Shortcut

"Primary information" and "secondary information"

In the Sources of information section, is it even helpful to talk about "primary information" and "secondary information"? I realize information comes from sources, but it would be more straightforward just to talk about primary and secondary sources, and what information can be found in each. Also, the example of another episode of the same TV series may be problematic, as using one episode as a source regarding a different episode is likely to be original research. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real-world perspective

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)[reply]

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

Mass edits by blocked IP editor

I've been trying my best to follow all the recent IP edits, to make sure they have been constructive. They seem to be in good faith, as far as I can tell, even if editors (including myself) have disagreed / modified some of them. I'm slightly suspicious that many of the recent edits have come from an IP coming from a blocked proxy server. I don't think it's inherently disqualifying, but it is suspicious enough to deserve review from longtime editors with a more transparent history. Creating an account helps other editors to evaluate our history of engaging in good faith. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been doing excellent and well-supported work overhauling a collection of guidelines that have, to my knowledge, never been systematically reviewed. I hope they will return. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I was considering stepping aside, but your comment has persuaded me that I should help to finish the cleanup, though I may restrict my activity to talk page comments for a while. I am the person who was using the IP. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back! MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. Like I said, I've found your work constructive on first review, so thanks for contributing. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, 2A02:20C8:4120:0:0:0:0:A03D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which also appears to be a proxy?) just reverted all changes going back months at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction[1], Wikipedia:No disclaimers[2], Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections[3], and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels[4] while making reference to this discussion. I have reverted the edit at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, and MichaelMaggs reverted the ones at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels[5] and Wikipedia:No disclaimers[6] while I was writing this. I would also note that the IP was WP:Blocked as an WP:Open proxy, not WP:Banned for cause (or blocked for cause, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do we proceed with this page? In contrast with the other pages mentioned, there is still little consensus here about the improvements needed, and it probably makes sense to re-start the discussions again, going from the text of 7 November 2024 which is where today's revert has left us. Suggest working from there section by section (not necessarily in order), and seeking consensus here on the talk page in each case before updating the guideline. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging users who have contributed since 7 November: User:Scribolt, User:Masem, User:Shooterwalker, User:HeartGlow30797, User:Frost, User:Tea2min, User:Boneless Pizza!, User:Sofia. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just a mindless patroller without a leg to stand on when it comes to MOS. I looked into the user contributions when I reverted it and saw little activity about discussion of this removal. In the future, I will be more diligent and I won’t revert without first evaluating the full talk page. Cheers, Heart (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the consensus for many of the changes is unclear. Some are worth retaining. Section by section sounds good. Scribolt (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that blocked IP contributions are inherently a problem. But I do agree it's important to review them. If editors want to discuss some or all of them, I think that's a good idea. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was getting done here, so I improved this page as much as I could except for the Real-world perspective section, which could probably be trimmed down to a few paragraphs of prose, and the "list of exemplary articles", which doesn't seem necessary or particularly helpful. Several articles previously on that list have been demoted within the last year, which casts doubt on whether this is really a good sampling. Furthermore, it's a waste of time to keep checking the listed articles to see whether any more have been demoted. But I refrained from such major changes.

Wasted effort is also a reason I removed the second paragraph of the lead section, and the list of details that might be found in primary sources. These points are at best not very helpful, and at worst misleading. imo both became further muddled when editors tried to improve them. Retaining something that isn't very helpful leads to wasted effort, and also makes the page harder to navigate.

For the sake of users seeking guidance, I really hope my edit is not blanket-reverted. For a topical example of the absurdity of such reverts, note that the article Mark Geragos still says that Geragos requested a pardon from Clinton on Clinton's final day in office. Obviously you wouldn't request a pardon at that point; rather, that is when it was granted, as a source confirms. Yet if you look at the page history, this error has been restored 25 times, and that page has been (extended-confirmed!) protected for the sole purpose of keeping this error in place. Good Guidance (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read above, there is no strong consensus for these mass changes. Please seek consensus first. Masem (t) 16:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead section, "once an article meets basic policies and guidelines" gets way ahead of itself. That was changed from "once an article is created", but that just goes to show what can happen when we include things that aren't particularly helpful. The preamble paragraph of the Sources section is also not particularly helpful, though if editors prefer such a preamble, we can remove the See also link from the top of that section and link to it in-text.
Under "Primary", Even articles with the strictest adherence to a real-world perspective still source the original work sounded a bit odd; the replacement might flow a bit better. I know the list of examples of details from primary sources has been discussed a bit recently, and I still don't understand the rationale for including it. I think the recent changes have made that part even more misleading than it already was. At least some of those are details that usually shouldn't be included even in a Plot or Characters section. Yes, there are exceptions, but by saying nothing about fictional birth dates or death dates or statistics, we're not forbidding them from ever being included, whereas by mentioning them in this manner we might give the impression that they should be included when available.
Under "Secondary", the talk about "secondary information" is quite confusing. This in fact has recently been discussed on this page, and no one specifically objected to removing this. Google Scholar is mentioned at MOS:NOVEL, so it makes sense to mention it here also.
Under "Contextual presentation", it's more succinct to list "It is 2003" and "In 2003" side-by-side, and note the difference. As noted previously, the Citizen Kane plot summary actually does not use a consistent present tense, and the first part of that sentence is basically redundant to what is just above.
Under "Spinout articles", must possess no original research sounded awkward.
In the section about weight, talk about "accuracy" is off-point. Due weight is principally about importance, not factual accuracy. Factual accuracy might be more closely connected with due weight in other fields, if we're talking about a fringe theory versus a widely accepted one, but that's less applicable with fiction. A hidden note says "kinda vague", so clearly that section needed some work.
In the section about infoboxes, an infobox on a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance seems dubious. That would come pretty close to an in-universe perspective. It seems better just to say that an infobox might possibly include basic in-universe information, and leave it at that. "might possibly" also means it might not include that. The stated reason for not using the same infoboxes for real and fictional subjects seems a bit off-point, as it would be easy enough just to leave a field blank if it wasn't important. A better reason not to use real-world infoboxes for fictional topics is that we want to keep a real-world perspective. 24.76.16.12 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Red X User blocked as a sock of Belteshazzar. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Red X User blocked and now the IP is blocked as a sock of Belteshazzar. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Secondary information'

