Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 8 December 2009

Template:Fiction notice

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.

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: 10 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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Notability and Real World Coverage

I've reverted Gavin's changes while they are still under discussion. I did find the added paragraph was more in keeping with WP:WAF. I don;t think we need to re-write WP:WAF on this page, article content isn't covered by notability. The character of Hamlet is notable regardless of whether the article is written "from the perspective of the real world" or in a manner which may "create or uphold the illusion that a fictional topic is real". I think ignoring that logic is rather futile. Also, using an objective criteria such as whether an award has been made is not an example of subjective importance. If it were, by that logic using reliable sources to confer notability would also be an example of subjective importance. And further, given that pages within CAT:CONTENT allow the giving of an award to confer notability, I think it is demonstrably false to argue otherwise. Ignoring these plain facts is not sustainable going forward. Hiding T 21:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you arguement that we don't need a rewrite of WP:WAF, whilst at the same time copying and pasting the preamble from another SNG does not give you a leg to stand on in this instance; "one rule for you, one rule for me" is not good editorial policy. However, as a matter of courtesy I will not revert your amendment in the first instance, and request that we discuss wording that we can compromise on.
The assertion that the following preamble is a rewrite of WP:WAF is not fair, because style and content are two sides of the same coin in relation to fictional topics. To make this point clear, I propose the following rewrite for the preamble:

Articles about fiction, like all Misplaced Pages articles, are required to provide evidence of their notability from the perspective of the real world in which the work or element of fiction is embedded in the form of significant coverage of the work or element (such as commentary on development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) from reliable secondary sources so that readers can fully understand the subject and appreciate its overall significance.

I am not trying to repeat the advice given in Misplaced Pages is not plot-only description of fictional works, but rather to show the relationship between that policy and this guideline: if a fictional topic fails WP:PLOT, then it will fail WP:FICT as well. The reasons for this are outlined in more detail at Misplaced Pages:Plot-only description of fictional works, but this symmetrical relationship is key to understanding why this guideline is soimportant. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My legs look firmly placed on the floor. You'll have to explain the logic you are attempting to present here: That we should not copy other notability guidance in framing this notability guidance. Regarding your argument that we address the content of articles, I refer you to Misplaced Pages:Notability, which states that The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Misplaced Pages. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight. The attempt to link this guidance to WP:PLOT is similarly flawed, because while an article on Hamlet may breach WP:PLOT, it would never breach WP:FICT. I can;t see any point in continuing this conversation given the fundamental flaws in your stated goal. Hiding T 18:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have explained the logic, in fairness. Both articles Hamlet and Prince Hamlet contain more than just plot summary; they also contain significant real world coverage about the work and character in the form of commentary, analysis and criticisim from reliable secondary sources. If a topic fails WP:PLOT, then it will fail WP:N and vice versa, in issue you seem reluctant to recognise. The only reliable defence against an article being nominated for deletion for failing WP:PLOT is evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You haven't explained the logic. You keep stating that if a topic fails WP:PLOT, then it will fail WP:N as if that were a truism, and I have already shown the flaw in that argument, namely that WP:PLOT relates to article content, and WP:N does not. It is all well and good saying the articles Hamlet and Prince Hamlet currently contain more than just plot summary; that ignores the viable possibility that the articles could certainly not contain more than just plot summary and yet still be about notable topics. You're trying to make links that don't exist. I really can;t see any point in continuing this Gavin, because you seem to choose to ignore the rather large fact that WP:N does not apply to article content, while WP:PLOT does. Because if you concede that fact, you'd understand your argument is fatally flawed. Hiding T 09:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Although we are agreed that WP:N is about the inclusion criteria for a standalone article, the requirements of WP:GNG are based on providing evidence of notability based on significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, so the link between inclusion and article content is very clear. If an article's content is entirely comprised of plot, this leads to an article failing WP:PLOT. If an article's content meets WP:GNG, then it is notable. Rememnber, the WP:GNG is a set of inclusion criteria based on an article topic being able to meets Misplaced Pages's content policies, so it is not possible to write this guideline in isolation from them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But we're in the realm of an SNG, outside of the GNG requirement, just like WP:BIO and the SNGs provide. They only require verifiable evidence of meeting a well-defined criteria to presume notability. That's what we're doing here. Mind you, we have the added complexity of PLOT, that though we can provide the evidence of meeting whatever criteria there is, we still need to reign in the plot section appropriately; one line about a character winning an award against 100k of plot summary won't do. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that WP:N clearly states it does not give guidance on the content of articles, your whole argument runs counter to the very page you cite to support it. As you remain unwilling to concede that point, it is quite clear you have no wish to build a consensus but are simply intent on carrying on an argument. I have no wish to do so. You're attempt to link WP:PLOT and WP:GNG is disingenuous, since they cover separate ground. Given that I have already detailed instances where a notable topic's article content can breach WP:PLOT, I can't see any reason to continue this discussion. Whether you wish to recognise the flaws in your argument is your own affair, but I can't really see the point in continually pointing them out. This is simply another circular argument forming around you. Hiding T 09:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Looking back, there appears to be a tendancy to use WP:FICT as a platform for providing fictional topics with an exemption from Misplaced Pages's existing policies and guidelines, on the grounds that fictional topics that don't demonstrate evidence of notability need to be protected from merger or deletion . Whilst I can understand why some editors would want to provide some protection to topics, the reality is that we can't build a walled garden for fictional topics. The basic rational for article inclusion remains:

