Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:07, 18 July 2009 editKww (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits →RFC: Non-trivial or significant: consistent formatting← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:42, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,169 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2]
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|1=
	{{talkheader\|noarchive=yes\|shortcut=WT:FICT}}
	{{~~fiction~~ ~~notice~~}}		{{WikiProject Essays}}
			}}
			{{talkheader\|noarchive=yes\|shortcut=WT:FICT\|search=no}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|maxarchivesize = 200K		\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	\|counter = 55		\|counter = 59
	\|algo = old(10d)		\|algo = old(10d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{/glossary}}		{{/glossary}}
			{{oldmfd \| date = 2 May 2012 \| result =keep \| votepage = Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction)}}
	{{AutoArchivingNotice\|age=10\|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive %(counter)d\|dounreplied=yes\|bot=MiszaBot II\|small=yes\|index=/Archive index}}
	{{Archives\|auto=yes\|search=yes}}		{{Archives\|auto=yes\|search=yes}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	~~{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn~~\|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive index\|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive <#>\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}		\|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive index
			\|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes
			}}

			== More restrictions on List of fictional elements==
			I noticed we have large groups of lists for fictional elements.


			*]
			{{Fictional countries}}
			{{Fictional professional navbox}}
			{{Fictional military navbox}}
			{{fictional transportation navbox}}
			{{Fictional biology}}

			In my humble opinion, these types of lists aren't useful, informative, or encyclopedic. I understand that lists and articles have different criteria for notability, but I think lists of fictional "category X" should have specific rules.

			One of the rules I propose is making sure it has its own article to prove it's noteworthy of having a list instead of just a category.

			So for example, we wouldn't be able to have a ] without ] or ]. For those who want to make these list, it would also encourage to validate them by creating articles for them. This also discourages making these ambiguous lists related to fiction now that we have better criteria.

			This also seems like a band-aid to a bigger issue: outdated, difficult to manage, category system.] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 18:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

			:I'll point to ] and its current AFD as a starting point for discussion that these lists need to have two things going for them to keep:
			:# That either the list as a whole is sourced to appropriate GNG-type sourcing, or you can talk about the nature of fictional X (but not the entire set) with GNG-type sourcing. This latter is the case for the fictional badgers list as identified at the AFD. It would likely be the case for a "Fictional doomsday device" too without doing any research on that.
			:# That the inclusion metrics for the list are either 1) that the entire list is sourced to one or more RS sources that cover the entire list (highly unlikely), 2) each item is a blue-link to a standalong article dedicated to the fictional item, or 3) the item is sourced to a third-party, independent RS that affirms the item should be on the list, avoiding ].
			:Without either, these are just random pop culture lists and need to be removed, they just simply aren't appropriate for WP. --] (]) 18:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
			:And to BPP's point, I wouldn't necessary expect that we need to have separate article on the fictional trope, just that we have in-depth coverage of that trope somewhere. If it is atop the list, that's as good as a standalone article. Ideally, I'd want to see the list attached to that unless for some reason SIZE issues come into play. --] (]) 18:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
			:There should be a real crackdown on both those and in "popular culture" articles. There are certainly a few examples where they make sense, but they're mostly just completely trivial. ] (]) 18:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
			:I think ] should be discussed here. If there are lists and sets discussed outside of Misplaced Pages, then a list can exist on Misplaced Pages. It doesn't matter if editors think the topic is trivial. That perception can exist with prose too, like ], but sources exist. If a list article lacks sourcing from lists and sets, then ] should be performed and any potential sources put on the talk page. Of course clean-up through removing unsourced content can be appropriate, but it helps to replace it with ''some'' sourced content. ] (] \| ]) <sup>(])</sup> 19:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
			::We sorta need a line that distiquishes between a topic that actually has gotten some level of "academic" discussion like the toilet paper orientation (making it appropriate for an article), verses some random list of X in popular culture which may often have sources in "listicle" article ("Top 10" lists) that give no "academic" element for inclusion. (I use "academic" loosely here, I don't expect journal articles, but I expect something more transformative on the whole of the topic from a reliable source). --] (]) 19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
			:: I agree with Masem. There are so many ambiguous lists being created by random journalists that may have zero specialty in the topic. It has to be recognized by multiple recognized media outlets IMHO.] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
			::: Also, because I brought this up in the Badgers AfD, that we should distinguish fiction from folklore/legend/mythology as that is cultural that wasn't explicitly known as fictitious.] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
			:::: There is a weird line between the folklore and the popular culture factors, to the point I wouldn't necessary separate these elements in different lists (unless, after all inclusion metrics are met, there is a size issue), but I would make sure they were grouped clearly to distinguish folklore from pop culture. --] (]) 20:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

