Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:33, 30 April 2008

Template:Fiction notice

Archives
April 2006–June 2006 June 2006–July 2006 July 2006–September 2006 October 2006–December 2006 January 2007–March 2007 March 2007–August 2007 August 2007-December 2007 January 2008-March 2008 April 2008-

• WT:WAF

Real-world perspective Barnstar

Here's something to award to people who actually improve Misplaced Pages in fiction-related articles by including or expanding material related to real-world perspective. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 16:06, April 5, 2008

Sections in articles about fiction and TV series or books, especially in List of characters

I started a discussion in Talk:Characters of Lost#Dividing the characters to Oceanic Six and others about the way the sections should be written in articles about fiction and TV series.

I am the opinion that section titles and section division should not reflect the "current" (last episode seen so far) status of the characters on the specific TV series in the same reason that we don't write the status of a fictional character appearing in a TV series. I think we should recommend that the characters appearing on the show in a way to take under consideration all seasons/episodes and in a way presenting fundamental elements of the TV series/book/etc and not using criteria that may change or depend only on the "current" (last episode seen so far) episode (or book if that concerns a book series such as Harry Potter).

I am not sure that FICTION already covers that. At least it did, but it seems we have to make a discussion here about a more specific policy about the subject.

I find the division of the characters of the Lost TV series subjective and wrong. The same way I felt about an older division of the characters of Jericho to deceased and not deceased. I had corrected the latter with no problem by merging the one category into the other. The editors dealing with Lost seem to have a different prospective.

I certainly would like that specific guidelines are writen. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm following correctly, but are you referring to something similar to have maybe Smallville's main page does it? That's set up based on their original appearances. Many have left the show, but they remain in the original list, while anyone that came later were added in a separate listing as they were not part of the original group of series regulars.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The division in main and additional cast is just perfect. It's simple, it covers all the characters, it is independent from the "status" ("dead", "alive", "on the island", "off the island", etc.) of the character.-- 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also List of characters in Heroes is not that bad. Except maybe the "family" thing but this is under discussion there as well. It has Additional season 1 characters and Additional season 2 characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been some editors that have wanted to reorder the list to be "Current cast" and "Departed Cast", or something to that effect. I've always felt that gave rise to recentism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In regard to Lost, the sections contain spoilers so I am not sure why the headers should be any different. Using Greek mythology as an analogy, the page is arranged by "Olympians", "Titans", "nymphs", "other deities" and "mortals". –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that all "off the island" characters (Oceanic Six aside) have always been off the island. If someone look at the page and says, "Oh damn, I didn't know Sun was part of the Six" then they shouldn't have looked at the page. You should expect spoilers on a central pages such as a list of characters. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:) I liked the example you used. But see Battlestar Galactica. Since the main element of the whole series is Cylons vs Humans (it is written in the introduction of each episode) it is completely normal to do that but in Lost the division between people on the boat, people on the island, etc. is not a basic element of the whole series. The basic element is the survivors and other people they meet. Certainly, the division to Oceanic Six, people on the boat, etc. has nothing to do with Titans and nymphs. Characters in Lost can change status in each episode.

Now, about the style of writing, I think it is more encyclopedic to divide the characters each tv series, etc. to main cast -indicating in which season are main cast- and additional cast. This saves us from recentism, too much spoiling, fancract division, etc.

We have to encourage people to check the Misplaced Pages articles. I removed all Heroes articles from My Watchlist because someone was always entering information from previews, at 90% inaccurate or just... wrong. We want people who just start watching Season 1 to go and find the infrmation they want without worrying to get unnecessary spoilers. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if someone has only started the beginning of a series, they should know not to touch that series on the internet with a kilometre-long pole (even if it has a blade at the tip). And part of the hitch of Lost is the fact that there is usually a storyline on all fronts. Currently, on the Kahana, at Locke's camp, at Jack's camp, the past and the future. Those characters may venture into the other realm, but tend to stay within there own. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters of classical mythology change status too. Heracles eventually became a god and the Olympians are a group that formed and expanded overtime. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Those characters may venture into the other realm, but tend to stay within there own" Why do I believe that this sentence is not a good way to look things in Misplaced Pages? Those characters are part of a product that it is distributed in many ways. TV in the US, dvd boxsets in other countries, etc. Why can't we make articles based less on "the last episode seen so far"? Why must someone watch all the episodes of a Tv series before consulting Misplaced Pages? This is not how an Encyclopedia should work I think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should be complete. To be complete, we need all information. We can't stay on the first episode when there are more than that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. I am searching a way to present things in a better way. Check the Cylon (Battlestar Galactica) article for BSG. It is very nice. It explains what Cylons are, they are not section titles like Captain Adama is a Cylon, it presents information outside a certain season's perspective, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Adama's what now?! Lol. But at Cylon (re-imagining) the biggest spoilers are shown. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There are more good ways for presenting characters: List of Battlestar Galactica characters, List of Prison Break characters. :) I'll try to check most of the characters' articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, if you sort through them all, the amount with spoiles outweigh those without partially because the list of characters as where many without enough info for a page but enough to be significant are put. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