This page in a nutshell: A fictional topic that has received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

It seems to me that the consensus from discussions regarding WP:NOT#PLOT is that balanced coverage of fictional topics is desirable, and that this means that every article should contain at least some real-world coverage from reliable sources in order to avoid duplicating in universe coverage from the primary source. We also know that those sources have to be independent to be compliant with WP:V. Put these requirements together, and I think they meet the inclusion criteria for a standalone article. It is hard to imagine how there could be alternative inclusion criteria that don't fall foul of WP:NOT. For this reason alone, this guideline needs to make real-world coverage the centre of the inclusion criteria. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you don't agree with me Gavin. The thing is, this page and other guidance agrees with me rather than with your interpretations and opinions on how things should be. Not sure how to move on from there, really. Do I need to restate that notability doesn't apply to article content, and therefore this guideline shouldn't make real-world coverage the centre of inclusion criteria? Do I need to point out that what you desire already exists at WP:PLOT, therefore your ideas are redundant and smack of instruction creep? Or can we let the matter rest? Hiding T 15:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It can't rest. It is true that notability does not govern article content, but only in so far as notability has been established. However, the article inclusion criteria in WP:GNG are based on content in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent - this is the form of verifiable evidence that is required to show that a topic is notable.
Within the context of fictional topics, if coverage is not real world (i.e. plot summary), then is not significant, nor is it independent of the primary source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Been here before. See Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 54 and Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 55. You've never once addressed the basic point that your position is flawed since it is possible for an article on a notable fictional element to consist solely of plot. There's no point cycling through this again. See you on the other side. Hiding T 17:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Hiding is simply twisting these discussions around to fit his purpose. It is true that an article topic can be about the plot of a work, but only so far as the plot has been the subject of significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis about its real world impact and receiption. By contraxt, an article that comprises only of plot summary is little more a regurgitation of the primary source. If an article gives undue weight to trivial detail and is devoid of any real world coverage, then it has not been "noted" by the outside world. Hiding needs to make the distinction between significant coverage from real world perspective and trivial coverage that is pure in universe in this instance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice big heap of ad hominem which avoids addressing the point. Again. Your straw man argument fails to take in to account the difference between badly written articles on notable topics and badly written articles on non-notable topics. I've already made the necessary distinction between significant coverage from real world perspective and trivial coverage that is pure in universe. You'll find you link to it amazingly often. It's WP:PLOT. As I say, we've been here before, see the archives and perhaps answer all the questions you've been posed in them rather than ducking the point once again to attack another editor, scare-monger, launch ad hominem and create straw men. It's tiresome to the point of disruptive. Hiding T 13:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not altogher sure what Hiding is refering to, but I believe he is in agreement that plot only is not only inadmissible as a standalone article in accordance with WP:PLOT, but that also plot only coverage is not admissible as evidence of notability. The reason is of course, that plot only coverage does not contain any significant real world coverage, only a reguritation of the plot, and reguritation or restatement of the plot does not qualify as significant coverage. I have therefore restored the nutshell and introduction and improved upon it based on your suggestion.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've undone your edits since they don't have consensus per this debate and debates held in the archives where other users disagree with your approach. Since you refuse to acknowledge anybody else's point of view, it is clear you are acting with flagrant disregard for WP:CONSENSUS. I am is tired of repeatedly having this same conversation. Since the guidance already calls for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I fail to see how the guidance allows for " plot only coverage" to be admissible as evidence of notability. Your changes are redundant, over-complicate the issue, represent instruction creep and do not have consensus. Hiding T 12:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(Re: Hiding) I think a badly-written article, regardless of the subject's notability, is genuinely improved by putting it into the context of the greater work, i.e. merging it. Midna, a co-protagonist, was merged to a list when her article looked like this, her list entry was expanded a year later, then split back out into her own article. I honestly feel that's one of the best routes to take with badly written fictional articles, even if the subject is notable. Nifboy (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends upon the context, doesn't it. No-one is going to argue that Prince Hamlet is not notable, but if Gavin had his way, we'd delete the article if someone rewrote the page so that it contained only plot summary. Mergers and redirects are editorial decisions that don't really need to be grounded in policy and guidance, because writing an encyclopedia comes first. Whatever we do should improve Misplaced Pages. That's why we work from IAR and CONSENSUS more than anything else, and we could probably get rid of everything else bar foundation mandates, since what the community decides htrough consensus is what is best for the encyclopedia. Hiding T 12:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned to Hiding earlier in this discussion, both Hamlet and Prince Hamlet contain more than just plot summary; they also contain significant real world coverage about the work and character in the form of commentary, analysis and criticism from reliable secondary sources, so their notability is not in doubt. I have reverted his changes for the following reasons, and invite him to make some constructive suggestions that address the following issues:

1. If anything, the two articles Hamlet and Prince Hamlet demonstrate that notable topics do contain siginficant real world coverage. As far as I am aware, there is not example of an article topic that does not contain siginficant real world coverage, which is the standard by which all articles are judged in terms of the Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria;
2. Plot only articles are not encylopedic, because ignore the real world context which all Misplaced Pages articles provide, so I can't see how saying that plot only articles are notable can be supported. On this point, I am in agreement with Niftyboy that, in the absence of real world coverage, it would be better to merge a plot only article, because real world context is lacking. Whilst Hiding is correct that mergers and redirect are editorial decisions, the purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance that assists with precisely such situations;
3. As regards consensus, the community has indeed in agreement on the wording of WP:PLOT, which states that articles about fictional topics should be treated in "an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works". Although this guideline's purpose is not to repeat WP:PLOT, it can't ignore the prohibition on plot only articles because there there is an indirect link between the prohibition on plot only articles and this guideline. That link is that that plot summary on its own (from any source) does not provide evidence of notability, as it is merely a restatement or is a reguritation of the primary source, and notability can only come from sources which are independent of the primary source.

