Phil Sandifer wrote
The problem is... well, let's pull up a solid midlist Marvel character - Speedball. 1603 word article. Only 500 words of that pertain to the real world instead of the fictional world of the comics. That's the problem. Fancruft is in many ways a poor choice of terms for this.
Fair point. I think what Phil is saying is like this: people tend to write without 'breaking the fourth wall', in a voice that suspends the disbelief. But this is surely a larger issue, anyway. Just take a Greek myth. You can read it in an integrated account; or sourced to the texts. Robert Graves's notorious 'Greek Myths' basically gives you the choice. I guess most people read the fluent versions, not the notes (which ironically are full of the most flagrant OR, as is well known ...).
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 22/10/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote
The problem is... well, let's pull up a solid midlist Marvel character - Speedball. 1603 word article. Only 500 words of that pertain to the real world instead of the fictional world of the comics. That's the problem. Fancruft is in many ways a poor choice of terms for this.
Fair point. I think what Phil is saying is like this: people tend to write without 'breaking the fourth wall', in a voice that suspends the disbelief.
I assume this was a reply to me.
While I think it sensible for an article mostly about a fictional character to be about the fictional character within the fictional universe, I agree it is terrible to write an account of this without breaking the fourth wall. It goes without saying that even accounts of fictionalised happenings should always be written in a way appropriate for a generalist encyclopedia.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 22/10/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote
The problem is... well, let's pull up a solid midlist Marvel character - Speedball. 1603 word article. Only 500 words of that pertain to the real world instead of the fictional world of the comics. That's the problem. Fancruft is in many ways a poor choice of terms for this.
Fair point. I think what Phil is saying is like this: people tend to write without 'breaking the fourth wall', in a voice that suspends the disbelief.
While I think it sensible for an article mostly about a fictional character to be about the fictional character within the fictional universe, I agree it is terrible to write an account of this without breaking the fourth wall.
But in this specific instance, the [[Speedball (comics)]] article breaks the fourth wall quite well. There's a section on publication history before his "fictional biography" and a couple of sections later on about other media he's appeared in.
And even in the case of a hypothetical article that's nothing but "fictional" content, I agree that the article is incomplete but strongly disagree with the notion that the way to fix it is to delete the fictional stuff. Just add the real world context stuff instead. Not as quick and easy a solution, but better for Wikipedia in the long term (which is the only term I think is significant).
On 22/10/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And even in the case of a hypothetical article that's nothing but "fictional" content, I agree that the article is incomplete but strongly disagree with the notion that the way to fix it is to delete the fictional stuff. Just add the real world context stuff instead. Not as quick and easy a solution, but better for Wikipedia in the long term (which is the only term I think is significant).
Oh no, I certainly didn't mean this. The attitude that it is better to delete content to rebalance Wikipedia rather than add content is always one that I've fought vigorously. I'm sorry if I indicated otherwise.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 22/10/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And even in the case of a hypothetical article that's nothing but "fictional" content, I agree that the article is incomplete but strongly disagree with the notion that the way to fix it is to delete the fictional stuff. Just add the real world context stuff instead. Not as quick and easy a solution, but better for Wikipedia in the long term (which is the only term I think is significant).
Oh no, I certainly didn't mean this. The attitude that it is better to delete content to rebalance Wikipedia rather than add content is always one that I've fought vigorously. I'm sorry if I indicated otherwise.
And I'm sorry I assumed it, since on rereading your post I don't actually see any indication of it. At the origin of this thread people were suggesting deleting all Marvel Comics character articles without exception and starting them over again, which kind of polarizes the debate into extreme camps. :)