useful to talk about those two camps, and others, generalising what tends to happen on Wikipedia and how it impacts on people and how we need to understand that so that we avoid getting drawn into protracted disputes. The whole basis of WP:AGF for example, is that we try and understand that the person we are in dispute with also wants the best for Wikipedia. We therefore avoid characterising them as an opponent but rather a collaborator, someone we will share with, and we then need to establish the framework in which we will share. For example, editor b edits only in the article space, and adds information that he thinks informs readers and improves the article, fleshing out detail. He does this for maybe six months, and no-one interferes with his edits. He may get a welcome note, but he may or may not read it, and if he does, he may piece together the guidance and policies in his own way. Then editor a comes along, one well versed in guidance and policy, an editor involved in mainspace and who has just worked hard discussing with similar editors how to deal with certain edits, namely those made by editor b. So he reverts all the work editor b has done, and when editor a reverts him...well, what happens? We should assume good faith. All of us on Wikipedia at some point become Arthur Dent. Some policy or guidance page will appear to us as the fabled filing cabinet , stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Hiding T 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Then Ned, I am not sure why you are arguing with me. At every point I have tried to indicate that we follow the very method you yourself suggest. If you agree with it, I am at a loss to understand what the bone of contention is, nor why you would suggest we do not have the tools available to us to solve the issues in front of us. You indicate, if I read you right, that you think those tools suck. That's maybe the root of this, that you are feeling frustrated with Wikipedia and the way it works. I don't really have an answer to that. But it doesn't really impact on the discussion here, which should be about trying to get some guidance written which reflects what happens on Wikipedia. What is making that so hard is that there is so many differing practises. Some articles do just get left alone. Hiding T 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