Simply put, there is symmetry between this guideline and Misplaced Pages's other content policies, such that if a plot only article like Gaius Baltar fails WP:PLOT, then it won't be notable until either. A plot only article that does not contain any significant coverage in the form of real world commentary, criticism or analysis does not indicate it has been "noted", because plot summary is too close to the primary source to be classed as third party.
I think if Hiding is to make any headway in this discussion, then he will need to provide examples of article topics which he thinks are notable that don't contain any significant real world coverage (if there are any to be found). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that WP:PLOT is not about real-world aspects -only the significance of the character/element beyond just its mere presence in the work. The point is to obtain secondary information about the element. This may be in some cases limited to strictly a critical analysis of the character within the work from reliable literary experts, with very little real world aspects. That would be acceptable. In other words: if a character/element is described in an interpretive manner beyond what is clear by the primary work of fiction, with that interpretation based on reliable experts in secondary sources, then the article is fine. This is not just a simple reiteration of plot with no other details, what WP:PLOT warns against. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I was reading recently that the Jedi religion was the 4th most popular in the last UK census. And that a linguist was raising his baby son to speak Klingon as a native tongue. These real-world aspects are entertaining anecdotes but are incidental to our coverage of fictional topics. They have no bearing on the issue of notability - which is a matter of sources - and so merit no mention here. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If you mean "in this proposed guideline", then ys, they have no place here. If you mean "in articles on the Jedi religion or the impact of Star Wars or something similar", then no, yuou are incorrect. The linguist part is an anecdote and should not be used anywhere, but the census part is very relevant (and widely reported): even if people put "Jedi" in jest (or as a kind of protest), which is of course probable, the fact that they choose "Jedi" and not a religion from another SF or fantasy franchise is telling. Such things are pure "real world coverage" and indicative of notability. Similarly, one person calling her son Obi-Wan is an anecdote, but if the name would become a top-ten name in some country (and some newspaper or other source would link it to Star Wars), it would be another indicator of notability and relevant fact to add to related articles. Fram (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, If a character/element is described in an interpretive manner, then that is significant real world coverage, because it is the commentator who is analying the work or element of fiction from a real world perspective; this is exactly the sort of coverage that confers notability, not just for fiction, but for any topic. I think Colonel Warden has also provided an useful example of real-world coverage and that Fram is right that it does confer notability from a source that is independent from the primary source.
By contrast, if the coverage simply reguritates the primary source, as is the case in the article Gaius Baltar, then there is no inpretation, and there there is no evidence of the character being "noted", for reguritation is not the same inpretation, it is simply a retelling of the original story extracted from the primary source.
Looking at this guideline from the perspective of Misplaced Pages's other policies such as WP:PLOT and guidelines such as WP:WAF it surely must be obvious to you that real world coverage is the key to understanding whether a fictional topic is notable?
If it is not, then consider my earlier question: where have you seen an example of article topics which you think is notable that is not the subject of significant real world coverage? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personalising the issue. The debate is about whether we should delete articles on notable topics or clean them up. The consensus is that we clean them up, therefore Gavin's position holds no water. Hiding T 22:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've realised: If no-one replies to Gavin, what's the worst that can happen? Hiding T 22:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; the debate is what to do about bad articles, of which there are a number of options other than "send to AfD" and "slap {{cleanup}} on it without any other guidance". Nifboy (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The question still stands: is there an example of article topic which is presumed to be notable, even though it is not the subject of significant real world coverage? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See, that's a silly question because, as far as I'm concerned, and I suspect you share this viewpoint, an article that doesn't pass WP:WAF is almost by definition not a good article. Nifboy (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Its more thatn just a style issue, as the lack of real world content goes deeper that that. An article like Gaius Baltar that is all plot summary does not contain any evidence that its subject is notable because it has been constructed from primary sources, or a reguritation of primary sources. If all the coverage come from one source (the plot of Battlestar Gallatica in this example), what evidence is there the the topic has been "noted"? The answer is none, until such time significant real world coverage is added to the article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC Awards for fictional elements

Are awards for fictional elements, most notably characters, able to indicate the likelyhood of notability of said element? Currently a majority of the of Wikipedians discussing this at WP:FICT believe in certain circumstances it can while the minority believes they cannot.

