Fictional universe vs. setting[edit]

The fact that you have to keep drawing this line demonstrates that it's arbitrary. There is no qualitative difference between the fictional universe of Tales of the City and the fictional universe of Tales of the Beanworld; it's only a quantitative matter of degree. They're all fictional universes... just some are more fictional (and more elaborate) than others. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we go by your interpretation, then a fictional universe is no different from a setting, and this article may as well not exist. I think a fictional universe differs from a normal setting mainly in detail. If care has been taken to establish the setting's history, geography and physical rules then it is a fictional universe. These rules have to be consistent within the universe and, if other fictional works are set in that same universe, those must be consistent with them too. It may be OR to make such a claim, but it's also OR to make the claim that a fictional universe and a setting are interchangeable. So we lose either way. What we need is some lit-crit material on the subject.Serendipodous 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lacking that, how about we go with the literal meaning of the words rather than proceeding from your personal definition? You can say "there must be some difference from setting" as many times as you want, but that doesn't make it so, and your insistence on pulling one out of thin air is getting tiresome. Adding the phrase "a fictional universe must..." is the worst kind of OR; the purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe, not to set rules. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you feel that way, then this article should just be merged with setting. And I'm not suggesting that would necessarily be the wrong thing to do. But such a merge would in itself would be an interpretation, and I'd like some discussion before it happens. Serendipodous 13:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tales of the City relies heavily on readers' knowledge of the real San Francisco. Is that not a qualitative difference from Beanworld? —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree there is a fundamental difference. More importantly, it is a concept - a literary theory, in fact - that some people use to discuss fiction. For example, by saying that in Tom Clancy's "Ryanverse" the shooting of Pope John Paul II occurred in 1982, not in 1981 as in our universe. I think what is missing from this article is a critique. In fact, Clancy simply changed the date to fit in with his pre-existing fictional chronology. There is no need to conceptualise a parallel universe. Equally, the fact that Superman and Wonderwoman have a tete-a-tete in a cartoon does not mean they are in the same universe. It just means that's the way the author told the story. This is totally different from talking about setting.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Setting (fiction)

If there is no distinction between these two terms, as this article currently implies, then there is no need for two separate articles. Serendipodous 13:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction: The clear bright line that you insist on using to define whether something "qualifies" as a fictional universe (it must do this, it must have that) is not an objective one. That doesn't necessarily mean that this is the same topic as the other. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article, as it currently stands, makes no distinction whatsoever, clear or subjective. It is describing a fictional setting, nothing more, nothing less. Serendipodous 17:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's what happens when you remove your personal demands upon the subject, so be it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But then why isn't this article called "Setting"? Serendipodous 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:39, 8 November 2009 Serendipodous (←Redirected page to Setting (fiction))

There doesn't appear to be any established distinction between a fictional universe and a fictional setting, so the two don't really need to be distinct. Serendipodous 13:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes there is because a fictional universe is a complete different topic than fictional setting— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.226.145 (talk • contribs)
Got a reference for that? Serendipodous 03:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure I may agree somewhat, but the argument is weak. Is there a tautologist in the house? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is one of those times when Wikipedia really collapses as a resource. Everyone knows what a fictional universe is, everyone can explain what a fictional universe is, but no one (that I can find) has left a citation explaining what a fictional universe is. And until we can find one, we can't have an article on it. Serendipodous 14:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. Please explain, without resorting to original research, the difference between a fictional universe and a fictional setting, because right now the article makes no distinction between the two. I tried to make a distinction and my alterations were deleted as OR. But without OR there is no way to make a distinction. Serendipodous 20:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added something to try and make the distinction clear. It's OR, but without it there's no reason for this article to exist. Serendipodous 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term fictional universe is found everywhere, not just as a standard naming policy for Wikipedia articles. A quick scan of Google book search shows it used in over two thousand books [1] and in the news search it appears as well. Dream Focus 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do any of those sources explain what a fictional universe is? Serendipodous 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure they do. Do you doubt the definition presented in the article is valid? I think the name itself is rather self explanatory. See the article for Universe and read the first sentence there. You can look up fictional as well if you have to. Dream Focus 21:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote it so I don't think it's invalid. But if it's not cited, then it will be deleted, like it was last time. Serendipodous 21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt this article would have any chance of being deleted if it was ever sent to the AFD. Redirecting it without anyone noticing, is not the same as deleting it. Dream Focus 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I mean is that all the material that marked out a fictional universe from a setting was removed as original research. I tried to put it back, but, as you can see above, I was shot down. So I merged it, because if I couldn't define a fictional universe, there was no point in having an article on it. Serendipodous 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can't use another wiki as a source. I really don't think we're going to find a source fit to Wikipedia standards, as I don't think this issue has been given much academic attention. For that reason I think this article either needs to remain uncited original research or re-merged. Serendipodous 20:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking the definition was one that could be used. It makes sense. And nothing was merged, it just a redirect, and there no consensus to do that. If you do not doubt it to be a real concept, then you shouldn't talk about getting rid of it. The fact that so many Google news searches [3], Google book searches [4], and Google scholar searches even [5] call something a "fictional universe", and talk about it in this context, means it is clearly deserving an article. Dream Focus 22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those sources give many examples of what a fictional universe is, but not a definition of a fictional universe. The reason I redirected the article to "setting" is because without the specifics distinguishing the concept from "setting", which were removed as OR (because they are), there was no point in having this article. Serendipodous 23:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

