Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

RfC on including non-appearances of characters in films

This has been discussed at WT:Comics many times (one, two three, four, five), and I'm putting this here to get more/outside perspectives.

Over the last three decades, there have been many superhero films. During development, many characters are considered for inclusion, but not used. Some planned films die in Development hell. Some characters are alluded to in the film, but not actually present. Examples for your consideration include a director tweeting that a character was considered, an obvious Easter Egg, unfilmed scripts, and visual references to the character.

With every new film, there is a wave a editors wanting to add these non-appearances to character articles. There is a large volume of websites catering to fans, and reasonably-acceptable sources can usually be located to support any Easter Egg. The best-sourced material of this kind is often included in franchise articles like Spider-Man in film, but those pages do not always exist.

Is it appropriate to include a fictional character's non-appearance in a film in the character's article? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Responses

  • No - A character's article should be focused on the history and real-world development of the character. I don't see how including this kind of information informs a reader about a character, as there's no development, analysis, or lasting impact. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    First, thank you for bringing this topic to greater discussion. Now, if I may, let me hypothetically propose a scenario. Pretend that a treasure trove of notes by Stan Lee were uncovered, in which it reveals that he considered including Spider-Man in the original Avengers team. Would this information be worthy of inclusion in articles? And, if so, how is that different from any other "verifiable non-appearance"? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    In this hypothetical, I would include the information in the article The Avengers (comic book), since the material is relating to the creation of that comic book. If the notes explained that Spider-Man wasn't included because of the themes and long-term plans for the character, and if those same comments are not already present in Spider-Man through other sources, it might be worth a mention in the development section of Spider-Man. However, I would craft it so the focus was on Lee's idea of who Spider-Man is, not on the near-membership in a superhero team. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Argento Surfer: Thank you very much for this reply. I think I understand your position much better now. It is not that such information doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia, but that such information doesn't belong on the character's page and should rather be restricted to the "source" (aka movie) page. Is that correct? If so, I can certainly see where the thought process comes from better. Does this stem from the way many character articles are separated by media (comic history and then appearances in other media)? I dislike that separation myself, as one can affect the other — such as how the tone of '60s Batman TV show altered the tone of the comics, as the program was popular and DC wanted to capitalize on it. If a character's non-fictional, behind-the-scenes history integrated all media together, would that affect your stance? And, as always, thank you for the continued discussion. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • No: I agree with Argento Surfer on this, as they are almost always trivial. BOZ (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Generally No unless it was clear during production that the character was to appear (having been cast etc) and forwhatwver reason that never made it to final. But this be beyond the scope of rumors, and come from sources of high quality. --Masem (t) 14:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    Cases like that would have to be an exception, and should be allowed, unlike the vast majority of things that people seem to think we should include. "So-and-so was one of the names listed on a computer screen", "so-and-so's equipment appeared on screen", "so-and-so was mentioned by name or by description" etc, just add nothing of value at all. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    As noted, I agree that situation should be exceptional, hence my "no" to the general question --Masem (t) 21:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    As by way of perfect example news that the planned Wonder Twins film being canned is something to note re appearances on the Wonder Twins page. --Masem (t) 22:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, it depends on how much trivial is the case. If things have gone beyond the mere idea, if there's someone noteworthy to say about the case (as in Dr. Octopus case, Morbius, of the characters initially removed from the Snyder Cut) then it makes sense to mention them. We do have whole standalone articles about Category:Unreleased films, this is a similar idea. As for Easter eggs, they should be left out in most cases. However, if they cause some continuity snarl so that later works have to fix it, then yes. There was an Infinity Gauntlet in the background in Thor, this made no sense when the stones started to appear, so they had to take a moment in Ragnarok to point that it was a fake. Besides, those things may actually be a case of foreshadowing; but as it's difficult to recognize those, we should only mention this if the creators confirm such an intention or if the foreshadowed thing actually happens later. Cambalachero (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, if it's a significant character portrayed by a notable actor, and filming took place. See for example the last paragraph of Peeves: if you have read the books, and are familiar with Rik Mayall's work, you'll understand why he was perfect casting for that role, and it's a crying shame that all his scenes were cut. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    And if it's not a significant character portrayed by a notable actor, and/or filming did not take place? BOZ (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: May I ask why you chose these specifics qualifiers, specifically that it should be a "character portrayed by a notable actor, and [that] filming took place"? If a character has their own page, we can assume that the character itself provides notability, so further proof of notability shouldn't be required. As for the filming aspect, what about a case wherein Directer A has stated he wrote a film script with the intention of using Character B but ultimately changed it to Character C before casting? Wouldn't recognizing this intent be worthy of noting within Character B's article (assuming, of course, that Character B is notable enough to have an article)? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    The RfC question was Is it appropriate to include a fictional character's non-appearance in a film in the character's article?. I answered that with an example where such an event verifiably occurred. Now, apparently, I need to justify my example. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    I apologize if you were offended by my question. I did not mean you needed to justify your answer, but I wanted to understand why you mentioned the specific limitations that you did. Once again, my apologies if this was interpreted as rude. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Generally no unless there is significant discussion in a reliable independent source of the character's non-appearance. That would not include an editor's own comment that a character does not appear (per WP:OR), nor a similar statement sourced to a fan site, some other wiki, or a mere database. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    Pardon my confusion, but are you are basically stating "No, unless the information is reliably sourced", correct? As all information on Wikipedia should be reliably sourced, I do not understand why this is not a Yes vote. I look forward to understanding your reasoning better. Thank you. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    Most of the examples given by the OP are essentially trivial facts that are no doubt verifiably true, and which may merit a mention on fan sites, Twitter and so on, but but which have not, so far as I can see, been the subject of substantive discussion in reliable independent sources - hence my Generally no opinion.