The evidence given for their use is that other SNGs that use awards as a viable note to show the notability for the article as long as the award was from a reliable source noted in the industry for its prominence and the award is not intended as a joke. On the other side, at least one wikipedian claims this item is a literary literary trope since an element cannot receive the award and therefore is an award to the author. In addition there exists no RS body that universally well known enough to make such an award confer the same level of ability to pass as say a Literary award would for a book. The anti-award side specifically mentions needing to have an offline news organization or peer review of such an award. The example given in the previous discussion, IGN, as a possible reliable source by the pro-award side cited it as meeting such a criteria, but the other side says it is a questionable source since it is dedicated to the promotion of video games and other entertainment, but publishes both its own and third party promotional content without distinguishing between the two. That statement has been disputed as IGN is believed by the pro-award side as being no different in its conduct than any other news organization. For the item being a troup and thus not being able to accept an award itself, comparisons by the pro-award side have been compared to awarding a movie or book instead of the author itself and that this is no different from that since a book or movie cannot accept an award.陣内_Jinnai 02:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If the item has won an award, it is more likely that it has been covered by reliable sources in depth. Therefore, I would say that a claim that an item has been the recipient of a significant award is an assertion of notability sufficient to present speedy deletion. However, to sustain an article on the topic, it must also be true that the subject of the article has actually been the subject of significant, in depth coverage in reliable sources. If that is not true, we cannot write a full article on the subject, whatever awards it has won. Seraphimblade 07:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If we are using the same logic that the other SNG use, once a topic has passed the SNG's criteria, it technically can remain indefinitely as a stub or short article (for example, there are probably around 10,000 articles on professional international soccer players based on the criteria in WP:ATHLETE that likely will remain if you brought them up at AFD. Now, I very much doubt that there are 10,000 fiction awards that will do the same, but the idea still remains: once it is shown that the fictional topic has been given an award, the topic presumable remains notable. One can suggest editorial moves to merge it to something else, but outright delete through perceived lack of notability would not be consistent with how other SNG-passing articles are handled. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I may have missed it in the above, but are we making a presumption about the notability of the awards in question? For example, the local comic book shops has multiple monthly awards given, based upon popular voting.

I ask this, because citing awards has been contentious in the past. - jc37 16:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The only mention of "award" in the proposed guidance is where an actor has won an award for the portrayal of the character, that can generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist. So I fail to understand the storm in the tea cup we are currently witnessing. I think people are currently arguing to protect positions rather than over anything in the guidance. Hiding T 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jc37 - yes the presumption is that at the very least it must be a notable award in a niche industry. The award from your local comic book store wouldn't be notable, unless your local comic book store became famous well beyond your locality for its awards enough that those in the comic book industry took serious note and/or it was covered and commented on by national press. IE, the award itself must be from a WP:RS of at least industry notability.陣内_Jinnai 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh man, this brings back memories of arguing with Phil over the use of the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. I think that we should treat awards like any other kind of review: Scoured for usable prose, integrated into the reception with attribution, and if, at the end of the day, all we've got is a tiny blurb declaring the character to have the "worst. voice actor. ever" then we should probably show it the door. It seems silly to give one piece of reception a higher priority than another simply because one is an "award". Nifboy (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Nifboy; a single award for any piece of a work (be it a character, the musical score, the writing, etc) is not enough to justify notability for that aspect of the work. If there is significant coverage of that aspect in numerous independent sources (not just a mention in 2 newspapers that X won this award, but coverage on why it won), then the aspect meets the notability criteria. Even so, if only a stub article is likely to ever be created, coverage of this aspect should be merged back into the parent article (although this cannot be proscribed by this guideline). Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum: I do believe that the presence of an award for an aspect of a work contributes to the work itself meeting the notability guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Beg to differ. Multiple SNGs would disagree with you there. The use of an award is an indicator that there is critical commentary about that awarded item (assuming it meets the above criteria, including what i mentioned to Jc37) or that it will shortly do so - ie, the subject is presumed to be notable. We make the same assumption when an item has say 2 independant RSes making non-trivial comments on it; that is we pressume the subject is notable. If nothing else appears, then it might not be notable.陣内_Jinnai 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Well all the SNGs that I know of specify that it has to be a "major" award, and I very much do not want to play the game of "how major of an award gives us a pass at AfD?" I'd rather treat an award as a source, and evaluate it like one, instead of pretending that a superlative (or worse, a ranking or "nomination") with a name attached to it is better than the same opinion as expressed by a reviewer or staff member or academic. Nifboy (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I would very much expect that if we have a SNG that say "winning a major award is presumption of notability", that the issue of whether the award is "major" or not will be debated at AFD should it be in contention. Now, if it becomes clear that a lot of people are trying to squeak by articles on awards that are, by consensus through AFD or other channels, proven to be insignificant, then we may have to spell out what the acceptable awards are or the like, or possibly even remove this clause. However, to assume that the case beforehand is assuming bad faith, as I would hope most editors recognize the difference between a character award given by a vetted group of literary academic experts and one given by "Awesome Jim!'s Awesome Blog!". --MASEM (t) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
        • It is less an issue of bad faith and more an issue that turning an AfD into a discussion of how "major" an award it got is completely missing the point, which is: Do we have reliable sources, and if not, where can we get some? If the award is a reliable source, it's a source and it should go in the article along with all the other sources. If it's not, it should go. Nifboy (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I am not saying that sources should eventually be added, but what the SNGs, and what we are attempting to do here, is to establish a basic line in the sand that, even if it is only one non-primary source to affirm the granting of the award, that the topic is notable, and only our non-existent WP:DEADLINE is necessary to fill in the rest of the sources that should be existing because of the award. Let's assume we have an unequivocally reliable source that has given an award to a character. The most likely the initial article about this character will be a lot of primary-source material, and a mention of the award, with other sources more difficult to acquire given the volunteer nature of WP or the recentness of the character. Without this presumption in the SNG, that article would be AFD bait due to lack of secondary sources. But like the other SNG's, adding this criterion would allow the character to be presumed notable, as to allow time for more secondary sources to be acquired or to appear, without fear of AFD deletion. Now, I would say that if years pass and nothing is changes to improve it, then by all means, merging and other steps are quite reasonable. But meeting this criteria should affirm in the near term that the topic is notable. This is the goal of all the other SNGs - providing a means of including topics that likely would meet the GNG once it is shown that the criteria is passed. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
            • That's just it though: I don't want to give articles that are bad in the short term a long-term safe harbor, essentially encouraging them to remain bad articles indefinitely. I am especially unconcerned for the short-term safety of articles in a class that, 99% of the time, has a parent article already covering the subject in a broader context. Nifboy (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
              • I agree in spirit, but (un)fortunately, WP has a practice from the other SNGs that we allow articles on topics that barely or don't even pass the GNG as long as they've passed an SNG criteria. See, for example, the first article I pulled off from Category:English footballers (a 10,000-strong category!), Ben Abbey. Clearly fails the GNG, but passes WP:ATHLETE. All that is being asked here is that if we allow this practice from other SNGs that we can allow the same for fiction elements. Otherwise, you create a systematic bias that harms the work more than helps. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The criteria were established for cases where the GNG either doesnt work at all or is considered inapplicable--some are broader than the GNG, some are narrower, some are just different. For some types of articles, the actual effective guidelines are one of the parts of NOT. My own personal feeling is we could best resolve this by establishing NGs for every type of article that took account of the type of subject and sourcing, while still requiring V as an overriding principle. Therules, after all, are whatever we collectively want them to be. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) DGG has it right, which is why I was so disappointed this incarnation of FICT devotes its first half to a generic laundry list of reasons we might want to keep an article, and gives no real guidance as to the merge/split/list decision that is unique to fictional entities. Nifboy (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, on reflection, the whole thing seems redundant with the "Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria" section. Award = important work, titular character = important character, etc. I don't think we have to maintain the pretense of pretending sources exist just to save an article at AfD. Nifboy (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