(de-indent) Wait, you think because our current methods are soo good that we... need another tool? How the hell does that make any sense? By your own logic, we don't need a notice board, because what we have is good enough. You also believe that the arbcom has made a statement to discourage or oppose other methods of handling these situations, and go an quote something that has nothing to do with your implication. I'm all for something like a notice board, because what we're doing right now needs improvement.
"I am unclear where in my words you draw the assumption that I am either attacking you personally or one side only" I asked you if you were talking to me, a few responses up. I'm open to listening to the concerns of other users, but heaven forbid if I don't respond to every single user who doesn't even take the time to judge the guideline on its own merits, or is only here because they liked using Wikipedia to catch up with that episode they didn't watch.
"You also, unless I read you wrong, seem to indicate that if your version of how an article should look is different from someone else's, you will fight to maintain your version." Allow me to correct you, you are wrong. I understand that you have gotten this impression, but I am here telling you that your impression is wrong.
"But we have all the time in the world. Where is the need for rush?" The existence of inappropriate articles leads other editors to believe they should create more. As much as I wish people like TTN had taken more time to clean up the articles he did, those actions have done far more to being to people's attention, most for the very first time, that there are problems related to having articles for every episode. However, I really really want to find a better way of doing that, since all of this has caused major polarization in editors, and a lot of needless anger.
"Then I am unclear why you are arguing with me, and why you have reverted me and other editors twice on this very page." I reverted you because your changes were undiscussed and premature. It's very apparent, in how often you like to remind us of all your good deeds, and how long you've been here, that you don't feel you are required to discuss things just as the rest of us are. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but you should know, from where I'm sitting, this is the impression you've been putting out. -- Ned Scott 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. If you can't see that a noticeboard is part of the way we do things, i.e. discuss and generate consensus then I think we're so far apart in our thinking that there's little benefit pressing the point. Either that or the argument has gotten so mired in miscommunication that is is getting inane. My main thrust through all of this is that we need to step back from being overly specific in our guidance, to make our guidance apply and be written more generally and to better guide people to dispute resolution processes and generating consensus. I haven't intended to sound like a pompous arse who pontificates on how it was all meant to be, I was merely responding to your two sentences "I don't think you're qualified to judge our motives, our personalities, or our goals. Maybe, just maybe, some of us think these guidelines are actually good advice, and not just tools for deleting what we personally don't like" with sentences of my own formed in a similar manner evincing the same statements from my perspective. I apologise that this riled you. However, I take issue with your description of changes I was involved in on this page as undiscussed. Four editors were editing and discussing the changes when you simply reverted. If anything, you were the one curtailing discussion. How you got the idea I think I am above discussion is beyond belief when one looks at the amount of words I have expended on this talk page compared to the amount of edits made to either the main page and the proposed drafts. You perplex me Ned. You apologise, you tell me you agree with me, and then I don't know what happens, but we end up here. One of us is getting under the other's skin, or maybe it is mutual something. It appears we have wildly contrasting views of the nature of time on Wikipedia. I'm seeing it as a long term project, hopefully lasting long after I'm dead. I could of course be embarrassingly wrong and the plug is pulled next year, but I really don't think we have the ability to solve anything here that will be lasting and that we need instead to respect our dispute resolution process. That is the fundamental tool for any dispute, and we need to respect that. To ignore it would be worse than any other solution we have, because it will send a far worse message than allowing bad articles to exist. Wikipedia is as famed for its poor articles as it is for its good ones. In the far future I can imagine a project which only has all the really poor articles, similar to those art shows of really bad paintings. My main bone of contention this time around was your statement that the issue was "a reflection on the lack of guidance we have for dealing with such situations." I wanted to point out that that is precisely what the dispute resolution was for, what arb-com indicated, and why I therefore didn't agree with that assertion. Do you still believe it to be the case that when a dispute arises we have little guidance on how to solve it? Hiding T 13:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In my mind I was thinking different talk pages could be seen as "tools" rather than the talk page concept being seen as a single tool. Now that I understand how you are define tool, then yes, I agree that we can do things with our existing tools. For example, I saw the idea of a notice board as a new tool (and one that I liked). When I said our current tools sucked, I meant how we were currently situated/configured with handling stuff. My comments were not regarding dispute resolution, but on how to handle the assessment of articles, how to avoid polarization, and how to educate new users who don't stop and read guidelines first before editing (not that they should be required to, in the spirit of being bold, and all that). -- Ned Scott 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I still oppose the idea of the merge for the reasons I stated earlier. If there are issues with WP:EPISODE, fix the guideline, don't ax it. WP:EPISODE combines multiple issues and focuses on one of biggest issues with some specific articles. Sure, we "should" be able to point to a bunch of other guidelines, but reality is that unless they specifically point to episodes, the fans of episode articles will use the removal of WP:EPISODE as a excuse to say that episode articles are all okay now and we will be flooded with even more of them. For many articles, yeah, the MOS is enough, but for problem children when you have editors demanding "show me exactly where it says no episode articles" we do need a point blank, idiot proof guide that incorporates the relevant guidelines and policies.
I also strenuously object to Ursasapien's strong arm methods to remove WP:EPISODE before discussion is completed and a real consensus reached.AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of the point is that WP:EPISODE does not prevent editors from writing episode articles. In fact, at no point does WP:EPISODE even say, "no episode articles." You would have a much easier time pointing "problem children" to WP:N or WP:FICT for guidance on why a particular television episode does not merit a seperate article. Additionally, having WP:EPISODE combine multiple issues and focuses means that it does not fall directly in the category of a notability guideline nor a MOS guideline. It simply involves instruction creep to try to circumvent the creation of poor articles. However, it does so very poorly. I strenuously object to the continued insistence that this disputed guideline is necessary or even helpful. It has almost become an essay regarding a particular group of editors POV. If we say that most stand-alone articles on episodes of television shows fail WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N, then let's just go with that. Ursasapien (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft

Draft #1

This takes a few sections I had in my WP:FICT draft about summary style and about how to deal with excessive in-universe articles and adds them to here. --MASEM 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've boldly included the section of the above on "Summary style articles" here (taken from the above draft with a bit of a rewrite) to match with the improvements to WP:FICT. --MASEM 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please participate in discussion