    You have said Yes (conditionally), on the basis (in part) that verifiable non-appearances are potentially important to a fictional character's article. That of course is true in some cases, but more often than not editors want to add a non-appearance on the basis of mere verifiablity and bare mention rather than on reliable sources that actually discuss the non-appearance. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    @MichaelMaggs: Thank you for your reply. I missed reading the "significant discussion" qualifier in your original reply, which makes your answer more understandable to me. My apologies for this oversight. Thank you for very much for patiently explaining it to me. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Depends Not appearing can itself be notable if the reason behind it is important. Senorangel (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Depends - Summoned by bot. Like any info in any article, any info can be added if it's properly sourced and significant. That's easy. It seems the issue is that there's a wide range of interpretation of what's significant. Die hard fans will labor over the most intricate details of the plot, while non-fans might argue for avoiding a plot summary altogether. My personal feeling is to give some leeway to the detail oriented editors, unless the info they want to add is truly excessive, such as overusing multiple lines of dialog (going into Copyvio territory), or including scene by scene summaries. So long answer short, discuss on a case by case basis, but don't make a blanket rule, except for this one. ;-) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Timtempleton: Unless I am mistaken, what you are saying is not necessarily true, specifically about allowing leeway concerning intricate plot summaries. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia specifies that articles on creative works should include "concise" / "succinct plot summaries" (WP:PLOT & MOS:PLOT), thus the allowing of "intricate details of the plot" should not be allowed. "For fictional elements," according to MOS:PLOT, "details of creation and other relevant real-world information are more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element within the work." In other words, unless I am mistaken, including the fictional history is essential only because it provides context to the production/behind-the-scenes thrust of the fictional element's article. Thank you. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    a wide range of interpretation of what's significant Sorry for being unclear - the primary issue is not which appearances are significant, but if a non-appearance of a character is significant, such as an unfilmed script, or Doctor Octopus' tentacles being shown in the background unattached to Doctor Octopus, who is not otherwise in the film. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes (conditionally) — While an article devoted to a character should include their canonical, fictional history, my understanding is that the majority of the article should inform the reader of the history behind the character — as per WP:NOTPLOT, the emphasis of articles should be on "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the article's topic. As such, I believe that verifiable non-appearances are potentially important to a fictional character's article, similar to how a comic book series' article could include a never-released storyline, a movie's article should include an unproduced sequel, and an author's article would mention a major unfinished work. This is all reliant, of course, on a reliable source discussing/confirming the non-appearance, that including the non-appearance doesn't impose undue weight on the article itself, and that any/all "verifiable non-appearances" are not presented as a simple list. Thank you for reading my thoughts. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Generally no, and I'm taking my cues from the experienced editors bringing this up, and trusting that they need some input from the wider Wikipedia community to help with misguided editors. There may be some extraordinary circumstances where a character's non-appearance looms large. (Maybe their death in the last episode is a major storyline in the current episode.) But that should come from meaningful coverage in a reliable secondary source -- not there mere verifiability that they're not in that piece of media. There is an endless list of media that people haven't appeared in, and if we start doing that, it's finally time for me to demand a "List of media Shooterwalker has not appeared in" list. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    I can start building that list today. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Oh no. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for your input. For clarity, the topic is not "media that people haven't appeared in" but rather "media that characters have been considered for". The difference being that it is akin to page's which state that Movie X was considering Tom Cruise for a role but ultimately cast Brad Pitt. The question is mainly, I think, if such information should be restricted to Movie X's page or if it is deserving of mention on — using my example— Tom Cruise's page. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Depends, with a default of no. Like any other due weight issue, it should be decided based on coverage and significance relative to the things already in the article. One passing mention (and certainly a primary source like Twitter) is usually not going to be enough to establish due weight. However, an entire article about how a relatively obscure character was considered for something might be worth mentioning in their article, especially if it's a character who doesn't get much coverage in general. It should also be included if there's WP:SUSTAINED indications that this particular moment was important in the character's history - eg. if a character is considered for use somewhere, and later on does get used, with sources saying "we really wanted to use them in X and they were on our mind after that, so we used them in Y", that's sustained coverage that indicates that the consideration for X had long-term impact and is worth mentioning. --Aquillion (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    That's pretty useful input, thanks. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Aquillion: I agree with @BOZ, this is a very useful outlining of cases for use or not use, especially when remembering WP:SUSTAINED. Thank you. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Generally no, with case by case consideration for reasons articulated above by Aquillon. In some cases this information provides important context NE0mAn7o! (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you again to Argento Surfer for opening this up, and to everyone else for commenting. This RFC is almost a month old, and the last response was over a week ago. Do we continue to keep it open for now or should there be an official close to it? I believe that unless I am interpreting it incorrectly, we have a consensus that most non-appearances should not be included, while we would allow exceptions for any non-appearance that is well-documented in reliable sources to show that it has some kind of impact. Is this something we would now implement in the guideline, with examples to show what kind of exceptions we should allow? BOZ (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    I would add that rather than focusing solely on appearances in films, it should be more generally "other media adaptations", for example, going from TV to movie to comic book to video game to novel to etc, some character was not included at some point going from one media form to another, and why would we consider that worth noting. BOZ (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    @BOZ: I concur though I believe it should be a guiding light to all non-appearances of comic characters, regardless of medium. The general consensus seems to be that it is allowed only if there is reporting on the non-appearance that is reliable and sustained. I'd personally suggest that it further needs to be proven to be more than a speculation or rumor, which might mean requiring a primary source being cited in addition to a secondary one. Thoughts? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Character names and subsequent mentions