From DGG The criteria were established for cases where the GNG either doesnt work at all or is considered inapplicable... and that's exactly why we are here. There are people that claim that the GNG is insufficient for coverage of fiction from an encyclopedic level because many elements of fiction simply do not get the level of coverage that more academic topics get, and yet would be stupid to exclude from a work that exudes to be part of the collected sum of human knowledge. Now, I'm giving benefit of the doubt that we're not talking about full-fledged fan guides, detailing every character and episode in exacting detail, as that level is completely at odds with how other fields are handled and the implication of notability (among other guidelines). If we're going to allow articles that demonstrate meeting objective (as shown through verifiable sources) criteria that imply the likeliness of secondary coverage in the future from other SNGs, then there's no reason we can't allow the exact same approach for fictional elements. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically that's it. While I personally think very specific types of creator commentart, ie stuff that doesn't require paying extra $$, could work for showing the potential notability for fictional elements in the same way as other paths, I realize that for a lot of people they might not see that (my basis is that if they aren't making money off of it, talking about it won't generate that much hype in almost any case for the series as a whole or even for the product merchandise; people will either like that element or not and it won'r really increase popularity of it, though it might increase the chance of some more independant commentary or even peer review.
Instead what this RfC is about is seeing whether certain norms and practices other SNGs apply can be applied to elements of a fictional work outside episodes (which even Gavin seemed to admit there was at least one award for episodes); specifically awards for characters. However, as you can see if you scan this arhived section as well as some other sections on this page we have discussed other items as well.陣内_Jinnai 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Seraphimblade and Nifboy that awards are no different from any other source, in that they have to be evaluated in terms of the significance of coverage, the reliability and independence of the source. The reason is that treating awards as axiomatic proof of notability does not stand up to close examination in the case of those given to fictional characters; they can't be taken as prima facie evidence of notability since they are a form of journalistic or literary trope, and the term "award" in this context is different from its usual meaning. Since an award is usually given to recognise the endevours of real world people, you have to ask why the award has been given, and there are many reasons, such as (but not limited to):

1. honouring the creator of the character;
2. as the basis for a poll to attract publicity for a product such a film, book or game;
3. as a journalistic device used as a basis for an article or televsion programme.