merge with setting

I pretty much agree this article hardly makes a difference between setting and fictional universe. At any case this whole article really needs citations. 190.140.251.85 (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm reconciled that this article must exist in some form, given that Wikipedia itself uses the term in its policy statements. However, I would appreciate it if someone could determine exactly what a fictional universe is supposed to be. Serendipodous 19:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some further explanation of the levels of canonicity that can exist in some of the more developed fictional universes might be helpful. I know this touches upon events like the Crisis on Infinite Earths - but there are some other interesting examples... The Dr Who Universe, the DC universe and the Alien/Predator universe spring to mind off the top of my head, all of which have evolved over decades across a variety of media via a plethora of authors/designers. To me, there's a subtle distinction between universes that take on a life of their own through usage by multiple authors in this way and well-defined settings that are largely the result of a single creator - like, say, Tolkien's Middle-Earth. Dybeck (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Shared universe" appears to be a subset of "fictional universe", so the implication is that not all fictional universes are shared. Serendipodous 22:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aren't All Universes in Literature Fictional?

The biggest problem with trying to make distinctions about what is and what isn't a fictional universe is that, by definition, all fiction is made up. Merrian-Webster dictionary defines fiction as: "something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story." So trying to give qualitative value judgements on what is and what isn't is missing the point. I think the concept some of the editors are arguing for are more in line with alternative realities than fictional universes. You might think I am simply arguing semantics, but I think we're using an umbrella term that is so vague it has no meaning. People seem able to see that Star Wars is set in a fictional universe, but so is every Romance novel ever written, the only difference being Fabio isn't on the cover of The Empire Strikes Back, but the stories are still pure fantasy. Chalchiuhtlatonal (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that there is this term "fictional universe" that is in wide circulation, and which many people consider worthy of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia even has a policy on it. So it's quite clear we are dealing with something that is commonly understood. The problem is finding a written definition. Serendipodous 23:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally it refers to a series, not just a single novel. Dream Focus 23:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, not all universes in literature are fictional, because it's not quite true that "all fiction is made up". Consider Jane Austen's Persuasion, in which Anne Elliot visits Bath. Anne Elliot is fictional. Bath is not. (Notice, for example, that on the page Persuasion (novel) there is a link to the article on Bath, Somerset -- it is not an article on a fictional city, but on the actual city.
The whole point of Jane Austen's books, or the Sherlock Holmes books, is to depict fictional characters in the real universe. The whole point of The Wizard of Oz or the Narnia books is to depict fictional characters who travel from the real universe to a fictional universe.
Of course, you might argue that the novel Persuasion depicts an imaginary England, completely identical to the real England except for the presence of a dozen fictional people. But that's not how these terms are used in ordinary speech. In ordinary speech, the term "fictional universe" is not used to describe the setting of Jane Austen's novels. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. It's fundamentally different. You can critique The Hound of the Baskerville because its history and geography are wrong. You can't critique The Lord of the Rings in the same way. You might argue there are inconsistencies in Tolkien's world-building, but that's different.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joey and Seinfeld[edit]

I see that the reference to Joey and Seinfeld existing in the same universe has been removed and then reverted. I'll assume good faith for now, but can someone please find a citation for this, or remove it if this is not right? I was never a regular viewer of either series, but I'd never heard that. If Joey and Seinfeld are in the same universe, it follows that "Friends" and Seinfeld are in the same universe too, of course. The "Mad About You" reference is OK (via Ursula Buffay and Friends), but could also do with a citation. Dybeck (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Reiser's old apartment on Mad About You is now owned by Kramer. NBC likes liknking up its shows. It's all part of the Tommy Westphall universe. Serendipodous 16:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I've tidied up the section and made it more relevant to the definition. It could still use a citation though if you can find one. Dybeck (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This whole concept could use a citation. Serendipodous 13:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Markstein[edit]

Apparently, Don Markstein created and defined this term in a 1970 issue of CAPA-alpha (although when he archived the article on Toonopedia, he did mention the possibility that someone may have antedated him).