At the Lost page, there is no section title that reads ***** is one of the Oceanic Six. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that even if we reorganize the Oceanic Six into the main list of survivors the article will still state which survivors are part of the Oceanic Six, as this is essential information about the characters. Where and how this information is presented is just semantics. Yes, it would be less obvious if it were only stated in the normal font after the characters' names, but as stated several times we don't organize information in such a way to spare new viewers of being spoiled. Jackieboy87 (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked many other articles of Lists and I think Lost system is the worst. The vast majority uses the classic main/additional cast. You are not even using the word "cast" or "characters" in the section titles. In response to the "we don't organize information in such a way..." I have to use that's why I am asking specific rules to be written in the Manual of Style. The question is if we have to organize information in the way I suggest or not. And that has not only to do with Lost. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Input requested at WT:FICT

I am proposing a hypothetic case of what would be covered in an article of a notable work of fiction assuming no size restrictions but also lacking any notability for the universe within that work of fiction, as to try to bound issues for spinouts and other aspects, as well as likely creating language to be re-inserted in here on how much to discuss a fictional universe. Please see this discussion thread if you would like to provide input. --MASEM 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevant court case - "Harry Potter Lexicon" - the perils of in-universe writing

Discussed at "Rowling to Testify in Trial Over Potter Lexicon," New York Times, April 14, 2008. The allegation is that the defendant's work in that case does not qualify as fair use because it "merely compiles and repackages Ms. Rowling’s fictional facts derived wholesale from the Harry Potter works without adding any new creativity, commentary, insight or criticism." Everyone should watch the outcome of this case. Postdlf (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to note while this is a valid concern, results of legal cases should only filter to WP after WP's lawyers have stated something to that effect. The most recent inquiry, a few months ago I think over in WP:NOT was that right now, editors should not concern themselves with possible copyright infringement issues in the development of policy and guidelines. This court case may change that but we should only respond after the lawyers for WP respond. --MASEM 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, et cetera. Sorry for being blunt even by my standards, but we have to be firm on this. If we jump every time this ridiculously complex site of ours could conceivably get in trouble from the perspective of legal laymen, we might as well blow up the encyclopedia and go home. Exceptions to this can have very weighty consequences and should only be made with the equally weighty aid of Wikimedia's legal help. Mike effin' Godwin has already been consulted on this specific issue, and until and unless he says otherwise, we stand firm. --Kizor 22:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Stand firm? In defense of pure plot summary "articles"? Dorftrottel (vandalise) 13:29, April 28, 2008

Thank you for your quotation marks, but can we keep that out of this? --Kizor 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't think we need such a court case to recognise pure plot summaries as the poorest form of pseudo-article (that's where the quotmarks went. such pages are simply not proper articles), and axe them as they come. Likewise, even if Mike Godwin's advice were that we need not worry wrt the Rowling case, we should still do something against disproportionate plot summaries, for purely encyclopedic reasons. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 09:17, April 29, 2008

This is something to keep in mind, even if we're not going to take any drastic measures on it. We often deal with image-copyright stuff without consulting the Foundation's legal advisors, but I do understand that article text is its own monster. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The image policy came down from the Foundation based on their legal advice. When the text becomes an issue for the Foundation, the same will happen. Until then, it's up to editorial consensus to set the way forwards, and the consensus tends to be that we should avoid copyright paranoia. Hiding T 08:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant, but please note that the result of the court case has not yet (as far as I know) been announced. It could go either way, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions until the case is over. All the news articles I found said something like: "The case continues." From what I've read, the case has actually finished now, but a verdict will take "several weeks". Let's wait until that verdict arrives. Oh, and well-referenced and encyclopedic articles won't have a thing to worry about. It is more the fan stuff on wikia, or our badly-written articles, that will be a concern, if even that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant. We should not have articles that are just long plot summaries, but the previously mentioned court case has nothing to do with the rationale. We should be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias summarize the plot of works of fiction, but they are not written in a style that substitutes for the work of fiction. They describe the work of fiction, not retell the work of fiction. 'Nuff said. Ursasapien (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. What a sorry condition would we have to be in to need a court case to recognise what is and what is not encyclopedic. Incidentally, erring on the side of caution largely overlaps with the project's goals. Dorftrottel (ask) 09:21, April 29, 2008

It's not even relevant--we have nothing of that degree of extensiveness. And in the case itself, the key point of argument was the competition with the original authors well-demonstrated intent to publish a similar publication. Two published books as guides to the works can compete with each other (though of course it has been quite correctly argued that nobody else's work can in practice possibly inhibit the actual sales of Rowlings'). When some author objects that they intend to produce a wiki and sell access to it for profit, we can argue the matter. DGG (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)