In each of these instances, it may not be the fictional character that is the subject of the award. The key therefore, is to examine the sources to see who or what is the subject, and whether the coverage is significant, reliable and independently sourced. Like mock awards, they have to be taken with a Pinch of salt, and that means they don't confer notability automatically as this guideline is suggesting. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Slightly off-topic: T-Rex echoes my thoughts on the phrase "Award-winning". Nifboy (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this webcomic highlights the fact awards to fictional characters should be taken with a pinch of salt. All evidence put forward to date now supports the view that awards to fictional characters are no different from any other source admissible as evidence of notability: the coverage of the award has to be significant, from a reliable source that is indpendent of the characters creators and promoters, otherwise this guideline will be allowing trivial coverage and questionable sources to be used to justify the inclusion of article topics that should be treated as part of more notable works of fiction. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really Gavin. It just means we have to have some clear benchmarks for what is an award that could be used to show notability.陣内_Jinnai 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide me of an example of an award of sufficient weight and importance that it would create a presumption of notability where there wouldn't be substantial independent coverage of the award? If there wasn't substantial independent coverage of the award, why would you believe that receiving the award created the presumption?—Kww(talk) 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Already done so with the awards at Anime Expo. Some of those characters have articles of their own because they clearly pass the GNG, but other do not. As Anime Expo is the central convention to anime in the US, E3 comparsions have been done by more than just myself, the industry supports these awards and the convention itself is not obscure it is my opinion they would suffice. They aren't as prevelent as a Grammy or Oscar in the media, but their level of scrutiny and support by the relevant industry would be the on the same level of such an award.陣内_Jinnai 02:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We have been through all of these arguments before under the discussion Fictional Awards, and the Anime Expo is a particularly bad example of a trade award; the coverage of the SPJA Industry Award Recipients is just to thin and trivial to be taken seriously as evidence of notability, because we don't know who or why this award was made. Perhaps there is more coverage elsewhere, but the mere statement that the winner of "Category 08: Best Male Character is "L" is trivial to say the least. No one could ever be convinced that these examples provide a shred of evidence of notability.
The problem with this approach is that where the award itself is not notable ("Category 08: Best Male Character") or is not independent (e.g. its a trade awards, given to and award by the same trade association members), and the source itself is not published or reliable. Using such a source is basically to provide an exemption from the requirement of WP:V, which says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it".
In answer to Jinnai, I think you are grapsing at straws at the bottom of a barrel - awards to fictional characters is just too subjective to be taken sereiously, and in the case fo the awards made at the Anime Expo, they can only be regarded as trival coverage from questionable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please go tell all the other sub-notability guidelines that they are flawed because of your logic, which all have similar clauses such as notability inferred by winning an award as part of their presumed notability. Or you need to understand that the idea of the sub-notability guidelines is to presume that the verification of meeting specific criteria is an indication that there will likely be more secondary sources that can be generated about a topic even if the article presently does not have them. In this case, a notable industry award is likely a good criteria since if it's being awarded something by the industry, it must have some intrinsic property that has or will be talked about to explain further. But importantly, this is not meant to be the end-all of establishing the topic's article at the end of the day; if much time passes (on the order of months and years) and there's no appearance of sources, then we can start questioning the need of a separate article and merging. Now, there is the side question of whether an award is a truly an notable industry award (a question of being a reliable source), but that's a different issue than the notability one (that is, once the award is confirmed to be an appropriate industry award, then the question of notability should not be challenged). --MASEM (t) 14:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the difference is, there are awards in other media that everyone agreed we're going to want 100% coverage of eventually, so the clause got written in and accepted years ago. I don't think it's as applicable here, where there isn't a real strong case for any one award to be "Oh yeah, we definitely want those". Nifboy (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, the inclusion criteria of other SNG's are not necessarily applicable to fiction, which is why there are subject specific notability guidelines in the first place. Fictional topics are not inherently real by definition, and awards to fictional characters are a form of literary or journalistic trope, which means we can't apply the same inclusion criteria to fictional topics that apply to real world ones.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but there is not a single award made to fictional characters that is actually notable in the same way there are notable awards for films or books. This should provide you an good indication as to why Niftyboy is correct when he says awards are not applicable here - there is just no good examples to prove him wrong. Awards to fictional characters are examples of promotional, literary or journalistic devices and are no different from any other form of coverage, and should be judged purely in terms of whether the coverage is significant, reliable and independent. Suggesting that a literary trope confers notability without examining those sources is just not plausible. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a topic is tangible or not, if it is part of the human knowledge and shown not to be indiscriminate, we should be including it. This goes for fictional characters as much as scientific theories that have yet to be proven out, philosophical concepts, and the like - they are all aspects of human thought. And you may refuse to accept the two exampls of notable, reliable awards that have been given out to characters, but they exist and are a valid metric. I'll throw another example of specific TV episodes winning things like BAFTA and Nebula awards as well as another possibility. You're impossing a higher standard than for people or other things to fiction topics just because they aren't real, but that's not any threshold level for inclusion on WP, which aims to cover all human knowledge. --MASEM (t) 11:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the medium with the message. If a television series or episode wins award, it is because it exists in the real world, and there is someone there to recieve it. An award made to a fictional character has to be taken with a Pinch of salt, because some of those "awards" were never intended to be "given" nor "received", they are simply promotional, journalistic or literary devices used for some other purpose other than being an award. Suggesting that a literary trope confer notability without examining those sources is just not plausible. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning Discussion

A discussion is underway at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic or if spoilers should be removed by removing all plot summaries from all articles, except for any sentences that can be sourced to secondary sources only.

I am posting this here because there are attempts to say sections, specifically plot, need to have secondary sources according to WP:N.陣内_Jinnai 06:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. This is being brought back again, after hundreds of hours of discussions a couple years ago? Unbelievable and inefficient. I will not even comment on the part about removing plot summaries. — Deckiller 12:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would not worry about removal of summaries. The main discussion was about bring back spoiler warnings (I don't think we need that either though) which then got sidetracked into a plot removal section. There was little support for the plot removal idea and and I think that there was only one person suggesting the idea. There may have been a few more but the point is that the idea got little suppport. Long story short, not happening.--70.24.182.60 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell...

