Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3. |
Do the names of elements in a work of fiction need verification?
editBasically, do the names of elements in a work of fiction (like characters, locations, items, etc.) need citations to reliable sources for verification? Just need clarification on this, thanks. 1isall (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- If they are not obvious to the casual viewer, yes. In other words if you need to freeze frame to catch a full name name, then we'd require a source for that. If it's a spoken detail or can be seen in the credits, that doesn't need sourcing. Masem (t) 22:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a longer, complex version of this question:
- Characters in a series refer to an item as "Item". The "Item" also appears in a spinoff of that series. The original series doesn't have an article, but the spinoff does. Now does the official term "Item" need verification if it's being used in the article for the spinoff? 1isall (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- It’s difficult to say in the abstract. If you’re looking for feedback on ENA: Dream BBQ, could you indicate the precise issue? From a very quick overview, it seems that some editors there might be under the impression that specific elements within a game need sourcing from an external reliable source, whereas MOS:FICTIONPLOT allows for the game itself to be treated as the primary source for its own plot (in the same way that a novel is treated as the primary source for the novel’s Plot section). As Masem says, though, external sourcing would still be needed for elements that are not obvious to the casual player. MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- How'd you know I was talking about ENA: Dream BBQ? But yes, the precise issue is with an official term: rain rocks. The rain rocks appear in both the original ENA series and Dream BBQ. And the original series doesn't have an article. So I can't use the term as it's unverifiable (no sources speaking about it). But does it really need to be verified? 1isall (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, the whole series calls it "rain rocks", doesn't it? 1isall (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'll call the users who think that the official term needs verification. @Sparkle and Fade: and @Celtoi: Let's discuss this even further, but please read the comments above first. 1isall (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what a "rain rock" is, but if is a named element that is evident to the casual player within the specific game covered by the article, it doesn't need an external source, as the game itself acts as a primary source, per MOS:FICTIONPLOT. It doesn't matter whether an earlier game has an article: only whether the term appears in the game actually being described. If that named element isn't obvious from the game itself (eg because it's only named in some earlier game or series, or is only used informally by fans), a separate reliable source for the name will be needed.
- By the way, it's easy to follow the edits of any editor. From the editor's user page, select the User menu, then Contributions. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Also, I do know how to see the contributions of editors, but I appreciate the reminder! 1isall (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'll call the users who think that the official term needs verification. @Sparkle and Fade: and @Celtoi: Let's discuss this even further, but please read the comments above first. 1isall (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, the whole series calls it "rain rocks", doesn't it? 1isall (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- How'd you know I was talking about ENA: Dream BBQ? But yes, the precise issue is with an official term: rain rocks. The rain rocks appear in both the original ENA series and Dream BBQ. And the original series doesn't have an article. So I can't use the term as it's unverifiable (no sources speaking about it). But does it really need to be verified? 1isall (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- It’s difficult to say in the abstract. If you’re looking for feedback on ENA: Dream BBQ, could you indicate the precise issue? From a very quick overview, it seems that some editors there might be under the impression that specific elements within a game need sourcing from an external reliable source, whereas MOS:FICTIONPLOT allows for the game itself to be treated as the primary source for its own plot (in the same way that a novel is treated as the primary source for the novel’s Plot section). As Masem says, though, external sourcing would still be needed for elements that are not obvious to the casual player. MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- This discussion looks like it's settled. But if a fictional term isn't mentioned anywhere outside the fiction, it's usually an indicator that it's too marginal for us to mention. Besides being hard to describe in a reliable and neutral way, there's a chance you'd lose the average reader by referring to it. It's usually better to describe these things in plain terms, like "a magic sword" or "a lost planet", rather than confusing people with too many proper nouns. (Conversely, when reliable sources mention a proper noun over and over, it may be a sign that Wikipedia needs to at least define what it is, in order to keep readers informed.) Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I should clarify that the term 'rain rocks' are never mentioned in Dream BBQ, nor are the 'crystal-like growths' or 'polygons' called 'rain rocks' in external sources. The only viable source which calls them 'rain rocks' is the first episode from the ENA webseries, "Auction Day". However, it is original research to say the polygons in Dream BBQ are the same thing as the rain rocks in Auction Day, derived from how the ___location which these polygons appear in closely resembles the one in Auction Day (which is also original research). – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I do agree with you, it is never explicitly stated that the rocks ENA is covered with towards the end of Dream BBQ are rain rocks. So, yes, since it's original research, we should leave it out for now. If later in the game the cubes appear again and are confirmed to be rain rocks, can we add it back in? 1isall (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Redlink
edit"Category:Blood in fiction" was deleted in August 2022, but it is still given as an example of a template that shouldn't be overutilized. This should be changed to an extant category. The reason I haven't done this myself is because I don't know which category should be chosen in its place. Yyannako (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
MOS:PLOTSOURCE and AI
editIt's probably time to revisit this criterion given the huge amounts of LLM-generated content we are being bombarded with, including on fiction articles. Right now, there is no requirement to cite plot sections given that the book is its own source. The implication is that people will have actually read the book, or at least sources about the book, and will not be hallucinating inaccurate text based on vectors and vibes.
In practice LLM plot summaries do tend to add a lot of synthesis as well (which is what makes them easily findable) but what often happens is that editors will rembove the synthesis slop paragraph and leave the rest alone, not realizing that the more "objective" plot summary is also suspect. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- If a plot summary is suspected to have had some parts of AI/LLM contributions, and a version without that can't be found in the recent history, its probably best to remove it until such a time that a editor-created version can be made. Masem (t) 15:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)