Nevermind, I've decided to just go with WP:COMMONNAME. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 15:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

So in articles about real people, we put their full name in the lead, and use their last name in subsequent mentions (with exceptions, such as two or multiple people with the same surname). As an example, we have John Doe is an example person. Doe first became an example person starting September 14, 2022. For real people, 99% of the time the subsequent mentions of name are just the surname but for fictional characters it is more inconsistent. For example, Elaine Benes is referred to in subsequent mentions as just Elaine and not her surname Benes.

What is the MOS policy for the names of fictional people? Should we refer to them on first mention with their full name as stated in a reliable source on the fictional universe's lore, and then surname only on subsequent mentions? Is it the same as the MOS for real people? A diehard editor (talk | edits) 07:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

Edit under section:categories

Should "However, editors should be careful to use an excessive number of categories," be edited to "However, editors should be careful *not* to use an excessive number of categories,"? Squeezdakat (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

What precisely do we want to "encourage" re plot summary sourcing?

I refer to the line However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. in the sourcing and quotations section, along with the recently added link to a user essay. My issues with the sentence as-is.

  • Every plot summary is sourced. It is sourced to the primary source and subject of the article, it's just not cited.
  • So are we encouraging editors to add additional secondary sourcing to the plot sections? This is contradicted by WP:PLOTCITE (also linked in this section) and while it might be desirable in some cases (usually in addition to the primary source) this is already covered by the later sentence in the same section and is redundant here.
  • Are we encouraging editors to add a general citation to the primary source for the plot section? It might add some transparency, but I'm not sure it benefits the reader particularly as it's obviously that the plot narrative comes from the subject itself unless specifically stated otherwise (this is a sky is blue territory for me).
  • Are we encouraging editors to add inline citations to every sentence in plot summaries for all articles about fiction? I would be against this as a general recommendation, at best it's something that should be discussed on a case by case basis. This goes beyond the guidance in WP:CITEFOOT. On a practical note it's also not so simple to directly cite every line for in a plot summary for a fiction that doesn't have page numbers. I'm also not convinced of what general benefit it brings unless the material is challenged; it doesn't prevent bloat (I could still copy out the entirety of War and Peace and cite every page) and it doesn't do much to prevent OR (it could potentially allow editors and readers to more easily verify elements that might have been recounted wrongly, but that's the same for all of WP and we don't recommend this done as standard). And lastly and most importantly I consider this not to be aligned with community norms for these sections in articles. (On a personal level I also find that it detracts from readability, but ymmv).

I would add that the user essay that is now linked to in this section is similarly vague on the specifics of what kind of sourcing is needed, and how / when it should be done (it does correctly identify common problems with plot sections but none of which imo are directly addressed by adding additional citations). On the basis that the sentence is too ambiguous as written to be actionable I have removed it. If you feel there is the need to encourage editors to do something specific in terms either adding sourcing beyond what is already stated or additional citations to the existing primary source then please speak up and if there's agreement what is actually meant then it can be added. I'd also then recommend that whatever is decided is also added to the case study listed below; if it's really worth doing we should show editors how it looks. Scribolt (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't see a contradiction. The primary source of the subject of the article is acceptable (and I don't see a need to cite that), but citation to secondary sources is allowed. My personal opinion is that there should be citations to secondary sources for direct quotations, but I would not demand that unless the accuracy of the quotation is in question. I've seen quotations in plot summaries that are wrong, perhaps because the editor adding the quotation is doing so from memory. Sundayclose (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Quotes from the film should almost never be included in plot summaries anyway, only exceptionally. —El Millo (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no contradiction, the point about adding secondary sources is to improve the reliability of our articles on fiction by using how the work was described by reliable sources rather than as a Wikipedia editor sees it. But such secondary sourcing doesn't exist for many works most of the time so the fallback to the primary work is fine as long as editors aren't interpreting or orhe synthesus. Masem (t) 13:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad that you both consider this mean adding secondary sourcing, rather sourcing/citing every line in the summary (this was what brought me here and what I wanted to avoid was people feeling encouraged to do this). If nothing else I will at least add the word secondary to the sentence in question, as we have agreed that this is what is being referred to.
Sundayclose, We agree that adding secondary sources is allowed, but is adding them without qualification in all articles really encouraged? That doesn't appear to be what you're saying, and this is what the line I removed stated. What information is in the sentence I removed that is not contained in the later sentence Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing beyond the encouragement and the why? If that's what you would like to preserve, we could add that in this case it's encouraged, maybe something like this:
If a work is fully summarized by secondary sources, it is encouraged to add citations to these sources to help prevent original research and synthesis.
Masem, I'm aware that only a vanishingly small number of reliable sources exist that could be used to fully summarize plot of the work. Even when they are available WP:PLOTCITE warns against summarizing from summaries without referring to the primary source for context which I agree with. The issue I have with the sentence I removed is that it is too open and doesn't qualify what kind of secondary sourcing is appropriate (e.g. should I go through our film articles adding reviews because they mention key plot points? This doesn't support the reader in verifying the content or prevent editors from synthing or ORing). Hopefully the revised change above is good for you as well. Scribolt (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Its a situational aspect. I don't have an immediate example, but if a work is very obtuse, and there is a scene that is not clearly defined on screen, but we have an interview from the work's creator that claims that explains what his intent was for that scene, and nothing else about the plot could be taken from a secondary source, you'd still want that single interview source citing the plot summary statement as to avoid any interpretation or OR.
Also I should stress that the Snow Crash example was bad. However, in long works (something that would take more than a few minutes to peruse to locate a passage), it is often good to provide primary source references as once-in-a-while placemarkers so that it is easier to help the reader verify the plot against the work itself. Or alternatively, to a secondary source that also summarizes the work.
There are probably ways to modify the statement here in WAF but we shouldn't be eliminating it. There is a negative perception towards works of fiction from other editors who question why plot sections can go unsourced, and what that line offers is some degree to alleviate the concerns. Masem (t) 12:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I understand your position. How do you feel about this? We still encourage the use of sourcing, the potential benefits of using it but also defining some high level limitations and guidance. Scribolt (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