			I think that we need reasonable guidelines for pruning and improving these lists, for the simple reason that they make readers happy. There is anecdotal evidence that these lists offer serendipitous delight to readers, who are charmed by the discovery that they exist.
	== Creator commentary ==

			As a first step towards a guideline, I would suggest that to be included on a list like this, each item should be a significant character in the work or receive a reasonable amount of independent coverage, to be determined during the discussion of the guideline. (Another possibility is to only include items that are notable enough to have their own page.) Each item should be supported by a 2-3 sentence explanation of their significance within the work -- not just a bare listing of "x in an episode of y". If there isn't enough to say about that item to make 2-3 sentences, then it's not important enough to be included.
	I have to question the following statement added by Jinnai:
	<blockquote>
	Creator commentary on specific elements may still hint at the likelyhood of the element being notable.
	</blockquote>
	It seems to me that this statement runs contrary to the spirit of ], which says that "self-published media...are largely not acceptable". The reason is that they are not allowale is that generally they are not considered independent of the primary source. ] specifically rules out such sources on the grounds that "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book". <br />I think it would be better if this guideline did not run contrary to these other guidelines and the above statement should be removed. --] (]\|] 09:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
	:I thought FICT was dead, and we were going with NOTE. - ] (]) (]) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
	:I specifically said "hint" because a series that gets creator commentary usually is more popular, more reviewed, etc. Series without them tend to be less popular and less notable. Therefore "hint" is approrpriate as compromise IMO from saying that they can be used as notability and saying they can't be. (honestly I think for elements of a work, creator commentary should be usable as partial evidence of notability of an element. IE if all you have is CC, then it would fail, but if you have CC + 1 non-trivial source that covers the element in detail that is independant that that's enough)
	:I do think its best to get things clarrified in notability in general as there are just too many problems.]]] 01:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
	::If the source is not independent of the primary work, then that source is not evidence that a topic has been noted in published commentary from reliable sources independent of the topic itself. This is a serious conflict - you can't used creator commentary as an independent source because creators, publishers and promoters a direct interest in publicising the primary work. This not a credible statement. --] (]\|] 08:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::No, not always. If its a seperate book form of media, yes. If its commentary on a DVD with the media itself there really is no marketable reason to do that, especially if there is only 1 version. People will buy the DVD who will buy it already; it won't increase sales any because you have commentary on a media people intend to buy already to watch or read.]]] 15:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::I don't see how your argument can be supported. ] says "The published works must be someone else writing about the film. (See ] for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its creator or producer) have actually considered the film notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." --] (]\|] 15:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
	::nothing writer by the creator can make the work itself notable, but what the creator says about he different plot elements or characters can indicate which of them are important. The value of what creators say of their own intent has been a major theme in critical theory for centuries, with sharply diverging schools, but it is one of the factors that can be considered. ''']''' (]) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::This is what is meant. The creator of a work cannot be used in any way, shape or form to show notability of their work. They alone cannot be used to justify a separate article for an element within a work, but can be used as evidence with non-trivial independent sources to show notability of an element when something is on the edge, ie up at AfD. Furthermore, refusing to use creator commentary when it can be verified would violate ].]]] 05:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::Then creator commentary may be better placed in the section ], rather than being used as evidence of notability. --] (]\|] 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I don't believe so because it can help show notability as an independent article, ie not be merged or redirected.]]] 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::We both know that sources that are not independent of the primary source can be challenged as having been manufactured for promotional purposes, which can take the form of attempting to obtain monetary or non-monetary gain from writing Misplaced Pages articles. Sources such as creator commentary can't provide evidence of notability for this reason at all, because they are just not credible in terms of accuracy, bias or undue weight. This is a non-starter, believe me. --] (]\|] 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Just because they can be, doesn't mean they will fail a challenge automatically. SPSes are challenged every day and not every one of them fails, even though we caution against their use. In some cases ] are based upon them and these articles pass challenges to reivews of their sources. We aren't saying SPSes aren't allowed automatically because they can be challenged and therefore should not do so for creator commentary, but should note that it alone cannot be used to show notability.]]] 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

			As an example, the ] should include Miss Piggy, Porky Pig, Babe, Piglet, and Wilbur from ''Charlotte's Web'', and not the Peking Homunculus from a brief appearance in a ''Doctor Who'' story, or Little Cory from two episodes of ''Boy Meets World''.
	== Directories and databases ==

			Just in the last 24 hours ] closed as no consensus and ] closed as keep, which strongly indicates that there is not currently a consensus to delete these articles en masse. If folks would like to get consensus on a new guideline, then it should probably be an RfC or some formal process, rather than a brief, unheralded conversation at the bottom of this page. -- ] (]) 14:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	I note that the ] that form part of ] with {{tl\|where}} template. With regard to the following can you explain why you have done this?
	<blockquote>
	Directories and databases are examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
	</blockquote>
	Note that this wording has been cribbed from ], and is already in use and widely accepted. --] (]\|] 08:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
	:well, i tagged it with {{tl\|where}} b/c i was actually unaware of that little nugget squirreled away as a ref on WP:N, and i appreciate you taking the time to draw my attention to it. I have been a regular editor on wikipedia for several years, and thought that i was familiar with WP:N. Given that the main text is referring to WP:NOT, i would assume that the directories and databases it is referring to are those like the phone book, with such an incredibly large scope (all people in that geographic region) that individual members are only loosely connected. It might be better to use wording like:
	::"Some reliable sources, like directories and databases, are indiscriminate collections of loosely connected members, it is recommended that articles should not usually rely on these types of sources to establish notability."
	:Feel free to remove my tag, and perhaps wikilink to that section of WP:N.
	:(extra ranting, read if you like) To be honest, it is difficult to keep up with all the conversations on just WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR, that to be asked to also be aware of the minutiae of their supporting guidelines is a little inhuman. And we could both attest to many editors on here who would feel that coverage in a reliable source has satisfied WP:V, so guidelines be damned - i generally challenge the notion of that wording, and even WP:N, as being widely accepted (remember the hue and cry when it was upgraded from essay?).--] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
	::*You make a valid point in this regard; I think note 5 does not fully explain itself. Your wording has its merits, but I recall an exchange I had with another editor (Masem) regarding the term "indiscriminate collections of loosely connected members" which makes this term problematical. He argued something along the lines that lists of characters or episodes should always merit their own standalone page on the grounds that they were not indiscriminate, but that they were part of a set of fictional elements that should have their own page on the grounds that this would provide comprehensive coverage of a topic. I have therefore amended ] as follows:
	<blockquote>
	:::Coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; some reliable sources, like directories and databases, mainly summarize secondary sources, and should not be used in place of secondary sources to establish notability.
	</blockquote>
	:::I think this follows your train of thought, but is less likely to be disputed. --] (]\|] 00:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