I feel that this is a valuable source which should be integrated into the article. DS (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think he also pioneered the concept, which is important to note.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of fictional counties up for deletion[edit]

I've added some sources. More are out there. Important literary device. Important list for some of our readers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fillory?[edit]

Is Fillory a good example? It's a pretty direct parody of Narnia, and there's a bunch of better known fictional fantasy universes such as Middle Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resuna (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV[edit]

I have added a POV tag to this article because it only presents one side - that of fans who use the "fictional universe" concept. There should be a critique of this concept. It is not accepted by mainstream literary theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a bit late here, obviously, but just giving my unauthoratative opinion in the interest of resolving the tag, I'm not sure that that's a violation of WP:NPOV. Most of the article lists examples of fictional universes that are pretty unambiguous, as are most examples of fictional universes in the first place. On occasion, there are some examples of the subject that can be disputed (e.g. the "Tommy Westphall universe"), but they aren't mentioned on this page. I'm also not exactly sure what you mean by "not accepted by mainstream literary theory," but only by "fans of the concept." The definition given in the article is disputable depending on opinion, but at most that should be a section tag, and I personally find it fine. I don't know if "sides" really apply here. JœRunner talk / contribs 23:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed the tag, interpreting silence as consensus. Please reply to this with any objections. JœRunner talk / contribs 03:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabldotink (talk • contribs) Reply[reply]
I reiterate my objection. Saying you don't understand me is not an argument.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed merge of Fantasy world into Fictional universe[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was do not merge. JœRunner talk / contribs 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seems to be very little distinction between a "fantasy world" and a fictional universe. Whether something is a "land", "world", or "universe" is largely semantic in nature, since it implies that the universe is different from our own. While the idea of a fictional universe was conceived later, it has become the de facto classification for such things as we have fully explored this world and stories set in unknown regions of it are no longer believable. It can be mentioned that past incarnations of fictional universes were known as "lands" or "worlds". ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose: The two are not synonymous. The "Law and Order" universe is a fictional universe, but not a fantasy world. Not all fictional universes use magic or are inhabited by impossible creatures. Serendipodous 16:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because a fantasy world is a subgroup of fictional universe doesn't mean it requires its own article, especially since much of the information from both articles can safely be trimmed down as original research. A section on fictional universes in fantasy would be sufficient. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The definition covered in the "fantasy world" article seems to cover countries, planets, or dimensions covered extensively in works of fantasy and science fiction. It even notes the lack of clear distinction between the two genres which use similar settings. The definition given in "fictional universe" seems to equate it with whatever is the main setting of a multimedia franchise. It discusses what effects the publishers and copyright-holders have on a franchise. Which frankly has nothing to do with the premise of a fantasy world. Dimadick (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are largely surmountable issues and the article also has things like "What distinguishes a fictional universe from a simple setting is the level of detail and internal consistency. A fictional universe has an established continuity and internal logic that must be adhered to throughout the work and even across separate works." That clearly also apply to fantasy worlds. If it was merged, it would be restructured to be less about the commercial franchise aspect and more about the overarching concept, including in fantasy. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: A fictional universe does not necessarily require fantasy elements. Consider the famous Orwell work Nineteen Eighty-Four—it is lacking in many common fantasy elements, like parallel worlds, magic, mythological creatures, et cetera. Much of the technology described existed even in Orwell's time, and much of his "Big Brother" exposition has proven remarkably prescient. Orwell described a clearly fictional universe, but it could hardly be considered a fantastical one. 2601:3CA:204:F860:8D38:2607:4E8C:BAC2 (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would class 1984 as speculative fiction.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eventually oppose as well: Fictional universe is in Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. However they're not in fantasy world. Or maybe both can be merged, but the articles can be further improved without improving. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kennedy-Armstrong Meeting[edit]

This article claims that John F. Kennedy met Neil Armstrong. Do we actually have any evidence of this? I have seen reports that Neil Armstrong said that he never met John F. Kennedy. For example, see here: http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/001883.html RomanSpa (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories