Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:18, 9 June 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (fiction) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Template:Fiction notice

• WT:FICT

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (fiction) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Glossary of termsFor the purposes of discussions on this page, the following terms are taken to mean the following. This is just a glossary. Where any guideline and this conflict, please defer to the guideline or edit this glossary to bring them in line: Notability ("WP:N") refers to whether or not a topic is presumed to meet Misplaced Pages's content policies and may have its own standalone article. The term is not a reflection of a topic's importance or merit; rather it used in the sense that the topic has been noted in published commentary from reliable sources independent of the topic itself. General Notability Guideline ("GNG") refers to the inclusion criteria in WP:N itself, that may indicate the notability of any topic. Failure to fulfil the GNG may mean a topic is not notable. Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines ("SNGs) are notability guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) ("WP:FICT") and , Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) ("WP:BK") which apply the principles of notability to particular subject area. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) ("WP:WAF") is a style guideline that requires articles to describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself. WP:PLOT is part of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, which says that "Misplaced Pages articles should not be plot-only description of fictional works" and requires articles to be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context.

Proposed changes to the preamble

I note that Percy has reverted this older version of the preamble three times :

For articles about books and films, rather than fictional elements therein, refer to Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) and Misplaced Pages:Notability (films).

During our discussion of Topics for fictional works, he suddenly reverted to this version, on the grounds that "The medium is not the message, but one article can cover both":

For articles about books and films, see also Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) and Misplaced Pages:Notability (films).

I feel that we should discuss this here to see if there is a more general agreement for the change, as I think that the older preamble described the scope of guideline rather well, rather than trying to make it sound as if WP:FICT somehow supercedes them.

The orginal preamble was introduced by user:Ned Scott back in an earlier draft from September 2007, and appeared to be acceptable to Percy until today.

I would be supportive of a move to broaden the preamble to take in the portrayal of fictional characters by actors WP:BIO, and in games WP:TOY, as specific guidelines relating to coverage of these real-world media should be the first point of call for editors writing about them.

However, I prefer the wording of the older version, as it makes clear that the primary focus of this guideline is fictional elements, and not necesarily on the media by which they are transmitted, and I propose returning to the older version, which in my view was more descriptive.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The "see also" phraseology is appropriate, as the current text does discuss works of fiction (independent of medium), but also refers people to medium-specific guidelines. WP:N makes it clear that multiple guidelines may apply in any given case, as they currently do in the case of athletes or academics (or anyone who was both, especially!). SamBC(talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this is all about, but the point of making that note was so that people understood that WP:FICT wasn't where you go to see if a movie/book/tv show/etc itself was notable. From time to time I had seen some confusion about that in other places, so it seemed to be a helpful note. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And my change was to the first paragraph of the guideline. I think Radiant! was the one who added the "see also" style link (not that it really matters, since both basically said the same thing). -- Ned Scott 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not true to say that WP:FICT isn't where you go to see if a movie/book/tv show/etc is notable - as it says in WP:FICT#Works of fiction, "A work of fiction is presumed to be notable if it meets the general notability guideline, the guidelines presented here, or the guidelines specific to its medium." Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• So what wording would you like to propose as an alternative to original preamble? --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since both sets of guidelines apply, it makes sense for editors to see them both. So I'd suggest "For notability guidelines covering books and films, see also Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) and Misplaced Pages:Notability (films)." Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be amenable to changing it aback to the Ned's orginal draft, which I think is perfectly good? I note one other editor would like it to see the old version (A Man In Black).--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as that would imply that this guideline only has relevance to elements, not works, that would be a bad idea as it would leave the preamble misleading. SamBC(talk) 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT is not for works, it is only for elements. I'm not sure where Percy or Sam got that idea from, but it certainly wasn't from this page. -- Ned Scott 07:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It might not have been, but it certainly is now; try reading it, it has a section on "works of fiction". And for what it's worth, I didn't add that section, quite a lot of editors have edited it with it there. SamBC(talk) 10:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we added that section just for the sake of completeness. It's certainly not the page's primary focus. --erachima talk 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no comment on what it should address, but it means that, right now, the page is inconsistent; the "works of fiction" section suggests that this guideline can qualify a work as notable, for starters. Perhaps it would be best to suggest that people consult other guidelines principally, but may find useful guidance here as well; either that, or remove any language suggesting works are covered, and clearly indicate that information on works of fiction is purely contextual. SamBC(talk) 11:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we need to at least say something on the notability of fictional works, simply because the way this guideline is named means that people will refer to it first to determine that, and that not every type of media that fiction exists on is covered by other guidelines. Providing a general clause that mirrors the same type of information that we expect from fictional elements provides a good continuity between the work and the elements, and we can still state, as it does now, that specific notability guidelines for a given medium can be meet and thus made presumably notable without meeting FICT exactly. --MASEM 13:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And if that does stay the case, the preamble shouldn't suggest that the guideline isn't relevant to works. We need to decide one way or the other, not have a preamble that says "this is not relevant to whole works" and then a section saying "here's some guidance for works". Also, works of fiction without more specific guidelines are still covered by WP:N, like everything else. SamBC(talk) 13:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My real beef with saying WP:FICT applies to works is that we don't have any guidance for those situations. Where's the advice/help for deciding if a work of fiction is notable? -- Ned Scott 03:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT#Works of fiction covers this. --MASEM 04:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think Ned is saying this needs to be made clear in the preamble, not 5 or 10 sections into the guideline. I propose we revert to his earlier draft, so that readers know what this guideline covers. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've made a small change in the preamble , if this is the case: FICT provides general guidance for works, but four other notability guidelines present more specific guidance, so this fact has been stated a bit better right there. --MASEM 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you mean this statement?

For specific examples where you may be able to help, see Misplaced Pages:Fiction/Noticeboard.

Since there are no specific examples or where you may be able to get help at Misplaced Pages:Fiction/Noticeboard, I do not see the point of this change. Could the old preamble be restored please?--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Ned's point was that if FICT didn't cover the notability of the work, then we need a preamble to state this. However, we DO have a very general case of a work's notability, so this is reflected in the lead. However, as there are other more specific guidelines for work notability depending on the medium, those specific guidelines are called out also in the lead and re-referred to in the general guidance section for works. Thus, it makes sense to not include any preamble mention of this; those coming to FICT to find the notability of fictional works will find a general clause on notability and then pointers to other more specific examples, all spelled out in the lead. --MASEM 10:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• LOL. Percy took out this wording and Masem has put it back in again, but in a different place. The two of you are like a pair of goldfish, nibbling as this guideline, but then forgetting what happened before 30 seconds previously. Couldn't we have the preamble just the way it was when it was clear and consise? I am getting the impression that changes are just being made for changes sake. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, Percy and Masem's wordings are very similar in meaning: this guideline covers works of fiction generally, those covered by other guidelines are covered by other guidelines as well as this one. SamBC(talk) 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• That is what this preamble said before Percy, Masem and Sambc decised to start this pointless round of editing. Please restore Ned Scott's original version, and discard all the trivial edits that have taken place. Simply moving the text around the guideline as if it were a hockey puck seems to me to be a exercise in folly.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Works of Fiction

• No - Ned is mistaken when he says that WP:FICT doesn't apply to works of fiction. It does. Not only does it have a section about them, but that section is where it's made clear that GNC coverage has to be real-world coverage - so it's a very important section. I'm sure Ned's edits are made in good faith, but they're in error. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not wrong at all. "Works of fiction" is a pointless section that was only added recently. WP:FICT has no real guidance for works of fiction. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No, Ned. It's a section with support from everyone but you (and possibly Gavin). That section is where the "real-world" part of "real-world coverage" comes from; it's possibly the most important section in the whole thing. Accept that WP:FICT has changed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If FICT becomes the new home of the notability aspects of EPISODE (which I hope it will), then FICT would indeed be about "works of fiction". Some characters that span many media (e.g. Superman) can also be considered a "work of fiction", although that's more arguable. I consider #Works of fiction as a good section to separate FICT from other guidelines that may give more specialised advise about a certain medium, but since FICT draws from all of them (i.e. every work of fiction has fictional elements or subworks of fiction where FICT applies), there is a certain need for "overview" which this section represents. – sgeureka 08:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If Percy could explain why he introduced the section in the first place I would be grateful. When I read this section, I can't help but be confused by the fact that most works of fiction are presented through some form of medium (books, films & toys) for which there are seperate guidelines (WP:BK,MOVIE, TOY). However, not all media are covered by guidelines (television & radio programmes, comics), usually because they are presented in discrete portions, which WP:EPISODE never seems to have got to grips with. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not entirely sure it was me; that section was here by a different name when I got here. In fact, WP:FICT has covered works of fiction since January 30 But I would think that you of all people, Gavin, would think it was a good idea to have a section in WP:FICT that said that coverage for works of fiction had to be real-world coverage? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
          • To be honest, a reference to real-world coverage could go anywhere. The question must be, why do we have this section, and what significance does it have?--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
            • "Because there is consensus support for it" and "we've told you that already". Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
            • (ec) The greatest value, and greatest potential value, of that section is that it gives guidance that is not medium-specific. Works of fiction exist in many forms, and the guidlines for films and books also apply to non-fiction films and books. Thus, there is value in guidance that isn't media-specific. Plus what Percy said. SamBC(talk) 09:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• There may be a presumption of consensus, but that does not preclude Ned Scott from drawing our attention to the possibility that the assumptions that gave rise to this section being introduced to this guideline may be defective.

1. I believe his view is that "works of fiction" refers to fiction as transmitted through the media of books, films, televsion programmes, comics and games. In this case, the term "work" assumes that a piece of fiction is physically discrete, and seperate from other works by virtue of a specific cut off point, such as the end of a film. However, it is not clear where comics or television series, which are not discrete and are part of an ongoing "work of fiction", fit into this scheme.
2. On the other hand, Percy's view is that "works of fiction" are independent of the medium of transmission, the example he gave being the story of Lady Chatterley's Lover, which he asserts is independent from the book. In this case, a "work" is not physically discrete becuase it is independent of the medium of transmission. Like the short story The Monkey's Paw, a work of ficiton can refer to one story in a book of short stories, or one story serialised in a magazine. However, it could be possible that when Percy refers to a "work of fiction", he may be mistaking the subsets that are really elements of fiction as works of fiction in their own right.

It seems to me that there is genuine confusion between both uses of the term "works of fiction", as both seem to break down when it comes to classifying serial works. This distinction is important when we consider episodes: are they works of fiction (which should have their own guideline such as WP:EPISODE, or are they elements of fiction which should be dealt with exclusively by WP:FICT? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this may be one of your most constructive points, Gavin. A short story itself shouldn't be considered an element of fiction, it should be considered a work of fiction; it is emphatically not a book, even if it is the title piece of an anthology (for example, The Bicentennial Man is certainly notable as a short story, probably more so than as a mediocre film, but the book entitle The Bicentennial Man contains other stories as well). Where a work is (originally) a book, covering the book (not a specific edition or copy, but the book in abstract) and the story together is only sensible, but there are cases that don't fit this form. What would be sensible is if the "works of fiction" section addressed such cases, even if by telling people to apply any/all applicable parts of the most nearly-applicable guideline (like applying WP:BK to short stories, which nearly fits in a lot of cases). SamBC(talk) 11:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alternatively, a short story could be considered an element of fiction: it is "short" becasue it was intended to fit in a larger "work of fiction", like a book or a series of stories in a magazine. It seems to me you can definetly argue both ways. What about Percy's point - is the story of Lady Chatterley's Lover a work of fiction, or did he really mean the book is the work, and the story (plus all the sub-plots, events and characters) are the elements? What makes this question harder to answer depends on your views about episodes: are they individually or collectively works of fiction? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say it's a false dichotomy when we're considering the topics of articles. An article on a work of fiction should cover the story and the medium of presentation. I wouldn't consider the story to be an 'element' of the presentation, or vice versa, and the topic of the article can be shown to be notable by coverage of either or both. Regarding episodes, I'd say that the episode's presentation is an individual entity, and the episode's story is an element of the series' story, but it can also be an individual story if it was written to be so, and nowadays most episodic works are written to be independent stories because that improves sales. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• It is an interesting argument, but I don't think it holds up. Take, for example, the Iliad. The Iliad is normally appreciated in book form, simply because that's how we receive it today. But originally it was an epic poem, presented as part of an oral tradition, which is why it takes the form it does (in particular the use of stock phrases which fit so nicely into dactylic hexameter). The "work" isn't the book - that is simply incidental and how it is transmitted. The work is the story, and the method of transmission (oral, printed in a book, potentially performed, screened as a really bad movie), is nothing but presentation. In terms of short fiction, a piece of short fiction may be presented as part of a larger volume (such as a magazine or collection), but the short story has value in and of itself, irrespective of what sits around it or the method of publication. Thus the story is often published in multiple places - a couple of collections, a magazine, on the author's website. That the value is in the story itself, rather than the notion that it is part of a larger work, is evidenced, I think, by the many prizes for short fiction, which take the work in isolation from how it was published. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think a point to consider to determine if something is a "work" or "element" is to consider how the creative idea was developed, namely, was the work created in a vacuum relative to other works, or does it depend on a larger setting. Most short stories are conceived on their own, and then may end up published in a collected work (such as Ray Bradbury's stories); thus, while the collective work may be notable, the individual stories themselves would need to be treated as their own works with their own set of characters, setting, and plot that could be discussed, and demonstrate their own notability to have a separate article. On the other hand, the bulk of most episodes depend on the overall series, and thus would be an element of that series. There is a blurring of the lines between "work" and "element" but that's why the requirements for sourced notability are similar; sometimes you can't easily distinguish between them. --MASEM 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• With reference to Percy, I agree that an article on a work of fiction should cover the story and the medium of presentation, but in terms of notability guidelines, the dichotomy is important, and this may be the source confusion. For instance, when we talk about the notability of Lady Chatterley's Lover, I think we would judge it strictly in terms of WP:BK, mainly because there are extenive reviews but also because the book was subject a courtcase (Regina v. Penguin Books Ltd.). The notability of the story line(s), its sub-plots and the characters, including Lady Chatterley and Oliver Mellors (her lover) would be dealt here at WP:FICT, because they are elements in the "work of fiction".
• In response to the learned Bilby, the Iliad is presented in book and film form (or even as a podcast, in line with the oral tradition) and in the real-world, I would agree with him that the work is the story. However, for notability purposes, the "work" is film and dealt with by WP:MOVIE, while the book is a seperate "work" and dealt with by WP:BK. Note that notability is not inherited or passed between book, film, fictional element; each one has to be judged on its own for notability purposes. Comics and podcasts featuring the Iliad are a bit of a grey area, but in my view, they are probably covered by WP:BK. However, the story itself, and the characters therein (Achilles?) are rightly dealt with here. In answer to Masem, I think we have to distinguish clearly between "works of fiction" and "elements of fiction", because in my view the "works" naturally fall into other notability guidelines, whereas I would agree with Ned Scott, the primary focus of this guideline is the elements, but that does include the story, and I think we should be working towards addressing his concerns. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Even assuming you're right about the story being an element of the work and the medium being the work - and I don't agree with that at all - this guideline should still apply to works. In some cases - cases that aren't necessarily books or films - a work will be notable for the medium in which it was published, rather than the story. This guideline is still necessary to make sure that we consider real-world coverage in those cases. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• I haven't been called learned before - that's so cool. I always imagined that those years of classical studies would be good for something (well, other than convincing archaeologists to go on dates). :) I tend to agree with Percy, though - while there are two lines of argument here, they're both heading towards the same place. And I think Gavin makes an interesting point - except that the Iliad is too nice an example for me, as almost all academic discussion is based around the story, not the particular publication (with the exception of the recent film, or occasional interesting discussions of particular translations). If I wanted to establish notability for the Iliad all my sources would be independent of the medium, and would treat the "work" as the story. But this is, I suspect, just an issue of terminology - the results would be the same from either perspective, I think, if I understand Percy correctly. - Bilby (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Although I bow to more learned opinions than my own, I think most people (including academics) ususally speak of the Iliad as if it were a book, and evidence of this is that they usually cite a specific edition or translation in their papers just to be sure that everybody knows what their source is. Although I would agree they are refering to the story, its origins and development, those sources would actually cite a book as their main source of reference (unless they are old enough to have heard the original spoken in pre-podast times). Note that I am not trying to pigeon hole the Iliad as a book per se, merely to suggest to you that as a "work of fiction", its notability is easier to establish through WP:BK as so many editions have been reviewed as such. Although Bilby may be right at the end of the day that a story is a fictional element which is independent of the media it is transmitted in, its easier to treat such works as "works of fiction" that are books, films or even podcasts, depending on which media people are familiar with.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The citing editions is a red herring here, as that's just a matter of clearly referring to a given translation, printing, etc; however, the point does stand that it's generally referred to as if it were a book, but again by hanging onto a frankly ontological point we are skirting the practical ones. What about short stories? There are most certainly notable short stories, and even where they appear in a volume with the same title, it is certainly not appropriate to refer to the short story as a book, nor the book as if it were just that short story. It is not the case that they are written to appear in a larger work of fiction. In the case of magazines, try picking up a copy of Interzone; you'll find a great deal in there other than stories, so calling the whole magazine a "work of fiction" is frankly incorrect— the same is true of every magazine I've seen that publishes short stories and novellas. When it comes to an anthology, the evidence is less clear, but I would certainly hesitate to call an anthology a "work of fiction", because it's not one work, it's an anthology of works, which may be notable as a book in itself (per WP:BK), but the stories will be notable (or not) independent of that. Indeed, in most cases, the anthologies aren't even the first publication of most of the stories in them, and in many cases they are by different authors! SamBC(talk) 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• In fairness to me, the citing editions is not a red herring, it is reasonable evidence that the notability of the Iliad would be best dealt with under WP:BK. You are right that short stories are not always compiled in larger works; they are sometimes "works of fiction" in their own right (i.e. novellas), in which case they are covered by WP:BK. But as regards books or magazines containing anthologies of short stories, I would take a top down approach as follows:

1. If you were seeking to provide evidence that a particular magazine was notable, such as The New Yorker, you would probably better off looking at WP:CORP;
2. Although this is a grey area, individual issues of the magazine are probably best treated like other real-world publications under WP:BK;
3. Lastly where a story in a magazine is notable in its own right (e.g. The Lottery), I would still seek guidance from WP:BK although I agree with Masem that the distinction becomes blurred between a work and an element of ficton, as would any method of categorisation if taken to an extreme level.

Despite the opportunity for cross over between WP:FICT and other guidelines, I think the key issue is that WP:FICT should be focused on "elements of fiction" only. I agree with Ned that WP:FICT has no real guidance for "works of fiction", and I think this is verbage that can be dropped from the guideline.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen WP:BURO and WP:CREEP cited a bunch of times for the sake of simplifying both WP:FICT, as well as related guidelines like WP:EPISODE. That clearly applies to this situation. First, we give no useful guidance for works of fiction, despite the attempts made with the section included. Second, other guidelines and the general notability guideline easily cover this issue, and have done so with little to no incident. Trying to make WP:FICT cover works of fiction, because of the page title, is clear instructions creep. Is there a problem that we are trying to fix with this application of WP:FICT? Is there an issue here at all? No. WP:FICT does a horrible job at helping editors determine the notability on a parent work of fiction, and trying to pretend that it does (or that it should) doesn't help anything. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think it's helpful to say that works of fiction need real-world coverage, you're in a tiny minority. Please stop (a) altering the page to reflect your opinion rather than consensus, and (b) calling me an ass while you do it. I'm not going to try to play the more-civil-than-thou game, but insults don't help your case, they just make you look petulant and childish. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Insults aside, there is a proposal on the table (from a teeny-weeny minority) that the "works of fiction section" should come out, and this should be addressed first. An alternative proposal is that we retain this section, but merge that part of the definition that says "For more specific notability guidelines on works of fiction presented in specific forms of media, see the following guidelines...." on the basis that they are more or less saying the same thing, and a merger would reduce the amount of verbage in this draft guideline. Any takers? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"If you don't think it's helpful to say that works of fiction need real-world coverage" Don't act stupid, Percy, you know full well that's not even close to what I'm saying. I'm saying that WP:FICT doesn't contain any helpful guidance, whatsoever, about works of fiction, and that other guidelines have sufficed in the past. Not only is there not a consensus to say that FICT's focus is works, but it's not even factual. And one slip-up in civility doesn't make your flawed argument correct. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And if you would stop assuming your baseless assumption that this has anything to do about my personal preference, you'd probably notice that I'm not opposed to making WP:FICT have some general over-view (at the very least, have a section that will guide editors on what other pages they need to look at for works-notability). And maybe, just maybe, you'd like to address some of the arguments I've brought up, instead of claiming that this is something personal. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the arguments you've brought up? How am I supposed to address whether or not I have "my head up my ass"? And today you're calling me "stupid". Grow up. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for my poor choice of words, and letting frustration get to me. If you are able to look past that then please actually look at the rest of my comments. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, accepted. Let's look at your points.

• "WP:FICT doesn't contain any helpful guidance, whatsoever, about works of fiction" - not true; nowhere else is the requirement that coverage be real-world-focused made for works. That alone is very helpful guidance. There's definitely room for improvement in that area, though.
• "other guidelines have sufficed in the past" - IME it's WP:FICT that editors have pointed to for works of fiction for a long time, longer than WP:BK has been in existence. Judging works by WP:FICT is current practise, so we should reflect that.
• "Not only is there not a consensus to say that FICT's focus is works, but it's not even factual" - that's a straw man, right there, in the word "focus". There is consensus support that WP:FICT applies to works and elements. We didn't cover the matter in the RFC or the polls, and perhaps we should, but users have been pointing to it in AFDs for years. I'm not saying it should focus on works. But I am saying that it shouldn't disclaim responsibility for works as it does in some of your proposed versions.

So: WP:FICT has been applied to works and is likely to continue to do so whatever we decide here; I'd gladly see your suggestions for how to improve the guidance we give, but disclaiming responsibility in the lead section is not an improvement. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't feel my last edit to WP:FICT disclaimed responsibility, but understanding that is the impression I gave, I understand your objections now. And again, I really am sorry about the way I acted in the last few days. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all forgive that, Ned; after all, I'm not sure there's anyone been seriously involved in this debate who hasn't acted like a jerk at some point in it, at least slightly. Myself included. SamBC(talk) 11:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also apologise for my part. So, moving on: is there anything beyond RWC that we want to say about works? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whatn RWC is, but if you are agreeing that the section "Works of Fiction" should be merged with the definition that says "For more specific notability guidelines on works of fiction presented in specific forms of media, see the following guidelines...." on the basis that they are more or less saying the same thing, then I am with you. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RWC = Real World Coverage. I'm not saying the thing you say I'm saying, as usual. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• With regards my proposal that we merge the "Works of Fiction" section with that part of the definition that says "For more specific notability guidelines on works of fiction presented in specific forms of media, see the following guidelines...." , what is your view then? --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

AFI 100 as an example

There's a problem with using the AFI 100 as an example: Not all the entries on it are notable, by current practice. Perhaps we should remove that footnote. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not confusing "notability" with "has a wikipedia article" are you? More evidence mounts that notability produces strange results. Catchpole (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking lack of an article as lack of consensus that that topic is notable. Why, do you think they are absent for some other reason? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The project is still a work in progress. There remain vast gaps in our coverage. Catchpole (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes; some are there because we haven't got round to filling them in yet, and some are there because we've decided not to. But if the idea is to put forward a list that is definitely, definitely evidence of notability, shouldn't that list be fully populated by now? And, frankly, I don't think that, say, Thelma and Louise do merit their own, separate articles. So I'm not convinced that the list is a good example for us to be using. I'm not saying it's a non-notable list, or that the entries on it aren't mostly notable; but I don't think we should be holding it up as an example. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We do also say that not all notable elements of fiction should have their own article if they can sanely be covered as part of another. There's not a perfect following of notable <=> has article normally, and with that instruction there's even less of one. Plus, there's always the instruction to use common sense. SamBC(talk) 13:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand all that - but if we hold up this list as an example, then it will set the threshold for notability for articles of characters in future; and it sets that threshold lower than current best practise does. We're better off with no example than a bad example. Again, I'm not saying it's a bad article, just a bad example to be using here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Are any of the ones that don't currently have articles ones that have had articles that were then deleted as non-notable? As far as I can see, otherwise there's no evidence of consensus either way on the ones that don't have articles, and around 90% of them do; wikipedia being unfinished, that's a pretty good rate. Add to that the fact that consensus can change, and that awards are usually accepted, and I feel fairly safe saying that everything on the list is notable. I'd say "everyone" on the list, but not all of them are human or approaching it... SamBC(talk) 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we just disagree there... I could see some of them having their own articles, but not all. Also, it's not true to say that "awards are usually accepted" - most awards are trivial fansite offerings or vanity awards given by bodies in cahoots with the makers of the fiction. Only the top awards in any given field are usually accepted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was taking it as read that crappy fan awards and polls and so on don't count; I was referring to behaviour generally in line with the clauses on awards on other notability guidelines. SamBC(talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

They're major national recognition--every one of them is notable, and the award is sufficient evidence., just as for other topics. Even in well-covered fields such as this, there are a great many articles still to be written, especially for the older material. DGG (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Even the shark from Jaws (film)? Do you think he/she also has sufficent coverage to justify a stand alone article? --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it did have sufficient coverage; even so, we already seem to have agreed on the principle (for fictional elements) of "don't give it a separate article just because it's notable". SamBC(talk) 11:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the same thing as winning a single award. It helps establish notability, but it does not warrant a separate article. Unless you have the information to support split, the simple fact that something has won an award does not mean that it needs its own 5kb stub of an article. If you have the information to develop an article, wonderful, but if you don't then no individual award (no matter how great) is going to change that. We don't need to split an article out for something that takes a single sentence to report.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. However, if this was a media guideline such as WP:BK or WP:MOVIE, an award is accepted as specific evidence of notability. So why mention awards for fictional elements at all, if they are not admitted as evidence of notability unless supported by evidence that the ficitonal element meets the requirements of GNC?--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"received significant coverage" is the most important part of the notability guideline. A single award is not "significant coverage". Further: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." This is clarified by, "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial." -- In this context, a single sentence award mention of a topic would be "trivial". Now, this does not mean that the information should not be included, but that it isn't significant enough to warrant separation from the main topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• So what you are saying is that awards are acceptable as evidence of notability, as long as they are presented with evidence that the ficitonal element meets the requirements of GNC. So why mention awards for fictional elements at all, if like any other content, the requirements of GNC must be met first (or in tandem with) as a criteria of notability? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bignole, you seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension as Gavin has/is (I'm not sure if he's understood yet; no offence intended, Gavin). So let me set out a few points:

• To have a worthwhile wikipedia article, a topic must (among other things):
  1. Meet one (or more) relevant notability guideline (the GNC or a subject-specific one); the GNC means significant coverage in independent sources, but other guidelines do not necessarily require this. Some permit notability to be evidenced purely through a single major award.
  2. Have sufficient information available in reliable sources to populate an article; an important point here is that not all sources that are acceptable for WP:V are acceptable for the GNC. Thus, an article may have enough sources available without the subject meeting the GNC.
  3. If the topic is related to fiction (a work, an element of fiction, whatever), it must be possible to populate the article with a reasonable balance of real-world information, such as analysis, reception, etc etc, as well as in-universe or plot information.
• To reiterate, many sources are acceptable for verification purposes are not acceptable to demonstrate notability per the GNC, but a subject may be notable without meeting the GNC.
• For some information (but not usually enough to meet the requirement for real-world information), the work itself is a valid source.

Does this clarify the fact that sources are always needed, but not every article topic must meet the GNC? SamBC(talk) 11:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's only two things any article needs. "Significant coverage", which I have defined already, and "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." Exactly what the GNC states. You cannot bypass the GNC, it's the parent article for this guideline. When NOTE states that it must either meet GNC or the subject specific guidelines, those guidelines cannot be less than GNC. It means that if the subject specific guidelines have a more strict criteria for inclusion, then you have to follow that, otherwise just follow what is stated below. The bare minimum an article should have is significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Hell, it states it in the first section. So, the point is, debating about whether or not AFI recognition, or an Oscar that represents an award to a fictional element, proves that the topic is notable is not relevant. It shows support, but unless there are other sources that provide "significant coverage" (and since FICT doesn't define significant coverage, we have to use NOTE's definition) then it isn't worthy of its own article. Just because you cannot give something its own article doesn't mean you can use that same information somewhere else. So, to answer your final statement, no, a subject may not be notable per subject standards and not per the GNC, because all subject notability guidelines are based around the GNC. Unless the subject specific guidelines totally disregard the GNC (which this page does not), then you're going to meet the GNC no matter what. So, AFI is good information, just not going to prove that any topic needs its own article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If that were the case, NOTE would say that topics had to meet the GNC and any subject specific guidelines; many of the subject specific guidelines provide criteria that allow something to qualify as notable without meeting the GNC. The GNC is a "criterion of last resort" if there are no subject-specific guidelines, or a topic doesn't meet its subject specific guidelines. It's clear as day in what's written in WP:NOTE. SamBC(talk) 14:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

BigN, the GNC (WP:N) does not require multiple sources, it says: "Multiple sources are generally preferred" This was a hard fought compromise with the language deliberately meant to encourage but not specifically require multiple sources to establish notability. My interpretation and intention for fighting for the inclusion of single source of notability is to allow a single source to be used to establish notability when it is supported by significant other verifiable information, especially information leading to establishing independence and credibilty of that source. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it contradicts "other" subject guidelines, because it doesn't contradict this one as this guideline is a reflection of GNC. This guideline clearly states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." as the definition of notability. Now, unless you wish to rewrite that, nothing else matters. Since we know from the GNC what "significant coverage" means, then a single award does not constitute the criteria necessary for a separate article. Plain as day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say "if an only if"; in terms of logic, that means that significant coverage is a sufficient but not necessary condition; however, it is probably worth clarifying this case one way or the other. Most opinions here would suggest that the direction to clarify is that there are other situations, but they are few and far between. SamBC(talk) 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This page doesn't say that, and if it did then it would be a contradiction of itself. You cannot claim that notability is one thing, and then try and say it's something else later on. This page defines it as "significant coverage", and GNC defines what "significant coverage" is. So, unless you want to change this page, then AFI is not substantial enough to warrant a separate page for anything. Matter of fact, does this page not clarify that just because you meet the basic idea behind notability for fictional topics that it does not necessarily mean you need a separate page to present it all? If that's the case, then a single statement wouldn't even fit the basic criteria for notability. You cannot take the criteria from another notability (ie. Books) guideline and automatically apply it to something that falls under the jurisdiction of this guideline. Not unless you change this guideline, which would be a whole new topic of discussion and months of debate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's been months of debate, and at least one person is willing to outright contradict you on the weight of the AFI list (DGG, below, I think, might be above). Where in this guideline does it define notability as significant coverage? It quite WP:N with "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but again not the if, not if and only if; if it is defining notability as you say, then that needs to be changed, as that's contradicting rather a lot of other guidelines, and the generally agreed terms of debate at the top of this page. SamBC(talk) 15:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted, because "there may be cases where an element does not seem to have significant coverage, but that coverage is sufficient to demonstrate notability," makes no sense. Exactly how does something "seem to not have significant coverage", but actually has "significant coverage"? Either it does or it doesn't. It's clear if it does, because we know what significant coverage is based on what GNC defines significant coverage as. Unless you rewrite the definition of significant coverage, then GNC is the place we look for how to establish it. A single statement, "Character John X received an AFI award" is not significant coverage. It's a single statement. So, unless this page agrees on a NEW definition of significant coverage, then you cannot plop in your own definition at will. That isn't how it works. Since this page doesn't have a definition listed, we use the GNC's definition, given that the GNC is the parent article and because even you stated above that if it isn't covered here then we revert back to what the GNC says. You stated it's a "last resort" if the subject doesn't meet the subject-specific guidelines. Well, this subject-specific guidelines does not stipulate the definition of "significant coverage", but NOTE does. Hence why we use NOTE's definition.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask just the simple question again; comments on my suggested change would be better in the section I started on that, below. Here's the question: where is notability defined as receiving significant coverage? SamBC(talk) 15:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability is defined for fiction here, which clearly states below: "Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". From there, significant coverage is defined here, which is further clarified here. This guideline (FICT) does not define significant coverage as anything other than what NOTE defines it as. You can draw this conclusion because this guideline specifically cites NOTE's definition of notability as part of the 3 excerpts we use to define notability for topics on fiction.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; can be "presumed notable if", not "are notable if and only if", which would be a definition. The usage of "presume" means that it can be overriden; "are" instead would make the condition entirely sufficient, but the use of "if" rather than "if and only if" means that it cannot be seen as necessary. So, as written, it states that significant coverage is usually sufficient to indicate notability, but not necessary. SamBC(talk) 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason it is "presumed" is because nothing is definite. Anything can be overridden with consensus, but it doesn't mean ignore it until consensus says to get rid of the article. The point of presumed is to follow the guideline unless you can make a case for the "exception to the rule". Since significant coverage explicitely states that a single mention is trivial, you need a pretty good reason to say an article needs to be created because of a single award given (and not just "I think it's the most important award in the world" argument). This guideline does not specify such a thing, and I don't believe that any single award that can be mentioned in a single sentence on a parent page is proof that the topic needs its own article. Based on the discussion here on this section, it seems that there isn't consensus to assume that any one award is significant enough to grant a topic its own article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, the reference to AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains needs to come out, as is not proof that the topic needs its own article. In addition, the purpose of the list was to provide a backdrop to a television programme which featured clips from the films themselves, which in my mind provides additional evidence that it is the films themselves are notable. Therefore the award does not establish the notability of the characters outside of the films in which they featured. It is debateable whether this example falls purely within the scope of WP:MOVIE, but I would say that as evidence of notability, it is a contraversial if not misleading example. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is now agreement to remove the reference to awards and reference to AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains out of WP:FICT. Should this award be cited in WP:MOVIE?--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree, although the issue is quite complex; this draft states that notability doesn't mean, on its own, that fictional topics should have their own articles, so demonstrating notability does not imply demonstrating that the topic should have its own article. More to the point, I don't think that posting new comments to sections that are otherwise long-dead is the best way to ensure that people read it. You're the only one insisting that these either a) aren't really awards, but rather some sort of scheme, or b) aren't for the characters rather than the actors or the films. SamBC(talk) 09:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• In fairness, I think Bagnole has disscussed the point in great detail, and has come to the same conclusion as me, but by a different route. There is a lot of agreement that reference to awards must go, and not just on the strength of what I have written; sgeureka has also gone on record to say that he would rather leave awards out of FICT at this point, and Kevin Murray is also of the view that unworkable and precriptive special cases such as awards are not evidence of notability, a complete dearth of reliable secondary sources would tend to suggest that the work was not notable even if it had an award. So what do you think should be done? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Having just read the (relatively) recent re-write of WP:BIO with merge of WP:ATHLETE and so on, it might be worth taking cues from there as well as WP:BK and such. Some subject-specific guidelines make exceptions with things like awards, and some don't. It would seem awkward to suggest that such exceptions are unworkable when they've worked well for other things, as there are sources acceptable to WP:V that don't demonstrate notability per the GNC, allowing articles to be written verifiably without passing the GNC. I also think avoiding any mention of awards is perilous as many users take awards to be defacto evidence of notability even when no applicable notability guideline says so. Hence my suggestion that we state that awards indicate or suggest notability, in proportion to the stature of the award, but that (other) secondary source coverage will generally be needed. It's also worth saying that awards may contribute to notability where the award is independent of the subject, as the award itself is secondary coverage. SamBC(talk) 10:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• SamBC, we have covered your arguments before, and as you know I am of the opinion that awards don't apply to elements of fiction, because they are not real-world people, and generally it is they who recieve awards in recognition of their creative abilities, either directly when the award is presented to them personally, or indirectly when their work (film or book) is singled out for an award. Kevin Murray is of the view that awards are not evidence of notability at all; Bignole is of the view that awards are not evidence of notability on their own, and that they cannot be used to justify a standalone article without coverage from reliable secondary source. sgeureka has made his view known he is uncomfortable with the idea that minor awards (such as those handed out at trade or fan conventions) contribute any notability at all, and for this reason awards should not be mentioned in this guideline at all. I have pointed out that this AFI award, created for a television special, has more do with the films that were featured in it than it does the fictional characters were "awarded" the honor of villan or hero. Even Percy Snoodle is not clear that this particular award is a good example, as not all the entries on it are notable.
  On the grounds that awards don't contribute evidence of notability (in the same way popularity does not contribute either), I think the reference to awards of any kind or type should come out altogether. I am now of the impression that you no longer wish to consider these agruements, as you are convinced that your view is overwhealmingly the stronger, and at the end of the day you may be right. If you feel you are completely right, feel free to ignore our views and my proposal to remove the reference to awards. Leave the reference to the award in if you feel strongly about it; you are under no obligation to act on our advice. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, I wouldn't say that awards are not evidence of notability; I would say that an award when verifiable could be a building block toward cummulative notability, and a strong reason to prevent deletion of a stub. This does not need to be subject specific and could be part of a richer WP:N covering all topics equally. I don't oppose more advanced thought at WP:N, what I oppose is fragemented standards which are perpetuated by subject specific guidelines. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Gavin has summarised my views pretty well. No single award for a fictional element is evidence of notability. This page is a reflection of WP:NOTE, in that notability is "significant coverage". A single statement of "Character X won 'Best New Character' from IGN's Comic Book Awards" is not evidence of notability. It's a simple statement that can be easily presented in a larger article. But, what you can infer from this is that if the subject has won awards (though as Gavin pointed out it's rare to every see a fictional element "win" an award itself, but Jason Voorhees did win a Lifetime Achievement Award from MTV...so there are cases) then you can probably find information on that subject to validate "significant coverage". If the notability guideline for books says that if it wins a major award that's for the book itself. If Tom Welling won an Emmy for playing Clark Kent, that doesn't make Smallville's Clark Kent notable. The award has nothing to do with the character, but the actor portraying him. The same is said for when the Academy Awards award shows for special effects. The scene itself isn't notable, it's the work that the SFX company did that was awarded. They are awarding the work that went into it, not what came out in the end. I don't not believe any single award, no matter how major one might think it actually is, asserts complete notability for a fictional element. It helps, but it's like a single lego in the entire lego castle. If that's all you got then you don't have a castle. The same goes for "rankings" for that matter. A rule of thumb should be, if you can state the fact with a single sentence and you cannot provide any context to the fact (i.e. prose that contains information about what they did that was so special that they were given an award), then you don't have enough coverage to warrant a separate article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

An award could definitely suggest notability, and as such "could be evidence of notability" is a true statement. Evidence does not mean a conclusion, and can cover an entire spectrum (for a lack of better words) of possible criteria being satisfied. We should say "this could be evidence of notability, which means that editors should look at it, possibly discuss it, to see if it is or not". It's not going to be black and white, and it's not going to be the same for every award/award-winner. -- Ned Scott 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ned that awards suggest some kind of notability; this is common sense. I also agree with SamBC and Bignole that just because something is notable (by whatever definition), doesn't mean that it automatically deserves/needs its own article; i.e. awards suggest some notability but not sufficient notability. Receiving an AFI 100 award etc. is one sentence, and that can fit into a parent article. "received significant coverage" remains the big point for a separate article, and the article needs to to demonstrate that sooner or later (I am thinking two or three medium paragraphs at least), or we go back to "this can also fit in the parent article". I consider the current footnote about awards ("An example of a plaudit...") pointless but harmless, and I agree with the current wording of the second footnote ("It is not generally a sufficient indicator of notability for an award to be given for a fictional topic..."). – sgeureka 07:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do awards provide evidence of "some kind of notability"? I think the answer must be either they do, or either they don't. I think WP:FICT needs to provide clear guidance on this issue in relation to fictional elements, or reference to them needs to come out.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Guideline

I've added the guideline tag. Anyone is of course free to remove it, but I suggest people who think this is as good as it can be and that any more edits may as well happen with the tag on as off think through their position. All the best, Hiding T 14:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline tag suggests it has broad community consensus. There's no indication of that; there may be broad consensus here, but it needs acceptance broader than that. Plus, once it is accepted, it should be tagged as a notability guideline, not a general guideline. SamBC(talk) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consensus is not yet demonstrated and this should remain a proposal. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is probably worth putting this to a wider community discussion now, though; I would suggest archiving most or all of this talk page and then RFCing, advertising at VPP, etc. SamBC(talk) 10:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If this has developed as far as it can go, then I suggest that we should look at the end-product and determine the specific value added over WP:N etc. Could the project be better served by merging the better aspects of this proposal with Books and Film so that we have one comprehensive and consistent guideline for "Creative Works", rather than a collections of competing rule-sets? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think there are some important practical issues as well as fundamental principles to be resolved before this becomes a guideline. I agree with Kevin Murray that consensus is not yet demonstrated and this should remain a proposal. Also, this proposal is highly unstable, and there is evidence that the number of changest for this month will be greater than any month previous.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Book and Film would be a bad idea, because in those cases, there are specific cases where notability has been shown through means other than the general notability criteria (significant coverage in secondary sources); while these cases would stay when bringing all into a common guideline, there would be people that will try to read across the lines, and apply a book-based criteria to a video game, for example -- see the entire discussion about awards that shows that what applies to one form of media doesn't apply to another. Additionally, those guidelines include non-fiction works as well.

As for the specific value, it is necessary to map how NOTE and PLOT interact when it comes to works of fiction. While the same effect is there without FICT, it is necessary to explain how these interact to lead to appropriate encyclopedic coverage of fiction. --MASEM 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't agree! In each of the special cases in any subject specific notability guideline, an educated application of WP:N would yield identical results. Most of these special cases are the result of a poor understanding of WP:N at AfD. These are bandaids on a festering problem. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can you give a specific example of where a specific notability guideline arose or was applied to a case which was the result of a poor understanding of WP:N at AfD so that we can understand more fully what you mean? --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gavin I can't cite specifics but over several years of invlovement at AfD, I have not yet seen one article which could be kept by a subject specific guideline that couldn't have qualified by WP:N. Take almost any legitimate line item argument citing a subject specific guideline and see if you can't make the same argument work using WP:N. The only accomplishment of subject specific guidelines would be unverifiable stub articles. WP:V is the key to WP:N. The problem is that AfD is about WP:ILIKEIT not applying guidelines. Consider the adverse effects of WP:CREEP against the marginal benefit of a further guideline. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• The only evidence I have would tend to support your viewpoint: note the closing remarks of the admin at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set (2nd nomination) regarding awards as evidence of notability. However, I think in instances where there is insufficient content to meet the requirements of WP:N, I guess the specific guidelines provide examples that a topic should be presumend to be notable, although presumption is rather over reliant on a subjective perspective compared to WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we presume a topic to be notable, then how do we write the article without material from verifiable sources? If we have verifiable sources we satisfy WP:N. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of these additional notability guidelines beyond the GNC is that they can help newer editors identify what we mean by notability, and to make it easier to include things. For example, MUSIC presumes an album by a notable band will be notable. Yes, ultimately, 99% of such albums will have sources that support the GNC, but at the time of release, they may not. However, given enough time and volunteer editing, it is highly likely that such articles will be given the appropriate sources. Thus, a newer editor that wants to contribute can do so and may not be able to easily search for reference but can assert the notability of a topic that likely will never be deleted. Ultimately , sources for verification will/can be added, and technically this notability "shortcut" is unnecessary, but having these makes WP much more user friendly to newer editors. (Unfortunately, it is very difficult to provide a short circuit for elements of fiction that virtually guaranty secondary sources as noted by the awards discussion.) --MASEM 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Slight correction. WP:MUSIC says an album by a notable band may be notable, not will. Common misinterpretation, but there's a but difference.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how often I have to mention this... there are sources acceptable for verification that aren't considered evidence of notability; they may not be preferred sources, but they are accepted. For example, first-party sources, primary sources, and directories are all suitable for verification, at least of limited things, but not considered indicative of notability. Thus articles that meet non-GNC subject-specific criteria (the ones for athletes are a good example) can still contain verifiable, encyclopaedic information. Like I've said plenty of times, if this weren't the case, there'd be no need for notability guidelines, and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have them. SamBC(talk) 14:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• It may prove salutary to initiate over a set time (say a month) a series of AfDs on various articles that exemplify different aspects of the questions being raised here in order to gauge community reaction and perhaps solicit wider engagement. Editors who have weighed in here would need to participate systematically as well. But since AfD is consensus in the making at a very fundamental level it could help move the issue along. Apologies in advance if this comers across as idiotic or promoting division - not my intention. Eusebeus (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I like your concept, but I'm not sure that is a fair use of the time contributed by AfD participants. Maybe modify your idea to review a sample of past AfD discussions as a team to test my hypothesis. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think one would have to mount a huge disclaimer on the AfDs in question, indicating that opinion is being solicited with respect to consensus for fictional notability. Past AfDs will can probably be used to show everything and the kitchen sink, they are so inconsistent. AfDs for a specific purpose could perhaps aspire to greater consistency. Eusebeus (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't oppose this and will participate if you get something going. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We have enough discussions already on real cases. The last thing we need at Afd is additional work on imaginary ones. We can draw our conclusions from the material there already: and the conclusion I draw from having participated in what seems like half of them over the last few months or so (more likely one-tenth--they are remarkably tedious) is that except for the extremely good and the extremely bad, the results have a considerable element of randomness. They're probably not random, but they're close, and the factor determining it is the relative energy of the participants. the quality of the arguments has nothing much to do with it, for they're always the same. some of us want to maximize the coverage of fiction , and some want to do just the opposite. I'd be tempted to propose something in the middle, but every time I say something which seems to me the most basic common sense, like "it should depend upon the importance of the fiction" , or "some fictions are best discussed by chronological plot, and some by characters and many by a combination of approaches" or "the default option should be to merge but preserve content" or "as much as possible of what is removed should be kept in a redirect for future development" or "the real problem isnot division into articles but quality of writing" -- only a few people agree. DGG (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree! It mirrors the US justice system where victory is based on a good spokesman and a sympathetic jury. I just don't see further rules solving the problem. I believe in less rules and better training for the closers. Verifiable independent source material should be required and that's pretty simple. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD is pretty well flooded as is and so it would not be a good idea to use it to test possible policy consensuses. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, there is good verifiable source material for almost every one of these--plot and the like can be sourced to the work itself. It would be a very good idea for those who have videos and so forth going in an putting in timings (or, in other sorts of works,scene numbers if not lines). Judgements & other opinion of course need to be sourced from the usually abundant criticism for at least major works. DGG (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that my last minor quibble has been ironed out (mostly wording and tweaking of examples), I have read through the whole guideline again. Although I'd still wait a couple of days or a week for stabilization, the current version of the proposal has my support. I think we should advertise the proposal in some wider circles soon and see where it goes. – sgeureka 18:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the tweaks from Percy and Sgeureka, and think this is definitely nearly there. SamBC(talk) 18:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that I made one small change in the footnote in regards to how these articles are named: "List of Y characters" where Y is a fictional grouping but not a work is a bad article title since you have to presume knowledge of Y; "List of Y characters from X" or a similar scheme where Y is based on the work of fiction X at least provides better context. --MASEM 19:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to resolve it, but what about the case where a division is fictitious, but not limited to a single work or group of works? I'm not certain of any non-silly example now, but I have a feeling there are some. Of course, categories might work, but at the moment it's outside guidelines to group shortcuts by categorising them as "fictional X". SamBC(talk) 19:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"List of X characters in the Y series" or "in the Y franchise" would allow for the larger series --MASEM 19:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists for franchises that I could think of: Recurring characters in The Legend of Zelda series, Ancient characters in Stargate, List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens (interesting merge tags on the last article-list). It seems this is not so uncommon. – sgeureka 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I know some people are busy with WP:Plot summaries now, but these are the changes since May 10. It's been silent for a few days here on the talk page also. The "awards" debate died down without significant results in either direction (FICT remains vague), the notability of lists will likely remain a hot topic in the foreseeable future (FICT remains vague), and whether FICT should point to other fiction-related notability guidelines seems to remain a matter of taste and doesn't really affect FICT either way. Can we have another poll for whether it's time to de-dispute FICT? – sgeureka 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think what has happened is that Percy has stopped editing the draft for some days, and this might explain the peace and quiet.--Gavin Collins (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Go read WP:NPA Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I was not attacking you if that helps.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Current Version

• Comment I have also now read through the new wording and I like the current version a lot. It maintains a strong injunction against in-universe material strong injunction against excessive in-universe material unbalanced by real-world content, places the right emphasis on requiring notability (and not simply a weak verifiability standard) and retains the need to demonstrate real-world significance for fictional material. At the same time, the LOE and LOC provisions offer good balance to those local groups of editors who are more interested in plot summary, trivia and in-universe material. Finally, I would note that in conjunction with the recently strengthened wording concerning global consensus at WP:CON & the renewal of the injunction against mere plot summary at WP:NOT#PLOT, there is an effective convergence of policy & guideline that should allow for a significant increase in the standards of Misplaced Pages's coverage of fictional topics. I think many editors deserve a lot of credit for what I see as fundamentally a success, but I hope no-one is offended if I single out Masem for his outstanding patience and hard work, especially in the face of so much divergence of opinion. Eusebeus (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for highlighting where the real disagreement is. I think that what we should have, what is appropriate for an encyclopedia like this one, (in addition to coverage of publication & reception & criticism), is reasonably detailed coverage of in-universe material. What people come here is for this, at least as much as the publication details--to understand what a story is about, or what a game is: What the characters are, what people mean when the refer to them. What happened in an episode they missed. What the peculiar-sounding elements of background people talk about on the web are. This is the place I actually learned what some soaps are about--perhaps I wish I hadn't, but my distaste for the genre is at now an informed distaste. Informing the ignorant is the purpose of Misplaced Pages. NOT PLOT says that plot should only be part of the overage, and all of us agree about that. It does not say it shouldn't be the major part. If it did, it would not have consensus. I too admire Masems attempt to deal with the issue, but if it can be interpreted the way you interpret it, either he did not reach an acceptable compromise, or you totally misunderstand it. DGG (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I do disagree with Eusebeus's interpretation, but I'm not sure how one would clarify it in the guideline without upsetting other people. At the moment, policies seem to carefully say that there should be "a balance" without saying what the balance should be, and I get the feelings that this is because there'd be significant numbers who'd disagree with anything specific. Maybe that's a problem, but I don't see as how it gets solved. SamBC(talk) 14:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely true that PLOT does not state anything about balance beyond that some have to be covers, and does suggest plots should be concise, but that's why WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE are cited - one aspect of a topic should not be covered in significantly more detail than other aspects. The level of detail that many would write articles on fiction want to go into generally is in great excess of what the real-world aspects are for it. Mind you, I don't think we even want to try to set hard numbers or ratios on what content vs context we should aim for or the like, but there are obvious cases where the imbalance is there. Since it is generally harder and more time consumer to locate information on a work's context, that's why the focus tends to be on limiting the coverage of a work's content more. Plus, it is important to note that within the encyclopedia we can't cover certain things in some ways because of its goals and policies, but that's why places like Wikia and others should be used and should be encouraged to be linked into WP, not necessarily being a completely transparent line for the end user, but giving a place where someone more interested in the work can look too. --MASEM 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we have a sister project like wiktionary instead of having to rely on ad supported wikis? I'm sure this has been discussed and rejected, anyone know where? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where those discussions have been. I suspect that one of the major problems would be funding. I can understand why people feel inclined to contribute money towards an encyclopedia, but can't imagine that many people would feel inclined to contribute to a television trivia guide.Kww (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

MASEM, then, let us explicitly say that we are not specifying the balance, and that depending on the topic, the fictional elements may be either a small or a large part of the coverage. DGG (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PLOT may not say it, but as FICT is the combination of NOTE, PLOT, and the other core policies, including NPOV/UNDUE, it needs to be stated here. Coverage of fictional works cannot be heavily weighted on the coverage of the works' content. --MASEM 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my agreement to this sentiment here, and incidentally reply to DGG's objection above by noting my inaccuracy in suggesting this advocated an injunction against in-universe detail; rather such detail needs be balanced by consideration Masem notes above. That said, I understand that DGG and I are going to disagree based on very different wikiphilosophies. This guideline, however, strikes me as an excellent balance and I believe the gist of my remarks - the sloppiness of my initial wording now amended - is an accurate reflexion of its intent. Eusebeus (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm half-playing devil's advocate here, but that doesn't actually follow logically; what evidence, from policy and other guidelines, is there that "coverage of fictional works cannot be heavily weighted on the coverage of the works' content"? SamBC(talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant section from WP:UNDUE is Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Since we can easily classify the content and the context of a fictional work as two different aspects, we should try to balance the amount of material given to each. --MASEM 21:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

and nobody disagrees with that. What Sam and I are trying to say, is that the proper balance will vary, and will usually be very much more on he side of plot and characters than has been the statement in the guideline so far--a widely ignored guideline, as we all know--the extent to which it has been ignored is perhaps what shows the true consensus. We shouldn't give undue weight to the "real-world" content about the production and distribution. We should give it due weight, as the framework and setting for what usually is the important parts. sometimes, of course, the production and so forth, and especially the subsequent fate in criticism and popular culture, will be the important part--I can think of a number of films where the production was more dramatic than the story, & much more discussed. We all agree we want balance, but we disagree where it lies. so lets just say what we agree, instead of pretending we don't. I have no way of forcing my views on Eusebeus, and no great likelihood of convincing him, and he likewise of me--I agree with him about that much at least! So since we must work together here, we have to let the matters disagreement remain unspecified by the rules, for we have no other way of making rules except by agreement. But there's something else I know that he, and I, and all of us here agree on: what coverage we do have of each of the various elements should be well written, both appropriately concise, and sufficiently informative, and above all, clear. We can all work towards that. DGG (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Which almost brings this back full circle - what I've been trying to do is get this to a point where fictional elements aren't prevented from being discussed, but at the same time, keeping a sense of encyclopedic treatment to these. Exactly the amount where they lie is impossible to agree on right now. We should not be trying to force an exact limitation or allowance for treatment (being a guideline) but if we hit a point where some articles may exceed a bit too much, allowing for a bit of lenancy to this, is exactly the middle ground we should be aiming to it, and make sure that while it may not be the 100% solution both sides are looking for, hopeful people recognize that from this point we can go forward. I noticed User:Hiding has opened a centralized discussion on plot summaries, and this discussion will helpfully point if there's sufficient global consensus to decide ratios of content vs context and the like, or if for now it's still rather large margin. --MASEM 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we want to wait for that, or do we want to try to get something written here now and put it forward, subject to amendment per any central discussion on plot coverage? If the latter, we need to find a reasonable way of phrasing this. I do feel that fictional-division lists should be discouraged, in favour of categorisation of the redirects, but not outright banned; Mandelorians shouldn't be a list, but Jedi makes sense as a list. It's hard to express how to say this, but I feel that was the intent of the old phrasing; it just came out too proscriptive. However, the DGG text is too permissive, and can easily be read as "make whichever list(s) you feel like", which is admirable in intent, but "do whatever you feel like" doesn't usually serve us well in practice (hence a number of our guidelines and policies). SamBC(talk) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You summarized my feelings on this matter very nicely. I don't have any solutions either but to keep the wording short and vague, although I actually considered the examples quite good. – sgeureka 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of wording choices here, coupled with the fact we want to see how this one sits and should expect that it may need fine tuning. "Editors are encouraged to keep such lists grouped by an out-of-universe affiliation (list examples), though grouping by a in-universe association is generally acceptable for notable fictional concepts (list good and bad examples)." Not too descriptive, but still guiding editors towards a level of quality (though not demanding of it either - other editors can help see better groupings if at all possible). --MASEM 13:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think they were to permissive; I've replaced "appropriate" with "highly notable" as a compromise: it includes the sensible examples I can think of, and this way an editor can check whether a list is appropriate before they start an AFD. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• How can you have "highly notable" lists, if you have already stated that the list is comprised of fictional elements for which there is consensus that the elements themselves are of unproven notability"? This choice of wording brings into the open what I have said all along: exempting lists from GNC is the wrong way to deal with ficitonal elements. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, it's not "highly notable lists", it's listing by "highly notable fictional aspects", and of course Jedi is the good example of this. SamBC(talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article Jedi does not cite any reliable secondary sources. We can presume they are notable, but on what evidence can you claim it they are "highly" notable? I think you will find that most fictional elements have little in the way of evidence to show they are notable outside their primary source, but this is a side issue and I digress. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "highly notable" this time, especially with that definition. What about "clearly notable", and maybe a new footnote to explain this. What I mean by "clearly notable" is that it should comfortably meet notability requirements. Plus, as DGG points out, there are situations where the most natural, appropriate, useful division is in-universe and not notable; that then doesn't necessarily have to give weigth to that in-universe aspect, just a matter of arranging things most usefully for readers. SamBC(talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. Each step away from the parent topic reduces the notability; unless the parent is highly notable it will reduce it below the threshold at which the subtopic merits an article. Giving a second article to a subtopic that doesn't merit it is giving it undue weight. If describing all the characters in or episodes of a fictional work would give undue weight to a subtopic, then it's inappropriate to describe all those elements, and the best thing to do for the benefit of the reader is to describe only the more important elements. I'm still not 100% convinced that splits should be covered by FEAPOALT at all, and it certainly shouldn't allow unduly-weighted lists. The current wording is a compromise that describes current best practise; we shouldn't pull it away from that by giving style advice that really only applies when several lists are notable on their own terms. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here's the thing; presumbly, you'd say that a "list of Jedi" would be okay due to the notability of the concept of "Jedi"; in that case, the list is directly reasonable. Perhaps FEAPOALT should make clear that lists may be justified otherwise as well. SamBC(talk) 14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be a bit uneasy saying that in so many words, what with WP:NOTINHERITED and all, but I'd definitely say that the reason that a list of Jedi was OK where a list of Mandalorians wasn't, was that Jedi were more notable than Mandalorians. I'd definitely support explaining that FEAPOALT isn't the only notability criterion for lists. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's just fine, as long as it's clear that it's not the only one in the sense that there are alternative qualifications as well as/rather than additional restrictions. SamBC(talk) 15:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...all this is assuming that Jedi are "highly notable", of course. Looking at it, we'd probably have to merge the Jedi Census article in to get it up to that standard. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jedi was just by way of example, although I suspect the reason that there's no decent evidence of notability on Jedi is largely because contributors couldn't imagine anyone challenging that notability. SamBC(talk) 15:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• You might be right, but the evidence is just not there. You may recall that the only Featured Article for a Star Wars character was Jabba the Hutt, which suprised me. I was also suprised to discover that amoungst the characters from Lord of the Rings, only the article for Gandalf actually cited reliable secondary sources. I take this to be evidence that it is actually very hard to find evidence that a fictional character has notability outside the primary source from which they are derived, in fact I would say it is very rare relative to the number of fictional characters that are listed on Misplaced Pages. I am not sure that this has been taken into account. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of notability doesn't mean the topic isn't notable

(outdent) WP:N also says (along the lines of) "just because an article doesn't give evidence of notability doesn't mean the topic isn't notable"; I think it specifically says "secondary sources" rather than evidence of notability. We're supposed to use common sense, none of our policies, let alone guidelines, are rules to slavishly follow, nor for that matter does anything say that "articles failing to meet notability guidelines must be deleted"; WP:DP just says they may be deleted, not must. Further, I've generally seen it accepted that pervasive concepts (like Jedi) are notable without evidence, but if you want evidence, there's plenty of academic studies on the topic (not on specific works). I've already found "Jedi and jungian forces" and "A New Hope: Jedi Knights, Cyborgs and Other Educational Fantasies". However, there has not been a general requirement for people to "prove" notability on demand for such subjects, and wikipedia will be in a (very) sorry state if there ever is. SamBC(talk) 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're looking for other highly highly notable examples, it seems like the Harry Potter editors got their act together - almost all of their character lists seem to reasonably meet the notability guidelines. Hogwarts and Hogwarts staff is an example where the concept and the character list are separate, whereas Death Eater contains both the concept and the character list. There is also a Supporting Harry Potter characters list, and the most significant characters have their own article (e.g. Severus Snape), all of them with a reasonably claim and demonstration of notability. If we want to give good guidance on how this should be done, maybe we should stop using Star Wars and use Harry Potter instead. – sgeureka 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)While I think the SW stuff is better for examples in a conceptual sense, you are right that the HP articles seem to give better practical examples. SamBC(talk) 17:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am not so sure the Harry Potter articles do have much in the way of reliable sources that actually demonstrate notability of those characters per se. Most of the citations are at best classed as Questionable sources; they quote content from fan sites (jkrowling.com), or quote the author directly, but most are actually citing discussions or reviews of the books and films, rather than the characters themselves, who are dealt with indirectly, or who are mentioned just in passing. I have seen two similar articles that had been classed as Good Articles, Goldmoon and Riverwind, but despite over a dozen citations in each article (mainly from the books in which they feature or intereviews with the author), neither article provides a single ounce of evidence to suggest that either character has stand-alone notability. Again, I must warn you: there are few articles about fictional characters that cite reliable secondary sources about there subject matter. I think suggesting that there is a distinction between notable and highly notable fictional subtopics is misleading; notable subtopics are so rare as to be actually exceptional. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Intuitively speaking, I think there are a great number of notable fictional elements and topics, which it to say, topics worth of notice. Because you do not find them worthy of notice does not mean they are not. Nor does failing to meet the GNC. However, even with the use of the GNC as the (apparently) only acceptable standard to apply to fictional elements, everyone except you seems to feel that there are plenty of elements that are notable. SamBC(talk) 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps I am not making myself clear: I am not saying these characters are not notable. What I am saying is that there are very few fictional characters (or any other type of fictional element) on Misplaced Pages with proven notability, because finding reliable sources about a specific element (as opposed to the book or film it is in) is difficult. There are exceptions we have discussed before (e.g. James Bond or Tintin), but these fictional elements seem to be very exceptional, and fall into a tiny minority of articles on fictional characters that cite more than 3 reliable secondary sources. My guess is that of all of the articles about individual fictional elements in Misplaced Pages, less than 10% of television episodes are of proven notablity outside of their series, of fictional characters with their own article I would guess that less than 5% are of proven notability, while for all other fictional elements (such as characters in lists) I would say that less than 1% of can show any evidence notability at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I think we need to review the burden of proof. When a character like The Terminator (arguably the most reused moniker in moviedom) can't prove their notibility then we need to revisit what we are expecting in the way of proof. Padillah (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, that is what some of us have been saying for a long time. That is why 95% and 99% of those things need to be removed: no evidence of notability. No one needs to have a whole book written about them, but the character needs to at least be independently discussed. It's a shame that when it happens, it doesn't seem to be noticed. Take Pointy haired boss, for example: I know that I've read business management texts and articles that made explicit reference to him, which means that he has achieved independent notability. Not a sign of that in the article, though.Kww (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That is exactly why they shouldn't necessarily be removed, certainly not post-haste. There's no need for every element in a list to demonstrate notability, and if there's a case where editors generally accept that something is notable, then that is sufficient. A demonstration or evidence may be an improvement, although it may sometimes be very awkward to add and still maintain decent prose. SamBC(talk) 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• C'mon, few are that supine Sam! Retention should be based on whether real-world notability can reasonably be expected to be asserted. A fancrufty article about the Terminator character (cited above as an example) may make no mention of its cultural impact, but that is a fault with the article. By contrast, with many fictional characters, it will be reasonable that such a requirement remain unfulfilled according to any reasonable consideration. Eusebeus (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• You've completely lost me, Sam ... a 95% failure rate at establishing notability is an argument for retention? Kww (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The argument for retention is there is a difference between meeting the GNC standard of presumed notability and establishing notability. WP's article on a species of plant or animal may not contain citations of significant coverage in reliable sources, but that does not mean the topic is not notable. We MUST establish other criteria to determine what topics are notable and need their own article. It seems like many editors have an anti-fiction bias. We should have significant coverage of all notable fiction-related topics. To Eusebeus: I am not sure that there is not a determined corps of editors dedicated to the irradication of all articles on elements of fiction. If they get rid of Bulbasaur today, they will move to get rid of Superman tomorrow, and then our project will be incomplete and fall into disrepute. Ursasapien (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • There's a world of difference between Superman and Bulbasaur. Superman has coverage in hundreds of sources. Bulbasaur does not (in fact, so far as I've been able to determine, he got a single passing mention in Time magazine ... that's it). Pokemon is a notable phenomenon, and deserves coverage ... it is also mentioned in hundreds of sources. The existence of Bulbasaur is a detail, worthy of mention in the Pokemon article, but not much more.Kww (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, if the Terminator article is crufty, that's a reason to fix it, not delete it. I have trouble AGFing if anyone suggests that the Terminator isn't notable, unless that person slavishly follows notability guidelines without applying a little common sense, in which case they may well be acting in good faith, but aren't working to the benefit of the project or in any way that makes sense. I mean, c'mon, the character (as well as the film and story) are a stock feature of university courses! It was one of a batch of movies (a worrying number with the Governor of California in) that my mother waxed lyrical about the postmodernism of when she was last doing an MA, and the academics talk specifically about the character. Would the article be better with information and discussion of that in? Sure it would. Is it not worth having without it? That's crazy talk. SamBC(talk) 09:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Terminator (character) is of unproven notability, so too is the Terminator (character concept) and the Terminator (franchise). Without the notability guidelines, how do you distinguish which article is worth keeping? I can't take Sambc statement at face value: what is needed is evidence of notability for this and most other articles about fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. Its easy to establish the notability of the The Terminator (film), but not so the character himself. In my view, unless WP:FICT stays close to the principals of GNC, it is sure to flounder.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, for starters there's no requirement to prove notability in any case; otherwise how could the GNC talk about a presumption of notability? Secondly, notability is not defined by our guidelines, they simply give guidance in evaluating notability, and are generally acknowledged as incomplete. Of course, I can understand your attitude, given as you've refused to acknowledge (or deny) the value in including articles on any fictional concept, character, etc. SamBC(talk) 10:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Gavin, the Eastern Lowland Gorilla is of "unproven notability", however we know the species deserves an article. The Terminator (character) and the Terminator (character concept) may not currently have the references, but we can make a reasonable assumption that the references exist. See Eusuebeus, there are those that are that supine. Ursasapien (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, per the current wording of FICT, you are free to open a merge proposal of Terminator (character). This proposal will then either be shot down per local consensus (you can seek dispute resolution then), or someone will source/add a couple of paragraphs of real-world information, or the page gets merged. The first option will in the end lead to one of the latter two options. FICT would therefore work. – sgeureka 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think the Terminator articles will eventually be merged into the topic which provides the most evidence of notability, but if none of them can, then my view is that a third option (merger with the over arching topic, the Terminator (film)) is more appropriate. I make no judgement to what the outcome of these articles will be, but providing them with an exemption from GNC in the section FEAPOALT is a bad idea, because it presumes notability for all of these articles is inherited from the over arching topic. However, for most fictional elements, the evidence shows that this presumption is based on wishful thinking, as the notability for the great majority of fictional elements is unproven.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • FEAPOALT doesn't currently give any such exemption that I can see, so there's no problem. SamBC(talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• So by way of illustration, which one of the three Terminator articles passes WP:FICT and which ones fail?--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Terminator would pass WP:NOTFILM, so FICT is irrelevant. Franchise articles like Terminator (franchise) are becoming more and more in use on wikipedia, and they serve to discuss recurring elements. Terminator (character) argues its content with an in-universe perspective and therefore doesn't really pass FICT currently, but I have no doubt that it could pass FICT like Clover (creature) does. Terminator (character concept) should be merged into either the franchise article or the character article, which is an editorial decision. – sgeureka 13:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

the above discussion illustrates my point--some of the arguments are clearly aimed at trying to find how few articles are necessary to cover a work of fiction. I do not think that view of how articles should be written has consensus at Misplaced Pages in any context, fiction or otherwise. We should write the number of articles that is necessary to adequately cover the topic, and how to interpret that is up to us. We make the guidelines. I point out that there is no agreement that the general notability guideline is controlling over the consensus on a particular topic--see the discussions there. The current wording, taken literally, can be seen to imply almost anything in terms of the relationship between general notability and the specific guidelines. DGG (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See, just about the only thing most people here agree on seems to be that there are some topics (in fiction) which have more articles than would be optimal (or appropriate, if you choose to look at it like that). Quite a few such topics and articles, in fact. Trying to get a consensus guideline on what sort of coverage things should have stops us having so many discussions, or at least shortens them and gives them common terms of reference. SamBC(talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to go down that rabbit trail here because we need to baseline FICT first, but I would argue that there are certain fiction areas that while widely notable throughout (Star Trek, Star Wars, Simpsons, and others like that), there's an imbalance in the number of articles they really merit simply due to the fact that they don't have to worry about showing notability because it clearly exists throughout the works and fictional elements. However, just because a topic is notable does not mean it needs to have its own article, and this is where (more in WAF than here) just considering the best encyclopedic approach to such works needs to be considered. However, these are more exceptional cases to the general problem of fictional works, so I'm not as worried about it just yet. --MASEM 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to concur with Masem in his view that the general importance of the fiction itself is a significant factor in the advisability and tenability of articles on the specific aspects. But I do think they're not just for exceptional cases, I think they're the basis of the distinctions that need to be made. DGG (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I could not disagree more with Masem. The statement that we "don't have to worry about showing notability because it clearly exists throughout the works and fictional elements" is just not in evidence - very few fictional elements can actually demonstrate any evidence of being notable at all. The exceptional cases are those that do demonstrate notability, as explained earlier: it is very unusual for an article on a fictional element to cite more than 3 reliable secondary sources. In my experience, well over 80-90% of all articles on fictional elements do not cite any real-world content from reliable seconary sources. If you think you can draft a version of WP:FICT that can accomodate all of these elements of unproven notability, it is just not going to work.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am not saying for all works, because I agree for the bulk of fiction, the elements cannot demonstrate notability. However, when we turn to specifically cases like Star Wars, Star Trek, and The Simpsons (and likely a few others), there are volumes written about this works that do make a number of fictional elements notable. But, this leads to two problems that I don't think we want to try to establish now in FICT (as it significant confuses the matter) but should be a consideration in WAF. First, there is a osmosis of notability that spreads from highly notable elements to non-notable elements. If, for example, every bridge member of Star Trek:TOS was shown to be sufficiently notable except for Chekov, Chekov would be bound to have an article anyway, justifying it on the fact that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for Trek info. The other problem is that things that are just barely notable are given undue attention and while an article may be perfectly fine within policy and guideline for this, there is likely a better way to present the information in a more ordered fashion, merged with other notable elements of the same vein, to make the overall treatment much more encyclopedic. Again, these are problems isolated to a few specific fictions; the average piece of fiction would not have the amount of material behind it to make these concerns a problem. --MASEM 13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Problem is, we can't have this guideline just ignore such cases, or it will be used as justification for a claim that such cases aren't notable at all. SamBC(talk) 13:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• FICT would still technically apply to the Chevok article in the example above, so that still makes sense. As for the other case, that's more a writing and style approach than an issue with notability, since as I've suggested, notability's been shown, but it's just a better encyclopedia if the elements were approached in a different fashion. --MASEM 14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Approaching fictional elements in a different fashion other than via GNC does not make sense in my view: either it is matter of opinion which can be disputed, or there is no test based on evidence than can be applied that distiguishes notable elements from ones that will never have proven notability.
  Your arguments in favour of this approach can be countered: the "osmosis of notability" goes against WP:NOTINHERITED, and large quantities of primary sources have never been accepted as evidence of notability, although they might be evidence of popularity.
  What this guideline is not getting to grips with, or is deliberately avoiding, is the need to distinguish between fictional elements of proven notability, and those of unproven notability. I think the reluctance to deal with elements with unproven notability is based on the fear that they will be deleted, but as this is just not the case; as was pointed out in a an earlier discussion, AfD protects articles from deletion if there is local consensus to do so. However, once it is recognised that an article on a popular character does not provide evidence of notability (even if the subject will do so in the future), then there is no shame in tagging for cleanup (to encource sources to be added), or merged into another article pending the day that sources will be found.
  The fact that there may exist articles on notable fictional characters without reliable secondary sources is not a reason to water down WP:FICT, which in my view is the situation we are in now. Lack of evidence may only be a timing issue: if the character is truely notable, then sources will be provided at some point in the future. This is why I have been arguing that underlying premise behind the section FEAPOLT is fundamentally in error: simply by creating a second class of list of fictional elements will not postpone the day until those individual elements are evidenced as notable, merged to provide context with articles that are, or deleted if consensus wishes it. I think the idea behind the creation of FEAPOLT is that it would serve as some sort of refuge for notable characters of unproven notability. However it is no such refuge, as the process of improvement, merger or deletion will continue regardless of what FEAPOLT says. I think this section is really an attempt to deny or postpone the overarching primacy of GNC over fictional elements. In my view, this section should be removed, and then we can get down to dealing with what should be the real concern of WP:FICT: identifying notable elements from non-notable elements instead of avoiding the issue of distinguishing between the two.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Either I'm not clear or there's a misunderstanding, but I completely onboard the fact we don't want "notability by osmosis", but it is something that presently exists for the super-notable works of fiction like Star Trek. FICT lays out what to do with singular topic articles that fail to demonstrate notability: they should be merged along with trimming or transwiking. However, as we've gone through already, there is support and consensus for limited cases of lists of non-notable elements that are the repository of such merges, which is necessary in the present balance of editors to not disenfranchise anyone. --MASEM 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Masem has the balancing point a little wrong, and I would look for a wording like "very important" or even ""very important" rather than exceptional. Myself, I think it should be anything significantly more important than the minimum for fictional notability, but I'm willing to compromise. The attitude of some of the people above that they are not willing to compromise can have only one result, which is the inability to agree on any guideline at all. How they think this will accomplish any rational end escapes me. I would think they'd want anything that provides a agreed basis for decreasing some of the coverage they object to. DGG (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Again I beg to differ: Notability is not transmitted by osmosis, either from "very important" or even "super-notable" works of fiction, not only because as it is impossible to define these "terms" in any objective manner, but also because this ideat goes against the Misplaced Pages wide consensus that notability is not inherited. There is no Misplaced Pages wide consensus for list of non-notable elements to be the norm, as they fail WP:NOT and they do not meet the requirements of GNC, which is widely respected. There might be local consensus for keeping the lists if there is local consensus, but WP:FICT can't cater for every instance of local consensus, not should it try to. By comparison, other guidelines such as WP:CORP don't cater for local consensus - spam is not accepted, even in lists; therefore, why should WP:FICT try to accomodate non-notable characters just because they are in lists? I don't see any evidence that other guidelines make allowance for non-notable topics and I take that to be evidence that WP:FICT is currently following the wrong path. You can pretend that non-notable elements in list receive notability by osmosis for super-notable works of fiction, but in reality they will either be sourced from secondary sources eventually, merged or deleted just like any other non-ficitonal topic on Misplaced Pages, because GNC takes primacy over all articles and lists without exception - that is the Misplaced Pages consensus as evidenced by WP:N. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to decrease coverage of fictional elements: I just want WP:FICT to clearly distinguish between a topic that can demonstrate notability and those that do not, so that editors will know that articles like Jedi#Dark Nest need to be improved and one day reach the same Featured Article standard as Jabba the Hutt. I don't think WP:FICT should say we are satified with lists of fictional elements that are non-notable, when the rest of Misplaced Pages is moving towards improving an article or list such that the notability of its subject matter is evidenced in the article itself.I propose that the section FEAPOLT be dropped so that WP:FICT can be brought in line with the rest of Misplaced Pages.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you're convincing anyone Gavin or at least not me. Saying that SPAM doesn't cater to local consensus is way different. People agree on it locally and globally. Anything that isn't agreed upon locally and globally needs to be looked at, and suitable compromise needs to be found. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Are there any other points that don't convince you and can you say why? With regards to spam, you say that there is local and global consensus that WP:CORP should prohibit it. But what is the difference between spam and an unsourced plot summary or character essay? Is it not true that they are both lacking in reliable secondary sources? I think there are strong parallels between the content of articles of unproven notability of fictional topics and non-ficitional topics. For example, why should WP:FICT have special provisions for non-notable characters when there is no precedent for lists of non-notable companies or non-notable scientific equipment? Please expand on why you think SPAM and lists of fictional characters of unproven notabality are any different. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• "When there is no precedent for lists of non-notable companies or non-notable scientific equipment?"

Au contraire, my dear Gavin, at least in practice. There are many non-notable lists throughout Misplaced Pages. This is what some editors see as anti-fiction bias. I pointed to an article before on a particular type of gorrila. This article had almost no citations of reliable secondary sources. I could point you to thousands of articles on lesser-known species that are in this same sad shape. Nevertheless, all species are automatically considered notable, flying in the face of the GNC. I seldom see cries of "original research" on their talk pages either. I think fiction is held to a different standard than virtually any other subject group on Misplaced Pages. Ursasapien (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would say that the evidence is against you. WP:NOT effectively proscribe list of non-notable items, such as exhaustive lists of non-notable species, on the grounds that fail WP:DICDEF and effectively fall within the scope of other projects such as Wikispecies.If the Eastern Lowland Gorilla is of unproven notability, then I would suggest a cleanup tag will be added to the article until reliable secondary sources have been added; additional sources would not be difficult to find, as I believe this creature has been the subject of many important scientific studies. Therefore I don't understand why you would want to add an exemption from GNC to create a class of articles which could easily be sourced in this way at some point in the future. I think you will find that your assertion that "all species are automatically considered notable" is just not true: they are subject to WP:N as well. By contrast, I have noted rationalisation drives of non-notable articles, such as London streets, many of which were presumed to be notable before they were deleted. WP:UKRD has the objective to raise all articles in its remit to B-class quality, and as part of this drive has elimated many non-notable articles. In summary I would say that nowhere on Misplaced Pages (except WP:FICT) is there a class of article or list that is exempt from GNC, and I think Ursasapien's comments may be misleading, and underestimate the impetus to improve or eliminate article of unproven notability by various Wikiprojects. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I quote from WP:NOT: "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted" (emphasis in original), followed by a pointer to guidance on suitable topics for lists, which does not then require that list elements be individually notable. It does refer back to NOT, somewhat redundantly, but does not imply that NOT be taken to completely exclude any sort of list, merely that it inform the choice of when to make lists and to encourage list-makers to prepare for questions. SamBC(talk) 10:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would say the evidence is against you, Gavin. I suppose we could expend vast amounts of time seeing who could compile a larger list of articles to prove their point, but I think that would be a waste. There are multiple examples of exceptions to the GNC, both in practice and in guidance. I think you are being bullheaded in your refusal to acknowledge this. I am all for improvement of the encyclopedia, I just have a different point of view regarding how to improve it and there is nothing misleading about that. Ursasapien (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• We don't have to compile a large list of articles, but a review of AfD debates would suggest that lists such as List of masks in The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask are being deleted on the basis that they fail WP:NOT. However, if this topic was compliant with GNC, it would almost certainly be kept. I think you will find I am not being bullhead, as I agree that there are many non-notable lists throughout Misplaced Pages. However where we disagree is that I consider the underlying premise behind the section FEAPOLT is fundamentally in error: simply by creating a class of lists to accomodate non-notable fictional elements will not postpone the day until those individual elements are sourced, merged to provide context with articles that are, or deleted if consensus wishes it. I don't think proving them with an exemption from GNC should be the purpose of WP:FICT, whose objective should be to distinguish between notable and non-notable elements. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe we are talking about two different things. The point I am attempting to make is that there are lots of exceptions to the GNC, both in practice (there are many non-notable lists throughout Misplaced Pages) and in guidance (WP:PROF and WP:MUSIC). I am not speaking to whether we should make such an exception in this guideline. All I am saying is it is not unheard of to make subject-specific exceptions. Ursasapien (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I gotta side with Ursasapien on this one. We're looking for what works for fiction, what makes things manageable and reasonable. -- Ned Scott 11:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• There may be exceptions to GNC, such as notability criteria specific to certain media or people, but there are no exepemtions other than the one provide FEAPOLT for non-notable fictional elements. However, where as the notability criteria specific to certain media or people tend to support GNC (for instance, awards tend to suggest that a film has been widely covered by reliable secondary sources), the FEAPOLT expemtion fromGNC runs counter to WP:N. I don't think this section works becuase basically it is going the opposite way from the rest of Misplaced Pages. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reasons Against the Proposed Changes

Fans of all fictional works from television to literature use this website to find out more about the fictional works they are interested in. If many articles that currently exist are merged then they will have less information, and fewer resources. With more articles, each article is focused on to make sure it is sufficient for that subject. Whereas in a larger article that lists the information, for example characters, then collectively they may be fine, but each individual character's description is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.132.134 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, and there's a level of detail of covering fictional characters and other aspects that exceeds what is appropriate for such coverage; our first goal is to serve the general reader that may not be aware of what the work or character is but only needs to know the context of that character; the type of coverage that works for a fan of a show does not work for this type of reader. However, we want to encourage people to use off-site wikis if possible (including Wikia) to allow the development of more detailed coverage of fictional characters and the like, and freely link to those from Misplaced Pages. --MASEM 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Masem, we are trying to figure out the appropriate level of detail. it cannot be assumed that any one particular level is correct, though I do agree there is some level beyond which it is absurd to go. As Jimbo once said, "we make the intent not suck" As interpreted for this context, it would been that articles about significant elements of fiction that can be verified, and are written succinctly and clearly, have a place in WP-- in contrast to whatever junk may appear elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you saying that to him? How does that help? Both of you have a fairly good idea on where you two stand. Masem is making a simplified reply to some drive by newbie, not a political statement. Honestly, all of you are going mad, nitpicking at each others comments. -- Ned Scott 11:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why "our first goal is to serve the general reader"? Someone have change the first pillar? We are "an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs". Obviously specialized encyclopedias and almanacs contain topic that are beyond general reader interest, and there are also such type of publications that cover fictional topics (i mean non-fan publications, ie J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia or The Star Trek Encyclopedia), not only on real world topic like enzymes, asteroids and others you don't found (and doesn't expect to found) on general encyclopedias. If we want a wikipedia only for the general reader, we must delete about 2.000.000 of articles (and we continue to have more and more detailed articles than the "generic" Britannica).--200.68.73.193 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We're "an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs", which should not be interpreted as if wikipedia's purpose is to be a specialized encyclopedia itself. For what it's worth, works of fiction that have specialized encyclopedias written about them tend to have much real-world information to support even obscure subtopics, and as long as their articles reflect that in their used sources, the articles will be (mostly) fine. – sgeureka 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Flowchart for WP:FICT

Has anyone done a flow chart of how WP:FICT interacts with other guidelines, or how this guideline works? I was thinking of preparing them myself, but before I set out, I want to make sure I am not trying to reinvent the wheel. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no-one has created such a chart. But I'd like to see one, actually, although it may be better suited for WP:WAF than here. – sgeureka 09:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is an excellent idea to at least try, and I'd be happy to help. I prepared a hierarchy chart last year, showing the relationship of the various notability sub guidelines. I'll try to find the link. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be a bit outdated, but it might give a start point. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A flowchart? Is it seriously that hard to think about, people? -- Ned Scott 11:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Ned, this entire year-long bickerfest is the best example of the problematic, circular, illogical, endless deliberation on Misplaced Pages. A strong central authority may be necessary for Misplaced Pages to meet its true potential. But since I have nothing thoughtful to say, I'll take my leave. — Deckiller 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not sure you understand what I meant. I only meant that I felt it was rather simplistic on how WP:FICT interacts with other guidelines. I wasn't commenting about the debates related to those pages at all. In theory you have WP:N / the one for books/ films / etc that help you determine the notability of the main work, then you have WP:FICT for the sub articles within that work. That may or may not be how it actually works, but the theory is pretty simple. That is all my comment meant to be. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really commenting on your post; I was just commenting on the ridiculousness that policy debate has become. I guess it's one of those things that someone realizes when they return with fresh eyes. — Deckiller 21:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Creative Works

After looking at the practical aspects of the guidelines for Film, Books, and Web content, along with the part of the Music guideline dealing with the works rather than the people, it looks like these could all be merged into one guideline entitled "Creative works". I would base the format on the Web content format, which is simple and actionable. Certainly special cases could be detailed as at WP:BIO. Having one consistent rule-set would vastly simplify AfDs, especially for topics where multiple categories are now pertinent. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, as while it is possible to do such, it will become a very large page (as you would have to include what FILM, BK, WEB, and MUSIC (and likely TOYS) all consider as cases beyond the GNC, and you would have to have a section about FICT in general, and this long document will become extremely difficult for newer editors to learn to navigate. There have been efforts to reduce the number of notability guidelines, but last time best I can recall (late 07?) it basically was determined that the different sub-guidelines (not just creative works), while all upholding GNC, had enough sub-cases for notability that merging them was not a good option - either that, or it stalled and nothing came out of it.

It should also be noted that FICT at the topic states that it concedes to any more media-specific guideline that exists. So if someone claims something fails FICT at AFD, but someone else points out it meets BK (for example), clearly the case is resolved. --MASEM 15:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NO the point is that all these should function almost identically and there would be one consice set of standards. If you look at most notability pages there is a virtually identical lead section, followed by a justification section, then some fairly generic standards. The differences among the pages is generally the unworkable and precriptive special cases that follow these sections. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• You might be right. Despite the fact that WP:BK, WP:MOVIE etc have media specific guidelines that enable editors to claim that a particular creative work is notable, in a way these specific guidelines count for nothing if the article cannot be sourced from non-trivial, real-world content from reliable secondary sources that would confer notability in any case. Even if a creative work won all the awards in the world, a complete dearth of reliable secondary sources would tend to suggest that the work was not notable. Although creative works with that have won awards are presumed to be notable in most of the specific guidelines, it is impossible to prove that a creative work is non-notable, and the "unworkable and precriptive special cases" are general accepted as badges of notability. However, that still leaves the problem, how can you source articles that don't meet GNC? Masem, Percy, Sambc and others seem to think that primary sources are acceptable, but I don't because although primary sources can be generated by the promoters or authors of creative work very easily and great quantity, they are not reliable because they are Questionable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Because Notability applies to a topic and not an article, and supporting articles within the scope of a topic may not have to show notability though still must be sourced to primary at worst. Mind you, as the RFC from here earlier shows, unlimited supporting articles are not consensus, but instead exceptional cases. --MASEM 23:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well said Gavin! Primary sources are acceptable for content while primary research is not, but if all that you can put in an article is based on primary sources, then aren't you in essence doing primary research? Even in many cases where the notability is vaguely demonstrated by tangential mention in independent verifiable articles, most of the content ends up coming from primary research and non-independent sources. It a bit of a catch 22, but the subject specific guidelines don't seem to solve the problem. My feeling is that we should rally together to focus our energies on superior, consistent, but more liberal guidance at WP:N. I belive that cummulative primary sources should be allowed to demonstrate notability, but that's tricky. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is entirely acceptable to use primary sources within certain limits (WP:PSTS). However, the big thing here is the fallacy that any article meeting WP:V automatically meets the GNC. If that were the case, we wouldn't need notability guidelines at all. If you read WP:N carefully, including footnotes, you will see that it excludes certain categories of source that are perfectly acceptable in terms of WP:V/WP:NOR. This is why non-GNC criteria in subject-specific guidelines have a purpose and effect. Remember, a topic need only meet the GNC or a subject-specific guideline, that's one subject-specific guideline. A person who's an academic and a former athlete need only meet one of the GNC, WP:BIO, WP:PROF, or the one for athletes that I forget. Qualifying on a non-GNC criterion allows verifiable information to be included from sources that aren't acceptable for the GNC but are for V, such as directories. SamBC(talk) 07:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sam, can you be more specific? What footnotes etc. at WP:N exclude certain categories of source that are perfectly acceptable in terms of WP:V/WP:NOR? If there is a problem at WP:N let's fix it. We essentially rewrote it last year to take out a lot of unreasonable restrictions. I don't agree that the interpretation of the subguidelines is always to be more inclusive; I more frequently see them misapplied to be more exclusionary. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, that would be footnote 1 ("Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.") would certainly be one; some of those listed are, as it says, reliable sources, but don't speak to notability. Also worth mentioning is footnote 2 ("Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.") as trivial mentions are also perfectly verifiable and decent sources for facts and information, but don't speak to notability. What is worth saying, and I don't know if it's said anywhere, is that whatever evidence there is of notability, for whatever criteria, should be from a third-party source (primary is okay, as long as it's third party, that is, independent of the subject; for example, the Academy's own material on who won what Oscar is the best source there could be for that fact, and it is primary, but third-party when used as a source about the recipient). SamBC(talk) 10:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Sam, I've never been happy with some of those footnotes, but the retention of at least one you mention was a concession to the original author of WP:N, UncleG, when the guideline was essentially rewritten about a year and a half ago. Perhaps it is time to take the incredible energy that is being focused here back to WP:N and fine tune that to our needs. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I'd support those footnotes, as they indicate the difference between notability and sourcability. The very idea of notability is meaningless if all it means is "sources exist". Instead sources are required to show that this is something worth talking about, not something that has only been discussed in directories or in passing. The inclusion of a business in a local business directory certainly shouldn't be taken to indicate notability, as such directories are generally intended to be fully-inclusive, or in the worst cases fully-inclusive-of-anyone-who-pays-the-fee. If we took such things as indications of notability, that would be a complete disregarding of the actual meaning of the term "notability". Just requiring sources in order to be able to write an article is the realm of WP:V and WP:NOR, with WP:NOTE providing further restrictions. SamBC(talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Kevin, I don't think that cumulative primary sources could ever be allowed to demonstrate notability, and the reason why is hinted in WP:RS: material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. Even if an article uses primary sources in an academic way to provide evidence of notability, it is not peer reviewed, and therefore must be treated as Questionable Source at best; in my view, extensive citation of primary source material is more likely to be synthesis. Since is generally agreed that Misplaced Pages cannot be used a platform for original research, no matter how scientifically it is carried out, then Misplaced Pages articles cannot be used as evidence of notability; that would be an example self-referencing. However, I agree with you that specific guidelines are of little value (if any), unless supported by content supported by reliable secondary sources: my view is that if an article cannot make it pass stub quality for lack of content, or contains content but fails WP:NOT#PLOT, then it is of unproven notability until such time reliable secondary sources are added. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have long thought that we should have a stub-incubator program, where stubs which are determined to be likely to be notable are given safe-harbor for some reasonable time. Earlier in WP it was great to post a stub as a seed and watch it flourish. One of the problems is that a de facto system of recognition has grown into the AfD process. Newbies trying to fast-track to Admin know they can get recognition by becoming a quick draw at AfD, Prod, etc. The exigencies of spam and vandal control have taken their toll on creativity. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sources that might be considered primary sources are i think sufficient. In particular, demonstrated library holding in a large number of libraries is sufficient. (I dont want to be specific about how many--it would depend on the type--and at present its only easily usable for fiction in english published in the US)., Presence on a NYT or equivalent best sellers list is notability, and thats technically a primary source as well. So is winning a major award. DGG (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Plot summaries

There is a parallel essay project at Misplaced Pages:Plot summaries. Should these be considered for merging? --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't actually an essay. It's a brainstorming exercise for the community. When it's finished, the community will decide what it is. Until then, you can consider it for merging, but I am unsure of the suitable merge target. WP:WAF, WP:FICT, WP:NOT, my user space. I think the best thing to do is see where it goes. It may well die a death and be mothballed. Hiding T 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reports on the death of WP:NOT#PLOT have been greatly exagerated. I think Hidings remarks are little more than wishful thinking.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please re-read my comment above. At no point did I suggest WP:NOT#PLOT was dead. In fact, at no point do I make WP:NOT#PLOT the central subject of any assertion, statement or otherwsie. As to any wishful thinking you wish to ascribe to me, before you attempt to summarise my opinion, please research my actions and comments thoroughly, else leave yourself open to accusations of misrepresentation. Otherwise, it may be better if you let me speak for myself. All I wish for is an inclusive consensus, the same thing I wished for when I created our policy on plot summaries that you insistently seem to claim I do not support. If these claims of yours are somewhat suspect and misrepresenting of events... Hiding T 13:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The general idea that wikipedia coverage of fiction must not be limited to plot summaries is I think generally accepted well enough to be policy. DGG (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• That is clearly not a view shared by Hiding . Based on passed form, I would be making a fairly sound conclusion he is using Misplaced Pages:Plot summaries to extinguish WP:NOT#PLOT by the back door. I think what is not clear is why he is doing this. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Let's also look at the talk page discussion mentioned in that edit summary. It appears I indicate I am acting as Devil's advocate. So you are alleging that an editor who created WP:PLOT, and removed it because he wanted to test that it actually had consensus, and who is actively seeking to engage with editors to build a consensus for what we mean by plot summary and how we treat them, opposes the very policy he created and has vigorously defended, for reasons you can't decide. Perhaps you can't find any reasons, because what you think is happening is actually the complete opposite of what is happening. At some point Gavin, you need to respect our policies on assuming good faith, avoiding personal attacks and building consensus. Otherwise, I don't think Misplaced Pages is the project for you. Maybe you need to exercise yourself in a proper debating chamber, something Misplaced Pages is not, per policy, see WP:FORUM. I am sorry you cannot understand my actions as someone who is attempting to engage with all views in order to build a consensus. Since I have pointed you to our policy on consensus many times in the past, I am at a loss as how now to proceed. Hiding T 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Deleting a Misplaced Pages policy is an act of vandalism in my view. Dressing up vandalism under the guise that you were "actively seeking to engage with editors to build a consensus for what we mean by plot summary and how we treat them" is misrepresenttion. In all candor, I think you should write an apolgy at WT:NOT and take responsibility for your actions, instead of hiding behind claims that you were trying build consensus, when your behaviour is evidence that simply disagree with current policy. I think you are skating on thin ice to say the least.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would call it foolish, but never vandalism. Vandalism defines (at least in the wiki-world) when someone intentionally acts to hurt the wiki. -- Ned Scott 22:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• You seem to be quite aggravated or frustrated over all of this Gavin. It seems you are adamant that you will not accept my reasons for my own actions, so at this point we are left with you calling me a liar, a situation untenable with WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I'm not over bothered, but it belies an underlying issue; you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Misplaced Pages. I can't really keep pointing you to relevant policies. I need to ponder this for a while. Hiding T 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• I accept what has been done has been done, and I am not calling you any name, good bad or ugly. I just think you should appologise for your actions. Simply disregard my request if you disagree. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• No Gavin, you have called me a liar. But I don't mind. For example, you insist I apologise, but disregard the apology freely given in the talk comment I linked to earlier. Posted to WT:NOT on the 6th May I offer apologies all around. I can, once again, only point out how grossly you are misrepresenting events, and now have to wonder whether this pattern of doing so has any meaning. How to proceed from this point is something I will need to ponder. Hiding T 09:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both he and I just want to avoid a restriction on the amount of emphasis devoted to plot, not eliminate a requirement that other elements get their share also. We should avoid taking or assuming extreme positions as counterpoint to the opposite possible extreme positions. That is, we should avoid doing so if we want to compromise and get this settled and go back to writing articles. FWIW, I interpret the effort at NOT as an effort to avoid fighting over what the section meant, by removing it altogether. Actually, I don't think that was an altogether bad idea, though more radical than I hope will prove necessary. I don't think we need to fight over whether to apologize for what we said in the past. That is, not if we want to make any progress.

So I frankly think it's a question of who among us does want to make progress, and who wants to bring up whatever problems might impede it? I want a compromise as close as possible to my position as attainable, but in any case we need a compromise. DGG (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Skype discussion for WP:FICT

I've proposed having a Skype discussion regarding WP:FICT and related issues at Misplaced Pages talk:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

not yet held, as of May 31. DGG (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Troy McClure

Hey look, Troy McClure just became a featured article! That might make a good example of how a fictional character can be written up to make a good article. BOZ (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Check the bottom of the page, under "Notes". He's already listed, along with a few others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whattayaknow! To quote another Simpsons character, "woohoo!" BOZ (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute at Glitch City

Moved to the Fiction Noticeboard. Please comment there. Ursasapien (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Next steps

Talk on here has been rather quiet, as well as both at WT:NOT and Misplaced Pages:Plot summaries so the question to be asked is, are we at a point where what FICT is now is comfortable and agreeable to most? Or are there other discussions that we should wait to have completed before proceeding with the next steps?

My sense is that all that has been said now has been said. There is the issue of awards, but I'm thinking that that might be good to tackle better once we have established a firm global consensus foundation as otherwise we could get bogged down in details. And I expect that others will provide more possible input once we seek further global input.

I want to make sure there are no immediate issues left. I know this isn't the perfect solution for everyone (eg we have Gavin's complaints for one, but there's more than just him, dunno if Nydas is still around as well), but I think that locally we have a reasonable consensus that meets what we expect FICT to provide without imbalancing it one way or another. All that's left to do is to toss it to the masses and see how badly it comes back to us to fix.

(Mind you, this is a good time to wordsmith it, but I don't expect we're adding any major points that need to be added). --MASEM 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's seek global input now. Most people here have said what they've had to say, and the current draft is an acceptable compromise for most; that's the best we can do for now. – sgeureka 07:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Whas the issue of NOT contradicticing FICT figured out? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

NOT didn't contradict FICT. Consensus was very strong to keep NOT#PLOT in some form, and the following lack of consensus about the wording kept it like it is, so there were no changes other than the creation of WP:Plot summaries, which works fine together with FICT. – sgeureka 08:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, consensus was not "very strong to keep NOT#PLOT in some form." And WP:Plot summaries should be MFD'd soon anyways. --Pixelface (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take the time to note as I did in WP:NOT that I think there is a separation (a subtle one but one nevertheless) between PLOT and FICT, inso much as that FICT helps to support PLOT, but it is more specific as a subset of NOTE. Even if PLOT was removed, NOTE still exists and we need to work within that. --MASEM 22:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to work within WP:NOTE. For example, musicians are evaluated with WP:MUSIC, not WP:NOTE. If a musician "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels", the musician is considered notable. WP:NOTE doesn't factor into it. --Pixelface (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Those extra provisions exists because by achieving them, there's strong likelihood of secondary sources to exist for the album (or any other case where that occurs), thus it makes sense to allow them to be included and not challenge their notability, though ultimately the articles need to be sourced correctly. People have tried to suggest similar terms for fictional elements but there are none that readily exist where secondary sourcing is highly likely. --MASEM 00:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Where are you getting that from? So you're saying the Thamserku article needs to "ultimately" contain evidence of notability? What do you mean by "ultimately"? By the time everyone on this talk page is dead? By our deadline? --Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious Masem, how many more months will it take until we can slap {{rejected}} on this page? --Pixelface (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If we take it to RFC as proposed and it is completely rejected by the community, then there's reason to do that. But even if the RFC shows disagreements pending changes, it can be fixed. We have been instructed to work cooperatively to find some way to make this policies and guidelines work to satisfy most editors, and it is clear from the previous RFC here that some sort of FICT is needed. --MASEM 22:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface, it honestly doesn't seem like you've been trying, at all, to help us with this guideline. While part of your viewpoint is shared by others, your total rejection of these pages and lack of cooperation is not. -- Ned Scott 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ned, the {{rejected}} template says "This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Misplaced Pages community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion." I've been periodically checking this talk page for a while now and in my opinion it appears to be a disaster. So how much longer do we go give this proposal time to form consensus? Because to me, it seems consensus is unlikely to form, and that's even without my participation. I'm willing to participate, but I refuse to accept that a guideline dictating whether fictional topics are "worthy of notice" is anything other than a horrible idea — especially considering it's based in part on WP:NOT#PLOT (which I'm sure you already know my opinion on). --Pixelface (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How much longer? The RFC to decide whether this is acceptable or not (which is currently in favor of this, and thus certainly isn't looking like a rejected more than disputed, if that at all) will end on July 3. --MASEM 00:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And you think 7 million editors will have commented by then? Or did you mean something else when you said "global consensus"? How about you apply WP:FICT as it is currently written to several articles, and see if FICT actually *has* consensus? You can start with the articles Luke Skywalker, Lenny Leonard, Baldrick, Cosette, and Andrey Nikolayevich Bolkonsky. Good luck. --Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What bothers me is the increasing number of people who are acting like (or actively claiming) that NOTE is a corollary of V; this was certainly not the original intent. Hence NOTE excluding sources that are perfectly acceptable in terms of V (like directories), and V stating the secondary and third-party sources are preferred (strongly preferred), but not necessarily required (at least that's what it said last I checked). And hence there being subject-specific guidelines that give criteria indepedent of the GNG. Verifiability is "what can we say", while notability is "is it worth saying anything, whether we can source it or not". There's plenty of independently verifiable information about every registered company in the UK, certainly, but that doesn't make them notable. An artist could have released two major articles, yet there be little writable about them within V; this justifies the article being a stub because of V, not deleted because of N. However, last time I tried to say this, very reputable editors outright contradicted me, without actually addressing my points of logic and history. I rather think it's getting to the point where I can't be bothered with policy anymore, give the fact we seem to have a collective memory like a mayfly, and in the world of fiction guidelines we have two extremes (statistically speaking) who have a "my way or the highway" attitude. SamBC(talk) 10:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplication of guidance on article deletion

I have reverted Masem's additional footnote on the subject of deletion, as this issue is already discussed at length in the body of the proposed guideline under the section Dealing with non-notable fictional topics. If Masem or anyone else has a proposal to reword this section (particularly to make it simpler or shorter), I am open to suggestions.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are asserting that a non-notable article can be tagged or taken to AFD, it is very important that AFD needs to be the last resort after other options. I know the guidelines says more down there, but in this location, it is written to make AFD seem like a first option, which it never should be. Something needs to be added there, maybe ("See other section for other options") because while it is true AFD is an appropriate solution, it comes off too strong as a one-or-the-other option. --MASEM 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; we should either not mention AFD (that is, after all, also duplication of other guidelines and policy) or mention that there are alternatives. SamBC(talk) 13:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• If a topic provides no evidence of notability, it can be merged or deleted at any time, and for many AfD candidates, that is exactly what happens, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that as it is down to the article contributor to cite reliable secondary sources in the first place. However, if you want to make an amendment to Dealing with non-notable fictional topics, do so by all means, but do be brief as this section is already to long and does not provide any guidance on the notability of fictional topics per se; in my view it should be much shorter.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I guess I'm struggling with. The line where I added the footnote was: Editors may request evidence of the notability of any article, including those on fictional elements, either through the addition of a {{notability}} template or through listing for deletion at articles for deletion, where consensus will determine any notability. Taking an article to AFD to request notability is a very very bitey approach; AFD is the last step for content resolution, and should not be initiated early in the process. Now, this can be changed in two ways; instead of "request", one could say "challenge the evidence...", when then AFD is appropriate, but this language is very bitey and negative. The other way is to keep it as request, remove the statement about AFD but still mention the tagging, and then as a new phrase "should an editor then believe the evidence of notability to be insufficient, they may then explore other options as listed below". --MASEM 15:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree that AfD determines notability or non-notability at all - there are many other reasons why an article might be deleted. There are also other procedures to reduce non-notable material (e.g. WP:PM, redirection)) but we do not need to cover them all here. To be honest we don't need to refer to AfD anywhere in this guideline at all, simply because an article can be recreated at any time, for example where good sources have been found subsequently. The phrasing needs to say:

''Editors may request evidence of the notability of any article, including those on fictional elements, either through in discussion on the article talk page or by the addition of a {{notability}} template on the article itself.

I have taken the liberty of moving this sentence into the section Dealing with non-notable fictional topics, which is the subject this sentence is addressing. I hope you will find this change agreeable.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

New MOS for TV

Just an announcement. The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance

Template:RFCpolicy

Notability (fiction) has been undergoing a year+ long revision, and at this point it appears accepted by the local editors that have worked on it. We now seek global consensus to move the guideline from "proposed" to "accepted", though any additional input at this time for other improvements or changes are recommended. Much of this is based on aligning the guideline with existing policies and established practices as well as from commentary from recent Arbitration Committee cases for television episodes and characters. --MASEM 22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(This is not a vote, but a discussion towards consensus, however, for easy of reading what arguments may need to be fixed, please your comment in the appropriate sections below)

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

I don't know where to put this, so feel free to move it wherever the best place for this comment is. For certain fictional universes like TV shows, putting its characters into lists is a compromise. For fictional universes like Marvel Comics, it's worse than deletion. A TV show has a limited number of characters, and there's a coherence to listing them together. They're all related. For something like comics, the proposed guideline will lead to List of Marvel Comics characters A-Ad and a slew of other similar articles. If that's the best compromise we can acheive, then I would rather have this page remain disputed and the articles deleted per NOTE until such a time as NOTE can be suitably amended. Edits have shown that we can create articles on these types of subjects in a couple of years, so if we had to redo all of them it isn't that big a deal. The will is there. It's a bit POINTY, but lets force the issue if that's the best thing we can do. Also, this guideline does not have consensus, and opposing viewpoints don't cancel each other out, they just show a lack of consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 08:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. There have been several versions of WP:FICT that I have been mostly fine with. The general advice leads to better articles, and there's very little I disagree with myself when I read it. I will be the first to admit that the guideline is not perfect, and won't solve all our problems, but WP:FICT was never meant to be an exact rule book. Some editors may continue to misinterpret things, and some of our advice will be vague since there's less agreement on more specific details, but I think we also need to understand that this specific page, no matter how much you tweak it, won't be able to fix every problem. That doesn't mean we should stop improving this guideline, as well as finding other ways to clarify the details and find consensus on those more specific matters. -- Ned Scott 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree with Ned, who put it as well as I could. This is not perfect, but it's a solid beginning and an effective compromise for the promotion of encyclopedic content. Eusebeus (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
3. What can I say that Masem and Ned haven't said already? I have watched the developments of FICT since October, and and it comes down to this being as good as it can (currently) get with the wide spectrum of opinions. Straying too far into either inclusionist or deletionist territory will not satisfy the "other" party, so I can live with the compromises in FICT (notability of lists, awards) and leave that for later when we hopefully have more of an idea what wikipedia wants to be. – sgeureka 23:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Grudgingly support. I would be happier if it went further, and think that it really needs to emphasise that an article is supposed to rely on third-party sources. Still, if we want to achieve some kind of compromise, this seems like a decent, middle-of-the-road approach.Kww (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support as per this is the best its prolly going to ever get. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Given how hard it's been to get it to where it is, I have to say I think this is going to be the best it's going to get for now, and it's better than not having it. SamBC(talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Pragmatic support, because it codifies the existing status quo on what we do with these topics. Now if we work on implementing this, let's see if we can go further, in the direction of Gavin Collins' comments below. I support his stance, but I do not think are relevant to this guideline as-is, but would be better suited for a general discussion on the topic. Moreover, this guideline will finally enable some pragmatic work in this area. Sure, Gavin Collins' analysis is how it's supposed to be, but as long as we have (insert politically correct word here that encompasses both "fanboy" and "inclusionist") it's not going to be practical at all. User:Krator (t c) 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Support and dismayed that this RfC is forcing what appears to be a rehash of previously raised arguments. Both arguments are valid but entirely backed by opinion, not concensus. From what I see, there is no strongly supported concensus, merely precedents. I think the fears about allowed non-notable articles overestimate the instances where the clause is appropriate. I'll try and review the last month or two of comments, update the FAQ I wrote, and put it up as a subpage in hopes of alleviating this cyclic argument pattern. -Verdatum (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Do realize that the arguments about fictional topics have been ridiculously long and convoluted. Major discussions are still going on at about a half dozen talk pages. Lots of editors might have been too intimidated to enter previous discussions, so you'll need to be patient with them if they seem to be "rehashing previously raised arguments". Zagalejo^^^ 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

9. Support - valid compromise. It defines the current status quo in which character lists and episode lists are widely considered acceptable, and tertiary lists or articles on specific elements prove their notability or be part of the larger list (a list on a specific group of characters, an individual episode, a specific character in a series for instance). And I see the problem with the poor state of some of these lists as a fault of bad writing and not enforcing WP:WAF enough than anything with this guideline. As Characters of Kingdom Hearts, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, etc. have shown, they can be presented in a good, encyclopedic fashion. Sephiroth BCR 04:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support— This seems to be an acceptable compromise, and as it seems to summarise current practice. — G.A.S 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
11. An acceptable compromise. I'm willing to put aside minor issues (I am sometimes in agreement with some of the opposers) for the sake of an overall good show. Can we move on now? giggy _(:O) 11:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
12. I think this is a good compromise, it won't make both sides happy but since there's no way to simultaneously delete and keep the same articles it's unlikely that both sides will ever be happy. Stardust8212 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Support, but re-organize This codifies the existing guidelines and consensus on notability. Remember, we should avoid more than a concise summary, as per WP:PLOT. We should also avoid undue weight on topics that are not important as per WP:NNC and WP:UNDUE. We should also avoid creating non-notable split articles as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and comply with the General Notability Guideline that we require multiple independent reliable sources to show notability. That's how I read this guideline, along with the consensus that lists of characters and episodes can be notable. However, I think this guideline should be re-organized to mimic the organization of WP:N: a section on notability for articles, and a section about notability for actual content within each article. The guideline already includes this information, but it's all mashed together. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - This whole idea of "give the readers what they want" is ridiculous. First, there are millions of readers so lets stop trying to assume what their opinion is. If 20 people keep creating individual articles for their favorite shows, does that mean that all the millions of readers want that? No, so stop saying they do. Unless you do a poll and find significant evidence to suggest that, then stop using it in an argument. Second, if you get rid of FICT for that reason you might as well get rid of every single notability guideline, because frankly I want my own personal article and WP:BIO is holding me back. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, first and foremost, no matter how many fans and readers want it to be their personal episode, comic, film, etc guide.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    We should give the readers what they want as readers become contributors and donors. We are trying to be a comprehensive reference guide, not some limited duplicate of Britannica. There's no reason Misplaced Pages can't be a sound general encyclopedia and specialized encyclopedic of fiction at the same time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    We should be careful with including excessive copyrighted material to avoid expensive lawsuits. We are trying to be a high-quality encyclopedia, not a mirror of google. - Both this and your view are totally valid and totally at opposite ends of the spectrum. There's no reason Misplaced Pages can't be a sound general encyclopedia and specialized encyclopedic of fiction at the same time, yes, but only as long as the other two or three points are observed. That's why compromise is the solution, not extremes. – sgeureka 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    I agree with you regarding copyrighted material, but what I find with many of the fiction AfDs is just a lack of effort at finding sources or regarding Google as the end all of sources. MANY topics actually are covered in published works that don't have online archives or if they do, they're not public. I just do not see what we gain by limiting our coverage of certain topics just because a fraction of editors don't like that stuff. By contrast, when we allow it, we gain editors, readers, and donors, we become a more comprehensive and complete reference tool and the time spent trying to delete these artices can instead be used referencing and developing these and other articles. I see all sorts of gains from allowing the articles and improving them and using our time to do so, but I see time lost or misplaced when focusing on trying to delete them. I whole heartedly agree that we must delete hoaxes and that we should not allow libel or copyright violations, but too much is called original research just because it's based on primary sources. Well, plenty of almanac and published encyclopedic information is based on primary sources. If it's not a thesis driven essay, but a list, like say a list of Academy Award winners, it's hardly "original research" and obviously the primary source from the Academy of its winners is reliable. So to would a game guide or game magazine list of villains be a reliable source for that information as well and these things do work a spinout articles and yes, while some may say they're weak arguments individually that they are in fact useful, interesting, and harmless, taken together they stronger than to delete them just because some see the opposite. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    Why don't we have a poll? You don't know what the readers want either. And remember that there's a big difference between an article about yourself and an article on a television episode viewed by millions. Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, I beg to differ. My work is viewed by millions every day. I've written several fiction related articles by myself, and they're viewed by countless readers all the time. So, in essence, that would make me notable. Then again, you're claiming that something viewed by millions is notable, when that cannot always be the case. There are numerous television shows that are viewed by millions and yet canceled quite quickly afterward, so obviously no one cared to watch it enough to keep it on the air.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    If so, then we should find a way to notify the editors who have created and worked on various fiction related articles to get a sense of how they really think. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    See my above statement. I've written several by myself, and I'm for notability on fiction that restricts simple plot pages from being created. When I say I've written them, I'm referring to the ones that are featured (i.e. been peer reviewed by the community).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    We are not a democracy. We judge arguments and reasoning, not masses of users that want an article on their favorite comic book character. You could have a couple thousand fanboys and it doesn't matter. Sephiroth BCR 20:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    Calling people "fanboys" is the argument you basically have to resort to when you're trying to remove content on fiction and you're discussing the number of people with various viewpoints. Obviously the people who want to remove fiction are vastly outnumbered, so all your left with is saying that the opinions of people who don't agree don't count. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    Hardly. There is a clear disparity between a fanboy (i.e. "OMG, I love this character, article now please) and one who is actually presenting a legitimate point about why notability is bad. WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY is policy for a reason - again, if we ran by numbers, I would be writing an article on myself, which is obviously not appropriate for an encyclopedia, or any of the reasons illustrated below in practically the same argument. Trying to dismiss notability itself is a red herring at this point. If you disagree with notability in general, go to WT:N. Existing consensus doesn't change because you claim it does. Sephiroth BCR 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

15. Support This is a good compromise -- encouraging the addition of quality material, while avoiding the "article for every Pokemon" syndrome.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - It's good enough at this point. Hopefully, it'll be up and running sometime before 2015, though. I do find it funny that the opposers think that their whole "everything it notable" ideal still has any chance in hell. That has never been a viable at all with the existence of other policies and guidelines. This should be about trying to reach a mid-ground where a good chunk of people will be happy, and not about trying to force extreme personal opinions that go against the very point of this site. TTN (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Extreme personal opinions that go against the point of this site like a minority of editors telling the majority of the community what isn't notable? The whole "everything is notable" allegation is itself faulty too when myself and many others who oppose below have both argued and even nominated to delete more articles than I have seen some argue to keep. Please remember to assume good faith here and not make implied insults against your fellow editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Please go poll the actual majority of the site before claiming that we're somehow the minority. Despite how large the area of fiction appears to be on this site, it it actually fairly small compared to the big picture. The majority that you speak of is also a fairly small chunk compared to the actual number of users on this site as well. Go poll some people working with Ancient Egypt, military related topics, and celestial bodies just to start off. Come back if you find that a majority believe that all fictional topics, major and minor, deserve the same amount of coverage. TTN (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if we polled the site. Because the reality is that many of the same handful of accounts that are anti-fiction in these sorts of discussions here and in AfDs seem a minority considering the combination of those arguing in support of fiction articles, plus the thousands who created and edited fiction articles, and the maybe millions who come to this site looking for those types of articles. Those working on other topics are probably just ambivalent and more interested in focusing on improving the areas they do care about. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    May I just say that it is laughable that you consider the supporters here to be against fiction. Most of the people here, myself included, care much more about fiction than you ever will. We want to see it actually flourish rather than act as a garbage dump. You and and a fairly good chunk of the opposers could care less about fiction; you just want to impose you own "notability is bad" standards on nearly everything. My main point was that if you actually were to ask the people that do not regularly edit fiction related articles "Do you believe that all fictional topics, major and minor, warrant the same amount of coverage?" that the answer would be "no" in most cases. That really cannot be done in any capacity though, but it stands that the argument "But all the people that create and edit these articles equal a consensus" is just as worthless. TTN (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, I dig comics, but I'm primarily an editor of articles about classical history, biography and mythology, and yes, if we really want to get screamingly anecdotal, I believe there's no practical reason fictional characters and elements deserve articles less than, say, Agroecius, bishop of Sens (who might have lots of pretty refs but is 1000 times more obscure than even very obscure comics characters). Also, I get that this subject can call forth pretty strong emotion (my teeth are gnashing pretty intensely as well), as I think it cuts to the heart of what a lot of people think Misplaced Pages is, but can we try to be a little less bitey with our disagreements? No one, least of all me, is advocating an indiscriminate "garbage dump". I want Misplaced Pages to have standards. Reasonable ones. And the current state of WP:FICT applies the scythe to pretty much everything from Rabbit Angstrom on down to Omega Red, which seems to me unreasonable, and insufficient to our purposes. Ford MF (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'll agree with TTN on the assertion that any belief that the supporters here are against fiction is ludicrous. And to Ford MF, the problem there is that there's a crapload of more academic material on classical history, biographies, and mythology than there will ever be on our favorite comic book characters simply because stuff that's been around for a couple centuries tends to gather a lot of coverage and the longer you get, the more the coverage. This is not to demean the inclusion of fiction, but point out practical reality. And again, FICT doesn't undercut the current status quo in regards to comic book characters that happens in practically every AfD - they are kept because long-running characters are implied to be notable since they've been around long enough and featured prominently enough to acquire adequate coverage, which certainly Omega Red does. FICT doesn't change this. All FICT ends up doing is taking the material that does not survive the process and instead of outright deleting it, places it into a list or another applicable merge target. Per what I said below, a more thorough application of WAF solves a great deal of the problems that we have in regards to fiction by presenting the material better rather than the completely in-universe approach that Wookiepedia or similar would use. Sephiroth BCR 05:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    Do I have to remind everyone here that the WP:Content disclaimer says "Misplaced Pages's coverage of subjects is patchy, based on the whims of its volunteer contributors (in particular, subjects of interest to young technical people are likely, but not certain, to receive heavier coverage than other subjects). Readers should not judge the importance of topics based on their coverage in Misplaced Pages, nor assume that a topic is important merely because it is the subject of a Misplaced Pages article."? And speaking of ancient Egypt, military related topics, and celestial bodies — do Egyptian gods, Private Snafu, and articles in Category:Roman gods like Neptune (mythology) fall under FICT? --Pixelface (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    TTN, who in the Oppose section said "everything is notable"? --Pixelface (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    It was just a broad statement to cover your and other's interpretations that most fictional topics are worthy of coverage despite not meeting our actual standards. TTN (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

17. Support good enough balance between both sides, with enough guidance to keep most current merge/delete discussions on track where appropriate, while also still allowing more traditional elements like a major character list, episode list, etc. -- ] (] · ]) 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - it's as good as it'll get. It's been under construction for too long now. Sceptre 09:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Support even though this guideline is less than optimal and would probably doom to perdition articles that I think deal with notable topics. This is the best that we're likely to get at present, and some guidance is definitely needed. Differences of opinion can be hammered out in the normal course of editing the guideline. Deor (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Support. The previous guideline that was originally rejected brought about a lot of problems, such as the Pilotbob issue and the E&C issues both 1 and 2. This new guideline allows a little leniency so that these issues don't arise, while at the same time, bringing about a standard that keeps our content as encyclopedic as possible. For that reason, I support this becoming a guideline. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. Good enough compromise for either sides. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Among other problems, this encourages the contortion of content into suboptimal organizational structures in order to avoid creating "non-notable articles". To put it another way, if we are going to include content in any case (and I think we are likely to, and hope we do), notability is a bad principle around which to organize content. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
   • Can you point to or describe a hypothetical example? I do agree that there are wikilaywering games that can be played with notability (fictional or not) and I think in cases that I believe you're describing, those require further discussion. I will point out that after making sure FICT is accepted, the next step is to reflect these changes, including content organization directly, in WP:WAF - we are just trying to set out what notability is here. --MASEM 23:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
     • Most of our "list of minor..." articles are an example of this. In most cases the sections of these lists do not complement each other; it is just a bunch of small articles stuffed into one page. In practice, this can lead to bad consequences. I took a couple seconds to discover List of New Order Jedi characters; one of these guys is named "Penin, Rosh". Unfortuately Rosh Penin links to a totally different article, or does right now. If we are going to have information about this guy, we may as well let our readers find it. If the content about this character were simply filed under his name, as an ordinary person would expect, this sort of problem would never come up. It's a reasonable question whether the list or a collection of minor articles would be a more useful way to organize this information, but I don't believe that notability is a useful concept in helping us make the decision. The issue ought to have more to do with how readers would prefer to consume this information. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
       • Fixed. But this is not a problem of a notability guideline, but of poor editing choices. The alternative is to let WP:N deal with non-notable characters, which will often mean deletion (i.e. I guess this would be even less desirable for most people.) – sgeureka 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
         • It is indeed a problem of poor editing choices but the existing guidelines often force people to make bad decisions. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
           • Ultimately this provisions for notability stems from WP:WAF#Summary style approach, which states For fictional works, these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that usually rely on the coverage of the parent topic, and may lack demonstration of real-world coverage through sources dedicated specifically to those elements. Taemyr (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
             • No doubt; the problem is endemic to our coverage of fiction, which is generally getting worse, if your measure of quality is how well we address the demands of our readership. I'm not opposing because this is breaking dangerous new ground but because it is further codifying bad practice. It is worth taking a look at . Christopher Parham (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
               • Completely valid point - however, without having to make anyone wade through talk pages, the overall goal of this rewrite was to reflect current practice, which is to neither reduce or increase the coverage of fictional topics. This is, after all, a guideline, and the last thing we're doing is trying to set a standard. You are correct in that this is codifying a practice, but it is codifying the current practice, and that's (at this point) all we hope to gain by gaining global consensus that this reflects current practice. Now, if that current practice is wrong, there needs to be a much larger discussion about it; WP:FICT is not the battleground for that (as we've had discussed many times in the past). As to your earlier point on allowing readers to find information, redirects and disambigs are cheap, and we should not be afraid to use them so that people, looking for a minor character, don't get a list of search results but instead the article and section that talks about that, or at worst, a disambig or hatnote page. We can still serve that purpose with list articles. --MASEM 00:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
                 • We can serve that purpose with lists and redirects, but we are more likely to make errors, as in this case. If the list structure provided benefits to offset this, that would be one thing, but there really are few such benefits in most instances. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
                   • Well, with anchors and the like, a list of characters and with appropriate redirects to the specific sections will, to the reader, be as clean as possible without having to create separate articles. A point that describes what the attempt here well is that there are those that was 0 articles on fictional characters in WP, there are those that want X articles (X being the number of fictional characters in existence). What is a balancing middle group is to allow log(X) articles on such characters through the use of lists so that we are still providing this information while having maintainability of a smaller number of pages. As discussed below, more specific guidance on how to make these lists useful and like is needed, that's outside this scope but would be a next step. --MASEM 12:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
                     • I don't understand why a single 100-page article would be more maintainable than 100 1-page articles; the main determinant of how hard pages are to maintain is the total number of edits that have to be monitored, which should be similar either way. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
                       • It only takes up one entry on someone's watchlist (as opposed to 100 entries, and there is a practical limit to watchlist sizes), and in the case if there's 100 characters, either there's a page that links to all 100 characters (at which point, why not make it a list) or the page may be hard to find - unless one person consistently edits them, it can be very easy to lose track if its not well linked. Mind you, I'd have a hard time arguing that 100-entry list is appropriate - you'd still likely split that up to 2 to 4 pages, depending, but then this is where navboxes are useful for helping to keep linkages. Furthermore, it is easy to compare entries on the same list to make sure there's a balance and appropriate flow and no repetition. --MASEM 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
                         • And http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:The_Simpsons_characters is one bookmark. Much of the time, a list is meant to link to individual articles, not replace them. You may want to look at WP:CLN. --Pixelface (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Needs to clearly allow for television episodes for which reviews exist and lists of fictional weapons and characters, especially those with appearances in multiple media, i.e. if it appears in toys and TV or movies or games or comics then it is notable. Should also link to User:GlassCobra/Essays/What Misplaced Pages is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
   • Going into specifics per media is not a goal of this guideline. TV episodes with reviews are covered in the general approach, assuming the reviews are reliable secondary sources. List of characters are covered because characters are generic to all fiction. The issues of weapons, however, needs to be left to more specific guidelines, otherwise this becomes too burdered in details. The linked essay is not appropriate as it is written in a strong POV approach and not appropriate for inclusion in a guideline. (The fancruft essay is included because it attempts to be less biased and give an all-around approach to what the term is and how to handle it ) --MASEM 02:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Any use of "cruft" is inherently not a neutral or objective point of view. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Strangely, I find myself agreeing with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles on this point: this guideline fails to address works of fiction that are serialised or presented in episodes. Clearly this guideline does go into the specifics of media: it is filled with examples of films, and books, particularly in the section Elements of fiction, where it mentions awards, rankings, and sales figures. What is so disappointing about this guideline is that it does not address comic series or television episodes at all. In my view, this is a huge omission.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Episodes and other parts of serial works are mentioned under Elements of Fiction and one example is a television episode. There is no need to call out any more specific guidance for episodes or similar serial elements. --MASEM 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

3. I have a concern with this: the whole issue with lists. In all honesty, many sub-character lists end up becoming incredibly stagnant, as the information for them as a result may end up even worse than the individual articles were before the list status, as much can get cropped to simply "make it fit". The Pokemon lists are in effect just this: a mass reduction in information, and no real effort to sustain notability or improve any of it. Compounding this a little is that in order for such lists or even partial lists to reach FL status, every element on there has to be addressed in some form, which can be an insanely daunting task, especially since most of the characters aren't notable to begin with; in effect the point of improving the article becomes somewhat moot as it'll not get anywhere. Now I'm not recommending every character there deserves it's own article, nor am I saying transwiki the whole lot (I'm rather opposed to that idea due to the "sweeping under the rug" feel it has). But some better handling of the lists should be handled at this point before this policy is adopted because right now they're no better than dumping grounds.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Valid points, but again, not to make people read through the talk pages backlog, but we do agree that guidance on how to write list articles is needed, it is just not appropriate for a notability guideline (KISS principle). WP:WAF is due to include this information. Also, the idea of lists is that they aren't dumping grounds, but a well-written encyclopedic' non-notable list can compliment a notable work of fiction's coverage. --MASEM 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Also will add that I don't think everyone expects that such lists will likely reach FL; however, it has been shown that lists in these specific styles can be shown to be notable (typically applying to the group, not the elements of it) for some works and thus allowing these lists to go to FL or even FA. Thus, these seem to be the right groupings that have the most potential to be improved on. --MASEM 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   some better handling of the lists should be handled, we are all ears. The current guideline is representing current practice, but I don't think anyone is extremeley happy about it. If you have a better suggestion for how to handle these lists then please make it. Taemyr (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

4. I agree with Kung Fu Man that this proposed guideline gives undue weight to lists non-notable characters and other elements of fiction by making them exempt from WP:N. This guideline does not need to provide guidance on the content of lists; this is covered in a comprehensive fashion at WP:LIST. The FEAPOALT section which states that "If consensus on a fictional element is that it is of unproven notability, editors should seek to retain the information where it can improve the encyclopedia"' is clearly nonsense; no where else in Misplaced Pages does it say that topics of unproven notability should be retained. The rest of this section in direct conflict with WP:N by providing exemption for lists of non-notable elements from the requirements of the General Notability Criteria. The FEAPOALT section proposed guideline needs to cut out althogether, so that this guideline is more focused on providing a concise definition of notability for fictional elements, rather than going the other way by providing exemptions from the GNC.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Again, notability is to be applied to a topic, not to an article. If a topic is shown to be non-notable, that does not mean we don't cover it, but instead it should be presented in the context of a notable topic as per WP:N. The limited exceptions for character and episode lists as supporting articles for the topic about the work fall within this line, as well as Footnote #8 of WP:N, as well as being the most common result of AFD's involving characters and episodes so describes current practice. WP:LIST may describe some aspects of lists, but to the points Kung Fu Man was stating, there needs to be more guidance on style and balance and the like for list of fictional elements than what LIST provides in general in terms of MOS. --MASEM 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   I disagree. If a topic is not notable, we don't need to cover it per WP:N. Providing exemptions from WP:N has no precedent in Misplaced Pages, and fictional elements are no different.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Well, we don't need to cover anything. However, per WP:NNC, we can certainly cover anything if it is in the context of a notable topic. WP:UNDUE comes into play as well, but that never says "don't mention it at all ". SamBC(talk) 14:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Specific quotes from WP:N: These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.; Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.; If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.; Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people ). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections. I think it's pretty clear that WP:N allows for coverage of non-notable topics as long as they are not given the preceived importance that having their own separate article for that single topic entails. --MASEM 14:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   • It does, but FEAPOALT reverse this by exempting groupings of individually non-notable elements can from GNC. Articles like List of New Order Jedi characters are therefore exempt. As Kung Fu Man states earlier, by exempting them, they will remain stagnant and there is no impetus for improvement. FEAPOALT needs to come out, or otherwise WP:FICT will be a lame duck from the start; instead of offering guidance on how the article can be improved to meet the requirements of WP:N, you have created a class of articles that need never be improved.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   Gavin Collins, I see your point and agree fully. However, I urge you to consider the pragmatic side of things as well. Adopting this guideline would be very helpful to this area of Misplaced Pages, as it takes a compromising stance. Note how all the people in this oppose section have some form of extreme (in the statistical, not in the moral sense) position in the discussion. The reason why we need this is that the current anarchy creates a lot of fights, which among other things, led to the effective topic ban of a user (TTN) who was aiming to do the right thing. See also my support vote above. User:Krator (t c) 15:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   From a pragmatic side of things, WP:FICT does not work if it creates a class of articles that exempt non-notable fictional elements from WP:N, which goes against current practise and consensus. WP:FICT cannot overide WP:N, otherwise this draft guideline will simply be ignored, regardless of its status, or whether I put my name to it or not. You can ignore this warning, but if you look at articles similar to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, they are being nominated for deletion at AfD because they fail WP:N, or for other reasons (such as failing WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:OR) which are symptomatic of them failing WP:N). If the FEAPOALT section is not cut from this guideline, then it will be ignored. There is no consensus for an exemption for WP:N anywhere else in Misplaced Pages. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   If anything, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons shows that there is no consensus to strictly apply WP:N to lists of fictional items, whether they are collectively notable or not. FICT is not saying anything to the contrary, but that doesn't mean that we can't revisit this issue in half a year again. Until then, FICT in its current form seems to be the best compromise we can achieve (for now). – sgeureka 23:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   We had a long discussion and a previous RFC that clearly showed that NN lists within certain bounds are acceptable, and even footnote #8 of WP:N spells it out. Those bounds pretty much were limited to two classes: Character lists and episode lists. The list you point to above does not fall in either, and thus is a reasonable candidate for deletion. However, if you look at any fictional character AFD, nearly all of them, if the article is determined non-notable, ends with a redirect to a list of characters. This is current practice. Of course, if this does get accepted, and people start abusing that section with lists left and right, then we will readdress the issue, but we've discussed this point over and over and most agree this section needs to be here to reflect current community consensus.

   Remember that WP:N is not policy. It is a guideline, and the GNC is not a absolute rule that must be followed. This means that WP:N applies to most, but not all topics and articles because it is a guideline and allows for flexibility within other policy and current practice (FICT is a guideline too). If you feel notability needs to be enforced absolutely, then you need to get it established as policy (which I strongly doubt will ever happen).

   Also remember this is consensus, not an attempt to get 100% agreement which is very unlikely. If there's enough acceptance of this policy by consensus but you're not on board, it is not going to stop to wait for your disagreements to be resolved. --MASEM 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

   • I agree that the notability criteria are not enforeceable directly, for there is no direct relationship between WP:N and the outcome of deletion debates, which are a matter of local consensus. Although WP:N is a guideline and not policy, it does provide the basic criteria by which all articles and lists are directly or indirect judged. Non-notable content, whether it is in lists or articles, will always be at risk of deletion and it is down to contributors to cite reliable secondary sources in order to provide evidence of notability. With regard to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, I don't think the outcome of the AfD debate will be deletion, but since the list does not cite reliable secondary sources, it fails WP:N and its encyclopedic merit is open to question. The FEAPOALT section attempts to side step the issue of notability by providing an exemption for such articles from GNC, but this won't work, as this section is not a defence against the deletion of non-notable content agreed upon by consensus at AfD. I agree with you that 100% agreement is never possible, but there is already consensus that non-notable material can be nominated for deletion, as there is no evidence that lists of non-notable fictional elements are acceptable if they fail WP:N, but they are kept if local consensus demands it.
   • on Masem's interpretation of footnote 8 of WP:N, I think he may be under a misundertanding about lists and their function. A list in is best described an appendix to a notable article or group of articles, not a dumping ground for non-notable content. I think there may be undue weight being placed on footnotes, and a disregard for notability criteria which both lists and article need to meet. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • A single AFD may by local consensus, but given that the support of using nn lists as merge targets is a extremely common result of AFDs that span numerous fictional areas, I'm pretty that there is tentative global support for that. Also, do note that fn #8 falls specifically in the section about dealing with non-notable content; the footnote exactly describes this practice. --MASEM 12:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • A more common result is that lists of non-notable fictional elements are being deleted - see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of masks in The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. FEAPOALT will not stop this. It should come out.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • But that type of list is not covered by that section; it is neither characters nor episodes. AFD-result guidelines clearly shows support for these specific two types; any other type is undeteremined and as such impossible to put into words. --MASEM 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Merging smaller topics into a list has the effect of increasing the probability that the list itself can meet applicable policies and guidelines (largely due to increasing the number of potential sources). However, it does not guarantee that this is the case. Is it plausible that it is generally easier to source characters and episodes than, say, masks? Jakew (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • I would say yes; if we look at Featured Articles and Lists, there's plenty of examples of character and episode lists, but little else pertaining to fiction. Episodes, at worst when grouped by season, may gain critical response that wasn't there before when such shows are released on DVD, or in post-season wrap-ups by television critics. The characters as a whole are likely to have more information on their development collectively and how the whole cast was received. This doesn't mean every character or episode list may end up as such, but there's a pattern that usable there. Lists of weapons, items, terms, planets, etc. from fictional universes may have the potential to be notable, but from historical data, we have very few examples to go on. One case I do know of is Weapons of Resident Evil 4 before it was redirected could readily claim notability, however, the core element of the list, the list of weapons and the meat of the article, ventured into WP:NOT territory (WP is not a guide, particularly for games); ultimately it was determined that the notability aspects could be folded into the main article to provide a more encyclopedic treatment of the weapons. So once you get away from characters and episodes, lists of other fictional elements tend to skew the coverage of the in-universe aspects of the work too much. --MASEM 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Hmm. I'm just wondering whether there might be an acceptable compromise here. For example, what if we were to say something like: "In general, while an individual character or episode may not be independently notable, it may be easier to establish notability when such articles are merged into a list. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the list article is suitable for inclusion." Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • I don't know if that necessarily compromises with what Gavin is asking for (no nn-lists at all), but it is worthwhile I think to include that such nn-lists should only be content that is appropriate to WP, in light of WP:NOT, specifically we are not a directory, guide, manual, or textbook. --MASEM 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Sorry, I phrased that poorly. I intended that "suitable for inclusion" would include the general notability guideline, in addition to WP:NOT, WP:V, etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Gavin, but I think you're specifically arguing against non-notable lists, so emphasising that notability is still required would at least partly alleviate your concerns. Is that correct?
   • The theory I'm going on is that a blanket statement that lists of characters are ok would create a contradiction with WP:N (as well as other policies & guidelines). However, a statement encouraging merging into such lists because they are more likely to conform to the general notability guideline would create no such contradiction. Jakew (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • I agree with you, as lists of characters are not notable unless evidence is provided somewhere that they are, and we can never get around this. However, lists are useful as appendicies, which is why they are widely used. As it stands, the section FEAPOALT contradicts GNC. As a result this section represents the Achilles Heel of this proposed guideline. It is fundamentally flawed, as it runs contrarty to WP:N, and probably goes against other guidelines too, like WP:NOT. I don't know that merging article or lists of non-notable characters would make it more likely that they would meet the requirements of WP:N because of the reasons I have stated earlier: it is actaully very hard to demonstrate that a run of the mill character is independently notable of the work of fiction from which they are derived. Articles about many famours characters (such as Frodo Baggins) don't demonstrate evidence of notability at all, and those that do (such as Gandalf) are exceptions on Misplaced Pages. Most of the articles about characters that do demonstrate notability tend to be synonymous with the work of fiction, such as a notable film, in which they feature (e.g. The Terminator, Superman). Although merging articles or lists of non-notable characters won't make them compliant with WP:N, it might make them more useful if they presented as appendicies to articles demonstrate notablity, in which case deletion is less likely. However, once it becomes clear that a list has no encyclopedic value, it will get get deleted for failing WP:N or WP:NOT, and FEAPOALT won't protect bad articles or lists from deletion, despite the exemption it seeks to provide. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • In answer to Jakew's question "it plausible that it is generally easier to source characters and episodes than, say, masks?", it is generally very difficult to source characters, episodes or masks, because in order to do so, you have to effectively show that the element of fiction concerned is independently notable from the primary source. In my experience more than 90% of all articles or lists on fictional elements are of unproven notability; even many featured articles are of unproven notability. For example, out of all the characters out of the famous The Lord of the Rings books and films, only the article on Gandalf cites more than one reliable secondary source, whilst there are no reliable secondary sources cited for any of the Characters of Kingdom Hearts, neither jointly or severally. Masem's view that Lists of weapons etc have the potential to be notable is either naive, or is based on wishful thinking. Generally lists of fictional elements like List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons orList of New Order Jedi characters are of unproven notability, and will remain deletion candidates unless evidence of their notability can be found. The section FEAPOALT will not protect them from being nominated for deletion, because the primary criteria for a list or an article to be included in or excluded from Misplaced Pages is directly or indirectly contained in GNC. As it stands, WP:FICT is going in a direction that is against Misplaced Pages concensus that notability is the most important criteria for judging encyclopedic merit.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • There's no reliable sourcing in Characters of Kingdom Hearts?? That's probably one of the best examples of how to write and source a notable set of fictional elements. Yes, not every character list can be like that but by pointing people to that type of article, we can ask them to mimic as many aspects as they can to provide the right amount of encyclopedic coverage. --MASEM 16:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Amazingly, there are no reliable secondary sourcing that could be used that the one or more of the characters are notable outside the video game from which they are derived. Most of the sources are primary sources taken from game itself, from promotional material issued by the game creators or self-published sources from fansites, forums and blogs. Of the reliable secondary sources cited in the article, all of their subject matter relates to Kingdom Hearts itself: the characters are mentioned in passing. Outside the game, not one of the sources cited actually demonstrates that a single character or a group of them is independently notable; evidence of this is that sourcing for the article Kingdom Hearts is -virtually the same as for Characters of Kingdom Hearts.-Gavin Collins (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • The whole point of the reception section is that the characters as a whole are notable. If there was sufficient reception for a single character, then they would have their own article, hence the section in FICT concerning character lists. And what about the reception section does not pertain to the characters? Graphics, voice acting, the inclusion of both Disney and Final Fantasy characters, and so on are all relevant to the characters. Also, show which sources are not reliable, as I frankly doubt the article made it through WP:FAC without that being addressed. Sephiroth BCR 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Alas the receiption section only cites reivews of Kingdom Hearts, so there is no evidence that the characters are notable outside of the game. A mention of a character within the context of a game review is not evidence of independent notability for the character per se. Its a fine point I know, but it all boils down to the fact that the characters cannot inherit notability from the game in which they feature - they have to "stand on their own feet". If the references cited were soley about the one or more of the characters, I would have to agree with you, but they don't. Outide of the reviews of the game itself, they are not mentioned anywhere except by Questionable sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • That's ludicrous. Of course proper reception of the characters is found in the reviews of the games they were featured in. Of course it's valid. They're not inheriting notability; if the reviews never mentioned the characters then we wouldn't be having this argument and it wouldn't be a FA. The reviews specifically mention the characters and elements concerning the characters in the general review of the game. It does not detract from the fact that it is significant coverage that satisfies WP:N, as if the reviewers are going out of their way to make specific mention of the characters, then coverage of the characters is acquired. By your logic, anything that is not the game itself shouldn't have an article, which is blatantly false. Sephiroth BCR 10:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • The evidence is there for you to see: the reviews clearly show that it is the game as a whole, not the characters that are notable. They are just one aspect of the game that has made it sucessful. Other elements, such as game design, graphics, gameplay, levels, weapons, vehicles, as well as the characters contribute to the notability of the game. The reviews are about the game, not the characters per se. Not one reliable secondary source singles them out on their own. Clearly this a dispute that can run and run, so we will have to agree to disagree on this point. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
     • If far more people disagree with you than agree, will you agree to disagree and let it go, accepting that consensus is against you? SamBC(talk) 11:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • In the case of Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Riverwind/1, I believe there was a similiar disagreement about notability and lack of reliable secondary sources. I think if Characters of Kingdom Hearts were to go for article reassessment, there is an outside chance it might loose its featured article status. Whether others would share my viewpoint on this issue, I could not judge - consensus is both local and global.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Given that the KH article relatively recently (end of 2007) passed FAC, and there have been no major shifts in policy since, I would seriously doubt that people would question the appropriateness of the sources to demonstrate notability. The sources of Riverwind are much different as the only non-primary sources were annotations from the writers (which is in general agreement here: that information alone is not sufficient for notability). If you think that the sourcing for KH is insufficient, you are setting an extremely high bar that makes it nearly impossible to write about fictional elements. --MASEM 12:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • I think the reviewers of the article must have been intimidated by the 77 citations in the article, as it is very hard to see the wood from the trees. However, it is not me that "sets a high bar", it is just very difficult to find reliable secondary sources the for fictional characters. All the secondary sources cited in Characters of Kingdom Hearts provide notability for Kingdom Hearts rather than the characters themsleves. Simply put, ficitonal characters don't inherit notability. I am not setting higher standards, just pointing out to you that the reviews are about the game, not the characters.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
     • Yes, there are a large number of sources, but even a causal glance will be able tell a lot of them are primary, and thus I'd expect that those evaluating sources considered this. But more importantly, there is no cardinal rule that says that an external source that talks primarily about one aspect lending to its notability cannot also be used for notability of another aspect. Spot checking the reviews sourced, this seems appropriate: the "characters" (not individual ones) are mentioned not in passing but in several sentences or a paragraph, and as mentioned in separate independent sources, met the general notability requirement. --MASEM 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
     • A review of a game (or book, or film, or TV show) can make reference to a character (or other element) without it being simply a "passing reference". If there is a section of a review discussing a character, or a small number of characters, then that is non-trivial coverage of the character. If there's a box-out for a character, then that is non-trivial coverage. You don't need a whole article/book/chapter to be on a specific thing for it to be "non-trivial coverage" of that thing. It needs to be more than a casual passing reference, that's all (well, slightly more, perhaps, but not much more). You also seem to be rather disparaging the reviewers, and they generally take the job pretty seriously. SamBC(talk) 14:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Masem is right that there is no cardinal rule, but it is clear from the reviews that they are game reviews, not character reviews. Note the citations quoted are indeed "passing references" to the game characters. I think this issue needs to be discussed elsewhere, but because there are no reliable sources which address the Characters of Kingdom Hearts directly, the notability of this subject unproven, or at best very weak, because this is a classic case of WP:NOTINHERITED. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Then bring it to WP:FAR. Honestly, you're being very disparaging towards the FAC reviewers, specially the notion that they were "intimidated" by the large number of sources, which is nonsense. Sephiroth BCR 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Gavin makes a good point. NOTE prohibits that Kingdom hearts article, and just about every other List of Characters article. It sounds like if enough people support these changes, that will be what allows these article to live, not their references. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Then, by all means, take it to AfD. I absolutely guarantee you it will fail. That's part of the reason for the guideline as it stands - it codifies what is the status quo concerning this character lists, especially at AfD. Sephiroth BCR 21:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • (unindent a bit)I don't want it deleted, it's just interesting what an actual application of NOTE to fictional topics would do. I'd like to see minor characters allowed in lists, and major characters allowed their own articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   • I do too, but that doesn't mean we simply ignore WP:N, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOT#INFO. The line has to be drawn at some point. Sephiroth BCR 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose I'm not sure how to interpret this line: "Such sources can include creators' commentary and interviews regarding the work or topic, bearing in mind the restrictions if the work is self-published." So... would DVD commentaries count as self-published? If not, what sorts of things are prohibited? Zagalejo^^^ 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   They teeter on the edge, but for benefit of the doubt, such would be sufficient for notability; the argument, for me, is that DVD commentary is typically "time-delay" once-removed analysis of the work, they are still technically primary, but can provide analysis and development details; the "creators" of the work really aren't publishing it. This is counter, say, me writing my self-published work of fiction, then adding a separate "commentary" document, then attempting to say that's notable from that source alone. It is important to note that we still are looking for "significant coverage" -a DVD commentary can help, but it alone is not significant coverage. --MASEM 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   Ah, okay. I do think that DVD commentaries are often the most significant source for behind-the-scenes info. For example, very little production information was known about any individual Simpsons episodes before the DVDs started coming out. In any case, I still think that section should be clarified, because if this becomes a full-fledged guideline, people are going to be quoting it like it's holy scripture. Zagalejo^^^ 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   I've added a footnote to this statement to explain that self-pub sources, alone, are not sufficient for notability, but do help with it when present with other sources. If you feel it needs rewording along the above lines, please edit appropriately. --MASEM 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   Well, now it looks like that whole section has been changed... *shrugs* Zagalejo^^^ 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   A new concern: I'd like to see some specific examples of sources that would demonstrate notability for individual fictional characters or individual episodes of a serial work. Give me something concrete to work with. Zagalejo^^^ 18:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Are you looking for specific examples of articles (which there are in footnotes) or specific examples of sources, and when you say specific, do you mean down to a citation for a specific character/episode, or something more general? If anything, this might warrant a section below to talk about good specific examples - however, I want to be careful to say that only those examples are allowable, because notably may come out from out aspects. --MASEM 18:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Examples of specific sources, such as a particular journal article about a fictional character or a good review of a television episode. Full citations would be good, and it would be even better if the sources are available online. (And no, we shouldn't say that these are the only acceptable sources, but I'd like some idea as to what people's ideal sources would be.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose - Give the readers what they want, which are detailed individual articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Unfortunately, that is not the compromise that is seeked (sp?) after by this specific guideline. We cannot have it that specific way because then we run very much afoul of the parent guideline of WP:Notability. --Izno (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

     More importantly, what readers want runs aground of what WP's mission is, to be a free-content encyclopedia, and unbridled fictional coverage without appropriate commentary fails that. We however should be not afraid to utilize extrenal wikis to supplement WP's coverage.--MASEM 06:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   Wow, it's funny when you come across people who have so diametrically opposed views of Misplaced Pages from your own. Basically what you're saying is that Misplaced Pages's mission is to be an encyclopedia, not actually useful to the majority of people using the internet? We do have Britannica for that, you know. Ford MF (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   • (ec)I know. We should have some policy that takes readers into account, but of course they don't vote. NOTE was created to stop articles on garage bands and other things we shouldn't have articles on. Millions of readers and thousands of editors would agree with this. Where NOTE fails is with fictional topics. Forget about what NOTE allows, we should create an optimal guldeline here and NOTE editors can come fight over it here if they want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

     That's ad populem. An optimal guideline would certainly include individual articles, but again, we come to the question/issue of "How best can we make this sub-guideline work with WP:N while also satisfying readers' presumed wants and needs?" As Masem said, external wikis are a helpful supplement to this guideline. --Izno (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

     (ec) Considering that FICT is derived from NOTE, I don't see that happening. It's been common practice for a while now that any articles on individual subjects (aka characters, episodes, etc.) need to assert their own notability, while a central list is fine. Sephiroth BCR 06:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

     I don't think ad populem applies to something that is opinion and is trying to represent a groups opinion. FICT is the sub-guideline that applies to fiction and if we want to make it looser or tighter than NOTE, that is allowed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

     The problem is that editors want to have FICT looser and tighter at the same time. Neither party has been able to convince the other side in the past few months, so the best that FICT can do is compromise, or leave it all to WP:N (which would be desastrous for fiction inclusionists). – sgeureka 07:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

     Actually, generally, in response to Peregrine Fisher, we should be sticking to NOTE. This guideline should clarify, but under no circumstances attempt to change, by loosening or tightening, how the requirement for multiple nontrivial independent sources applies to fiction articles in particular. In this particular case, non-notable things may be mentioned in appropriate context on articles for subjects which are notable. That is a perfectly acceptable solution, since notability does not restrict article content, only what may be the subject of a full article, and is often workable and appropriate for articles on fiction. Really, it's an excellent solution, and I hope to see it implemented soon in other areas, like albums and athletes. I think merging really is a better solution for non-notable articles than deletion, but it must be made crystal clear—something must be done with them, they cannot stay, not as full "articles" which serve really as no more than fansites. Fansites belong on Tripod, not Misplaced Pages. Seraphimblade 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

     So the Luke Skywalker article serves as nothing more than a "fansite"? The Luke Skywalker article belongs on Tripod? --Pixelface (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

     How does the fact that readers want articles on soap opera characters "run aground" of Misplaced Pages's mission to be a free content encyclopedia? How does that "run aground" of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement? --Pixelface (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

     From the mission statement: The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. Extensive coverage of fictional works without analysis or out-of-universe context is not "neutral educational content". In addition, the summary of copyrighted published works are derivative works - which while not a copyright issue that we need to legally be aware, they still are non-free content, and thus inclusion must be offset by fair use provisions - again, analysis and out-of-universe context. --MASEM 02:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

     Masem, are you a lawyer? --Pixelface (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