	::::actually, the reasoning for using those other terms is ''because'' i feel character lists are not indiscriminate. I was more referring to a fictional database that decided to list every fictional character ever created, or databases like IMDB being used as the only 3rd party source to say actor X played character Y (or as the only source for info on episodes). However, if a third-party were to write an exhaustive encyclopedia on a fictional subject and that source was deemed to be reliable (i.e. it was truly encyclopedic in nature and not full of speculation or original fiction by the editor) i think it should satisfy our needs to be a ], and we could write articles based heavily on that source - although still not exclusively. I don't tend to think articles should be written if they can only be sourced to one book, site, etc. I think that making the claim, "Coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability..." is too bold and would never have agreement, it sounds too contradictory to the sentence from WP:V that our threshold for inclusion is verifiabilty. i find it only necessary that as a guideline we recommend articles to not ''rely'' on some kinds of databases and directories as the only source because it calls into question that actual notability of the article. --] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 01:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::In my view, if the content of a list is not supported by reliable secondary sources (if only in the main article), then that suggests to me that it is indiscriminate listcruft without a rationale for inclusion. A broad rule of thumb might be that if, say, a list of characters is not the subject of coverage in an article about a notable topic, then it is indiscriminate ''stuff''. I am not sure how else you can distinguish between listcruft and geniniely encyclopedic coverage. <br /> With regard to the argument that coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability, if only because Misplaced Pages is itself a tertiary source, and because tertiary sources tend to be summaries of secondary sources, such that it is very difficult to agrue that their coverage is not received ''third-hand'' so to speak, from a secondary source. Summarising a tertiary source is the equivalent of summarising a summary, and is the equivalent of hearsay from a legal perspective. <br />In theory some "Encylopedia of..." type publications may contain commentary from from reliable secondary sources (say an expert opinion of the editor), but I think this is an example of a secondary source being "embeded" in a tertiary source that might be allowable as evidence of notability if the expert opinion can be clearly distinguished from the rest of the tertiary source.<br />For these reasons, I think it is necessary to be bold, and a recomendation not to use tertiary sources as evidence of notability invites Wikilawyering. --] (]\|] 10:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
	::you're arguing that the subject does not merit inclusion (is not-notable) despite it's non-trivial discussion in a reliable third-party source only because that source is tertiary? while our other guidelines already say one should not depened on such sources for high levels of detail, they do not cast them off as irrelevant for establishing notability. --] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::No, if it is the subject of non-trivial discussion in a reliable third-party source, then it is clearly a secondary source (such as commentary from an expert editor), even it is embedded in a tertiary source. Same goes for primary sources; sometimes you get commentary from an expert with, say, embedded as an introduction to Classic texts such as ], which are often the best source of criticism, analysis and context. Although the publication itself may be a primary source, the commentary (such as the introduction) may be classed as a reliable secondary source. However, primary and tertiary coverage on their own do not impart any notability per ]. --] (]\|] 21:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
	::i am wondering what phrasing you are interpreting as saying, "...tertiary coverage on own do not impart any notability..." - please keep your quote relevant to tertiary sources. it seems to me that WP:OR is discussing ''content'' and ''prose'', not suitability of inclusion. --] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 03:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::I see what you mean: I may have over stepped the mark. I have amended the wording in accordance with the footnotes in ] as follows:
	<blockquote>
	::::Note that all coverage in ] constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; ], ], ] are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
	</blockquote>
	:::Please feel free to amend this if you feel it can be improved upon. --] (]\|] 10:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