Over the past several days, I have attempted to implement policy and the consensus of the discussion here by archiving WP:EPISODE. I have been reverted numerous times by random editors that have not participated in the discussion heretofore. I do not know why I should have to be prevented from impelmenting policy because some "local consensus" doesn't like the global consensus of policy and wishes to exhaust my efforts to implement said policy. If further discussion is needed, then let us have at it. Arguments should be based on how we can bring EPISODE into compliance. Otherwise, I see no way we can keep it as a guideline. Ursasapien (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please at least be honest in your requests for more comments. You have been an editor less than a year, are not an admin or a seasoned editor in any way shape or form, and you just decided that you should "be bold" with a guideline that affects a large number of Wikipedia articles even though there was NO clear consensus for attempting to delete it You also claim that the people preventing you from doing so by a "local" consensus while rudely discounting the very valid arguments that do not agree with your own views. Your blatant lie that your efforts were reverted by "random editors" who did not participate in the discussion is highly inappropriate. One of the first people to revert you was one you just claimed was a "supporter" on your own talk page! Most of the people who have reverted your inappropriate blanking of WP:EPISODE did in fact participate in the discussion, which was still on-going as of yesterday. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been editing WP since September 7, 2006, TYVM. I am not an admin nor do I wish to be. I do not feel like I can best assist WP in that role. I continue to wait for you to point to some guidance that states new editors must get permission from an administrator before editing. I am a reasonable person and attempt to edit judiciously. I acted on a suggestion from Ned. I posted said proposal here and recieved only positive feedback. Now, Ned says I should wait and I respect that. However, I do not appreciate your rude, aggressive tone and I do not appreciate being called a liar. You said you had participated in this discussion recently. Could you point me to any discussion you have posted since December 22? Ursasapien (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW: Random editors could be referring to User:Maitch and User:Paul730 who have not participated in this discussion at all. User:Bignole has made some suggestions as Ned has, but I think he has warmed to the wisdom. Ursasapien (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There isn't a consensus to merge WP:EPISODE. It's just a promising idea right now, depending on some drafts and revisions. Also, we can't forget that we're coming out of the holidays, where activity around all of these pages had noticeably died down. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm here to reiterate my opposition this merge and request that the unilateral redirection and such cease. The regurgitation of phrasing used in discussions to support merging of not-notable episode articles for use in this discussion (here, an/i...) smacks of trolling. I suggest caution. --Jack Merridew 10:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I brought forth an honest discussion that WP:EPISODE is not compliant with WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. We have had a lengthy discussion, but no one has been able to demonstrate how this disputed guideline does not break guidelines and why it is necessary to the project. A number of editors have expressed a similar concern. We have a way to move forward and improve the project. I am will to be patient and work toward consensus, but I truly think this issue needs to be addressed.
Are you accusing me of "trolling" (whatever that is)? Are you suggesting that I am a troll? I suggest caution, so you do not violate WP:AGF. Ursasapien (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I support it and thought I saw a consensus somewhere, although I may have lost it. The issue I have with it is the fact that a lot of the issues regarding WP:EPISODE are faced by a lot of other projects, and it seems redundant to have to work up separate guidance for each area when the issues and the resolution are pretty much the same. It would be easier if we could point people to one guideline which covered the base issues rather than have highly specialised guidance which in practice doesn't particularly work well and causes divisiveness. Hiding T 11:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Above user AnmaFinotera came across rather strong and said ...you just decided that you should "be bold" with a guideline that affects a large number of Wikipedia articles even though there was NO clear consensus for attempting to delete it. Well interestingly enough, this article has editor that do just that. Episode does not have community consensus and has been a discussion of etiquette, 3rr, and various other policy concerns. Peruse some of the editor talk pages who support this suggestion article and you will quickly see an outcry from the vast majority of the community. Please note, this is a guideline and really holds no value. It would be better suited added to an existing guidelines, as I pointed out above. --Maniwar (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree to a point that the content of WP:EPISODE is/will be covered by my proposed rewrite of the WP:FICT guidelines in addition to what is already stated at WP:WAF. Information specific to episode article format should be moved to guidelines for WP:TV (which I note seem rather lacking). However, I don't recommend this move until the new version of WP:FICT is in place. --MASEM 16:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In-universe writing

