Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • General sanctions • Page protection • Bot noticeboard Content Content noticeboard • Biographies of living persons • Ethnic and religious conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Copyright violations • Spam • Proposed mergers User issues User page help • New user help • Editor assistance • Help desk • Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sockpuppets • Oversight • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • Conflict of interest Noticeboards Edit warring (3RR) • Wikiquette alerts • Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Drawing board

Shortcuts: WP:FRN WP:FICTN WP:FICT/N

	Fiction/entertainment guideline notices More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board	v • d • e • w
June 5th A request for comments as to whether a consensus on how WP:N applies to fictional topics is opened and seeking additional input, and can be found here. June 7th There is discussion regarding WP:NOTPLOT here.

This noticeboard aims to serve as a place to report incidences relating to the merging, splitting, redirection or notability of a fiction topic. Often, such topics can be branched out without due consideration of guidance on plot summaries or the notability of the topic itself. As the guidelines given at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) state, topics dealing with a work of fiction or elements of a fictional work should demonstrate real-world notability from reliable sources. Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus.

Note that the purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of the fictional topic, but rather to ensure that proper balance is maintained. Wikipedia articles dealing with fiction topics aim to reflect both the consensus and the diversity of mainstream academia. Discussion of fiction will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Also, fiction should never be presented as "fact."

Before posting a concern on this noticeboard, please try to work out local consensus with the editors of the page in question; you also may wish to seek assistance and consensus of any WikiProjects that the article or topic may belong to, particularly if dealing with several articles at a time. This Noticeboard should only be used in cases where no consensus can be reached, or additional advice or opinions are sought for topics and articles relating to fictional works. Should the suggestions from this Noticeboard fail to resolve the issue, other dispute resolution measures should be taken.

Archives
1, 2

Contents 1 Reflist 2 Category:Waterloo Road characters & Category:Doctors characters 3 New proposal 4 List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters merge disagreements 5 U.S. Marshals (film)

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

[edit] Reflist

[edit] Category:Waterloo Road characters & Category:Doctors characters

All of these articles are written from a completely in-universe perspective. The main editors appear to be rather young, as they are resorting to foul abusive language, and are difficult to communicate with. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Shows how much you know then doesn't it!!

• The perspective doesn't matter. The lead section should tell all you need to know to understand the characters are fictional. Everything else is subject to reliable sources. You can't discuss a fictional character without covering at least part of their fictional life from such a perspective. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal

I have created a proposal at Wikipedia:Fiction for a new policy page discussing fiction issues in general - pulling heavily from WAF, but also from NOT#PLOT and some of the more agreed upon proposals to come up in notability debates. The goal is to create a single policy page that clearly establishes core principles of what it means to write about fiction in an encyclopedia about fact. I welcome comments and criticism at the talk page there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Since NOT#PLOT is under discussion I'd argue it's not a good page to draw from. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters merge disagreements

In early April, several characters were merged from individual articles to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters as they failed Wikipedia's notability guidelines and following an AfD one one of the characters. These merges stood without a single voice of disagreement until last week when User:Redfarmer reverted one of the merges, on the character Kim Greylek, disagreeing with it and stating there was no discussion and claiming that the AfD on a different character from a different L&O series was applicable to the Greylek article as well. I feel the discussion that occured at the time of the merge and the AfD showed enough eyes were on the article to give silent support, and the merging was specifically announced at the television project so its not as if it was done silently. So I restored the merge and we have been going back and forth over the issue, dipping into incivility and bad faith accusations. An RfC has now been started over the issue of both Greylek and another character, Chester Lake. Outside opinions are greatly needed and requests for views from the TV project have gone unanswered thus far. Discussion is at Talk:List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters#Merges of Unnotable Characters. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Marshals (film)

This article has an "Inaccuracies" section which discusses a glaring inaccuracy in the film, where the prisoners are shown being transported by airplane are chained to their seats. Both FAA regulation and Department of Justice policy expressly prohibit attaching prisoners to aircraft in any way, so that they can quickly exit the plane in an emergency.

On February 22 2009 User:Tony Sidaway deleted this section, saying: "We don't do inaccuracies and bloopers sections. It's a work of fiction."

