Talk:Fictional universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also talk:science fiction universe.

Uh, the bible is listed as a see also? Considering it was randomly added by an un-registered user, Is that vandalism or are we really suggesting it's related to "fictional universes" 216.143.22.118 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I find no evidence that Demonmoo is a well-known fictional realm, much less that it is a country near Ontario. It appears to be a virtual location of a computer game. I am therefore removing it. -phma

The -moo suffix suggests to me that it is a land found in a MUD, an online text based (usually) fantasy adventure. Should we put in something about Muds in the article?
Also, I'm removing McDonaldLand, because I don't like it there. -Tubby

I gather that Wikipedia is standardising on Fictional Realm instead of Fictional Universe, right? I've been converting things over to Realm instead of Universe, (eg: Fourth wall) but I'll pause and see if anyone complains. (Looks like it used to be Universe once upon a time.)Beat me to it if you want. Tenbaset 00:00 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Fictional realm and imaginary universe: is there really a need for both seperate entries? What constitutes the difference between a "realm" and a "universe"? Buffy the Vampire Slayer is cited as a "universe", but ~99% of that series took place in one town--what makes that a universe? -Sean 08:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1. I do not believe when we talk about universe in the way that we talk about the natural universe, but rather in the same way that philosiphers speak of "worlds," that is to say a self-consistent set of reality facts. A "cohesive fictional world."
2. The Buffy universe also includes a fictional reality of LA, a la Angel, one might note. This fictional universe would also go beyond just the natural universe from the shows, but would also include the other universes (alternate dimensions) portrayed in them. My understanding at least Notthe9 17:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine that "fictional realm" would refer more to a fantasy series, while "fictional universe" would refer more to a science fiction series. I don't believe I've heard the term "imaginary universe" too much. crazyeddie 22:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ficton (see also or alternatively Ficton_(disambiguation)???)

May I assert that "ficton" is another reasonable alternate word for this concept, at least among Heinlein and Spider Robinson fans? dafydd 02:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Is it though? I have long had a strong residual impression that a ficton is a relative or maybe even quantum entity, as in permitting of entangling of states or at least of superposition of states, in particular of truth and falsity values. Maybe making it particularly appropriate to representations based in/on media such as bits and/or Qbits, because that way each bit or Qbit of it could have a different truth or falsity value (and thus a different fact or fiction value?). In particular, which ficton's residents observe which fictons (in some fictons, even the one they themselves reside in / are implemented in) as fiction and/or fact. Factuality/fictionality is thus relative. And, also in particular, whatever it is that we ourselves are in is also itself a ficton.

For example, has it been proven, or even tested or researched, whether converging fictons have more tendency to regard eachother as nonfictional or in a fictional state whose direction (sign?) of change is toward less fictional, and/or whether diverging fictons have more tendency to regard eachother as fictional and in a fictional (or partially fictional) state whose movement tends more toward less factual, more fictional?

For instance, take pick choose or select (operations conceivably requiring or implying the or a principle or axiom of choice for all I know?), or construct (see constructed worlds?) two fictons, one in the past or present, the other in the future. Of the two, which is more likely to be expected, believed, observed, perceived, sensed, (etc etc etc?) as true and which less likely to be so? Which more likely to be rigourously proven or provable? Acheivable? (Etc etc etc?) Which is more likely to become more probable over time, and which less likely to do so? If you end up having to resort to construction rather than observation, experiment, marketing, hallucinating, deluding, (etc etc etc?), which will likely be more difficult to construct/achieve/perceive/experience/etcetcetc?

Pick, specify, describe, hope for, want, attempt to acheive or observe or render palpable (or "virtual" as some dictionaries of 'natural' language might suggest) (etc etc etc) one that is five years in our future. Is it more likely that you, or we the species inhabiting this planet, or we the consciousnesses populating some location or definition or somesuch, will be able to achieve such a one than it is that we can achieve one that is five years in our past?

The core or kernel here is that it is a property of the notion or objects I am trying to refer to (regardles of label/token chosen by which to label such a notion) that in at least some of them at least some inhabitants or potential inhabitants of them have at least some degree or extent or portion or ration or measure (etc etc etc?) of freedom as to whether to believe in, observe, perceive, experience, be ontological with respect to, (etc etc etc?) at least some of them (possibly including their own and or possibly including those of others).

Just because some people in some states experience inability to perceive some of these whatevers as factual need not have any impact at all on what other people, maybe even in the very same universe/locus/whatever/[insert the label your choice of language or formalism uses for the notion I am trying to refer to here] perceive as to the truth or falsity of zero or more, up to and probably including each and every one, of the actual (ontological? or whatever actual actually means in the state it is to be observed as meaningful or unmeaningful in or by the person or persons possessing faculties capable of perceiving meaning or having a notion of meaning) truth or falsity of each such bit as perceived (or not perceived) at or by or in the neighborhood of any other such bit or notion.