I have a problem with the "in-universe" guideline, as I honestly don't see where the problem lies. All the articles that I have read make it perfectly clear that the characters, events, elements, etc. are fictional, and there are no confusing elements in the dozens of articles I have seen related to comics, novels, etc. Moreover, they do not differ from entries about fictional characters that I could see in paper encyclopedies. IMHO, this guideline is useless and simply annoying : given the fact that it provides no consistent advice about how this kind of articles should be written, and the number of articles about fictional universes, it is also likely that said articles will never be corrected, and that the readers will keep being subjected to these distracting "in-universe" tags. ~I think that they should be removed. Wedineinheck (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What paper encyclopedias? By "in-universe" we aren't saying that articles aren't identifying their subjects as "fiction" (which isn't a free pass to write how you please), but that the articles themselves are presenting the information in a manner that insinuates that it actually took place in reality. Fictional characters are not real, so they don't have "biographies". They have information that was presented in a work of fiction, written by a real person. You present that as it is (i.e. You would identify that Freddy Kreuger was buried in hallowed(sp) ground in A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, it's as simple as that). Identify where in the work of fiction that piece of information about the character, or subject, took place. Don't present it like it actually happened. This guideline clearly lists the problems that are associated with writing articles in primarily, or only an "in-universe" tone. Please note, there is a difference between writing in an "in-universe" tone and writing an article that contains "in-universe" information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
What Bignole said. Consider e.g. Anakin Solo. Up until very recently, the main portion of the article consisted of a biographical account (titled "Biography"), sorted not by the dates of the publications, but by the in-universe timeline of that character's life. Now, someone has begun introducing some encyclopedic sanity by writing a section on Anakin Solo#Publication history, which I moved to the top ASAP, because that is what articles on ficitonal entities should look like. I also renamed the "Biography" section to the more appropriate name "Plot details". Any detail that has no (verifiable!) connection to anything in the real world should not be included in any article. Dorftrottel (warn) 12:58, March 6, 2008
I followed you, right up till that last sentence. What do you mean by the last sentence? Ursasapien (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Some articles might be problematic, but I don't see how an article like, say, Ozymandias (comics), fits into your description. The character is perfectly stated to be fictional, and I don't see how anyone could miss that information.Wedineinheck (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As it seems, it is never mentioned outside the lead that it is a comic book character. His character history also mentions "In 1975" when his first comic book was first published in 1986. In-universe style. It should say, "Issue 7 of Watchmen reveals that this character was blablabla." Not to mention that the article has almost no focus on real-world content as strongly encouraged by WP:FICT. – sgeureka t•c 13:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wedineinheck, proposing that (appropriate!) maintenance tags be removed because the issues they are highlighting are probably never going to be resolved boils down to allowing in-universe writing, among other things. Are you seriously saying we should not tag an article as being unreferenced, "because it is highly unlikely anyone will ever introduce references"? That would mean allowing articles without references, when they are clearly not. Should we remove all instances of OR tags, "because it is unlikely that an article will ever be properly rewritten"? The very very least we need to do is to make our editors aware of shortcomings of an article, so as to give time a chance and make it possible that those issues are addressed by users interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of those topics at some point. Whitewashing by removing the maintenance tags is out of the question, and I hope obviously so. Dorftrottel (ask) 15:38, March 6, 2008
As to the specific example of List of Spider-Man enemies, I changed the unref tag to the more appropriate {{Primarysources}} tag. Consider that "This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications." is absolutely non-negotiable. We're not going to throw the last vestiges of encyclopedic standards overboard for some kids who are in the wrong project. Period. Dorftrottel (canvass) 15:46, March 6, 2008

The Ozymandias article states that "Ozymandias is a fictional character in the comic book series Watchmen". You can't get clearer than that ! The article then goes to narrate the character's history, but it is perfectly clear that said character is a) fictional b) depicted in a comic book. What else do you want ? Honestly, writing in the style suggested by Sgeureka would make the article almost unreadable. Moreover, it would require to rewrite the hundreds -if not thousands- of articles which have been written in that "style". There is no need to be agressive or question other people's intellectual maturity (FYI, I am 34 years old. :) ) Wedineinheck (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One sentence of non-fictional perspective does not change that the rest of the article is clearly not written in a non-fictional perspective. And I was perfectly able to write Vala_Mal_Doran#Character_arc in a non-fictional perspective and still make the article readable. Why shouldn't others be able to do the same thing? – sgeureka t•c 21:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole matter seems rather pointless to me. However, I think adding references to the specific issues in which the events described in the character's biography occur could add a non-fictional perspective without having to completely rewrite this article and others. Wedineinheck (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
But they should be rewritten, or mercilessly axed. There's always Wookiepedia and other more appropriate outlets for those unwilling or incapable of adhering to encyclopedic standards. Dorftrottel (taunt) 21:52, March 6, 2008
So go ahead, rewrite them. You don't need to be agressive on this matter. IMHO, writing : "X is a fictional character appearing in this specific work of fiction, published at this specific date. He does this and that" is absolutely not "in-universe". It is perfectly clear that X is fictional, is depicted in a specific work of fiction, hence whatever he does is fictional. Apart from adding the precise references to particular events in this character's fictional life, I don't see why any changes should be needed. I agree, however, that the dates of publication, specific issues, etc., are needed. Wedineinheck (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you're insight-proof. As your attorney, I advise you to check out Anakin Solo. Take a good long look at the two very very very different sections #Publication history and #Plot details (which used to be titled "Biography" and made up almost the entire article). Then come back and tell me whether or not you can make out any difference between the two sections. If not, Wikipedia is not for you. Dorftrottel (talk) 23:02, March 6, 2008
For what it's worth, I agree with your views re. in-universe writing vs. out, but I wish you would not bite folks who are expressing an alternate viewpoint. We all need to remain civil and treat each other respectfully. — Dulcem (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment and sorry if I appear a bit short on patience. It's just, it is not a valid alternative viewpoint in my book. And far more important than civility and the feelings of people is the encyclopedia itself. If and when I get the impression that someone doesn't, maybe isn't even trying to, understand as important a difference as the one discussed in this section re in-universe writing and real-world frame of reference, I tend to think thoughts like they maybe need to be told that there is in fact a door. Dorftrottel (canvass) 01:12, March 7, 2008
Understood. There are a lot of editors who come to Wikipedia wanting to write stuff that would better fit on Wookieepedia or something, so there's no harm in pointing out such sites to them. However, let's not neglect to try to convert them to writing for us as well! :) — Dulcem (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's say that Dorftrottel's deeply arrogant and obnoxious attitude does not help at all - no, it's not a personal attack : I am the one that felt attacked. What I would like is to find a way of getting rid of these annoying tags without wasting too much time recomposing the articles. I perfectly understand the need of adding some references. As for the "Ozymandias" example, adding simple references relating fictional events to specific issues, or simple precisions such as "In issue # 7, Ozymandias did that... etc" should be enough, IMHO.Wedineinheck (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"What I would like is to find a way of getting rid of these annoying tags without wasting too much time recomposing the articles." — That has been understood. Can you understand that those articles should be rewritten? Dorftrottel (criticise) 15:28, March 7, 2008
IMHO, many of them don't. I can't discuss your subjective judgement, nor can you discuss mine. Some articles, however, like Obelix, suffer from a geeky, juvenile writing, and would need to be fixed. That is not, however, the case with the majority of them, when it comes to style or accuracy. Adding precise references to issues, publication history, etc. is useful, but major rewrites seem like a waste of time to me. Wedineinheck (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction does a great job of summing this up:

