Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#rfc 67447DC

This section is far too long, and concentrates too much on persuading editors what is bad about in-universe view, rather than just telling them not to use it. Probably it was written decades ago when there were still active arguments about how fiction articles should be presented. Now, all that's needed is to tell editors to use a real-world perspective, and to give some examples of what to avoid. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't sure what to remove. Do we even need the bullet-point lists? 183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::Maybe just a few consolidated examples. It would also be less confusing not to mix up what's expected in the Plot section and what's expected elsewhere. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I'm now thinking that it would be best to remove the entire bullet-point list from MOS:INUNIVERSE, as those examples are almost all either redundant or not very helpful. If anyone thinks that a particular item from that list is helpful, and it is not redundant to something else on this page, please point it out. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I don't think we can remove the list entirely as I have seen all of those cases in misuse of plot summaries and the list. Trimming is fair but should stick to a few key cases. — Masem (t) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:This could almost replace that entire section. It would remove a lot, but much of that is redundant to things that appear elsewhere on the page.

:{{tq|All Wikipedia articles should use the real world as their primary frame of reference. As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world. With fiction, this means not writing from the perspective of the fictional world. Many fan wikis and websites treat fictional worlds as if they were real, but this should not be done in Wikipedia. An in-universe perspective can mislead the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article.}}

:{{tq|Keeping a real-world perspective also means limiting the amount of detail regarding the fiction itself. An article about a fictional character should not necessarily include the kinds of details that would appear in a biographical article of a real person. Backstory should be kept to a minimum, not treated as actual history might be.}} Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

::Will need to get back to this after Christmas. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:::A month later, nothing has gotten done here. Perhaps it would be best to stop worrying about "consensus" or whatever and just focus on improving the page. For the sake of users seeking guidance who find this bloated mess. 168.194.75.98 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm still interested in improving this, though I am volunteering more than full-time on other things and sometimes Wikipedia takes time. It's more important to do it properly than to do it fast. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I should note that the IPs you've been talking to is a notorious ban evader who's been trying to shorted this page over and over through different accounts and IP addresses, and annoyingly this kind of editing taking away from any actual cleanup that might be needed. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::When I have time to get back to this (not in the next few weeks unfortunately) I will as always be making my own decisions. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Basically, do the names of elements in a work of fiction (like characters, locations, items, etc.) need citations to reliable sources for verification? Just need clarification on this, thanks. 1isall (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:If they are not obvious to the casual viewer, yes. In other words if you need to freeze frame to catch a full name name, then we'd require a source for that. If it's a spoken detail or can be seen in the credits, that doesn't need sourcing. Masem (t) 22:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Here's a longer, complex version of this question:

::Characters in a series refer to an item as "Item". The "Item" also appears in a spinoff of that series. The original series doesn't have an article, but the spinoff does. Now does the official term "Item" need verification if it's being used in the article for the spinoff? 1isall (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It’s difficult to say in the abstract. If you’re looking for feedback on ENA: Dream BBQ, could you indicate the precise issue? From a very quick overview, it seems that some editors there might be under the impression that specific elements within a game need sourcing from an external reliable source, whereas MOS:FICTIONPLOT allows for the game itself to be treated as the primary source for its own plot (in the same way that a novel is treated as the primary source for the novel’s Plot section). As Masem says, though, external sourcing would still be needed for elements that are not obvious to the casual player. MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::How'd you know I was talking about ENA: Dream BBQ? But yes, the precise issue is with an official term: rain rocks. The rain rocks appear in both the original ENA series and Dream BBQ. And the original series doesn't have an article. So I can't use the term as it's unverifiable (no sources speaking about it). But does it really need to be verified? 1isall (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I mean, the whole series calls it "rain rocks", doesn't it? 1isall (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'll call the users who think that the official term needs verification. {{ping|Sparkle and Fade}} and {{ping|Celtoi}} Let's discuss this even further, but please read the comments above first. 1isall (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't know what a "rain rock" is, but if is a named element that is evident to the casual player within the specific game covered by the article, it doesn't need an external source, as the game itself acts as a primary source, per MOS:FICTIONPLOT. It doesn't matter whether an earlier game has an article: only whether the term appears in the game actually being described. If that named element isn't obvious from the game itself (eg because it's only named in some earlier game or series, or is only used informally by fans), a separate reliable source for the name will be needed.

:::::::By the way, it's easy to follow the edits of any editor. From the editor's user page, select the User menu, then Contributions. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks! Also, I do know how to see the contributions of editors, but I appreciate the reminder! 1isall (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:This discussion looks like it's settled. But if a fictional term isn't mentioned anywhere outside the fiction, it's usually an indicator that it's too marginal for us to mention. Besides being hard to describe in a reliable and neutral way, there's a chance you'd lose the average reader by referring to it. It's usually better to describe these things in plain terms, like "a magic sword" or "a lost planet", rather than confusing people with too many proper nouns. (Conversely, when reliable sources mention a proper noun over and over, it may be a sign that Wikipedia needs to at least define what it is, in order to keep readers informed.) Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{OD|:::}}I should clarify that the term 'rain rocks' are never mentioned in Dream BBQ, nor are the 'crystal-like growths' or 'polygons' called 'rain rocks' in external sources. The only viable source which calls them 'rain rocks' is the first episode from the ENA webseries, "Auction Day". However, it is original research to say the polygons in Dream BBQ are the same thing as the rain rocks in Auction Day, derived from how the location which these polygons appear in closely resembles the one in Auction Day (which is also original research). – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the clarification. I do agree with you, it is never explicitly stated that the rocks ENA is covered with towards the end of Dream BBQ are rain rocks. So, yes, since it's original research, we should leave it out for now. If later in the game the cubes appear again and are confirmed to be rain rocks, can we add it back in? 1isall (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)