     And if the source for the analysis in an article is copyrighted, isn't a summary of that analysis also "non-free content"? So you're saying non-free content (a summary of a copyrighted fictional work) + non-free content (a summary of a copyrighted article that analyzes that work) = free content? All contributors to Misplaced Pages agree to license their contributions under the GFDL. That is the free content license we use. Now, I've argued in the past that plot summaries are non-free content too. But that was based on my layman's understanding of WP:FAIR, but Misplaced Pages does not give legal advice. That was also before Father Goose contacted Mike Godwin and I read what Mike Godwin had to say. Misplaced Pages is not receiving takedown letters for fiction articles as far as I know. Now, I am not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that content on Misplaced Pages is provided as an educational tool, a teaching tool — and that's what we're doing and that counts as fair use. We're providing neutral educational content under a free content license. If your claim that "Extensive coverage of fictional works without analysis or out-of-universe context is not "neutral educational content"." is true, wouldn't that also apply to list of character articles? List of episode articles? Wouldn't that also apply to copyrighted news stories? Take any article from the Main Page that's in the In the news box. Take 2008 French Open for example. Aren't the broadcasts of that copyrighted? Aren't the news stories about it copyrighted? Again, I am not a lawyer but it's my understanding that copyright covers the particular expression of a work, not the ideas behind it. It's legal to reformulate ideas in your own words. So please stop talking about "derivative works" in some effort to install fear, uncertainty, and doubt in people commenting on your proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Strongest possible oppose. First off, the guideline is simply too long. It's also confusing. It doesn't present a compromise. It appears to represent the point of view of a handful of editors, out of over 7 million. I like lists too, but what is this obsession with redirecting articles to lists? And I'm interested in how Masem defines "global consensus." When the RFC on WP:EPISODE was started by Maniwar, Maniwar contacted a whole heck of a lot of people on their talk pages. In my opinion, the "global consensus" is that readers want articles on every episode of South Park. Readers want an article on Lenny Leonard. Readers want an article on Luke Skywalker. Readers want articles on comic book characters. They even want articles on soap opera characters and even soap opera storylines like Storylines of EastEnders (2000s). They don't give a crap what IGN thinks about a character. Coverage doesn't make something notable. Notability is just a perception. It's a subjective opinion. When someone says something is notable, they are saying they think it's worth their attention. That's it. When someone says something is not notable, more often than not they mean they've never heard of it. "Notability" is not some objective reality. Is the character Luke Skywalker not notable because the article doesn't contain any citations? No, it just means the article doesn't contain any citations. I have a question for this guideline's supporters. How should the current version of WP:FICT be applied to the Luke Skywalker article? The Cosette article? The Lenny Leonard article? The The Seven-Beer Snitch article? The Electra article? I'm curious. --Pixelface (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   You seem to have a problem more with WP:N's dictum that coverage from secondary sources is required more than anything with this guideline. And naturally it represents the view of not all of Misplaced Pages because that's expected. Heck, if we followed popular demand, I would be writing an article on how awesome my room is. We're not here to cater to popular demand, as it's an encyclopedia, not a fansite for whatever someone wants to include. I don't give a crap about most of the stuff on Misplaced Pages, but I recognize that it's part of an encyclopedia. Harping about notability in general isn't really warranted here. Sephiroth BCR 04:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   WP:N doesn't require secondary sources. It says topics should be notable. And it says secondary sources are one way of providing evidence of notability. You act like secondary sources are the only way. And FICT doesn't have to follow N. WP:N itself says "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." And no offense, but nobody cares about how "awesome" your room is. You're right, this is an encyclopedia project, but it's edited by volunteers and people don't get paid to edit. So who do you think spent most of the time working on the List of Naruto chapters (Part I) article? Fans of Naruto or non-fans? And I can throw around the "fansite" word too. Like, what are all these images you've uploaded? Did you upload those because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia or because you're a fan of Castlevania, Naruto, and Bleach? I actually support keeping the articles you uploaded those images for, but the supporters of this guideline would be happy turning the articles into redirects and deleting the images as orphans. And pointing out that "notability" is just an opinion actually *is* warranted here. This is a notability guideline, so why is talking about the concept of "notability" out of place? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, but Misplaced Pages is also not paper and also not a bureaucracy. What does WP:FICT say should be done about the Orihime Inoue article? The Byakuya Kuchiki article? The Kenpachi Zaraki article? You think they should be put in a list? You think people can't give their opinion whether a character is notable or not? Do you want editors going around redirecting nearly every fictonal character article "per WP:FICT" as if it was a policy? --Pixelface (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Of course it isn't required, but it's how a great majority of topics assert notability. If something has won an award, is featured in multiple media, or so on, then it follows that it receives coverage as a result; ergo, it is the easiest method of determining the notability of a topic. And naturally those interested in whatever subject material they are working on have a vested interest in whatever they are working on, but that does not mean that they do not respect our policies and guidelines. For instance, plenty of the articles I've uploaded images for have been redirected or deleted. Am I going to overturn the decision made by consensus because I like the page and because I took the time to put an image on it? Of course not. If we aren't going to respect consensus, then there's little point in collaborating here. In any case, talking about notability in general is inappropriate here because this is talking about a sub-guideline of NOTE that is derived from it, and you're attempting to undermine what basically is established consensus. Your concerns are more pertinent for WT:N than this particular guideline, and you aren't really presenting anything actionable in regards to this particular guideline. Sephiroth BCR 00:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   "Of course it isn't required" Um, you just said "WP:N's dictum that coverage from secondary sources is required" So which is it? Why are you trying to dictate consensus over every fictional character article, every fiction book article, every fiction TV show article, every fiction TV episode article, every fiction film article, every game article, and possibly every article dealing with myths and legends — from this page? Do you know how policies and guidelines get written? Editors make them up. And in this case, FICT is a horrible idea. Go ahead and look through the 31 archives of this talk page and tell me what the consensus is. Why are you trying to override the consensus among article editors on article talk pages? This may be a notability proposal, but it doesn't have to be *based* on WP:N. If WP:N was all you needed, what's the need for a FICT guideline? And WP:N is not "established consensus." It's just an excuse people use to make it look like their personal opinion of "nn" carries some weight because WP:N has a guideline tag on it. Speaking of "actionable", how about you actually apply FICT as it's written to any one of the multiple articles I've mentioned. I oppose making this proposal a guideline. If Masem has spent over a year re-writing it, he's wasted his time. Now would you like me to come up to the Support section and argue with you up there? --Pixelface (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   Required unless consensus dictates there exists sufficient grounds for it to be considered notable in the absence of enough coverage. And honestly, your rant concerning NOTE and the work that has been hammered into this guideline is rather appalling. And yes, it has to be based on NOTE, as we derive the rest of the notability guidelines from it. Are you going to go ask WP:MUSIC, WP:BK and so on and so forth be thrown out? And until NOTE has a disputed tag on top and it's being challenged, then it will be implemented and followed. You've basically stated you don't like this guideline because you think the concept of notability is bad. Again, I point you towards WT:N, where your discussion is pertinent. I don't really see much point in continuing this, as your stance presents something that's neither actionable or really able to be reconciled with. Sephiroth BCR 01:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   The proposed notability guideline on fiction is supposed to be grounded in the general notability guideline: that notability depends on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You're not just arguing to trash the proposed guideline, but to trash the consensus that has existed at WP:N for years. In good faith, you're entitled to your opinion. But how is anyone supposed to buy this argument that you represent the "global consensus" on this proposal when you don't even acknowledge the consensus on an actual guideline at WP:N? If you honestly believe you represent the global consensus, go ahead and change WP:N. You should have no problem if your support is as overwhelming as you believe it is. But if not, the only reasonable thing to do is to base WP:FICT on WP:N. Any proposal that doesn't begin with WP:N just isn't helpful. Randomran (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   The only way you can say that NOTE has conensus is to say that the few editors who frequent NOTE overrule the thousands of editors actually edit articles. The arguments in favor of a strict intrepretation of NOTE when it comes to fict are basically because NOTE and NOT say it must be so. This is a weak argument when you consider the number of editors involved. If every 100 editors who edit in a way not consistent with NOTE and NOT were counted as equal to one policy wonk, it would be obvious that they do not have consensus. I'd like to see some arguments other than XXX has consensus. We can come up with countless articles where 100,000+ readers read it and didn't have a problem. Again, countless articles where 100+ editors didn't have a problem. We cannot find a policy or guideline page that outlaws these articles where 100+ editors did not have a problem. Give me some numbers/reasons why a few policy wonks should overrulle thousands of editors and millions of readers. If the only thing you can come up with is copyvio, then that's already a policy with support. What other truly widespread support is there? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Do you see NOTE being rewritten and massively opposed? For every person that goes to an AfD and claims it's "NN", "not notable", or "fails WP:N" (which is the case for a majority of AfDs), they're following the guideline. In the absence of opposition, there is consensus. Until there's a disputed tag on NOTE, then the onus is on you to show that there's significant opposition to it, not the people supporting it. If the opposition that you claims exists to it did, then we would have hell of a lot more non-notable articles at WP:AFD that are kept, which is definitely not the case. Sephiroth BCR 09:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   I do see it massively opposed on AfDs. Hopefully someday a small fraction of those people will take an interest in NOTE and it will get that disputed tag. The disputed tag is already on the fiction notability page, obviously. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   WP:N is a fundamental guideline that has had consensus for years. The same as other guidelines. Would the eager editors who add their friend's garage band invalidate the notability requirement? Would the numerous editors who engage in edit wars invalidate the three revert rule? Would all the editors who add in links to their fan site or favorite opinion piece invalidate the rule against spam and advertising? What about all the people who add elaborate criticism sections based on their personal grievances? Yeah, there are people all over wikipedia breaking rules that have huge consensus. But wikipedia is not an anarchy. You haven't shown that there are more people who oppose the notability requirement than there are editors who want to add advertisements, point of view, and engage in edit wars. But even if there were this massive opposition that you claim, should they really be allowed to destroy guidelines that have served us for years without so much as a discussion? My point: if someone wants to have a go at reforming WP:N, then reform WP:N. But until then, these guidelines should at least acknowledge WP:N rather than ignoring it as if it never existed. Every discussion about WP:FICT must be compatible with the guidelines we actually have, not the guidelines you wish we had. Randomran (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   But it totally lacks community support in practice, which is why so many editors make these articles, edit them, and myself and others defend them in AfDs. Saying they are breaking rules is to assume bad faith as most editors get welcome messages and all that link to the guidelines and so if we assume good faith then these editors simply interpret the policies in such a manner that like myself see that most of the works of fiction actually are suitable for Misplaced Pages. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Nobody was assuming bad faith. I was saying these people broke rules and made mistakes. Good faith isn't an immunity card. Misplaced Pages is not an anarchy. People who disregard fundamental wikipedia guidelines in good faith aren't implicitly rewriting the rules. Just because you edit war for what you see as the good of the article, it doesn't mean we overturn the 3RR. Just because you promote your fansite with the good faith belief that it truly is a great fansite, it doesn't mean we disregard rules against advertising. Just because you have a good faith belief that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim terrorist and you're trying to protect the world against Islamofascism, it doesn't mean everyone can inject their point of view for the enjoyment of anyone who shares that point of view. If you have a problem with the other guidelines, revise them. Otherwise, I'd caution against giving undue weight to any opinion that insists on creating guidelines that contradict one another. Randomran (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   People are not automatically "disregarding" anything, rather they interpret and understand Misplaced Pages in such a manner that allows for the inclusion of these articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   You have no evidence of that. None of these "interpretations" are compatible with WP:N, indicating disregard rather than interpretation. Randomran (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   I see nothing that suggests these interpretations are incompatible with our notability guidelines. If I did, I wouldn't argue for the inclusion of the articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   How do you deal with the general notability guideline, that requires notability to be established by reliable sources that are independent of the subject -- and goes into great detail about what independent, reliable, and so on all mean? It sounds to me like you're arguing that the notability guideline essentially doesn't exist because several editors act that way. That's the furthest thing from a fair interpretation of the guideline. Randomran (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   By focusing on finding those sources rather than on just declaring they can't be found. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Please assume good faith. Most people who declare they can't be found are saying so because they actually, in good faith, tried to find them to the best of their ability. If people are in error about those sources, then your grievance is with the editor themselves -- not the notability policy, and not this proposed guideline. In fact, this proposed guideline is very clear that improving an article requires some attempt to find those reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I would support efforts to make this more clear, but not to disregard the notability requirement. I very much agree with the spirit of WP:INSPECTOR, but then I also agree with WP:N in word and in spirit. Randomran (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't doubt that some do indeed do quick Google searchs for sources, but Google is not the end point of research. I have found and added many unchallenged reliable secondary sources that appear in journals and magazines without online public archives. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Either way, at some point people have to weigh a decision on the evidence they have, not the alleged evidence some claim may still be found. I would entirely support a guideline that formalizes some of the things we just talked about: that there should be a good faith effort to find some sources, and that articles should be given time -- it may even be a good idea to explain what amount of time is appropriate. I think the proposed guideline does this to some extent, but it could be more clear. But we can't remove the part of this guideline that is based on the general notability requirement: you need independent and reliable sources on the subject of the article in order to demonstrate notability. Randomran (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Misplaced Pages:There is no deadline, so who arbitrarily decides based on what evidence there is when the article is not sufficient? So long as there is a realistic chance of additional sources turning up, we should allow our editors a lot of leeway here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   You're right. It's not about a deadline. It's about making a reasonable and educated estimate as to whether that article is notable at present. I believe it's easier to make this estimate when you've had some time to observe the article, see how it's been edited, tagged it for its notability problems, and seen if it's realistic that this problem can be resolved. But at a certain point, you can make an intelligent estimate. "I've tagged it, nobody's done anything, I took a quick look myself, and I'm pretty damn sure it's not notable". And then there's the AFD discussion itself, where people more well versed in the subject than you might have a better idea of what to look for -- and it only takes one person to pull up references to put a stop to it. But again, we're talking about mechanics and process. It sounds to me like you actually agree with the guidelines, just that you don't want to see them used too early. I agree with that. Do you support the guidelines otherwise? Randomran (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Good faith and reasonable editors can look at an article see that it’s not being improved and nominate it for deletion only to have someone come along and find sources and improve articles that others could not find sources for. Please consider Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jan Yanehiro, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/King Kong in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Me and the Pumpkin Queen, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/99 Ways to Die (song), etc. All I am saying is that more effort should be made into helping improving and referencing the articles and that a lot of times the claims that sources cannot be found or that there is no notability are just not true even when made in good faith and because of that, it is important that we approach many articles as works in progress and allow our editors the benefit of the doubt when they do believe the article has potential, but that the likely sources are in publications not available on the internet and that take considerable more time to find. Given the articles I have even helped reference and fulfill notability concerns in AfDs, I reckon a lot more that are deleted after a mere five discussion in which a half dozen or so editors declare it can’t be improved also could and should have been saved as well. So, to some extent I obviously agree that many of these articles should be improved and that they should be better referenced. Where I disagree is the assertion that they cannot be improved or referenced and that a lot of time spent removing them could actually be spent improving them. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   So basically, you don't have a problem with the guidelines... you just think they should never ever be used to justify an AFD. Randomran (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   (unindent a bit) If editors who merged and nominated articles for AfD improved articles to an equal extent, it would be much easier to find some middle ground. It's all volunteer so there's no way to enforce anything like that that I can think of. I've heard a few people say some of our problems are an editor problem, not a guideline problem, but if they can do what they do with in good faith, which they can, it means the guidelines need to be adjusted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   I understand your point, Peregrine, but I continue to believe that is something we can't realistically fix with this specific page. If what's on this page is good advice, and we can agree (to some reasonable extent) on that, then we can actually do something about how people handle the situations. Right now we're in a big traffic jam, waiting for WP:FICT to be dealt with. For example, we still have WP:EPISODE to fix up, but we're mostly waiting for WP:FICT to become somewhat stable. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for understanding, common ground is a good thing. If we can make this page so it allows for optimal orginization of fictional topics, which I doubt we can since it would involve some articles being about single non-notable subjects, then that would be great. If we could make users who redirect say, 100 episodes of Scrubs, establish notability for 5-10 of those articles (and it is possible) then that would also be great. Since we can't do anything like what I just mentioned, I think the best thing to do is probably get rid of FICT so the real discussion can take place at NOTE. It seems to me that to get a FICT anywhere close to what I would like, and what represents actual readers and editors on the ground, this discussion needs to take place at a higher level. In my opinion there have been a number of well reasoned arguments for loosening FICT, and they're pretty much all countered with "that's against NOTE." The whole support section ingnores the conflict with NOTE. I guess if NOTE and NOT were changed to even allow what the support votes are supporting, I might support as well. Until then it's really ignoring the problems with our policies and guidelines when it comes to fiction. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 08:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   Then your points are better represented at NOTE and NOT. Yes, it would be great to cover every single episode, character, and so on for all these media, but realize that that a line has to be drawn since NOTE and NOT still stand. So long as they do, this guideline must respect what NOTE and NOT currently dictate. Now, if you were to change NOTE and NOT, then by extension, you would have the ability to alter this guideline in order to make it more permissive. If the support for changing NOTE and NOT exists per your statements, then feel free to go change them. However, trying to argue against this guideline using the version of NOTE and NOT that you want is a bit silly, no? And note that the guideline as it stands actually does lend itself towards being more permissive than what the current situation is. If this doesn't pass, then you're going to end up with people bulldozing articles at AfD while citing NOTE and NOT#PLOT, while if FICT passed, you would have a merge or a tag-and-wait situation present. And it still doesn't stop you from going to NOTE and NOT to change it to your liking if the current version of FICT passes. Sephiroth BCR 08:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   (redent)One of my main talking points lately has been that this compromise is prohibited by NOT. I know that this is more permissive, and that's a big reason why I won't support it when it has no teeth. The ultimate goal in my opininion is to change NOTE, NOT, and whatever else hinders us in our coverage of fictional topics, as agreed upon by the masses, not policy wonks. Supporting something prohibited by NOT, without changing NOT, is silly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 09:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   It's not really prohibited by NOT#PLOT, which states that "a concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work" and I construe "larger coverage" to indicate the lists that we're justifying in terms of WP:SS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SIZE, which is the compromise point that has been taken by FICT. It doesn't contradict NOT#PLOT but rather clarifies more specific cases on how it is applied. Sephiroth BCR 09:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   Why is it supposed to be grounded in WP:N? We can come up with different standards for different topics. WP:N itself says "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right" Notability does *not* depend on "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." If that's present, it's likely that people will agree it's notable. That's one way of providing evidence of notability. If that's not present, that doesn't mean anything. Go read WP:N again. I never claimed to represent global consensus. But if you want to find out what "global consensus" is, you should probably look at some of Misplaced Pages's 2.4 million articles. You should also try actually *applying* FICT as it's currently written to some of those 2.4 million articles and see if editors actually agree with what you're doing or if they oppose it. For example, what does WP:N or WP:FICT suggest regarding the Guile (Street Fighter) article? --Pixelface (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   When it comes to specific notability guidelines, they can be more strict than the general notability guideline, but not less so. As for Guile, he's probably notable because he's probably been given significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the Street Fighter series. I'd have strong reason to believe there are references that can assert notability. Randomran (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   That doesn't actually make sense when you consider the quote "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right". If they had to be more strict, then it would say "and" rather than "or". The "or" implies that meeting a subject-specific standard means that it doesn't have to meet the GNG, and several more specific guidelines allow for notability without requiring significant coverage (such as books and films being notable if they win awards). Nowhere does it say that subject-specific guidelines must be more strict than the GNG. SamBC(talk) 12:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, I think that you are both right, and that WP:N needs clarification on that issue. Randomran's interpretation is the only one that makes sense to me, but Sambc is correct in terms of what a literal reading says. The problem with Sambc's interpretation is that it gives unreasonable power to a wikiproject. If the (purely hypothetical) Irving Forbush Genealogy project decided that being named "Forbush" conferred notability, then they could create an article for every Forbush in the world, and there wouldn't be much anyone could do to stop them. Kww (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   The way I've read it (and not saying my way is right, but seems to be consistent with subnotability guidelines) is in the sense that other guidelines can supercede the GNC, but only if, first, it is an objective measurement, and second, the most common result of meeting that guideline will still result, ultimately, in an article with reliable, independent sourcing that is related to its notability. I point to WP:MUSIC's criteria for musicians, where the first one is the GNC, but the rest are all objective standards that I can easily see leading to sourcing of some type.

   I've mentioned that we've tried to think of cases of the same type of fictional works as alternatives, but unfortunately either the approach is not objective (say, if I say major character of a notable work is presumed notable, "major" is a subjective term) and/or that sourcing in most cases is limited to the primary work only. We've explored that with the only possible leeway being major awards, and even that is a careful balance, because most awards are given to the actors or the creators of the characters, and not specifically to the character itself, though there is some implied notability here. I'm not saying there aren't any, but that's been part of the brainstorming of this guideline for the past year and has proven unsuccessful in providing such alternatives to the GNC for fictional works that still end up meeting the general concept of notability. --MASEM 13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   No, Randomran, you're wrong. You're saying that a topic can have "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and still not meet one of the notability guidelienes? The various notability guidelines have all kinds of different criteria a topic can meet. Go look at WP:ACADEMIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:MOVIE for example. Significant coverage is sufficient evidence of notability; it's not always necessary. --Pixelface (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose. I think Christopher Parham has said pretty much all I want to say. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose I do think some definable standards need to be applied, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. There's a huge divide around here about what kind of articles are and are not notable. This policy seems to be heavily slanted to curtail the activities of the "pop culture" set of editors (for lack of a better group title). There must be a better compromise than this. AniMate 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   I would argue that this is not an attempt to curtail pop culture coverage but to make sure that is treated in an encyclopedia manner (and again, we should not be afraid to defer to wikis for more details on pop culture that don't work under WP's mission and policies). However, I will ask, either why do you feel this curtails on pop culture, or from a different approach, what do you feel needs to be added to achieve a better compromise? --MASEM 23:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   First off, I hate this side of things, because sometimes all a contributor wants to do is give an opinion andnot have someone try and talk them out of it. Secondly, deferring to other wikis strikes me as an awful idea. First off, we'd have to figure out a way to determine which wikis are and are not acceptable. Can you imagine how awful that would be? Wookiepedia is arguably the best known entertainment wiki out there, and a great place for Star Wars articles. However, there are some pretty second or third rate wikis out there as well, and that is being generous. How do we gauge the quality of these wikis? Will it be as divisive as judging the quality of which articles should remain on Misplaced Pages? Probably. Can we offer the same protection and community values to hard working contributors whose work has been deemed "not ready for primetime"? The more I think about it, the less I like this idea. AniMate 00:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   We're trying to get a compromise that everyone finds suitable, so asking for clarification on what you find wrong with the guideline so he can make corrections is perfectly fine. And the only reason we're including other wikis in this guideline is that there exists wikis on more specialized topics in which non-notable topics here, or many topics that would normally fail WP:NOT can be sent to. Yes, some of these wikis are in bad shape, but transwiking is preferable for these editors in most cases rather than outright deletion, which they would be subject to normally. In any case, whatever wiki they are sent to ultimately comes about in the individual AfD, and consensus usually doesn't result in a transwiki decision. If this guideline is passed, we would actually see a spike in "merge" !votes rather than an increase in "transwiki" !votes. Anyways, for articles "not ready for primetime", editors who want to work on them are free to work on them in their userspace for practically as long as they like, and any administrator would be happy to provide a copy of the deleted article for this to work. Sephiroth BCR 00:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

10. STRONG Oppose. Per above. The problem I have with this is that some people actually use the notability guidelines as an excuse to just obliterate and merge everything left and right. Several content and all the hard work people put into articles are lost when uncivil gutter trash just show up just to enforce these guidelines and assimilate everything in their path, even going as far as calling them "vandals" when they try to make simple edits to the page instead of helping them, and for what? Just so they could reach "GA" or "FA" status. BAH! The notability guidelines, in my opinion, only served as a catalyst for a battleground of uncivilty and unnecessary fights to keep all of this information. ZeroGiga (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Editors do need to realize they don't own articles and their efforts can be removed - being upset at the loss of editing work is not fruitful; however, that is why need to encourage the use of wikis so that this hard work isn't lost (and as long as merging is done, it's still there in the history). As for uncivil editors sending things to AFD, that's a behavioral issue - editors that do engage in uncivility need to be reported if that's a problem (such as TTN, I'm guessing). --MASEM 03:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Speaking of incivility. I find the irony behind statements such as "uncivil gutter trash" rather hilarious. If you want people to take you seriously, try not to insult them when you try and make your point. Second, other than speedy deletion, it takes consensus to delete an article (it takes that to merge it as well). Whether someone is using FICT (or any other guideline for that matter) as a means to delete or merge a page is irrelevant to the fact that consensus must support such a thing. Now, if it's blatantly obvious the subject shouldn't have a page, then 40 editors saying it should--when all it has is a plot summary--isn't going to change that fact either. Consensus isn't about how many peole say "yes" or "no". If you have a problem with people misusing the guideline (or a policy for that matter) then take it up with the editors (or the community); don't blame the guideline for the trouble caused by a few editors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    The truth is, without FICT, people already use NOTE (and NOT#PLOT) to merge/redirect/delete fiction articles in masses quite successfully, and even a {{rejected}} tag on FICT wouldn't miraculously stop that. Some people may have problems with NOTE and NOT#PLOT, but FICT is the wrong place to discuss their merits. (The easiest solution would be to start an RfC at NOTE to turn its guideline status into an essay or something, but I imagine this proposal would be shot down quickly like the RfC to remove NOT#PLOT. And we're back to what FICT currently says.) – sgeureka 07:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    I have to agree with this statement. I generally hate when people argue with oppose or support !votes, but sgeureka's comment really needs to be pointed out. If we implement this proposal, a lot of work by many contributors will be lost. Frankly, this seems to be a divisive proposal mostly about curbing popular culture articles and proving that certain editors on one side of a conflict are right. I wish I could propose a "stay on your side of the playground" guideline, but petty politics and drama will always be an unfortunate factor here. Are these articles really detrimental to the encyclopedia? No. Do they need guidelines? Yes. Is setting up a system to delete the contributions of our fellow Wikipedians the right way to go about getting said guidelines the right way to go about this? Absolutely not. There are thousands of articles in this encyclopedia that desperately need to be improved. Instead, many are here to play in the worst part of Misplaced Pages: the deletionist vs the Inclusionist bullshit... and that is what this is. So, as I don't have any power to make a guideline: I will just ask all of you to play on your side of the playground, improve all of the articles that need to be improved, and to just support each other. This advice won't be heeded, but a Wikipedian can hope. Can't he? AniMate 09:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    I think you misconstrued what he was trying to say. He was saying that if this proposal does not go through, then people are going to bulldoze articles using NOTE and NOT#PLOT with practical impunity. If this guideline passes, then we get a situation that is more permissive, not stricter. If anything, it will reduce possible conflict. And for your "stay on your side of the playground" idea, it isn't what Misplaced Pages really is about. There will always be voices on either side of the issue and in the end, we have to abide by whatever consensus dictates, or Misplaced Pages doesn't work. Also, there's really no "fences" that separate the editors here - we share the same community and articles sans any sort of impediment, and we have to cooperate. There is always conflict and to every conflict, there has to be some form of resolution. Sephiroth BCR 09:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Um, FICT is based in part on NOT#PLOT and NOTE. And the RFC on NOT#PLOT is to determine whether PLOT has consensus, and it doesn't. You don't need to demonstrate consensus to remove a section of policy that doesn't have consensus. It needs consensus to be policy in the first place. So don't claim "the RfC to remove NOT#PLOT" was "shot down." When PLOT has been removed from NOT, the removal has been reverted by parties of E&C1 and E&C2, and that includes you. --Pixelface (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    This RFC appears to support that some statement that "Misplaced Pages articles are not just plot summaries" has support; the exact language was in question, but the concept appears to be strongly supported by those that responded. --MASEM 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    You continue to ignore other statements made by people outside of that section at WT:NOT, just like you ignored them when you performed three reverts to WP:NOT and re-added PLOT three times — probably because this misguided proposal of yours relies on PLOT. I've pointed to lots of articles that are simply plot summaries. There does seem to be some support that articles ought to be more than plot summaries, which is why such wording belongs in WAF and not under WP:IINFO. --Pixelface (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    Policies are supposed to be mostly stable, with significant changes being discussed before the change is made (or, if made and reverted, discussed to determine consensus for the change). It was removed once and reverted; at that point, there needed to be discussion about it before removing it again. Consensus doesn't disappear and policy doesn't become broken because some editors believe a line shouldn't be present. That's why rationale discussions about changes to determine if they fit into existing policy are key for making sure policies and guidelines reflect policy, and the removal of PLOT without gaining consensus had to be reverted once it was reverted once. Again, please remember to be civil and not attack the editors. --MASEM 00:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose I support the well-reasoned points made by Christopher Parham above. The proposal also fails WP:CREEP and WP:BURO. Such long and tendentious rule-making is contrary to our principles, being an elitist concept which is explicitly hostile to the contributions of ordinary editors who typically work upon such topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    There's a reason why this has been under editing for more than a year: every time we got close to what we thought met current practice as to establish a baseline, someone would bring up another point that had to be addressed; at least 4 times there was a complete tear down and rebuild of these. In order to accurately reflect today's current practices and to make sure that editors at the extreme ends of the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum were happy, we had to include all the various clauses and the like, because that's exactly how the situation with fiction is being dealt with presently: there is no one simple answer that can be applied across all fiction topics. The reason we're asked to get consensus on this version is to make sure we then have an acceptable baseline that we can then try to work on changing it into someone simpler that may go against the grain and thus would require much more discussion; we need something stable for FICT however while this occurs. It is not meant to be hostile because we are not preventing coverage of topics, simply trying to make sure how and where these are covered are appropriate for an encyclopedia. --MASEM 10:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

12. Strongest possible oppose per all those before, because the guideline is too long, and because the setting up of secondary-source requirements would be to essentially hand a club to editors to obliterate large swaths of Misplaced Pages's terrain, from, oh, 99% of our comic book-related articles, to pulp-era mystery and fantasy heroes, to more recent serial characters like V. I. Warshawski. Ford MF (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Without FICT, you will still be bound by secondary source requirements from WP:NOTE. And this does not prevent coverage of these topics, but asking them to be presented as part of notable topics. For example, the V. I. Warshawski article would be better presented by talking about the series of books either on their own page (presuming that some of the books are notable, or the series itself), or within the Sara Paretsky page, with appropriate redirections to make the information readily available; wherever the series is covered , you can explain the characters briefly and any other aspects common to the books. --MASEM 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    I respectfully, but with the greatest disturbance, disagree. Fictional characters are a unique case, and aren't WP:BLPs, and aren't ever going to be. In most cases, the work is the coverage. That forum editorial quoted above, Why Misplaced Pages is Deleting the Wrong Articles is 100% dead on. Category:Dungeons & Dragons magical beasts, or comic characters, or TV characters, aren't ever going to get secondary coverage unless they're Mary Tyler Moore, and deletion and merge pogroms against these things drive readers away, damage the project's long-term viability, and frankly create a hostile atmosphere to the editors who work on these articles (which, face it, constitute an enormous amount of traffic here), and whose stuff gets tossed out largely because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If Misplaced Pages's mission isn't primarily to be encyclopedically useful to its readers, its mission is nothing but a stupid social experiment. Ford MF (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Question. How do you want to write a neutral article that does not violate WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR if you don't have any secondary coverage? If you dismiss these accepted policies and guidelines along with a few others (WP:GUIDE, WP:TRIVIA and WP:RS) as IDONTLIKEIT, and if you consider others' defending these rules as hostile, it may be you who mistakes wikipedia's mission, not the others. – sgeureka 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Sgeureka, do you think the Andrey Nikolayevich Bolkonsky article violates NOTE, PLOT, and OR? Do you see the word "notability" anywhere in the Wikimedia Foundation mission statement or the five pillars? Have you read WP:IAR?? Is Misplaced Pages a notability project? How does "notability" fall within Misplaced Pages's mission, considering that Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia? --Pixelface (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    WP is supposed to be useful by providing "neutral educational content". This is not to say that most modern fictional is not appropriate to that, however, there's a point where it is appropriate to talk about modern works and elements thereof and how they have been influenced or have influence the world in an educational approach, and where it is not appropriate to give a complete biography of a fictional character straight of the primary source. I'm not saying we are trying to strike anything that cannot be considered educational, but when we do step away from that mission goal, we need to make sure that what is being covered is treated in the same fashion that the educational content is given as, which means that keys policies like NOT, V, NOR, and NPOV have to be followed. Characters and other aspects that can only be covered by the primary work should be covered in the discussion of the primary work (presuming the work itself is notable), at the level to establish who and what these characters are. And again, I note that we have offsite wikis that can take information that doesn't meet the educational content goal and interlink with those to provide complete coverage. --MASEM 13:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

13. Oppose, the elements within the FICT guideline are widely open to interpretation, which has been seen at numerous debates at AFD etc. e.g what is an independent source, how significant a mention is significant etc. Thus to make a concrete guideline from fluid elements seems illogical. Much information of vital articles is, in and of itself, non-notable, yet may be forked out when an article grows to a large size, eg diseases with a treatment of x subpage etc. These are dictated by size and depth of material rather than an extraneous notability which acts as a cull of material, which I feel is not in the interests of wikipedia or its readers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    I believe that the general notability guideline already defines that information. So, you may want to check out WP:NOTE. Read the first section, and then follow the sources at the end of each sentence to the bottom of the page for a more detailed explaination. Short of simply copying and pasting that information, there isn't much that needs to be said. We link to WP:NOTE when we define how this guideline classifies notability. Depth of material can split a page, but the material should not be simply plot information, or you run the risk of creating a page that does not but provide a free alternative to watching/reading/listening to some fictional program.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Also, note the suggestion below to provide concrete examples of what are good sources for fiction notability. That would address the first points. Mind you, regardless of how much we actually spell out, what happens at AFD is still going to be a subjective determination, that is the nature of the process. What we need to do is step back a notch from the aggressiveness of some editors like TTN to require significantly more coverage; we need to be less BITEy at AFD and give more good faith benefit of the doubt that if there's a couple weak notability references, then deletion is not called for. The problem is that is something we can help line up by helping to spell out good sources, but really cannot control from FICT's standpoint. --MASEM 13:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose Too much dislike onto a subject is not helping here. Yes people look to WP for details on series/literary works and the characters/actors involved. In my mind when looking at any article we need to look at three major aspects: 1) Does the reader benefit? 2)Does the writer benefit? 3)Is the subject (or others) harmed by it? If No 2 outweighs No 1 it is spam. No 3 mostly applies to BLP issues but could be construed to commercial interests which in the most case are actually not harmed by those articles but furthered. Agathoclea (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Honest question: In how does this relate to anything that FICT says? FICT doesn't mention dislike, spam, harm or how readers and writers benefit from articles. – sgeureka 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Which is maybe the problem. Ford MF (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose Basically, I agree with Christopher Parham and KungFu Man above. Also, I see no reason why Misplaced Pages should avoid lengthy articles on specialized topics of interest to only a handful of readers, as long as those articles are of good quality and contain accurate information. rb000 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I can't tell you how often I've plugged in the name of a character from some corner of fiction I don't normally delve into (YA lit, or an obscure comic book character, or a game...) & been pleased to have something pop up. I also have to admit that I've been drifting away from the project as perfectly reasonable articles I've found have all been up for deletion. I realize that a fiction policy on notability is a tricky subject. Things like characters, plot element, & the like are not often discussed in third-party arenas. This makes arguments for inclusion difficult, despite the fact that, such as in The Leader mentioned below, they are long-standing & viable characters. Furthermore, the arguments for lay-out have a lot of weight; making a sub-article for a page that has grown too long & clumsy suddenly puts that content in jeopardy. Fundamentally, Misplaced Pages should be useful. Misplaced Pages can be bigger than any encyclopedia that came before. I certainly don't think that notability should go out the window, but I think notability needs serious consideration. Because Misplaced Pages is user-generated, it doesn't have to be as limited. I don't have any answers for policy, but I don't think that being more restrictive in response to the short comings of restriction is the solution. --mordicai. (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    This version of FICT does not change the fact you will be able to still put in a character name and have something come up - it just won't be its own article but instead part of the coverage of the work it is in or a list of characters from that work, and hopefully, a link to a wiki with more information. Redirects are cheap, and there's no reason we cannot catalog all those fictional characters so they are all still searchable within WP. And (to both Mordicai's, Rb000's, and Agathoclea's points) while WP can grow, it's free content mission is a priority - that is a limitation in how far we can take the discussion of fictional elements when there are no secondary source to provide fair use provision of derivative works. That doesn't mean we can't talk about the characters, but they have to be in context of a larger topic (typically the work itself) where we can provide the alternative sources needed to justify the use of derivative works. (And just again to clarify, this does not mean we are protecting WP from copyright lawsuits or the like, but instead the philosophy of what free content is.) --MASEM 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Your solution sounds like turning Misplaced Pages into a search engine & an index. Linking to a site that isn't Misplaced Pages? Now THAT sounds like a bad idea; once it gets out from under our umbrella, we really have no say in the reliability (as Sephiroth BCR poinsts out) or content of the site. & how big & sprawling is, lets say, the Marvel page going to get? We'll just stash all the content that doesn't pass the new notability guidelines under it in a big list of hyperlinks? Saying that an article will lie fallow is all well & good, but I'd rather have a stub NOW than nothing later. --mordicai. (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Again, wow, your philosophy of free content doesn't look anything like mine. So...talking about it is okay, but a separate article in the namespace isn't? Merge with preservation of content 1) will create preoposterously enormous articles (since what you're saying is a work's primary article should more or less be be the sole repository of ALL information related to it), and 2) will create unnecessary redundancy, since comic book characters, at least of the major companies (and to a lesser extent television characters), appear in a shared universe instead of in a specific work. Would the Leader's character career be spread out among the Hulk, Avengers, Captain America, Namor and Thing articles? How is that useful for any reader? Ford MF (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Obviously there needs to be a WP:SIZE allowance, and thus that's the reason why lists of character (which themselves do not need to show notability as they support the main articles) are considered appropriate. Then, as I pointed out below, if there are characters that cross universes, but are effectively the same character, {{see also}} can be used to point between lists, including adding more information about a character if there are significant differences between them. Also it should be noted that the length of several of these comic characters is too long and information will need to be trimmed, but what is there presently can be placed at a wiki to provide more information without weighing down WP.