In other words, who or what perceives or experiences who or what as factual or fictional is not a fixed propery of all such notions nor even universally distributed within all such notions.

We could construct, define, or specify a ficton, lets say arbitraryone, in which our world is factually fictional (has a value of false?) within arbitraryone; another, lets say arbitrary2, populated with entities some of which consider us factual but not factually their authors, others of whom consider us fictional despite our being their authors, etc etc etc; meanwhile be living ourselves in such a notion, lets call it 'SolIIIuniverseOURS', in which some of us experience some parts, narratives, plotlines, timelines, timecones, accounts, (etc etc etc) even within 'SolIIIuniverseOURS' as true, others of us experience those some parts as false, and so on.

The homgeneity that some folk seem to expect or imply by attempting to force their ideas of which bits are true bits and which bits (or Qbits, or ... etc etc etc) are false bits (or Qbits, or ... etc etc etc) down others throats or even entire universes or universes of discourse is simply out of line in the field that some might consider an intuitive label for to be fictonics.

Knotwork (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested SciFi Example

The longest running fictional universe in the Science Fiction category is constructed by the German series Perry Rhodan. Published continuously since 1961, the story creates numerous detailed descriptions of components of its fictional universe including galaxies and planets, races and creatures, technology, languages, mythology, etc.

--Ferzkopp (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Readability

Is it just me, or is this article not very readable?

It is fairly dense, with lots of thick paragraphs. dafydd 02:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It should be divided into paragraphs.

[edit] Series only?

A fictional universe is a type of constructed world unique to serialized, series-based, open-ended or round robin-style fiction.

This makes it sound as though it's unheard of or impossible for stand-alone novels to be set in an imaginary world. --Jim Henry | Talk 16:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and "Brave New World" both have wholly consistent and explained fictional settings, but are single novels. The second paragraph contradicts the first. I'll alter it. Serendipodous 12:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy proposal

Please see: Wikipedia:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed merge with Canon (fiction)

The content of the article "Canon (fiction)" is mostly duplicated here and at List of fictional universes anyway. The concept of canonicity needs an article devoted to it away from the contemporary fan-fictio use of the term: this merge would allow this to happen. Vizjim 11:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Something does need doing with the Canon (fiction) entry but I prefer the move, split and rename options you give on the talk page [1] and not this merging one which would only serve to introduce the problematic elements of the mergee in here and I think it could cause problems with this page which is fairly well constrained and solid. It may be that a compromise could be made - you could have the canon (fan fiction) elements there and the canon (fictional universe) ones here (with links off to the fan fiction one) but I'd still lean towards mentioning canon in passing here and linking through to the other two entries as canon (fictional universe) here would be a heavil stripped down version. This might be a good thing but it would be a war to keep it from bloating nad taking over. So I'm still going for moving, splitting and renaming and then interlinking the various elements. (Emperor 00:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC))
Strong oppose. The concepts of canon in fiction and the idea of fictional universes are too different to consider merging the articles. A look at "what links here" on either of the pages shows how widespread the terms are, and how different their cited uses are. By definition a "fictional universe" is created whenever any fiction writer anywhere puts pen to paper, but that has little to do with "canon" as defined by writers and readers of specific fiction. The articles are in need of cleanup, but they are still needed as seperate entries. Rob T Firefly 10:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose: Two very different things, to have one redirect to another would imply they are not. For example, by interpretation the Whoniverse can include many book adventures if they count as alternate universes but still are not canon. Basically to merge them would imply they are the same thing and they are most certainly not. The articles should be watched to make sure they do not stray into one another's territory, however.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ficton vs. Fiction

Since this seems to have come up several times, please note that "ficton" is a distinct word, and not a misspelling of "fiction". Phasma Felis 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since ficton simply redirects to "Fictional universe" and does not appear anywhere in that article, I'm afraid your link explains nothing. "Ficton" also does not appear in Wiktionary, and the first page of Google Hits consists solely of hits on misspellings of "fiction". What is a "ficton"? LordAmeth (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The second paragraph makes no sense whatsoever

I would give it a grammar cleanup, but I don't think I understand what it is saying. I think it's saying that all works of fiction take place in a fictional universe, which is true, but that definition contradicts the definition given at the top of the page, which says fictional universes have to have their own rules and histories. Serendipodous 05:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. If we let Gone with the Wind into the club, than conceivably any work of fiction whatsoever could be said to exist in a fictional universe. Serendipodous 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Middle-earth.svg

Image:Middle-earth.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)