...should read: "If a fictional topic has received coverage in reliable sources that are verify the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for either a stand-alone article or at worst a redirect to another article." This way we eliminate the weasel and subjective words like "significant" or anti-encyclopedic ones like "independent" that are ususally strained beyond reason, such as when a published game guide containg interviews or development information or encyclopedia is dismissed. Best, --A Nobody 23:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind such a nutshell if there was guidance in the body as to where the line is between "stand-alone article" and "redirect to another article", which is where I think the grand majority of argument is. Otherwise the proposed nutshell just seems to say "If sources, do whatever," which, while agreeable, doesn't seem genuinely helpful. Nifboy (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that it is clear that we follow WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, i.e. that anything that is not made up or legally damaging is at worst kept in the edit history of a redirect for convenience should additional sources become available and as really, a redirect should bother no one. Best, --A Nobody 00:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked it a little (in particular removing "at worst") and stuck it in for now. It's not perfect but I think it's better than either of the previous versions. Nifboy (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked it for grammar. We're not looking to verify the subject. Hiding T 15:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just not sustainable. The version as it currently stands says:

If a fictional topic has received verifiable coverage in reliable sources, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria, either as a stand-alone article or as a redirect to another article.

But this ignores WP:NOT which says that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Since plot summaries on their own are not suitable, this nutshell omits three important ingredients for a work or element of fiction to be notable, namely that it has to be the subject of real world significant coverage, that the source must be a secondary source, and that the secondary source must be independent of the creators or promoters of the primary source.
As I read it, this nutshell as it being proposed is basically giving plot only articles a free pass for inclusion.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you except for the part in the nutshell about redirects; I think it's actually neutral in that regard. One of my big concerns is that this proposal would be used to shut down merge proposals for articles just because they have one or two tiny tidbits of real-world information. That kind of article is still, IMO, a bad article because of WP:WAF. Nifboy (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, either you are wiki-lawyering or the people who would argue that this guidance allows an exemption from WP:NOT or WP:WAF are wiki-lawyering. I don't see why we should edit policies and guidance to deal with wikipedians who should be issued a trout slap. Now if you can pin-point the exact sentence which states categorically that editors can ignore WP:NOT, I'll hold back on your trout slap. A direct quotation from the proposal containing the word "ignore" will do. Hiding T 11:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had the same objection Gavin does. Without making clear that our other policies apply here, there will be constant traveling in circles, with things going to AfD, defenders citing the policy, not the talk page intents and expectations, and crappy, unimportant things being retained. This version, as with so many, is the inclusionist's wet dream. Because Pokemon's been published, we can have 1000+ individual articles on Pokemon again, according to your proposal. ThuranX (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How so, because I can't see it. Given that the proposal uses the GNG as it's very basis, that problem would also exist in the GNG. Per the proposal: As with all subjects, an element should satisfy the general notability guideline. As to the travelling circus, given that exists already, I can;t see how this proposal, which iterates how the GNG applies to fiction, will change things. perhaps more trout slaps are required. Hiding T 14:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't get rid of the word "independent", that's not a weasel word and actually has clear objective meaning with regards to sourcing, and is necessitated by WP:V weight of third-party sources. I will say that "significant coverage" can be replaced by "non-trivial coverage", though still would have emphasis that articles showing any coverage less than significant will likely be deleted (though not always, and thus why we can weaken the language a bit in the lede). --MASEM (t) 14:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Hiding, he should be forgiven that in universe coverage of fictional topics can be used as evidence of notability, for nowhere in any of Misplaced Pages's policies does it support the statement made in WP:WAF that "Articles about fiction, like all Misplaced Pages articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference". The problem is that WP:V talks about "reliable, third-party sources", whilst WP:GNG takes about "signficant coverage" that is "independent" from such sources, but whether the sources or coverage should be real world or in universe is not explicitly stated, which is probably why the confusion about this issue arises.
It would therefore take a very keen mind to realise that all of Misplaced Pages's content policies are pitched towards real world content, and that only a very narrow reading of these policies would lead to the conclusion that plot summary on its own is allowable as evidence of notability simply because it is verifiable, as this ignores the fact that in universe coverage on its own is not significiant or independent of the primary source.
I agree with ThranX that we are going around and around in circles, and the only way to make progress towards agreeing on a sensible draft is to acknowledge that real world coverage is the basis of notability for fictional topics. Plot summary needs to be accompanied by real world coverage, as the real world is their primary frame of reference for every other subject matter in Misplaced Pages. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The policies you require are WP:PSTS and WP:PLOT, both of which explicitly state what is required, for example the no original research policy states "Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." What Misplaced Pages is not states, in direct contradiction of your assertion, that "Misplaced Pages treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works". We don't need to rewrite those policies, they exist already. If you want to write guidance which will "acknowledge that real world coverage is the basis of notability for fictional topics", first answer why WP:WAF and WP:PLOT don't already do the job? And anyone who doesn't understand policy just needs it explained to them. If they still don't understand it, simply continue to explain it. Just like I do with you. Eventually you may find you resort to the odd trout slap. You may even want to contemplate an RFC on the user in question if they continue to dispute the policy beyond the point of good faith, because WP:CONSENSUS maintains that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Disruptive editors are those whose "edits are largely confined to talk-pages", who "repeatedly disregard other editors' questions" and who "prevent other editors from reaching consensus". Hiding T 17:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, we don't need WP:N because WP:V already does the job. What I'm looking for out of this proposal is essentially an affirmation that, yes, WP:WAF applies to article inclusion as well as article content, because WP:WAF makes for good articles. Nifboy (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that Hiding has now acknowledged that independent sourcing is a necessary inclusion criteria for fictional topics, as it is always good to know that we can agree on something. However, his choice of words is unfortunate, because they are not quite as clear as they could be:

This page in a nutshell: If a fictional topic has received verifiable coverage in reliable sources published independently of the work itself, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria, either as a stand-alone article or as a redirect to another article.