    The reason to avoid a separate article is first, this approach is not easily maintainable (see the first oppose viewpoint); today, you may all agree to watch the articles, but in a year, how many editors will still be around? Second, editors tend to fill the glass as much as they can, and as its generally easy to write about in-universe details for a work you love, these blank slates fill up very quickly, and to a point where the free content issue becomes a problem; it is much easier to keep the plot aspects of characters to a limited amount when they are all in the same list to compare and contrast with. --MASEM 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Uh, what exactly do you mean by weighing down Misplaced Pages? I'm serious, because some of your concerns seem to stem from an unstated harm that such articles do to Misplaced Pages. (Nevermind that having information about one item on several pages all connected with five or six SEE ALSO tags could only possibly make things more difficult for readers.) Ford MF (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Per the free content mission, we need to strive to minimize the use of non-free content, which includes derivative works in the absence of additional context to meet fair use requirements. It's not an issue with disk space, its an issue with the amount of non-free content that's not justified with fair use. --MASEM 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

17. I have a problem with the confluence of WP:N and WP:RS as it applies to fiction. Should not the fact that TV show X has N+1 fansites serve to establish its notability? In the absence of any sort of web sockpuppetry campaign, of course it should. Fansites are truly legitimate coverage for the *notability* of a fictional topic. They may or may not be accurate about other facts (e.g., bios of the actors/artists) and those factual items should be subject to more traditional definitions of acceptable reliable sources, but notability for fiction should be establishable via fansites and other SPS. No one would seriously propose that SPS be used for chemical compounds, scientific theories, or historical biographies, of course. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Fansites don't pass WP:RS. That's the bottom line. Also, your last statement is quite hypocritical. Fansites for fiction and not for "higher" material? The only "higher" criteria we have to maintain is WP:BLP and there's no reason good, reliable sources should be used for fiction. In any case, your argument is suited for WT:RS, not here. Sephiroth BCR 17:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Is WP:RS more about WP:V or WP:N? Serious question, to which I believe the answer is 'V'. I think you misunderstand my argument--it's not about a higher standard of verifiability for everything but fiction, it's about a more flexible and fiction-friendly standard for notability. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    And VERIFY talks quite clearly about the quality of sources that have to be used. See WP:SOURCES. Your stance diminishes fiction by allowing for sources of a quality much lower than what is commonly used for other types of articles. Again, the proper venue for your issues is at WT:RS, not here. Sephiroth BCR 17:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    I think you're missing Jclemens's point; the suggestion isn't that fansites be an acceptable source for the content of articles on fictional elements or works, but that they be acceptable as evidence of notability. SamBC(talk) 17:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, that sums my issue up nicely, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Your solution sounds like turning Misplaced Pages into a search engine & an index. Linking to a site that isn't Misplaced Pages? Now THAT sounds like a bad idea; once it gets out from under our umbrella, we really have no say in the reliability (as Sephiroth BCR poinsts out) or content of the site. & how big & sprawling is, lets say, the Marvel page going to get? We'll just stash all the content that doesn't pass the new notability guidelines under it in a big list of hyperlinks? Saying that an article will lie fallow is all well & good, but I'd rather have a stub NOW than nothing later. --mordicai. (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't recall advocating linking. The presence of a number of blog entries or fansites googleable on the Internet doesn't mandate their inclusion into Misplaced Pages--anyone who wants to question the notability of a fictional character can do a quick google and see what the 'buzz' is (or isn't) about a fictional topic. I don't see it as the end of the world. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry Jclemens-- I meant to reply to Masem's "or a list of characters from that work, and hopefully, a link to a wiki with more information" comment. So much formating, so many indents, arggg! --mordicai. (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose. I continue to think this is a misguided approach that neither addresses what our readers seem to want, how best to preserve the accurate and quality information that is often in these articles. Furthermore, I think the push towards deletion implicit in this guideline makes very flawed assumptions about the availability of sourcing, and that the existence of a notability guideline wrongly focuses efforts on cleanup instead of on working to find better sources, which are often trivial to find. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose. The conditions for verifiability are too stringent for some categories of popular youth/underground/alternative/counter culture. The great D&D/RPG debate is one case in point. The problem is that the subjects of this genre and similar ones, although they may have a vast fan base and be a significant manifestation of popular culture (and what is wrong with that?), get little exposure in authoritative venues of establishment culture. Few D&D novels, no matter how good they are, are likely to be reviewed by the Times Literary Supplement or the New York Times Review of Books. So, although the topic may be of great importance to many people outside the mainstream of established culture and deserve an article because of this, it can be difficult to find sources that are verifiable by the criterion required by the policy. Such sources will exist only when the subculture has time to make an impact on mainstream culture. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

Comments

• The major WikiProjects dealing in fiction should probably be notified that this has come under the scope for community comment. I've already left a note at WT:VG, but I think WT:TV, and WT:WikiProject Books would appreciate the courtesy gesture. In fact, I noted that TV also has it noted in the template up top... --Izno (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A note should be left at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Soap Operas and WT:ANIME as well. --Pixelface (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• To borrow from FAC, can we demand that oppose !votes need to be actionable to be considered? (Unless, of course, it is the goal of the opposers to forever stall the acceptance of this guideline.) Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so this is not why I bring this up. WP:NOTE#cite_note-7 supports the more inclusionist view to allow lists of less-notable elements (whatever this means), and WP:LIST makes no specific mention about the requirement of notability in lists. On the other hand, e.g. WP:N, WP:UNDUE and Featured lists suggest that there is a cut-off point (wherever that may be). In this light, basing oppose !votes on that FICT needs to be much more lenient or much more tighter is a matter of preference (e.g. quantity vs. quality), and many (not all) oppose !votes do in fact cancel each other out and thus become inactionable. I'd also like to point out (again) to the more inclusionist-minded fellow editors, that if FICT does not get picked up, people will just use WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT to successfully bulldoze articles at AFD, which is in stark contrast to the encouraged tag-wait-merge approach of FICT. – sgeureka 08:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Precisely. I originally used the old version of WP:FICT to support the merging of articles into lists and related items, and with that gone, I more frequently have to !vote "delete" using NOTE and PLOT. And yeah, the opposes should indicate at least why they dislike the current format. Saying that you don't like it because you don't like notability period isn't really actionable, while opposes that are looking at specific elements or similar are fine. We should end this discussion with something feasible that a rough consensus supports. Sephiroth BCR 09:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, so the 5 to 10 pages of replies between oppose commenters is not enough? --Pixelface (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Guidance on NN List Style/Format

A few editors have commented that the lack of style and formatting and content guidelines for limited cases of non-notable lists of characters and episodes may be problematic towards this. I will point out that we had such guidelines in this document previously, but given that they were not a function of notability but style and the like, they were decided to be pulled out to WP:WAF, and subsequently, they have been removed from there by others. I don't disagree we need guidance on these, however, notability guidelines are not the place to introduce them.

To that end, I propose, not so much in this language, but just a general overview of what that guidance was/should be for making sure NN lists are developed to the best they can be encyclopedically. List of episodes already has pretty good guidance at the TV project, but characters and other possible breakouts are a different matter. But in general for character lists:

• Lists should be structured to present major characters first and foremost over minor characters; however, if there are also logical groupings of the characters per the fiction (good guys vs bad guys), then the order should be presented as such, but still major > minor/recurring within the groups. If such lists grow too large, splitting to sublists by a logical grouping
• Major characters should be given 2-3 paragraphs of text, minor and reccuring 1-2 paragraphs.
• The article's title and lead should clearly define the work, provide enough context of the work to allow the list to be understood without necessarily reading the main article on the work of fiction. A list of Jedi characters from Star Wars should briefly explain what Star Wars is and what Jedi are in the lead before progressing to the characters. If groupings are used, brief introductions to those groups should be included.
• Character details should not be approached biographically or in-universe, but instead the importance of the character in the work: what his/her role is, major impacts on the character's growth from others or vice versa, and so forth. Presumably the plot of the work is summarized elsewhere so there should be minimal overlap of character details with plot details
• Actors and voice actors should be included for characters that have such.
• Though such cannot be sourced to secondary sources (by being non-notable), they should still be verifiable, citing primary source material, and should not engage in original research and point-of-view writing style.
• The use of intra-page {{anchor}}s, redirection, and disambs should be used for all elements on the lists; every major, minor, and recurring character should be the target of a direct or disamb. wikilink, even if that's still a redirect, a mention on a disamb page, or in part of a hatnote.
• Non-notable Character lists should not include every possible character from a work but should be limited on major and minor or reccuring characters; for purposes of clarification, minor characters are assumed to make multiple appearances within the work but are not the focus of the work. One-shot, cameo, or other bit characters should only be mentioned if they have some significant impat on the plot, and in this case, should be described as part of the work's plot section instead of being given within a separate list.

This is not meant to be exhaustive, but I want to be clear that these NN lists were envisioned to meet guidelines like this to avoid them become unmaintainable. --MASEM 16:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Masem, I'm a bit confused by your wording. Are you proposing introducing style/content guidelines for lists within this guideline? If so, can you explain why such points would go here and not in WAF? If similar points were removed from WAF by others, should not the discussion take place there? (I'm not up to speed on the WAF talk, forgive me.) As a compromise perhaps this could be written up as an Essay and then linked to by both pages? In this manner, it can remain a controversial aspect without diminishing the overall reflection of consensus held by either article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, these would not be a part of this guideline, they would be a part of WAF. (They were deleted from WAF because this guideline was still proposed and it wasn't needed to write them out). I'm suggesting them here as these are the types of guidance that would be added to WAF once FICT is accepted, as to help alleviate the concerns of those worried about letting these lists run free without additional guidance. --MASEM 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I find the idea of a style guide or List non-notable ficitonal elements very amusing. For starters, which editor in their right mind would claim that a list they have created contains only non-notable elements? You would have to be a complete chump to say "look, I have created a list of elements which are non-notable, so I have styled it accordingly!", as that would be an invitation for deletionists to go into a feeding frenzy. I think having a style for material destined for deletion is a bit like putting more colourful outfits on the victims of Auto de fé.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ha! Nice to get a guffaw out of this page for a change. Ford MF (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Minor" lists

This seems to be the biggest "change" to WP:N this sub-guideline has to offer. The only concern I have is with lists of "minor characters". While they obviously fit with this proposed guideline, I think having lists of "minor" anything is stretching WP:GNG a little too thin, and I think this specifically could be looked at. --Izno (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To specify, I mean something such as the example list above. They are "extended universe" characters, and while I have no opinion on the contents of said article itself, it seems that such lists will be the most "slippery slopey" of them all. Having a list of characters that only appear in one game of the series? Again, seems to be stretching WP:N/GNG a little too far.

There should (in my opinion) be something in the guideline that says (if the guideline doesn't already) that such lists become too specific and must establish notability through the method of most articles (eek, mentioning the subset we're creating here!), by using reliable secondary sources to establish real world notability in a verifiable way. A cutoff must exist, else (as pointed out above) this guideline ends up ignored by both the masses of deletionists and the inclusionists. --Izno (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying - and I think the guidance for cutoffs would be written out with the above list points and put into WAF; the general guidance here is if the list can be shown to be notable, we could care less if it's incredible detailed, but once you get to NN lists, editors need to be very judgemental about the cutoffs. Separate lists of major and minor characters from a TV makes sense. A list of main and reoccuring characters in a video games makes sense. But if the character appears only once in the series or works, it is better explained in the main article about that specific work, or in the plot of the work, as opposed to a list of single-shot characters (for example Frank Grimes is a character in one episde of the Simpsons - note that there's no article for him nor in a list, but a disamb to the episode with him in it.) This type of cutoff info can be included, but I will note again that we're trying to keep this guideline specific to notability, and this cutoff for lists is more a style guideline. --MASEM 06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to define a global/universal cut-off. What we can do is help guide people in the right direction, and we can probably do that best with simple examples. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Izno: the only way to establish notability for lists of fictional elements is by citing reliable secondary sources. A list of main and reoccuring characters in a video games does not always make sense if they are not notable; otherwise the article could end up placing undue weight on non-notable elements.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A list of minor characters would violate WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:NNC -- particularly the part about undue weight. If someone could establish their notability, they would be included in the main character article: which leads back to the same conclusion, that there should be no "list of minor characters". There should be a single article about all characters, with due weight to the importance of each character in the series. Even if the WP:FICT guidelines are silent on this point, the other wikipedia guidelines are not. Randomran (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For some works, putting all the characters in a single article would really be lengthly, take, for example, the Simpsons (mind you, characters from there are notable, but lets assume that's not the case). At some point, per MOS, we need to break this list apart. Now, I can see the point that if the line was along major/minor characters, that can create a conflict (though again, WP:NNC does specifically mention grouping minor characters to lists); if the split was along more along the lines of some natural grouping within the body of work, or at worst, sectioned by alphabetical character name, would this be appropriate? --MASEM 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there would be nothing wrong with a split along alphanumeric lines in theory, but I this would probably violate policy in practice. I think The Simpsons is an excellent example of how this would work in practice. The series has existed long enough that several of the main characters are notable enough to earn their own articles. That's what you would split out from the main article (Homer, Bart, Lisa), rather than an alphanumeric split. If a different series managed to accumulate that many characters without the same level of notability, it's more likely you'd just reduce the amount of excessive plot details in the article, not to spin out a non-notable article.
The fact that we deal with this on a case-by-case basis is reflected in the proposed guidelines: we want to avoid non-notable articles, but we also want to avoid an excessive amount of non-notable fictional detail in otherwise notable articles. In my limited experience, the need to split a character article has to do with a badly written article rather than too much encyclopedic information for a single notable article. Randomran (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is never appropriate to break out a single fictional element article that cannot show notability; that is a position most agree on with no problem. The issue comes into play is that WP:SIZE and Summary Style suggest that long articles have spun-out articles (which of course is fine), but for most fictional works, the most logical point of this is the list of characters; development, plot, and reception fit like a glove, but after a brief summary of the top level characters in the main work, the rest of the non-notable character details (and for the purposes of discussion, let's assume that they are very concise and written in an appropriate manner) need not be in the main article though are still useful to have around. There is also the point that these lists should only be broken out if there is sufficient need to do so, or more importantly, if you start a topic on a new work of fiction, the first step is not to go creating a "List of characters" articles; that should only fall naturally out of the main article due to size. Of course, determining if this was considered in looking at the history of the article can be very difficult to do.

What I think we'll see if this all works out is that we'll ask people to relook at their nn-character lists and just make sure they are not being used as ways to go into gazillion details of the characters. In the overall scheme, these articles should be evaluated in that sense as if they were still in the main article, which one can consider: does this section fit encyclopedically, does it match the style that the rest of the article is, is there undue weight, is there ways to trim further without losing coverage of characters as long as they are important to the work? It's a balancing act, and not going to happen overnight. --MASEM 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not saying anything I disagree with, so I think we're close. I think the best way to explain my point is in reverse. Let's say we had two lists of characters articles, sorted alphanumerically. I have a strong belief that after a clean-up of content that is inappropriate for wikipedia, the articles would be small enough and suitable for a merge into a single character article. But in theory, I suppose it's possible that you could have a well-written article about many characters that is simply too big... I just suspect that if there's really that much notable information on all those characters, there's a decent chance that some of the individual characters are notable. Randomran (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember that to an extent, you have to consider reader comprehension as well. There's only so much information you can excise before you have to start sacrificing reader comprehension for the sake of size, and in that case, a split-off may be appropriate. In this context, it is possible to reach a state where a single character list would simply be too long, and a "minor" (or whatever cutoff you care to utilize) may be appropriate, something especially apparent in the case of long-running series. Sephiroth BCR 23:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This might be a point where we recognize that the cases allowed for characters may be the best we can say for now, and assuming this is accepted, we just watch and see if the specifics of what should be in lists be expanded or reduced based on input. Given all that's going on, I think that these lists are exception is hitting the dartboard, but likely not a bullseye. --MASEM 00:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

MASEM, I think I must not be understanding you: you seem to be saying both "It is never appropriate to break out a single fictional element article that cannot show notability" AND "that should only fall out naturally do to size" Which of the two represents your position? . I don;t actually agreewith either of them, but I'd like to understand which one I'm arguing against. DGG (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are two different positions. The second point first is that if, say, a new work of fiction is created and appropriate to cover on WP, the first and only article that should be created is the article on the work of fiction itself. This would include lists of characters and other plot-related information in addition to other aspects. Over time, the article may then grow too large, at which point it is then appropriate to consider a split. We should be discourage the behavior where a new fiction work comes along and someone races to create a list of characters in that work while the primary article on the work is stub-like or incomplete. This is not to say lists are bad, but they really only should be created as a split in the natural growth of the article. Of course, presently, there's a lot of non-notable individual articles and the like from the creation of WP, so in these cases, unless it clearly can be done in the main article, the merge to a separate list makes sense, even possibly as a staging area to move the list into the main article.

Which gets back to the first point; a single character or other aspect of fiction that cannot be shown to be notable should not get its own article, though the concept should still be covered in a larger grouping or a notable article. That is not saying there isn't a case, but if the size of the articles gets large and the only logical split is a non-notable element, there are several options to consider first that may make more sense (including trimming, grouping it into an appropriate list, and the like). --MASEM 05:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If we allow for minor lists, then I will support as there's no really valid reason for a comprehensive paperless reference guide with thousands of editors not to have them or be able to maintain them when clearly there is legitimate interest for them. Minor lists are totally compatible with the more important spirit of our policy and guidelines as interpreted in broad practice. The main thing is that we need to do away with this limited, unacademic, and unencyclopedic concept of basing our coverage on the subjective "notability". After all, "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Citrouilles, just because you don’t like the rules Misplaced Pages was founded on doesn’t mean you can decide to ignore them and pretend like they don’t exist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we can per Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. Plus, the rules that Misplaced Pages was founded on are that we combine "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs" and our founder said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Thus, an honest and legitimate interpretation of our "rules" is that we can indeed ignore those that conflict with making our project a better reference guide and in reality the whole "notability" thing conflicts with what an encyclopedia and alamanac actually is. Encyclopedias and almanacs catalog human knowledge. There is no really valid reason barring running out of disk space why something that gains hundreds of new accounts daily cannot or should not cover fictional topics without being burdened by some members of the community's more limited vision of understanding of this subjective term "notability". Obviously the community does NOT agree on what is and is not notable and I would much rather ere on the side of pleasing the majority of editors, readers, and donors than eliminating stuff that some do not like for whatever reason. So much time is spent challenging articles as not notable or unreferenced that could be spent referencing these articles or improving those articles the editors do care about. Imagine what we would accomplish if we channeled this energy into trying to bring articles to good and featured status instead. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. You infuriate me to no living end. I can parrot quotes from people all day long too. That doesn't help jack-shit. Disk space is not the issue here, stop pulling a straw-man. Guess what? I do channel my energy into getting articles to good and featured status. But the articles we are talking about will never become even GA because they are piles of non-notable fiction material! You say that "wah, evil deletionists get rid of articles before they get improved," but that's not the issue here. If I had a nickel for every time someone invoked WP:IAR... oh wait, since I can ignore rules, I'll delete your userpage, talk page, block you indefinitely, and trash every article you've ever worked on. Will that make you happy? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

David Fuchs, take a time-out. You have to wonder what someone who believes in the far-reaching scope of "ignore all rules" is doing on a rule proposal page anyway. Randomran (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You make several weak or invalid points here. How can anyone really say "never" regarding these articles? Did we know any work of Shakespeare at the time would eventually be replayed as multiple films centuries later? To say "never" is to crystal ball and speculate. You say they are "non-notable", yet others disagree. Thus, the term is subjective and so long as some believe in good faith that they do have a place here, I would much rather help them out and have some potential of accomplishing something positive in the process. Please don't put words in editors' mouths. I for one do not use hyperbole by calling anyone "evil" and nor would I swear at anyone either. I hope that you can maintain civility and decorum in these discussions. People can disagree without devolving the discourse in such a manner. Ignore all rules applies to how we edit in order to benefit the project, not to obviously pointed behavior as you suggest. Working to improve articles that some editors believe in good faith do indeed belong here is hardly comprobable to going on a rampage attack against someone else's work and efforts. If you have worked on good and featured articles, then I am happy to see that, but why not allow others to do the same with the articles they care about? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one day some random character from some random game will become notable. But if he isn't at present, he doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. When he does have multiple, non-trivial 3rd party sources, then someone can recreate the article. But keeping crap around which doesn't meet notability is not what wikipedia's guidelines and policies are for. I don't agree with hastily deleting articles where full research has not been done to see whether there are sources- but I search my library's catalog, Google News, ProQuest, Amazon, and the greater web- and if there's nothing there, then the article fails to demonstrate notability, pure and simple. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that web searches are not the end all of research. The appropriate reliable secondary sources for video game characters would be GamePro, Electronic Gaming Monthhly, GameInformer, etc. and not all of their articles turn up on regular internet searches. It is much easier to have a base article to begin with and to add to it then to keep deleting it and forcing editors to start over constantly. And again, I and others think it inconsistent with academic and encyclopedic tradition to base coverage on "notability." We are cataloging human knowledge after all. Moreover, there are articles on topics that mean nothing to me, but I still wouldn't call them "crap". And just to reiterate, I have argued against the inclusion of hoaxes, how tos, original research, and other unconstructive stuff and some deletionists even appear on my list of nice Wikipedians. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point, we need some line to say where we cover things to avoid becoming an indiscriminate collection of information and an unmaintainable encyclopedia. For works of fictions and their elements, we know we aren't going to have an article about the main character of little Timmy's (age 5) creative writing assignment, but obviously we are going to want to talk about Hamlet in great detail in its own article. There's the extremes , and so some reasonable line must be draw, a line that is as much as objective as possible for coverage in its own article. That line presently at or around the existence of secondary sources, because that helps us to meet V, NOR, and NPOV in the best manner possible.

But, more importantly to your point, notability should not be a limitation on what we cover, only a limitation of the importance we give a topic by allowing it its own article. Character lists from works of fiction, treated in an encyclopedic manner, should be part of the coverage of the work on WP, and whether contained in the work's article or as a supporting list should be allowed; editors just need to make sure that such lists are well-organized and conform to other policies. Other types of lists may be allowed; in the same sense that character lists are allowed, coverage of other fictional elements should be ok, but we also need to be wholly aware of what types of content are not appropriate by WP:NOT.

And on another aspect, there's a reason why FICT here goes into detail about how to deal with non-notables, because there are people that are quick to suggest the deletion content that uncontentious is completely appropriate within the context of the work itself. I've also suggested the idea of allowing deletions to be postponed to allow for more time for sources hunting should the AFD be the first request for notability demonstration.

However, we also need to be suggesting editors to not split off or create articles on singular non-notable fictional characters until there is sufficient notability is there. Users have sandboxes to work in, and there will be coverage, albeit limited, of the character in the main article space, but existing users should be aware that article notability will be called into question and should strive to make sure they have notability in a article when putting into main space on day one. New users, of course, will not know this, but thats why we need to take less BITEY routes of helping them improve it. --MASEM 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did have a long reply written to this, but I decided it wasn't worth it. I'll just limit myself to what Le Grand does a lot: quoting another user's opinion. The difference though, is that this user is somewhat more important than practically every other Misplaced Pages user. Le Grand, please also read and fully understand WP:IAR? as well, IAR is not a get-out clause for everything simply because you disagree with using notability. That's all I'm going to say on this discussion (as I'm sure people here will try to bend Jimbo's words to their views to override notability requirements and I frankly can't be bothered getting involved in that sort of discussion), this guideline has been tampered with so much over the last year or so, having been degraded from a guideline, its just far easier to work on the spirit of WP:NOTE. Its this sort of debate that has driven the likes of Deckiller and many other fine and established editors from participating as much or as enthusiastically anymore, not to mention damaging Misplaced Pages's credibility. -- Sabre (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So Jimbo Wales said "An encyclopedia is not an in-universe fan guide." Is anyone here saying that an encyclopedia *is* an in-universe fan guide? And could you quote the part of the five pillars that mentions "notability"? When Wales responded to T.Neo (who created WikiProject Fancruft), Wales said "I generally try to stay out of it." — and well he should, because his for-profit wiki runs on fiction content. Have *you* read WP:IAR?? IAR means if FICT prevents you improving Misplaced Pages and creating an article about the character Andrey Nikolayevich Bolkonsky, FICT should be ignored. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy and rules are not the purpose of the site. And I'm quite interested in what exactly you think damages Misplaced Pages's credibility. Personally, I think it might have something to do with the fact that anyone can edit (anonymously I might add) and the Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer says "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY", but maybe that's just me. --Pixelface (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not need IAR to justify detailed and extensive coverage of fiction--rather the principle that the people in wikipedia make the rules they wish to follow. the only true limitation is the general concept that it be a contemporary free online open content encyclopedia, and that has a very broad meaning. It does imply a certain selectivity of coverage, but it does not say where the line should be drawn. I don't see it as a line, but a zone, and the extent of coverage will depend upon the importance. The readers and the users and the editors are the same here--that's the meaning of open content, and the zone will therefore be set where they want it, not where any theoretical speculations about where it ought to be from anyone of us. It's clear they want it in most subjects very broad, and I think that inherently open content implies that--for it must be broad enough to allow for all who wish to contribute. the limitation that it be an encyclopedia does require verifiability, and the conflict between that and "anyone can edit" is indeed the tricky part & where the tension and difficulties come. (I see the solution is that the more skilled will guide the others.) But preconceived notions of what is notable and what is not, based upon printed works or conventional academic curriculums, are inappropriate here. I speak as one who has worked all my life within the formal academic system: that's how I know that this is different. Each has its natural role, and the nature of user-generated content is comprehensiveness. If in doubt of importance, we leave it in, for it might be. With paper it was different. with a time-limited college course, not everything can fit and some things are more important than others. we have neither limitation. I'll just mention that GRC is also a part of the formal academic system, though still rather junior. Good academics know their limitations. Misplaced Pages should remain Misplaced Pages. The idea of waiting until there is some preconceived "sufficient" notability is not part of its appropriate context. Anyone who wishes to do that, should stay with the conventional media. For that matter, some of the opponents of the coverage of fiction are in fact devoted fans of the very fiction they do not want to include in detail. I see it as a bias--to them it is a game, so it cannot be important. But what they do is not my particular game, so I can recognize it to be as important as other human activities. Paradoxical negative COI, is what I call it. DGG (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples of appropriate sources for notability of fictional elements

Per suggestion of User:Zagalejo above, I recommend that we identify a few examples of what are good qualified sources for notability of fiction elements, pulling from better articles. We should make sure to cover the gambit, from academia to print to web sources, as well as for the different types of elements (characters, episodes, etc.) and information (development, reception, etc.) I think if we can identify 5-6 good examples as a footnote to the guideline, that might help clarify what to look for. We still can point to FA/GA articles as well as a more broader approach, but some directly here on the page couldn't hurt. --MASEM 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help out with this:

• It is usually inappropriate to explain strategies, but the "lurking" exploit in Asteroids is an exception because it changed the way developers test their games for exploits.
• It is usually inappropriate to describe game items in detail. But describing the portal gun from Portal is necessary to understand the game, and has significant coverage in reliable game news reports.