			===Should we start an initiative to delete the majority of these lists?===
	== Significant or Non-Trivial? ==
			I'm wondering if we should start deleting some of these. At least the more obvious ones that are invented topics.] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 17:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
			:No, too early. We should first establish the minimum expectations for these lists (previous section), make sure there's community consensus for those, and then give a time frame like 6 months or so for editors to clean up. THEN we can start a deletion spree as we have given editors fair warning throughout this. (Any such RFC and results would be posted to relevant wikiprojects and VP). --] (]) 17:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

			:I agree with Masem here. There's no huge rush and decency demands at least some prior warning before starting an enormous cleanup campaign. The voice of cynicism- and prior experience- says that no amount of prior warning will actually get the defenders of these lists to sort out any of the problems, or prevent them from complaining loud and long when they are nominated at AfD. But we should still behave properly. ] <sub>]</sub> 07:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	With regard to this ,where in ], is the term ''non-trivial'' used, if at all? --] (]\|] 08:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
			::True, but other editors who aren’t reflexively defending such lists would be far less likely to sympathetic to the defenders if they had fair waring and ample opportunity to improve the lists and chose not to as opposed to being seemingly blindsided.--] (]) 21:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

			== ] / ] ==
	The ] does not use the word "non-trivial", but does use the words "more than a trivial mention" which is exactly what non-trivial means. While it comes under the heading of "Significant coverage" since FICT doesn't say what it is, it will be contented to rather be higher than lower as the word signigiant implies more than moderate. That was really the problem I had with it before. I admit non-trivial may be at the other extreme. I think its best here then to reinterate what signifigant means. I do realize people can go to the GNG, but many elwayers won't.]]] 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
	:I don't think the change that you made to ] by substituting "significant" with "non-trivial" is of benefit, becasue it appears you are arguing that coverage for fictional topics should only be "non-trivial" which is the bare mininium, where as the term "significant" is somewhat higher that. I am sure you are acting in good faith, but in my eyes your change looks like you are trying to water down the requirement for significant coverage made in ], and for this reason I don't accept your changes. I would argue that your departure from ] has been made to give special treatment to fictional topics not afforded to other subject areas, and I am not sure what your motivation is. If there is a benefit, please explain.<br />On the one hand, I do recognise that your approach is not totally invalid, but I wish you would understand why I object to it. Although ] and ] use the term "non-trivial", they define this term in both the body and the foot notes in terms of sourcing, rather than in terms of focus of the coverage itself (e.g. tertiary sources, such as database listings, and self-published sources such as blogs are not evidence of notability). Personally, I consider sourcing to be a seperate issue, dealt with by ]. Furthermore, it is hard to discuss this issue in terms of trivia at all, as again, this can be viewed as an entirely seperate issue dealt with by ]. <br />If we go back to the roots of what is trivial and non-trival, my understand of what is non-trivial is illustrated by ], which says
	<blockquote>
	:"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 a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material
	</blockquote>
	:I just don't agree that the term "non-trivial" does this issue justice: only significant coverage can "anchor" a topic to its sources, otherwise it is not possible to distinguish between content forks and articles which genuinely meet all of Misplaced Pages's content policies, such as the ] series of content forks which are not the subject of significant coverage. --] (]\|] 01:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
	::Significant implies a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning. Without actually explaining in the article (I feel a wikilink back to the GNG would not suffice) it will almost certainly be used to hold sources to higher standards than they should. If a review of 5 paragraphs has one paragraph talking about a character in-depth, then that may be viewed, without the explanation as being "insignificant". At the same time an entire paragraph devoted to explaining one character is hardly trivial commentary given the size of the article (assuming all paragraphs are decent length).
	::Part of this has to do with the poor choice of wording in the GNG. Significant tends to hold a higher standard than what the GNG requirement actually specifies.
	::Due to the controversial nature of fictional element articles I believe we need to go the extra mile and spell out something like this, if indeed significant is to be used. For other SNGs they do not have nearly the same level of controversy.]]] 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::Significant ''does'' imply a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning, I agree. But the issue of content forks still remains: if you don't have a standard that is high, you can't distinguish between a "genuine" aricle and a content fork. The ] content forks all contain non-trivial coverage related to their subject matter. For example, the article ] does not contain any ''significant'' coverage about its subject matter, ie. coverage that address the concept as the Terminator as a franchise directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content, even though I use the word franchise in its broadest possible sense. Significant coverage is vital for anchoring an article to its sources. --] (]\|] 21:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
	::::In the case of Terminator, creating a franchise page is considered a common practice when you deal with multiple works within a series. If you disagree that's a separate issue that should be taken up elsewhere.