I fear the term "published independently the work itself" is not as clear as the original version which said "that are independent of the subject". Could I suggest we revert to the wording that was there before as the orginal wording was primarily based on the nutshell used at WP:N? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Real world" coverage is not necessary in spinout articles, which can be plot based so long as the main article has out of universe information. Best, --A Nobody 21:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be just a restatement of the exception you take to WP:PLOT.--Chaser (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I don;t consider consider the two wordings of that phrase essentially different; the problem is whether printed material in support of a show or game or handbooks to it prepared by the game publisher are RSs enough to prove notability by the GNG, which I think depends on the specific material in each case. In practice, we always end up quibbling over the exact degree of independence of these sources. I notice, interestingly enough that both versions say "presumed notable"; they neither say it actually proves notability or that there are no other ways of doing it. That of course is the correct meaning of the GNG, often forgotten--it merely offers a convenient alternative which for people of good will, is often enough to settle the question one way or another. Experience shows that people of good will towards another do not commonly show it in discussions of this topic. (The question a Nobody raises is another matter, and, after years of discussion, remains unsettled. I can't assert there is settled consensus for either view of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG as there is not a clear line for everything as to what defines independance. There are certainly things that aren't independant, a movie trailer for a movie where the commentator claims its the 'greatest film of the year" and a scholarly review of the movie 50 years later is generally considered far enough removed that there is no influence. However, beyond those extremes there is a lot of fine print that needs to be looked at.陣内_Jinnai 23:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to DGG, I don't think anyone can understand the difference between the two wordings until you apply it to examples. Although Jinnai is correct that there is not a clear line for everything as to what defines independence, I think the phrase "published independently " and "independent of the subject" mean two different things:

1. Published independently simply means that a fictional element has appeared in more than one publication, but that the author or promoter of the fictional work could be the author. A good example of this is the article Takhisis, who is a fictional character from the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. The article has three sources, each of which are part of the creative team empolyed by Wizards of the Coast who are the publishers of Dungeons & Dragons, and who provide promotional material to websites such as Dragonlance Nexus and publications such as Dragon (magazine) under licence.
2. Independent of the subject means that sources which are not connect in any way to the creators, publishers and promoters of a fictional work. Sources that are not independent are excluded as evidence of notability by WP:GNG.

Simply put, the change in the wording represents a watering down of requirement for independence stated in WP:V, which specifically disallows self-published sources outlined in example 1. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we please get rid of thr current nutshell? It mixes two largely unrelated things in one sentence which can mean anything and nothing. The criteria for redirects have nothing to do with the criteria for articles. For an article, you need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For a redirect, you basically need a mention in the target article. If it is not mentioned in the target, a redirect is useless (ignoring redirects from misspellings and so on). If it is mentioned in the target article, then it should be verified and passing UNDUE and whatever else is needed there. To include a redirect in the nutshell can only serve to muddy the waters: the current nutshell completely omits the "significant" part, and only requires verifiability, which is not an acceptable notability guideline. Fram (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Amended. Hiding T 16:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Amended, yes. Corrected no. This is the latest version amended by Hiding:

This page in a nutshell: Is a fictional topic has received verifiable coverage in reliable sources published independently of the work itself, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

This version still has two glaring differences with previous versions, namely that there is no requirement for "significant coverage", and secondly there is no requirement for "reliable sources that are Independent of the subject", rather than "reliable sources published independently". These ommissions need to be corrected, so that the nutsheel is brought into line with WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:N is not policy, and the version above accurately reflects current consensus on how fiction topics are handled. There is no need for changing to fit WP:N (otherwise, there is no need for WP:FICT). --MASEM (t) 11:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not policy, its true, but what is not clear is why WP:FICT is departing from an established guideline on notability. If we offer an exemption from the requirements for "significant coverage" and sources that are "secondary" and "independent", this ignores established practice by allowing trivial coverage and questionable sources to admitted as evidence of notability. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but why would we want to depart from established practise? I am starting to agree with ThuranX, this guideline was becoming an "inclusionist's wet dream". I have changed the nutshell to read as follows:

This page in a nutshell: Is a fictional topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

All of the SNGs start from this point. We just have agree on what other inclusion criteria we need to add to this, not what changes can be made to water it down. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A number of SNGs don't even have a nutshell, and only one links to WP:V through the term "independent", so let's not make demonstrably false assertions that "All of the SNGs start from this point." It gets us nowhere. There's no real standard, and sadly WP:V makes no mention of independent in the context you are attempting here, so it is better if we do not claim something not supported by the policy. I suggest you make the required change at WP:V and get it accepted by the community before you attempt to make this page state that WP:V says something it doesn't. Hiding T 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

These are not valid reasons for watering down the nutshell. If Hiding wish esto deviate from the nutshell in WP:N, I don't understand why not explain teh reasons for this, and what benefit it would bring to this guideline - the diferrences between to the two are hard to reconcile. It seems to me that this is the only way for everybody to understand why Hiding has removed the requirement for secondary sourcing and diluted the requirement for indpendent sourcing with this edit]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fiction-related non-flag test case of WP:MOSICON at TfD

Re: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (icons): Inline-in-prose use of icons is being tested in a TfD on the use of templates to insert strings of "Stargate" symbols into articles on the TV shows. We mostly see the MOSICON guideline applied with regard to flags; its application to non-flag icons is likely to be of interest to editors here, as notability issues are raised a bit (mainly in the form of bogus arguments that trip over WP:AADD, but still may be relevant to you). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

1. See Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Lists of people