Compulsive Brainstormer's recent edits to remove confusing reliance on a definition of 'Secondary information' (as distinct from Secondary sources - an entirely novel concept in Wikipedia guidelines, so far as I can tell) has been undone by Frost who has asked for consensus. As requested, I'm posting here to confirm my agreement with Compulsive Brainstormer's edits. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also started a thread about this 11 days ago. You agreed, and it appeared that no one disagreed, so that was why I thought it was OK to make the edit. Do you also agree with this removal? Four of the examples were things that shouldn't usually be included or would merit at most a brief mention, and plot is covered below, so I thought that list was unhelpful. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the section didn't say much about what secondary sources to use. Should we mention Google Scholar? That is useful for literature but maybe not other media. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

First of all, the point about "secondary information" has been discussed, in two different threads above. There was no objection to removing that wording. The removal was not entirely straightforward, but the recent reverts have not pointed to anything specific that someone might have disagreed with (if someone does want to discuss that, it would probably be best to use one of the above threads). The other edits were relatively small, but since they have also been mass-reverted:

  • Special:Diff/1265917739 Those are not usually things that should be included in Wikipedia articles, other than the plot, which is discussed further down on the page.
  • Special:Diff/1266101815 That section introduction seemed unnecessary; the section title and the See also link seemed more than sufficient.
  • Special:Diff/1266167883 WP:NOT was effectively linked twice in the same sentence. Once an article about fiction or a fictional subject meets basic policies and guidelines gets ahead of itself. In context, the point is that sufficient sources exist, and thus there is the potential for such an article.
  • Special:Diff/1266198785 I removed "exceptional", because that is not the standard for GAs. Alternatively, we could remove mention of GAs, in which case we should probably also remove the GAs that are included in the list. Or we could remove the entire list, especially considering the rate at which articles on it are being demoted. But I have refrained from such bold edits.
  • Special:Diff/1266213635 The article being used as an example does not appear to entirely follow this. The first part of the sentence might have been OK, but it was basically redundant to what was just above.

Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mass-reverts seem to have been made without realising that your main proposal has already been discussed, twice, on this talk page. Nobody so far has raised any substantive objection. Perhaps you could leave it here for a few days just in case anyone wants to suggest alternatives or improvements. For clarity, I agree that the edits you have suggested are a great improvement. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have some reservations re the first and third edit but don't have much time atm. Would appreciate it if you could hold off until next week when I'll comment further. No particular opinion on the others but suggest as per the above to wait a few days. Scribolt (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First point: yes, those are things not to include, and that's why they are listed to show the editor/reader what are things not to include in a plot summary. Second point: that's an introductory paragraph to the following sections, its actually normal style of writing to have such a preamble short paragraph leading into larger sections. Third point, its important to recognize how WP:NOT works here, given that is a core content policy (which NOTPLOT is a part of). Fifth point, while the aspect about being written in present tense is apparently wrong, as the article does use past tense for the flashback, the relevant point that the plot summary explains that there's this extended flashback, which is what the paragraph in WAF is trying to explain how to establish that a flashback is used. --Masem (t) 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point, the way it's written sure doesn't sound like "this is what not to include". If anything, the opposite. Furthermore, the last item on that list is the plot, which definitely should be included, though that is covered below.
On the second point, I thought such a preamble was optional. In this case, the section title and See also link make clear what the overarching section is about. I also thought it was standard practice to try to avoid self-referential statements like "This section deals with".
On the third point, however it's stated, it seems excessive to effectively link to that policy twice in one sentence. But the main part of that edit was to fix the next sentence, which got ahead of itself.
On the fifth point, we could just remove the second part of that sentence. However, the previous sentence already states Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements, such as flashbacks (Citizen Kane) ... may require inclusion of out-of-universe language to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer. I'm not sure anything more is needed. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the only one of Masem's points which I didn't have a good answer for concerned the intro, and Scribolt also indicated that was a point he had reservations about, how about this rewrite:

Wikipedia contains numerous articles on subjects related to fiction, including fictional worlds and elements therein. In order to adhere to Wikipedia's content policies, any such article should cite several reliable, independent secondary sources that specifically cover the subject in some detail. This establishes the subject's real-world notability, and also allows for a balanced article that is more than just a plot summary.