CN tagging fiction for citations for basic plot points in the fiction

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CN tagging fiction for citations for basic plot points in the fiction. Most of the responses to far have basically been off-topic, trying to address whether media references/popular culture material is best included in the article in question, rather than the posed question of whether an inline citation is required that a work contains the plot point that it contains.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Fictional characters known by initials - what qualifies as the "preferred style for their own name" ?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

MOS:INITIALS

WP:Requested moves has consistently interpreted the "Initials" section as also applying to names of fictional characters.

An initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien), unless:

  • the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for their own name; and
  • an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person.

In such a case, treat it as a self-published name change. Examples include k.d. lang, CC Sabathia, and CCH Pounder.

Would the "preferred style for their own name" for fictional characters be the owner's name for the character? Examples:

  1. Owner: E.T. for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, style followed in secondary source
  2. Owner: C.C. for C.C. (Code Geass), style followed in secondary source
  3. Owner: MJ for MJ (Marvel Cinematic Universe), style followed in secondary source
  4. Owner: JD McDonagh for JD McDonagh, style followed in secondary source
  5. Owner: O.B. for Ouroboros "O.B.", style followed in secondary source
  6. Owner: K.K. Slider for K.K. Slider, style followed in secondary source
  7. Owner: B.A. for Knights of the Dinner Table#Boris Alphonzo "B.A." Felton, style followed in secondary source

