[WikiEN-l] WP:FICT rewrite

[Adrian]

Thomas Dalton schrieb:
>> Hmm.. WAF first gives a list of examples of what constitutes actual
>> oou-perspective, but in the second section says "or describing things
>> from the author or creator's perspective". Including only statements
>> referring to specific parts of a work is more like
>> half-in-half-out-universe, your example still lacks any information
>> regarding an essential out-of-world- perspective, and a simple
>> reformulation seems a bit WEASELy. But that's really just my opinion,
>> obviously I'm in mild disagreement with the current wording and
>> interpretation of WAF. It's what I'm arguing for after all: WAF should
>> give less leeway in that direction, since it's currently giving too much
>> of it.
>>     
>
> I don't understand what you're trying to say in your first sentence,
> so I'll ignore it for now. My example is 100% in an OOU perspective,
> by the definition given in WP:WAF. Yes, it doesn't include any
> non-fictional information, but that doesn't make it IU. Could you tell
> me what part of WAF says you have to include non-fiction details in
> order to make something OOU? I've just re-read the page, and I only
> see one mention of "out-of-universe information" (which I think is a
> confusing name, since OOU information and OOU perspective are quite
> different things - non-fiction information is clearer), and that's
> just to explain why it is important to include plot summaries, it's
> not related to anything about how to include plot summaries. The
> section is headed "Presentation of fictional material" - it is quite
> clearly talking about fictional material, not non-fiction.
>   
For clarification of my first sentence, take a look at 
User:AldeBaer/sandbox. In my opinion the current wording of WAF is 
somewhat self-contradictory wrt preferred approach to writing about fiction.

The fiction/non-fiction terminology is in wide use to distuingish 
between fictional and non-fictional texts, yes. But using it in place of 
IU/OOU in WP:WAF would be incorrect, as in-universe/out-of-universe 
denotes primary source information vs secondary source information. 
Maybe the latter would be a more appropriate terminology?