With such sources in hand, editors should consider: (a) what to write about the subject, and (b) how to best present that information. These questions are complementary and should be addressed simultaneously to create a well-written article or improve a preexisting one.

Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re the first point. The wording and presentation could surely be improved, but I read that section in the context of articles about fiction beyond Book X or film Y. We have articles about notable characters, and articles that contrast fictional works and content (e.g. Beowulf and Middle-earth, which I chose somewhat at random and may or not be a good example). Content sourced/cited to the primary sources is not forbidden. What we should be getting across is that if narrative content of the type listed is "only" present in the primary source, then it's lacking in WEIGHT to mention it outside of the plot summary. Whether or not it's mentioned in the plot summary would be out of scope of this section as it comes down to whether or not it's particularly relevant to the story (for example, the protagonist's birthday in Midnights Children is indeed plot relevant). What we want to avoid, especially in character articles are long crufty sections describing fictional worlds / concepts without secondary source analysis. The current text at least lays this baseline, I might try a re-write based on what I wrote above.

Re the third point, I agree with Masem and don't believe it's excessive to link to both the NOT policy as well as a specific point within it. As well as reading better (at least touching in the prose as to why we don't want things to be just plot summaries) there are other points in the wider policy that are also applicable beyond the specific section that is hyperlinked in NOTPLOT. Scribolt (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking at it that way, maybe delete the list and simply say Details found only in primary sources should not be included outside of the plot summary section or a section on characters. While fictional dates of birth or performance features are occasionally important, that is fairly rare, so mentioning those as details that might be included in a plot summary isn't helpful. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This section is not solely about a plot summary, and listing common forms of primary soured information (mostly fancruft) that should not be typically included is helpful. Please stop re-instating your changes until consensus is reached on the talk page. If anyone feels my recent change makes things worse we can of course return to the status quo. Scribolt (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first two examples, at least, are things that usually should not be included at all, anywhere in an article, so mentioning them is misleading, especially if we talk about which sections they might be included in. Talking about secondary sources is also misleading in this context, as even something that happens to be mentioned in a secondary source does not automatically warrant inclusion. A secondary source might have a passing mention of such details, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should include them. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it is misleading as it now explicitly say that this is a list of the kind of primary sourced information which is not to be included in articles outside of the plot section. If anything listed here is covered in secondary sources (which you are correct to say they typically aren't), then the usual considerations of WEIGHT and DUE would need to be applied. I suggest you focus on getting your account unblocked, or if you are indeed a sock of a WMF banned user, you shouldn't be editing this or any other page in Wikipedia. Scribolt (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "if it's not in a secondary source, don't include it outside the plot section", that will inevitably give some readers the impression that it should be included in the plot section, or that it definitely should be included elsewhere if it is in a secondary source. In the fairly rare event that such points should be included, they might better fit into a Characters section if there is one, but noting that would make this even more cumbersome.
If not for me, this page would be even more of a jumbled, confusing mess than it currently is, as would a few other guideline pages. Things not being carefully checked is the reason that all of this happened. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree. This is not about how to write a plot summary, it's about how to write an article about fiction. Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources provides greater benefit to the encyclopedia than the risk of some extraneous detail appearing in a plot summary of a book or film (which is covered elsewhere). Character articles are magnets for this kind of stuff. Scribolt (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed here, this page is more than just about plot summaries but any content related to fiction, making sure there is a strong distinction of what occurs within the fiction versus what is actual real world factors. We have had too many editors in the past treating fiction as real which hurts WP. We have a separate page on the specifics of writing a good plot summary. Masem (t) 17:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being specific about what kinds of things should never appear anywhere if only present in primary sources. That's not what the wording in question does. 213.169.39.234 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote of me is accurate, but I was incorrect in what I wrote. If only primary sourced, then these things (including the plot itself) should never appear outside of the plot summary. If there is secondary souring and other policy considerations are met, what the secondary sources have to say can be summarised in the article. Whether or not these content appears in the plot summary depends on the narrative and is covered elsewhere. The addtion I made reflects this. It's clear we disagree on this, so I will not respond further to you, and will see if anyone else has any opinions. Scribolt (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Both Compulsive Brainstormer and 213.169.39.234 have been blocked as socks of Belteshazzar an LTA (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Belteshazzar). Continue discussing you wish, but they will no longer be particpating (at least until they pull a new sock out the drawer). Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)
No tags for this post.