starship.paint (RUN) 13:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  • I would support the above in adherence to key content policies, when we adhere to the owner's name of the character, we satisfy WP:V and avoid WP:OR, and we are less likely to run afoul of WP:NPOV because sources tend to follow the official name as the WP:COMMONNAME. However, if the official name differs from the most widely used name in reliable sources, then the official name would not qualify for the exception. starship.paint (RUN) 13:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    There is absolutely nothing like a "key content policy [to] adhere to the owner's name" of anything. Quite the opposite. See WP:OFFICIALNAME and MOS:TM. And WP:V and WP:OR and WP:NPOV are satisified by doing what a large majority of independent reliable sources are doing, not what is found in a primary source. Making up your mind based on a movie poster or a title card that the trademark holder must be upset about spacing or dot placement in a name just because they style it one way and we and various other publishers style it another way is OR by definition. Bending over backwards to satisfy trademark holders' stylization demands is entirely a POV exercise. And V is dependent on independent secondary sourcing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • WP cares most what independent sources are doing, not (per MOS:TM) what the trademark holder prefers, when it comes to any style questions. Fictional characters do not have feelings that can be hurt and preferences that can be offended, so the "preferred style for their own name" or "self-published name change" idea (or anything else derived from WP:ABOUTSELF) cannot apply to them. This initials stylization stuff is pretty much arbitrary, so there's no particular reason not to just follow MOS:INITIALS's default of "J. D. McDonagh", except in a case where a style like "JD McDonagh" is pretty close to universal in independent reliable sources. However, some of the above are not initials, but two-letter acronyms/initialisms, including E.T. and C.C., so the question about them would really be whether to remove the dots. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a work title, so we'd generally be inclined to leave it alone (unless "ET the Extra-Terrestrial" was well represented in sources, too), and thus to write the character as "E.T." to agree with the work title. As for C[.]C[.], I dunno. If the indepdendent sources near-univerally write it as "C.C.", then we would, too. But if they sometimes use "C.C." and sometimes use "CC", we would probably use the MOS:ACRO default of "CC". PS: Googling around, I see some highly speculative claims the C[.]C[.] character actually has an original human name in her backstory, that also has initials of "C. C." (though they can't decide what that name actually is), so that case might be futher complicated/debatable. But only weakly because of lack of any definitive and reliable sourcing at all. Expecially since the human name is not the source of the acronymic CC code name, but just an [alleged] fictional coincidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • BTW, this really is a matter for WT:MOSWAF; it has nothing to do with MOS:BIO.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    I've moved the discussion here, to the page where it is on-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    MOS:SPACEINITS is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography which is why it was started there. Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    Obviously, but that doesn't make a big discussion of non-biographical subjects pertinent to a biographical guideline's talk page, especially when there is already a corresponding page for writing about fiction. This discussion involves quite a number of MoS and other P&G pages, and is not confined to SPACEINITS matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I oppose any outcome that provides for C.3.P.O. or R. 2. D. 2. Largoplazo (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
C-3PO and R2-D2 are not initials so won't be affected either way by this discussion. R2-D2 for example, is a droid from the R2 series. Gonnym (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
While OP brings a few examples, other than ET, none of the articles have been promoted, so they haven't been checked against any MoS guideline. Even the ET article (as I've told the OP before) was promoted years before MOS:SPACEINITS was even written, so that too might not have been checked.
That said, lets talk about the actual issue of fictional characters vs real life people. With fictional characters we have the original text (book, film script, official sub-titles, end-credits, etc.) so there is always an official place where we can see how a name is written. RS in these situations just copy from that text (and each other) when they review a film or episode. The question is, does MOS:SPACEINITS apply, and we do we want a consistent style used across Wikipedia or should fictional characters be exempt from it? This might lead to situations where we have in cast list something like: * A. B. as C.D.
If we decide that we follow the source material then that should be added to the guideline so future discussions shouldn't be needed each time this will arise. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