	::::However, I think we need to emphasis what significance is as if we do not we are handing munition to deletionist and mergist without giving anything to inclusionist. We are effectively saying "screw you" to anyone who wants to create an article that has some secondary sources, the content on them is clearly not trivial. I say this because the part about inclusion criteia does not also include the possibility that the article be able to ] and be kept for other reasons.]]] 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::The problem is with this approach is that the difference between "trivial" and "non-trivial" is just too slight. Significant coverage is a superior requirement, in that sources address the subject directly in detail are easily discernable. Coverage which is not direct or detailed is usually insufficient to use in an article without being supplemented with orginal research or synthesis. In any case, if a topic is not the subject of coverage that is direct and in detail, how can you claim it has been noted at all? What is the point of non-trivial coverage if the subject matter is being addressed in this way? --] (]\|] 07:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
	::::::And that's why I think it's wrong. Your trying to over-compensate for the marginial difference between trivial and minor to just shift it over to the other extreme completely bypassing the middle ground of moderate. As to claiming if it is notable, if almost every reliable sources continually mention some element, but do not necessarily go into detail due to the way their article, interview, show, etc. is structured, its hard to say the element is unnotable since so many RSes seem to want to mention it. This is where I say a multitude of non-trivial sources, aka those that use minor coverage that is above trivial. We define trivial by consensus as what is trivial for one source may be signfigiant for another one. I do agree it needs to be covered directly, but the level of detail can vary, but does need to go beyond the basic facts of its existance in the narrative.]]] 09:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::There is nothing extreme about being clear, which is why the requirement for "significant" coverage is important when it comes to resolving disputes. If almost every reliable sources continually mention some element, that does not mean they are notable. A mulitude of trivial mentions is not a substitute for coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail; the coverage has to be focused. If there is no focus, then it is difficult to ascertain wether the source is addressing a notable topic, or whether it is addressing a non-notable only in passsing. Perhaps the only way to resolve this issue is to draft an RFC on the issue. --] (]\|] 08:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
	===RFC: Non-trivial or significant===
	{{rfctag\|policy}}
	The term "non-trivial" has replaced "significant" in regard to the level of coverage that is required to establish the notability of fictional topics. The term "significant" implies a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning, and may imply a higher standard than is required. Comment is requested on whether "non-trivial" or "significant" should be used to describe the type of coverage that address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content. --] (]\|] 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
	*My strong opinion with "trivial" from years back is that we should not label any source as trivial. The issue is with sources that contain "trivial coverage of the subject", and the use of trivial is synonymous with incidental. There is definitely a problem with the word "significant". In everyday use, is means highly substantial, even providing input that changes/determines the entire view. In technical terms, "significant" means almost the opposite of this. It means anything down to things barely measurable above, even at, the ]. For this reason as well I thing the use of "significant" is non-ideal. I suggest using the phrase "incidental coverage of the subject" in places where with less words you might use significant/trivial. I know it's more words, but often very interested editors need these things explained precisely more than briefly. --] (]) 02:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
	*I favor "significant", mainly because it is a term of art: directly taken from ], it should have a consistent meaning across Misplaced Pages.—](]) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
	::The problem is also the way the ] defines "significant" and the lack of clarrification here.]]] 03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
	*Remove both "non-trivial" and "significant" as subjective terms. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 02:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
	* Restore the term "significant" — and require a high bar. There certainly are trivial sources; the sources of no import, that are often unreliable. What is required is multiple reliable sources that comment in depth about matters of substance. A fistful of ghits dredged up means boo. tehyz gonna index tweets, which are not evidence of anything. The idea behind notability is that someone ''of note'' has ''taken note'' — and opined in a significant way on the subject in question. A trivial mention of a term in the context of a source covering a larger context doesn't cut it.<br />We are supposed to be covering what others have already covered, not leading the way to cover what we like. If you like what is good and significant, then you're in sync with the core goals of the project. If you find that the reliable sources have not covered what you love in a manner that has little trouble meeting the inclusion criteria of most editors, then mebbe a site that is more suited to your finding and collaborating with people who love what you love is the best choice. Cheers, ] 13:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

			This essay was created two years ago and seemingly has the same "status" (essay) as NFICTION. It is however not very well known; it is not linked from NFICTION, it is cited only in a dozen+ AfD discussions since its creation two years ago, and also seems much more inclusive than NFICTIION or GNG. ] links to NFICTION not to NCOMIC. It seems clear that this essay has been created by one person (]) with no input or recognition from the community (I only found ] which does not constite any wide endorsment; I did not see any other discussion of this essay on any public project discussion space), and it can mislead good faithed editors who can cite it thinking that it is a community-endorsed viewpoint, rather than a view point of a single editor. Few months ago on its talk page an anon suggested it should be deleted/depreciated, and I concur (not to deletion, but to tagging it with {{tl\|Failed proposal}}, but how to go about it? RfC? