There is some good stuff in your fiction essay, but I would rather see it incorporated (along with the fiction notability guideline) into the existing WP:WAF; I think support is building for combining WP:FICT and WP:WAF (and to whatever extent it isn't already covered, WP:NOT) into a general guide for writing about fiction.
I don't particularly like the way the issue is framed in your essay (diegetic vs. non-diegetic). Even aside from the jargon aspect, I think that talking about this issue in terms of in-universe and out-of-universe perspective better captures the spirit of what a Wikipedia article on fiction should be like. Diegetic information can be legitimate encyclopedic content on its own in some circumstances; your framing of the issue implies that plot summaries are generally inappropriate, except as background or support for specific non-diegetic information. Unless we think that (as some have argued) plot summaries are inherently a copyright violation, I'm opposed to trying to kick plot summaries out of Wikipedia. Limiting them, as WP:WAF advocates, seems like the most sensible approach.
Focusing on diegesis also emphasizes the text or artifact of the fiction, to the seeming neglect of broader out-of-universe context (e.g., the contexts of creation and reception, related works, etc.). At least according to the article "Diegesis" and as described in your essay, non-diegetic means aspects of the fiction itself that is not diegetic; i.e., the extradiegetic and metadiegetic levels, the domains of literary criticism and interpretation.
On the other hand, I love the Captain Kirk paragraph; that might make a better first section for WP:WAF than the current one.
Yours in discourse, ragesoss
On 11/16/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
- Coherent policy
Our policy on fictional topics is currently spread across an MOS page, a notability guideline, and [[WP:NOT]]. This meant that policy on fictional topics often had to be explained anew every time. Furthermore, the explanations at several points were less than satisfying, and did a poor job of showing why these policies are good ideas, making them seem arbitrary and ripe for ignoring.
To this end, I've, with the help of several people, worked on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phil_Sandifer/Fiction_essay
It's a fairly compact proposed guideline that offers a good explanation of how to deal with fictional topics. Virtually everything in it comes from other guidelines, though the explanations are often redone. I'd like to move it into the Wikipedia namespace soon and get consensus as a guideline, so any comments before I do that would be appreciated. Expect it to exist as [[Wikipedia:Fictional topics]] soon - I'll post again here when it does.