The advice about factual articles also applies to articles on fiction subjects. Further considerations apply when writing about fictional topics because they are inherently not real. It is important to keep these articles verifiable and encyclopedic.

If you add fictional information, clearly distinguish fact and fiction. As with normal articles, establish context so that a reader unfamiliar with the subject can get an idea about the article's meaning without having to check several links. Instead of writing

"Trillian is Arthur Dent's girlfriend. She was taken away from Earth by Zaphod when he met her at a party. She meets Dent while travelling with Zaphod."
write
"Trillian is a fictional character from Douglas Adams's radio, book and now film series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the first book, Trillian is introduced to the main character Arthur Dent on a spaceship. In her backstory, she was taken away from Earth when the space alien Zaphod Beeblebrox met her at a party."
And so on.

-- Ned Scott 05:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

but Ned, this is a trivial change. You are totally right it should be done--the thing to do is to simply go through all the fiction articles systematically and do it--not nominate for deletion the ones that have not been done. I do it when I come across it with out any fuss, if I can figure out what's going on from the description. Its necessary, its worth doing, its also fundamentally trivial. The only special consideration is to also explain to the people writing them in an immature fashion how to do them right in the furture--and this is best done individually when we come across them. DGG (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Who said anything about deleting? I was responding to the original post in this thread by User:Wedineinheck, who didn't understand why we discourage in-universe style. The section I quote from WP:WBA is just a nice way to sum it up (and actually predates WP:WAF. An oldie but goodie). -- Ned Scott 07:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, now I understand. This seems to be a trivial kind of change, especially since most articles make it perfectly clear that the characters are fictional; but it may help the articles in seeming more "serious", though their writing is generally ok IMHO. When time permits, I'll add some "real-world perspective" to various articles, in order to get rid of these disturbing tags. One person mentioned "axing" the articles, but he seems overly excited. The point is that I don't understand why those tags were put everywhere, as it seems that such edits are a fairly easy task. Wedineinheck (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Then the template is doing its job: alert editors that the article has issues that should be fixed. If you consider this work a fairly easy task, the better; I find it very time-consuming to do this properly. You might find Category:Television articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction helpful. – sgeureka t•c 12:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned the axing, because that's what should happen with unencyclopedic material on an encyclopedic project: It should be mercilessly edited or removed if unsalvagable. Also, those edits are apparently not as easy you think, or otherwise we wouldn't have so many badly written fiction articles. It's much easier to simply summarise the plot (follow that link, please), and so that's what most people do. Dorftrottel (warn) 02:06, March 12, 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction/Archive_8&oldid=1137422851"