That's where I'd begin, since a lot of my focus is on video game articles. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got a question Masem. Does FICT cover games, like, oh I don't know Bitin' Off Hedz? --Pixelface (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically no - there's no creative story behind it, so it falls to WP:TOYS (pending) or WP:N, and I will admit that it's likely not notable. If someone puts the page up for deletion, I won't stop it - of course, a better option in line with notability is to group all the Cheapass Games into a list, linking to notable ones like Kill Dr. Lucky and summarizing the rest.

Also please be aware that dragging out everyone's past articles and trying to use them against them, among other things, is approaching tendentious editing that is becoming disruptive in this discussion. For example, this question to me is not even related to this thread. We know you feel passionately against this, having that opinion is fine. Work with us, as instructed by ArbCom, instead of fighting every step of the way. --MASEM 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My question *is* related to this thread. You said "We should make sure to cover the gambit, from academia to print to web sources, as well as for the different types of elements (characters, episodes, etc.) and information (development, reception, etc.)" So I asked if games fall under FICT. Do you personally think that game is notable? Do you realize that editors can use their own judgement to determine if an article is neutral or not? So why shouldn't they be able to use their own judgement to determine if a topic is notable or not? So paper games don't fall under FICT but some videogames do? All videogames? All videogame characters? Some game characters? Toys with a backstory fall under FICT, but toys without a backstory fall under TOYS? The game Dungeons & Dragons falls under FICT, but the board game Scotland Yard does not? I'm truly wondering about the scope of this guideline. I can ask about any article I want. This is a discussion. Does FICT apply to mythology? Greek gods? The Loch Ness monster? Various lake monsters? Bigfoot? The article God, depending on one's point of view? Now, speaking of "tendentious editing", would you call it tendentious editing if an editor argued to delete every article about a fictional character in a game because a biography of a living person they had written was deleted? Would you call it tendentious editing if an editor went around redirecting thousands and thousands of articles because they were upset an article they were interested in got deleted? Asking about the scope of this proposal is not disruptive. You've chosen a pretty broad topic to write about with your proposal. I'm not trying to use articles against you. Nobody owns any articles, not even the ones they've created. And I've provided input at many places. But ArbCom did not designate a place for the parties to discuss like I suggested, so there have been discussions at AFDs, article talk pages, WT:EPISODE, WT:FICT, WP:FICT/N, WT:NOT, WT:AFD, WT:Plot summaries, Misplaced Pages talk:Postponed deletion, WT:N and probably WT:WAF. If a television episode is not from a documentary series, does EPISODE or FICT apply? Or WP:SERIAL? This proposal flies in the face of Misplaced Pages is not paper and Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. It flies in the face of the five pillars that says "Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here." And you weren't listed as an involved party of the E&C2 case, Masem. But I find it very interesting that the only people who put PLOT back into NOT after the first revert were involved parties of E&C2...and you — and all were present on the E&C2 case pages. You want to find out if a fiction subject is worthy of notice? Bring up the question at the article's talk page. Realize that "worthy of notice" is just a personal opinion. Realize that "significant coverage" is not the only way to suggest notability. Personally I think you seem to have bitten off a little more than you could chew with this proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. This is supposed to be a discussion to find a consensus, not who can shout the loudest. My point was that this section was "examples of good sources for notability", and you bring up "is this article notable?" That is not helping to reach consensus, and since the article you picked was one I know I worked on way back, you are singling out the editors and not the concepts behind the discussion. The only editor who's actions may need to be brought into question is TTN per the E&C case, but given this a project talk page, he's completely within bounds to comment here freely. --MASEM 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary of opposition so far

It's still too early to tell where this RfC is going, but I'll summarize below what FICT is currently opposed for (based on each initial oppose !vote, which may be counted as several points; the support !votes and all comments are neglected here). Some of the points may help us to improve FICT although there has most often not been any explanation how. Other points would be called inactionable if this was an FAC. – sgeureka 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. 5x notability is a bad way to organize content
2. 1x FICT needs to allow articles where sources exist but haven't been added to the article yet
3. 1x FICT needs to address lists better
4. 1x FICT needs to disallow nonnotable lists of elements
5. 1x FICT needs to clarify what sources are accepted and which aren't
6. 4x WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL are more important than WP:NOTE; NOTE can be dismissed in favor of other practises
7. 3x FICT is too long and confusing; CREEP and BURO
8. 1x FICT is not a compromise at all
9. 2x FICT is too much against popular culture, or would be used to reduce such content
10. 1x FICT encourages incivility and unnecessary fights
11. 1x FICT may reduce the amount of information that is otherwise accurate and of good quality (probably referring to in-universe information, i.e. WP:WAF and WP:UNDUE)

I would say the guideline as is cannot be particularly accommodating to either the "hang notability" or "death to lists" sentiments above, but if nothing else the long and confusing aspect should definitely be taken care of... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say it remains damnably mum on how to address an article about a character such as The Leader*, who has been a veritable fixture in the Incredible Hulk comics since the Hulk's creation (well, two years after, in 1964), but who realistically speaking has no secondary sources that are not trivial. The straw man argument the "support" voters seem to be promulgating is that those in opposition are arguing to "hang notability". This is untrue, or at least a misrepresentation. I think what most of us are saying is that recurrence and persistence in fictional media is notability. WP:NOTE is not a philosophical end in itself, it is a necessary real-world approximation of a magic rule that would keep important stuff in the encyclopedia and exclude useless stuff. It is a tool, and it needs to be flexible in certain areas (although fictional characters is the only one I can think of) or it's simply broken. Ford MF (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

*I just picked the leader off the top of my head, but it could have been any one of thousands of articles that would easily survive any AfD by virtue of common sense, but which could not possibly fulfill a guideline such as this. Ford MF (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is the argument that a persistent character through a notable series is possibly notable, but this is why FICT is also based on WP:PLOT and WP:UNDUE. That article, including the appearences in other media, is all about the plot of the character through the series, which is not appropriate content. We should not be giving a character's full biography through a work, but simply summarize key aspects of the character and major influences on the overall plot. I am presuming there's a number of other Hulk villains (same argument applies if you picked a different character and a different series), so it completely appropriate to place all these characters within a list, so that they are still covered, but in a manner more appropriate for a free content encyclopedia, as part of the coverage of the Hulk comic. (that said, I do know that comic universes are terribly mish-mashed as one foe from one may "slip in" to another work, but there's no harm in having {{see also}} links in one list to point to the entry in another). --MASEM 15:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would have to say that even though they haven't commented here (I only found this page myself just today), the vast weight of editors who created the nearly 3500 articles in Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, Category:Marvel Comics superheroes, Category:DC Comics supervillains, and Category:DC Comics superheroes (the overwhelming majority of which fail this proposed guideline) disagree with you about what is "appropriate content". And that's just comics. A consensus of usage, the behavior of the editors who most deal with fictional character content, who may or may not ever pay attention to project pages such as this, should count for at least as much as a debate with, comparatively speaking, a tiny handful of participants. Ford MF (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to attempt to bring numbers in to this, please remember that fiction is only one small category of articles on this site. If you were to poll everyone else, you would likely find that the editors that created and worked on those articles are also a minority. You also have to take into account that numbers mean very little when at least 80% of that content is unsuitable per all the other policies and guidelines of this site. TTN (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's kind of what I mean. That you find 80% of that material inherently deletable (and honestly I think the percentage would be much higher, by this guideline) doesn't count for much when the material persists, a comparatively large body that ebbs and flows but largely endures by common consent. Not to paraquote the loathsome Forrest Gump, but Misplaced Pages truly is what Misplaced Pages does. Go ahead and AfD tag those 2800 articles and see how that works out, if you really want to see a consensus on what material is appropriate for inclusion. Ford MF (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that fiction has reached this state is because of lax standards over a number of years. It doesn't represent any sort of consensus or actual common practice. The actual consensus has existed in our policies and guidelines, and they are reflected in our good in featured articles. AfDs are subject to many different variables, so they are not really able to work like that. You can take three characters that are nearly the same, have one kept unanimously, one deleted unanimously, and one fought over for various reasons. It can only work on small scale, and it cannot really determine a larger consensus. TTN (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Lax standards? You mean like WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV? Listen, just because the Duke Nukem 3D monsters article was deleted, that doesn't mean you have to take it out on everyone else. Policies and guidelines don't derive their power from being written down. If those policies and guidelines don't actually describe common practice, they're just imaginary rules decided upon by a few editors. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Misplaced Pages is not Mao. You think a few E&C parties supporting this guideline means it represents consensus? Yeah, consensus among them. You're right, you can take three character articles and have three different debate results. But you want to weigh the dice in your favor with some made up rules. The supporters of this guideline are trying to dictate whether any and all fictional topics in existence are "worthy of notice." You're trying to make 7 million people do what you say? Give me a break. Do you seriously need outside coverage to tell you that Superman is notable? Mickey Mouse? Hello Kitty? And does FICT apply to myths and legends? Mythical creatures? Mythical heroes? The world origin myths of indigenous people? You want to find out if FICT has consensus? Then go apply FICT to every Simpsons episode article and South Park episode article right now and see what happens. Heck, see how many of the supporters can agree what to do with the articles Luke Skywalker, Lenny Leonard, and Andrey Nikolayevich Bolkonsky. --Pixelface (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

By lax standards, I mean that the above were not applied throughly enough to the articles. There is also the fact that standards have just been changed over time. We had several fictional characters featured at one point, even though the articles were mostly junk. Now they aren't featured, and many are redirects. Back when I voted in that AfD, I was blissfully unaware about the true purpose of this site, so whatever you're trying to imply is very wrong. The rest of your comment is the usual straw man junk and some of your other pointless arguments, so I will not bother responding to it. Please try to find something new to present. TTN (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I may as well. Numbers are completely irrelevant. Neither of us can use them to actually make a point. We can guess, but in the end that's all it ends up being. You can say people writing junk equals a consensus, though I say that our featured articles show a consensus. I know that those are notable because they have the obvious potential for outside coverage, which is how we define notability here. Don't like it? Oh well for you. If the case isn't obvious, we give it time. I assume myths and legends fall under whatever wikiproject covers their country of origin or something like that. You know as well as anyone that that example is BS. The Simpsons have shown that most of their articles will end up being at least GAs, and the South Park episodes require an episode by episode look. And either way, numbers do not form consensus. Luke obviously has potential given the other Star Wars FAs. Lenny is on the edge, asking the Simpsons project to take care of that would work. The last would probably need to be tagged and looked over by an expert or just merged outright if none of the other characters show any obvious potential. Seriously, get some new arguments. TTN (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Unfortunately, WP is not a democracy, we are built on consensus, which means that editors do need to be aware of policy and make compelling arguments (instead of simply voting) of why something should change or should not be changed, with those arguments compared against existing policy and guidelines that have consensus. In this case, we are trying to offer FICT that falls in line with the established NOTE and PLOT. Yes, this makes those articles they've created a problem, and while we've had arguments like this in the past in bringing WP:FICT to this point, no one has yet brought forward an argument that challenged FICT's approach to support those types of articles beyond, basically, WP:ILIKEIT. I am not trying to shut this argument down - however, we need something more compelling than the vast number of editors that write those articles (and trust me, I've tried to brainstorm any other argument to make this work without success), and the only other ways I can see to allow a different approach is if we got rid of PLOT or NOTE, neither which is likely to happen. But it is important to get additional input; maybe one of those other hundreds of editors on comics articles has the magic bullet that allows such articles to exist despite PLOT and NOTE. That's why editors serious about improving WP in ways they see better should not ignore policies and guidelines and what goes on behind them. We need those types of editors to comment here if there is some way to argue for the support of those types of articles, if they really believe they should exist. --MASEM 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I erred in being specific. Perhaps I should have been asking how exactly we can be arguing about a guideline that targets the vast majority of an entire class of articles (most articles on characters from novels, comics, TV, video games, &c. fail this guideline, as currently written, miserably) as undesirable? I get that people feel the need to put a quality valve on our content, but excessive rules lawyering and more Wiki-bureaucracy is not a good response to these concerns. This guideline is entirely indiscriminate, so basically all we're having is WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Ford MF (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I think the argument is between WP:ILIKEIT/WP:NOTE. I'd never try to clean out content simply because I didn't like it. We're basically arguing about a guideline that's firmly in place that we can't change here. It's not productive. It might be more productive to move the discussion up the ladder to WP:NOTE. Randomran (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a bunch of people who genuinely want to overturn WP:NOTE. I'm not sure what we can do about them but ignore them as asking for something we can't do here, and redirect them to Misplaced Pages talk:Notability. As a precisionist, I'm trying to find a compromise between the extreme inclusionists and deletionists at both ends. We need workable standards about what belongs in the encyclopedia. I could live with a more relaxed version of the notability requirement if there's another workable standard in its place. But then someone should try to actually make efforts to change WP:NOTE, rather than pretending we can just ignore it in all cases. Randomran (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(!@#$!@# ecs) I would add WP:OTHERSTUFF to the list of opposes, based strictly off the ensuing conversation. If articles which aren't suitable for the content of Misplaced Pages haven't been tagged for cleanup/review/deletion, then that is because we haven't gotten around to it yet, not because of some known consensus. --Izno (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did a round of a lot of video game articles recently and found most of the weapon/location/item articles had already been cleaned up. The character stuff is a little trickier, but at least it's tagged, and a lot of characters HAVE demonstrated notability. I can't speak for the other wikiprojects. Randomran (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's trivial or to point out that even profoundly obscure fictional characters without any secondary sources routinely, and easily, pass AfDs because of persistent appearance in notable media. There is clearly a consensus, at least at AfD, that recurrence in notable media confers notability on characters to some degree. Ford MF (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not compatible with WP:NOTE, though. The WP:GNG defines sources as "secondary sources", meaning that primary sources like movies, TV, games, and comics can't be enough to assert notability. You need journals, books, news that analyzes or synthesis the fictional work itself. I'm not saying this is written in stone. But I'm saying that we can't have contradictory guidelines between WP:FICT and WP:NOTE. Something has to give. Randomran (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the GNG is broken when it comes to fictional characters. Isn't that why we're here debating all this? Ford MF (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Some people are here because the GNG doesn't apply well to fictional characters (and other elements), and seems to forbid too many of them (I'm in that camp, slightly). Others want this guideline because they want the GNG to be rigidly applied to such things (and the current draft has fallen more their way, but at least it preserves most of the content). SamBC(talk) 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, as Pixelface smartly points out above, WP:N itself states that the GNG are not absolute criteria. Ford MF (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; as I read it, WP:N defines notability as the characteristic of being "worthy of note" and then gives the GNG as one way to demonstrate it. SamBC(talk) 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read what you wrote on the Notability talkpage, and I agree with the interpretation that holds that GNG is one way to determine notability. More to the point is that I strenuously disagree with the camp that holds the GNG to be absolute and a personal club to be used against articles. It's essentially a tool for expulsion against which no appeal is possible, under the current wording (I admit I have not seen previous versions of this page). Ford MF (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There were various suggestions for non-GNG criteria for determining notability of fictional elements, but all were opposed strenuously. The proponents backed down out of, as far as I can tell (and I'm one of them) a combination of fatigue and a desire to encourage compromise. Suggestions included: characters/elements that are major elements of multiple notable works (to encourage consolidation of information) and awards for the specific element (examples were given for film characters and RPG settings, but dismissed). I think there were others, but those are ones that I suggested and/or supported. SamBC(talk) 17:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC) (to clarify the multiple works thing: this was not meant as multiple works in a single series or franchise, or adaptations of an original work, just to remove the most obvious objection to it before someone makes it SamBC(talk) 17:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

The GNG defines the most consistent way to define notability and the one most widely implemented. Yes, you can assert notability in other ways, but you should have a damn good reason for ignoring the GNG. In the case of the comic book characters that Ford MF is mentioning, I think the accepted status quo is that these characters have been present in serialized media for a pretty long time; ergo, sources probably exist, which is probably true. Also, part of the concerns of those who are defending the GNG in this discussion can be alleviated through a more thorough implementation of WP:WAF, and pushing these comic book characters from a in-universe standpoint into something more like Superman, Batman, or Captain Marvel (DC Comics). I think the major point of contention has its origins in the manner in which these articles are written rather than their ability to assert notability. As such, FICT isn't going to change the current status quo on the matter, and a more thorough application of WAF can fix the headaches on both sides. Sephiroth BCR 17:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're even nearer the mark than you realise. I've recently been working closely (and unusually amicably) with one of the editors who has been perceived as very anti-fiction-coverage, and I think I'm beginning to understand the disagreement more clearly. That's not to say that it isn't still a disagreement, but it's not the one that we think it is. The most extreme point seems to be not that fictional topics shouldn't be covered, but that every ounce, every sentence, every clause should be real-world perspective, and for preference no in-universe content (not even perspective) except where it is necessary to understand real-world content. This could be seen as "we should cover the coverage, not the fiction itself". Now, I don't agree with that, but it is, frankly, easier to understand and work with than "fiction should not be covered". Plus it's always easier to resolve a disagreement once everyone realises what they're disagreeing about. SamBC(talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

While I think you're right about that, I also think it amounts to the same thing, since I think the default for the overwhelming majority of fictional-character articles is "no outside sources". It's also worth mentioning that commentary about a character is kind of useless if it is made in the absence of, as you say, "in-universe content", which I'd say in almost all cases is necessary to describe the character in a properly encyclopedic manner. All the articles cited above as "good" fictional character articles (e.g. Batman and Superman) feature lengthy in-universe histories. Ford MF (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying in-universe content is bad. On the contrary, it is necessary for the topic to be comprehensive and should be included. My point is that a great deal of these articles talk about the in-universe content from an in-universe perspective that is not appropriate, and makes it much easier to justify deletion per NOTE and NOT#PLOT. A better application of WAF to present the material alleviates some of these concerns, as if you present the in-universe context from a real-world perspective and with real-world context, then it becomes harder to justify deletion. Sephiroth BCR 17:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I'm not suggesting that in-universe content should be excised everywhere, but rather that it be presented in the manner shown by WAF. It definitely doesn't have to be punctuated with real world context in every sentence, but it shouldn't treat the subject from an in-universe perspective. Like I said, you alleviate a ton of the problems here by more adherence to WAF and presenting the topic better. It becomes much easier to apply NOTE and NOT#PLOT to an article that contains nothing more than an in-universe perspective (not in-universe content, but perspective and the manner of presentation), and much more difficult to justify deletion when you have a well-written article that presents the in-universe content from the real-world viewpoint dictated by WAF. FICT doesn't change this. Sephiroth BCR 17:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you go into the trenches on it again, let me know, as I would be interested in participating in a discussion. I agree with the vibe I'm picking up that much of the problem is with Notability over-all & not just Notability (fiction). GNG is a useful tool, but I think we're seeing it sort of SkyNet into a stranglehold that I (for one) don't think is helpful to this project. --mordicai. (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I started a section at WT:NOTE on this, which has so-far not gained responses. Discussion there would be most welcome, whether you agree or disagree with either my interpretation of the situation (as expressed there) or my opinion on how it should be read. SamBC(talk) 17:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of action that needs to be taken. Good luck. Randomran (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm totally fine with putting together a workable standard based on coverage in multiple kinds of media. Not that I'd go to bat for it, but I wouldn't oppose it if that's how the GNG evolved. Call it the "multiple media test", that runs parallel to the current notability test. But as of now, notability is measured in secondary sources (that are also reliable, independent, etc.) This is the kind of thing that has to go all the way up the ladder, to WP:NOTE. Seriously, guys. If you want to make it happen, go there and make it happen. But don't just ignore the guidelines we have now. It would be absolutely nonsensical and disruptive to have contradictory guidelines. Randomran (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kyaa had a comment here, which he's refactored. Please carry on. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bottom up

I'm interested as to if the other wikiprojects have their own project guidelines in place concerning how to apply WP:NOTE. I know the video games wikiproject does. This might help give us a better idea of how to build up the overall fiction guideline on notability. Randomran (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And also besides a few voices the VG Project actually seems more united behind the guidelines, but I doubt that can be scaled up without falling to pieces. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:TV (of which I am part) is pretty much a backwater place that just hosts all the FACs and FLCs; it has a handful of low-activity task forces and also has some MOS guidelines, but it mostly just points to FICT, WAF and EPISODE for advice. My other fiction wikiproject, WP:STARGATE, had become pretty much inactive by the time I started editing Stargate articles in October 2007 (it was a total mess with hundreds of nn articles), and when I boldly exchanged all its ancient intra-project guidelines with the the TV MOSes, FICT, WAF and EPISODE, no-one complained. There are only a handful dozen of nn SG articles left that are not merged/redirected yet and therefore should fear AfD, the others are articles that could easily reach GA through expansion, or are lists. – sgeureka 19:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiny matter of detail regarding RFC

Does anyone have any objections if I break out the Support and Oppose sections via "Statement by USERNAME" to make replying easier? --MASEM 02:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not ready

The changes over the first section of the article at several hands in the last day or two make a perfect demonstration that there is no real consensus on even the basics. There was a well intention insertion "must satisfy the general notability guideline" -- but this does not actually have any prior consensus at all, and is an addition at a critical place. I substituted a phrase that at least was used previously (in the nutshell). I do not agree that the general notability guideline is applicable here. This is a specific notability guideline with its own requirements. If the general guideline were sufficient, there would be no reason for the entire guideline here at all. The wording was in fact contradictory: The paragraph said first that they "should pass the general notability guideline " and then said "is presumed to be notable if it meets the general notability guideline, the guidelines presented here, or the guidelines specific to its medium.". These are completely incompatible statements. I thank Masem, Ned, and Gavin between them for demonstrating that there is no consensus for even the most basic part of this guideline. I am perhaps prepared to accept the statement that the alternatives apply for lack of any agreement on what actually does apply. Personally, though, I think its time we got rid of the general notability guideline, that 2RS=N, because it has become meaningless due to the great number of qualifications that have become needed ino order to prevent absurd results; I think the only thing maintaining it is the prospect of certain disagreement over what would replace it. At the least we should word this guideline so it is independent. DGG (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It should stay "real-world context from reliable sources", which I will note is not exactly the same as the GNC. Ned introduced that in some edits, I don't know where from, but reverting it to that phrase is better. I disagree that this is a basic disagreement because there was no edit warring over it, and the version proposed was "real-world context". --MASEM 02:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That first section is poorly developed. WP:FICT does not dictate if we make a parent article for a notable book, tv show, or video game. Notability for the work itself does not require reception and production notes. Obviously we should include that information, but we are not going to delete a parent article for lacking that information. The notability is demonstrated in other ways.

WP:FICT isn't about the parent/work article, it's about the sub/spinout articles. I brought this up weeks ago for this very reason. Reception, production information, and other things that give real-world context, are elements that justify further coverage in other articles.

I think some users are confused here. That first section does not effect the rest of the guideline, it only effects the parent article. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly am confused. You have just said that a/WP:FICT isnt about the parent article, and b/the first section only affects the parent article. Both cannot be correct. How about finding a wording that makes the distinction, that the parent article must demonstrate real world notability, but the other ones need not do so. DGG (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Real world

While I'm here, let me mention my perplexity at the constant references to real world in relation to this topic. When we talk of many topics such as philosophy and pure mathematics, we are no longer in the real world but in the world of ideas and abstract concepts. My impression is that this usage is mere prejudice, the philistinism of Mr Gradgrind. But I find that we have no proper article on this notable fictional character and so shall put that right... Colonel Warden (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We have tried "out-of-universe" as an alternative for "real world" but the problem is that that word overlaps with the concept of "in universe" vs "out of universe" style; thus, there's an explanation of what is meant by real-world for the purposes of the guideline. If a better description of what this type of content can be calls simply to remove the possible confusion, great. --MASEM 10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Having gotten started on Gradgrind, I find that Hard Times is good reading:

'You are to be in all things regulated and governed,' said the gentleman, 'by fact. We hope to have, before long, a board of fact, composed of commissioners of fact, who will force the people to be a people of fact, and of nothing but fact. You must discard the word Fancy altogether. You have nothing to do with it. You are not to have, in any object of use or ornament, what would be a contradiction in fact. You don't walk upon flowers in fact; you cannot be allowed to walk upon flowers in carpets. You don't find that foreign birds and butterflies come and perch upon your crockery; you cannot be permitted to paint foreign birds and butterflies upon your crockery. You never meet with quadrupeds going up and down walls; you must not have quadrupeds represented upon walls. You must use,' said the gentleman, 'for all these purposes, combinations and modifications (in primary colours) of mathematical figures which are susceptible of proof and demonstration. This is the new discovery. This is fact. This is taste.'

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• LOL. I think my reference to real-world is used in the context of content that is cited in articles. As you know, the holy grail of Misplaced Pages guidlines is the citation of reliable secondary sources. However, there is a tendancy, when editors are under preasure (such as AfD debates), to game the system by using reliable secondary sources which only make trivial reference of the subject in passing, usually from an in universe perspective. This frequently happens to fictional elements which are often not the primary subject of reivews or academic journals, but which are mentioned in sources about an over arching topic. Say for example I was a big fan of Mr Gradgrind, and I wanted to prove he was independently notable. I would create an article called Mr Gradgrind, and cite quotations which only mentioned him passing, say by indirectly quoting from the primary source, or refer to source, such as an academic journal which discusses the book or the author. By doing this, I could pretend that Mr Gradgrind is notable, when in fact there is no real evidence that he is. However this is mistake: it is not Mr Gradgrind who is being quoted, it is the book Hard Times or the author Charles Dickens. Sometime subjects are dressed up to look as if they are notable, by quoting trivial, passing sources, or quoting portions of reliable secondary sources which quote the primary text. Nice try Colonel Warden! --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Having Pip or Thomas Gradgrind referenced in pop culture, on the Daily Show or the Gilmore Girls or just in passing by the rare bird who actually reads is a perfectly reasonable and plausible event; they are major characters of major literary works in English that tons of people are forced to read in high school and beyond (personally Hard Times is my favorite Dickens), and redirects to the main work essentially offer no practical help to the reader who says "Someone called that guy a "Gradgrind". I wonder what that metonymy means." Because all we'd have for that person is the Hard Times article. The information offered must be proportional to the information sought, if it is to have any value to the seeker. Sometimes you want to read a book on George Washington and sometimes you want to read an encyclopedia entry. What a reader doesn't want to do is sift through Great Expectations when all they want to know wtf Pip's deal was. That there isn't a discrete entry for each of the main characters of GE is ridiculous and acting like we're paper. There must be a point when our contributors here must stop and ask themselves what it is, exactly, that notability guidelines are for, and why so many people take their obeisance in current form to be an end in itself; the spirit of which is I believe deeply violated by deleting Pip or redirecting it to Great Expectations. Ford MF (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Again, I point out that we can directly point people to a section of an article or list with redirects, so typing "Gradgrind" in the search box goes right to the character description.
• But, there is an aspect here in that I would expect that because of the academic coverage of a work like Great Expectations, that its just a matter of finding existing sources for those characters from their academic coverage. Mind you, this may suggest that for works covered in academic sources, characters may be notable. --MASEM 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This also suggests that there are no television characters who are notable, as academia hasn't gotten around to TV for things other than, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And I'd say there are far, far more notable television characters than Oz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), and yet Oz enjoys the accident of having been discussed but more than just a few scholarly articles (even if they're not reffed in the article), largely because academics who dig Buffy is kind of a thing. This doesn't mean Buffy characters are more notable than other recurring television characters, just that academics have a hard on for them. Ford MF (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • And sometimes people claim that such references are "in passing" when they aren't (and sometimes the opposite, I'll agree); a character, element, or whatever doesn't have to be the primary focus of a piece of writing to be a non-trivial subject of it. Oh, and the "LOL" and "nice try" are testing the edges of civility a bit, there. However, more to the point, I think you'll find that Colonel Warden was actually saying that the text in question is relevant to this debate, not indicative of Mr Gradgrind's notability. Oh, and last question, if Gradgrind isn't notable, is, say, Phillip Pirrip (aka Pip)? SamBC(talk) 10:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that a review does not have to about the subject matter specifically if it is to provide content that is non-trivial and real world in order to provide evidence evidence of notbility, but I can't recall a single instance of an artilce "piggybacking" this way. As regards Gradgrind or Pip, I can't prove they are are non-notable, but it is usually damned hard to find evidence that fictional characters such as these (like 90% of fiction elements) are notable as most of the reliable secondary sources will relate to the over-arching work, which is usually the medium (book or film) in which they were presented. Amazingly, even David Copperfield (character) and Uriah Heep (David Copperfield) are articles of unproven notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is generally because the editors couldn't imagine anyone would challenge them on notability. Any study guide to the books (and there are plenty) will have at least a chapter on major characters, with in-depth coverage of these major characters. SamBC(talk) 17:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

    This example pretty clearly illustrates that AFD or merge discussions should focus on potential for in-depth coverage or whatever the hell the current wording is, not the current state of the article. The article on David Copperfield is in dreadful shape, but could clearly be improved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Like Sambc, many people assume that many fictional characters are notable, or will be proven to be so over time, but the evidence is against them at the moment. However, with the availability of internet, and more museums and universities being asked to make their archives available online, maybe messrs. Copperfield, Heap, Pirrip & Gradgrind (sounds like a firm of City Lawyers) may be articles that demonstrate notability in the distant future. However, for characters from less notable works written by less notable authors, the possibility of finding reliable secondary sources is remote. Even for minor characters of major works (like The Gravediggers from Hamlet), the possibility of finding non-trial real-world content is an outside bet. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:N defines notability no more specifically than "worthy of note". How then do you assert that these are not notable? The GNG gives one method of determining that something is notable, not the only method, and not a method of determining that something is not notable. Oh, and please don't amend your posts for more than typos after people have replied; I know in this case the changes weren't very substantive, but it's just not polite. SamBC(talk) 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot prove they are not notable. However, there is no evidence that they are.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just noting that regardless of whatever method we're using to determine notability, the onus is on those who want its inclusion to demonstrate notability. Trying to prove the opposite is impossible - you can't prove something isn't notable, as it's a negative proof. Sephiroth BCR 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Licensed vs Self-Published

This is something I've been meaning to bring up for a bit in relation to a few things, but does a character's weight in licensed material factor into their notability? To better give an example, anime based off Capcom material (for the most part) with their hand not directly in the production of said material, or even better as far as Capcom goes, the live action movie. Capcom themselves didn't publish these and only allows their properties to be used in them, so do they count outside of the material of self-published material in terms of showing a character is used as a recognizable element in the anime/film?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should look at "independent" (for the sake of argument) as it relates in Statistics; that is, one event has an effect on the other. In this case, the spinoff material would not be independent of the original product, so thus Capcom press releases on the spinoff items would not be considered fitting the GNG's secondary sources requirement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Esquire, February 1981
2. Bramwell, Tom (2007-05-15). "Portal: First Impressions". Eurogamer. Retrieved 2007-10-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)