We follow the independent reliable source material in pretty much everything to do with styling of names of things, and that generally does entail discussions on a case by case basis. In particular, per MOS:TM and various other pertinent shortcuts, don't apply a stylization that differs from MoS's default for a particular type of rendering, unless the independent sources overwhelmingly prefer some particular other stylization. We don't blindly follow primary sources (or MOS:TM could not exist at all), since they don't determine real-world usage. If we were to follow primary sources on C-3PO and R2-D2, for example, we'd be writing "Seethreepio" and "Artoodeetoo", which are what the original novel used (if I'm remembering the spellings correctly), 6 months before the film. If the name in question is using human-name initials, e.g. the McDonagh example above, we would follow MOS:INITIALS and render it "J. D. McDonagh", unless sources independent of the subject near-universally give it a different rendering, such as the claimed "JD McDonagh". But injecting a bunch of hand-wringing about things that are not human initials, like C-3PO, and E.T., and C.C. (which might really better be rendered as CC per MOS:ACRONYM) is not constructive.
There is basically nothing magically special and different for fictional characters; just do what we always do. If we are not going to spell "Kesha" as "Ke$ha" or render "Seven" as "Se7en", or give "Realtor" as "REALTOR", etc., etc. (despite preferences of fans of these things and in may cases preferences of the trademark holder) then we should not be using something like "JD McDonagh" unless the expected "J. D. McDonagh" is virtually unattested in independent source material. The reason we have exceptions like "Deadmau5" with a letter substitition and "Spider-Man: Far From Home" with a capitalized "From" in it are because case-by-case consensus determinations have done the source research to demonstrate that these divergences from the expected style very strongly dominate in independent sources. Just create redirects from other forms like "JD McDonagh" and "J.D. McDonagh".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Even if we have e.g. J. K. Rowling as M.K., it's not going to be very common. I don't think this would require to change all our fictional characters' spelling to ensure that a potential minor point of confusion would never occur. Instead we would have even more potential minor points of confusion on why our spelling deviates from the most common names used by sources. Note that we already have differences in initials, for example CCH Pounder as Ethel B. in Funny Valentines. starship.paint (RUN) 07:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: - a simple Google Search for "J. D. McDonagh" shows me that every source on the first page lists him, the wrestler, as "JD McDonagh" (your mileage may vary, but do try). I did use Google Books and Google Scholar but the results were contaminated by non-wrestler results. Am I understanding you correctly, that we should simply follow the independent sources say, so "JD McDonagh" above? starship.paint (RUN) 07:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, though I'm now confused why that entry was given as an example to discuss, if it's not a fictional character. Since this is a real person, it's the exact same kind of case as CCH Pounder: subject prefers it and sources almost entirely go along with it. But it's not actually relevant to the above discussion after all. Maybe "K.K. Slider" is an approriate one to examine since that does appear to be a fictional character.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: - that's because "JD McDonagh" is a character portrayed by real person Jordan Devlin, just like how "Harry Potter" is a character portrayed by real person Daniel Radcliffe. For K.K Slider, in Google Scholar "KK Slider" seems to be dominant, in Google Books there are some "KK" but "K.K. Slider" seems to be dominant, and in Google Search, at least on the first page, it seems to be ~70% "K.K.", ~30% "KK". I haven't seen any "K. K. Slider" in all three searches despite that being searched for. starship.paint (RUN) 07:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    The first point seems rather dubious to me; we generally treat stage names, even rather "peformative" ones, as alternative names not as "fictional" separate subjects, e.g. Buster Poindexter for David Johansen. And in fact the article presently at JD McDonagh is a biography of Jordan Devlin, not an article on the persona. Doing the latter is very, very rare here. The only case that comes immediately to mind is Stephen Colbert (character), because both the real Stephen Colbert and the alter-ego character are independently highly notable and there's more than enough material for well-developed articles on both. The only difference between the McDonagh and Johansen cases is that "JD McDonagh" is the WP:COMMONNAME and thus used as the article title, while "Buster Poindexter" is not. McDonough is not comparable to Potter, because Potter is an invention of an entirely unrelated party (Rowling). A wrestling persona is not analogous to casting as a fictional character in a film/TV/theatre role; it's directly analogous to adopting any other kind of performance persona like Poindexter, or like Angela White's Blac Chyna, a name/persona she abandoned this year (though our article on her is outdated and doesn't go into this).
    On the Slider matter, that data strongly indicates we should do "K. K. Slider", since there is no overwhelming preference for "KK Slider" across the RS material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

A simpler way to get at this is that the original question was "Would the 'preferred style for their own name' for fictional characters be ...", but it is not possible for a fictional character to have a preference about anything. The guideline addresses variants as a matter of whether "the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for their own name; and an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person. In such a case, treat it as a self-published name change." A fictional character is not a person, cannot prefer anything, and cannot self-publish anything. The "and" in there (not "or") also means that a style preference in sources (which are not written to our style guide) cannot be used to override our own MoS (otherwise MoS simply wouldn't exist; we'd always use whatever was the most common style for the subject in question, on every matter, but we do not and there are good reasons why). There is no way in which this guideline provision can be bent to support using the style preferred by the author (who often will date to a period when the norms of English usage were different), and the guideline itself already says "WP:Requested moves has consistently interpreted the 'Initials' section as also applying to names of fictional characters", so this question has already been asked an answered by the community repeatedly. To get at the OP's desired result would require a quite substantive "ignore our style manual and do whatever the primary source likes better" change, which would have to be its own proposal and which is almost certain to fail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#List_of_exemplary_articles

Would it be a good idea to add some plays? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

MOS:PLOT and nonfiction

I've sometimes seen editors refer to this page to imply that citations are not needed for synopses of nonfiction works. If that is true, it should be clarified, as my understanding that the guidance here exclusively applies to fictional work and plot summaries, not nonfiction creative works. czar 11:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming that if what you want to cite is clearly shown in the film then there is no need for a citation as the primary source itself is the source, however, if what is written in the plot section needs outside context, then yes, that should be cited. Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm thinking primarily nonfiction books: history books, essay collections, biography and autobiography. They have claims that are based in the real world rather than imagination. Is the standard that they need to be sourced to secondary sources (like all other Wikipedia content) or does this fiction guideline on Plot/Synopses also apply to nonfiction? I can move this discussion to WP:V if better discussed there. czar 13:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
NOT#PLOT and WAF extend from the idea that we should not be over reliant on a primary source to discuss a topic in detail if there is not independent or secondary sources about that specific aspect of a topic. So the contents of a published work, fictional or not, are typically not the type of thing discussed at depth, (reviews may touch on one or two specifics but rarely engaging in a thorough discussion of the contents) so the principle that we should stick to short summaries for nonfiction should be true as well. Masem (t) 13:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
On the face of it, I’m inclined to agree that PLOT does cover non-fiction in a substantially similar way—and not require citations—but such a plot summary should of course be presented as the opinions, hypotheses, narratives or theories of the author (something like: “the author contends that X was the consequence of Y and Z”). The truth or consequence or mainstream acceptance of the work could easily be covered in a later section, with appropriate sourcing.
I would still want to see examples though, because this sort of thing can be hard to discuss in the abstract. — HTGS (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction/Archive_14&oldid=1263778732"