![]() | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles about fictional subjects should be attributable, have suitable detail and scope, and be written from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself. |
Wikipedia contains numerous articles on fictional worlds and elements from them. For articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events or locations, significance outside the narrative itself should be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship. Once a topic's notability has been established, the approach to writing about these subjects is the most important consideration to make. This essay describes some guidelines towards writing a proper article on fiction.
Manual of Style (MoS) |
---|
Main page: Wikipedia:Attribution |
Articles on fiction should be appropriately referenced and should not include original research.
Main page: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view |
Articles on fiction should represent conflicting views fairly.
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) |
Articles on fiction should generally be about notable subjects. A fictional work is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject.
Articles on fiction should exhibit a level of detail appropriate for the subject. They should endeavor to both summarise the fictional subject matter and place the fictional work within the context of the real world.
Articles on fiction can approach their subject from two angles:
Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should prefer an out-of-universe perspective.
The following contrived plot description does not discuss the real-world universe at all, even tangentially, and is an example of the type of writing that should thus be avoided on Wikipedia:
In contrast, the passage below treats the same subject in a way that is suitable for Wikipedia, because it discusses the fictional universe with respect to events, people, and things in this universe. Notice how this perspective allows the inclusion of much information that an in-universe perspective would not:
Likewise, the lead section of an article written from an in-universe perspective about a fictional character might read something like this:
Notice how the prose is careful to label the subject as fictional, only to proceed to describe the character as if he were real for the remainder of the paragraph. Instead, the lead section and the whole article should persist with its out-of-universe view of the character:
Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's the two core content policies. It requires articles to rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and also contain no original research. Articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Such article are likely to lack any critical analysis on the subject and may invite creative interpretation. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves.
Consider this analogy: Would it be acceptable to write an article on flight based solely on watching birds flying? Furthermore, much of this analysis might seem on the surface to be quite sound. For example, assume that an editor creates an article on a starship recently introduced on a science fiction TV show. Using the episodes as reference, he or she writes, "Finn-class starfighters have purple shielding and can fly faster than Mach 3." But how do we really know that all Finn-class starships have purple shielding? What if there are green ones that just have not been introduced yet? And what if later episodes show that Finn-class starships come in slower or faster varieties, too? The editor has made an inference, based on limited fictional information. Framing things from the perspective of our own universe eliminates the problem altogether: "In Episode 37, Commander Kinkaid obtains a Finn-class starfighter with purple shielding. Vice Admiral Hancock calls the ship 'a real space ripper' and says that she can 'make it past Mach 3'."
In-universe writing can lead to skewed emphasis. For example, an article about a character from a particular film might begin with details of the character's early life, information that might only be found in an obscure novel. With such an approach, only later can the article describe the character's actual contribution to the famous film for which he or she is known. In other words, possibly irrelevant information is being given equal weight to more notable material. Likewise, the usefulness of in-universe writing is questionable. Interested individuals can, after all, find the fictional universe's account of events by simply reading the books, playing the games, or watching the films and television programs. On the other hand, articles written from an out-of-universe perspective, with their inclusion of details of creation, development, critical reaction, etc., serve our readers better.
Many resources might not seem to be primary source material themselves, but in reality are. For example, many science fiction franchises publish detailed guidebooks about the aliens, spacecraft, and weapons depicted in the series. However, these works generally do little more than reframe the source material in a pseudo-encyclopedic manner; many of these works even add new information and extrapolations of things only hinted at in the series itself. A good rule of thumb is that if a potential source treats a fictional subject from a mostly in-universe perspective, it is primary source material itself.
Another reason to avoid both in-universe perspective and lengthy, detailed plot synopses is that, in sufficient quantity, they may be construed as a copyright violation. Information about fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."
If you notice an article that predominantly describes a fictional topic from an in-universe perspective, or even provides no indication that a fictional subject is fictional, either improve it yourself or add the ((In-universe)) template to bring the issue to the attention of others. This template looks like this:
Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own milieu. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. This is not inherently bad, if the fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Note that when using the fictional work itself to write these descriptions the work of fiction must be cited as a source. For instance, a video game article should cite the game text, but it should also cite a reliable secondary source when necessary.
Even these short summaries can often be written from an out-of-universe perspective, and when this is possible, this approach should be preferred. For example, the following made-up paragraph is a largely in-universe plot synopsis that might draw from several episodes of a television show or several video games in a series:
This is generally fine, provided that some sort of indication is given as to where these various pieces of information come from (cite.php, for example). Another option is to add these notations to the prose itself. This may give the paragraph a more grounded tone and make it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the series:
Infoboxes, usually placed in the upper-right portion of an article, give key data about the article's subject in tabular format. For entities within fiction, useful infobox data would include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work. With loose continuity, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add. By contrast, a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance.
As with all infoboxes, trivial details should be avoided. An infobox for a real-life actor would not contain items such as favorite food, eye color, and hobbies; these details do not aid the reader in understanding the important characteristics of the subject. In the same way, infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory. For this reason, infoboxes meant for real-world entities should not be applied to their fictional counterparts, since, for example, information important to a description of a real-world company may be tangential to a fictional one. It is important to identify the revenue of Microsoft, whereas the fact that fictional MegaAcmeCorp makes 300 billion GalactiBucks in the year 2463 is probably unimportant.
Succession boxes, another common type of template, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities. Succession boxes assume continuity, which may not exist. Even if it does exist, the fiction's creators may choose to rewrite it later, invalidating any previous canon. In-universe succession boxes cannot adapt to these situations. Furthermore, the story that each work of fiction depicts does not change despite the continuation of stories across serial works or sequels, and as a consequence, the events within one work of fiction are always in the present whenever it is read, watched, or listened to. In-universe temporal designations such as current or previous are therefore inappropriate.
The following is a partial list of articles about fiction or elements from fiction that follow the recommendations of this guideline. These are good examples to follow for editors seeking to cover fictional subjects on Wikipedia. Keep in mind that the content in these articles may have changed since the time of their original listing here.
Some other Wikipedia-like projects prefer in-universe perspective. These are a good alternative for editors interested in such topics. The following is a partial list:
See also: List of wikis |
These are some of the more important WikiProjects that deal with fiction material. They may have additional suggestions, article templates and styles that you might wish to make yourself familiar with.