After trying in vain to find Wikipedia policy that substantiated Sidaway's deletion, I reverted it, and posted the following in the article's Talk page:

"I searched but could not find a WP policy that corroborates Tony Sidaway's rational for deleting the Inaccuracies section 'We don't do inaccuracies and bloopers sections. It's a work of fiction.' I found WP:TRIV, and even that says "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. " I don't think that a section on inaccuracies in a film necessarily qualifies as a trivia section. If a film depicts a historical event, and there are historical inaccuracies, it seems to me these would be worth mentioning in an article on the film. If a movie portrays US Marshals, and makes a glaringly inaccurate portrayal of US Marshal policy, I think there is a case to be made for a section that is limited to just these inaccuracies on US Marshal policy, as long as it is kept in reign. Still, if there is a specific policy against inaccuracies sections in film articles that I'm not aware of, so be it, so I'll consider this a temporary revert until a wikipedia policy is cited. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)"

There was no further discussion. On May 31, User:Cton85 deleted the Inaccuracies section without explanation. I have reverted that deletion, but would like to find consensus on this issue. Is there a specific policy that forbids the inclusion of "inaccuracies" sections in fictional works, and advocates deletion of these sections? Thanks for your help. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Such a section goes against WP:MOSFILMS, WP:NOT, and WP:V. Tony's removal was perfectly valid. it is a work of fiction, not a documentary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not see any text in any of policies you referenced that specifically addresses this issue. Could you please point me to the specific paragraphs of each of these policies that disallow "Inaccuracies" sections? Also, I am not sure if it was appropriate for you to take action to delete the section immediately after being the first person to respond to this notice. I don't think your position alone qualifies as consensus.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for WP:OR, it is not the place for indiscriminate trivia, nor is it a mirror for sites like IMDB, etc. The lack of such a section being noted as appropriate in the Film MoS is pretty clear. If it were relevant, and appropriate, the MoS would cover it. No well-crafted film article would include such a section unless it was given significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Also, re-removing the section is fully appropriate. Three different editors have rejected its inclusion. In your replacing the section, you acted against the established consensus that it didn't belong. You also have not provided a single guideline or policy that backs up your view that this is pertinent information. As a note, the Films project has been notified of this issue as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: the source you added is not a reliable source. It clearly notes on that page that it is a Wikipedia article and does not meet the RS guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was asking for policy that explicitly states such sections are not allowed, including a quotation of the exact statement that they are not, which you have not provided. If you or anyone can provide this, I am fine with the section being gone. Your "consensus" of three editors, one of which is you, none of which bothered to provide full rationale for your reverts after I brought the issue up in the Talk page, doesn't hold water. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another way to substantiate it is through WP:OR, specifically synthesis of information. In this case, yes, the facts they weren't chained to seats is verifiable, and the restriction on airflight is verifiable, but combining that information into the same fact is inapproprite synthesis to put forward a point - that the move was inaccurate. If the movie was really inaccurate (see Armageddon for one where this is justifiable) there would be reliable sources that describe the inaccuracies and how they impacted the movie. As such, without a source, anyone can pull in common sense mistakes and claim them valid. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually added a source to substantiate, but Collectonian has again deleted this section before consensus was reached. Please see this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Marshals_(film)&curid=2144178&diff=294005079&oldid=294004538Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See above, Wikipedia and its mirrors can not be used to source itself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this case, I concur that the "Inaccuracies" section is inappropriate. The item was the result of original research in the sense that it requires specialist knowledge. WP:PSTS says, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." This is why plot descriptions of films are kept basic. Additionally, the usage of the absoluteastronomy.com reference (which never refers to the film) is synthesis in how it offers a "novel conclusion" since this particular phenomenon was not explicitly observed in the film by an authoritative figure. In general, an "Inaccuracies" section, even if items were cited, would be too much of an indiscriminate list for an encyclopedic article. If there are reliable sources that comment on the accuracy of prison transfer or marshal ranks, they could be implemented in a kind of "Production" section where it can be shown how cinematic licensing was taken for the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very helpful comment that helps me understand the issue better.Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)