Here are the ground rules for what belongs in Fictiopedia, and how to present them:
1. The article's topic must be WHOLEY fictional. If the topic is somewhat or fully "real", it doesn't belong here. Links to "real" things from "fictional" worlds should link to the appropriate Wikipedia article.
Example: "Jack Slater" is an acceptable topic in the Wikipedia, as it is the entirely fictional movie franchise starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (as featured in "Last Action Hero"). However, Arnold Schwarzenegger is portryed in the movie as "himself", the real actor, so, an article about him does not belong on Fictiopedia. The "fictional" actors whose names are mentioned in the movie as starring in "Jack Slater" are appopriate for articles.
2. The article's topic must be applicable to "present day" "fictionality" on Earth. Basically, we are at "today's date" on "Fictiopedia". So, most "Science Fiction" based "fictionality" is not appopriate here (as it happened in the far future; There is an appopriate wiki for this though at ...). Also, anything written about has to be somewhat "plausable" for the current time frame (i.e., a movie from 1950 that predicted that in 2005 we'd have full scale communities on the moon is not "viable", and any "fictionality" representing that, such as a business from the movie based on the moon, is not apporpriate here).
3. Articles should be written as you'd write a real world Wikipedia article, including any "Wikipedia" style layouts for the topic area (i.e., the afformentioned article about "Jack Slater" could have the 'movie sidebar' like Wikipedia has for movies). As earlier stated, the article should be written from the point of view that you are talking about a real "topic".
4. Only topic's that realistically would be written about in the "Fictional Worlds" Wikipedia should be in Fictiopedia.
Example: The Cincinatti radio station WKRP would warrent a page, as most TV/radio stations have pages on Wikipedia. Some characters from WKRP would also be warrented a page (DJ's Venus Flytrap and Johnny Fever, Newsman Les Nessman, and probably station manager Arthur Carlson, considering some of his decisions, such as the live turkey drop, would have probably made him notorious enough). People like Herb Tarlek and Bailey Quarters would not (in general) have been public enough to be on a Wikipedia, although the fact that Herb was on the fictional TV show "Real Families", might warrent a topic for him anyway, although anything that wasn't revealed publically on the fictional show he was on would not be appopriate. Some shows/movies/books might not have any characters and very few topics in the Fictiopedia (i.e., "The Wonder Years" didn't have any regular characters that would have been "notible" to the general public of their world). The "discussion" area of each page IS ok to be in the "real world". In fact, the discussion page should probably tell what TV Show/Movie/Book the topic is from, especially if it's not clear from the article.
- Should cartoon series items exist -- My feeling on this is, if the bulk of the series borders on "reality", then it seems appropriate. For example, "The Simpsons", while at times stretches realistic credability, for the most part depicts a "real" universe of media, celebrities and businesses that could plausably be real. Although "American Dad" and "Family Guy" stretch credibility even more with its own characters, the world around them is pretty "present day" and probably acceptable for articles. Something like "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" probably is outside the scope.
- How to deal with history not dealt with by the show. I am up in the air on if we want people to be able to "embelish" the topics when a show/book did not deal with an issue (i.e., a birthdate, place of birth, other info). Also would be history before or after the show's time frame until now (i.e., the "Orlando Breakers" on the series "Coach" were an NFL expansion team in 1995 on the show, but, obviously, the show only lasted two more years. So, would we want to "invent" a history from 97 on, records wise, for them? ) I can see interesting possibilites in that, that doesn't affect the core "known" information about the topic. Maybe if that "made up" information is colored differently or something of that effect.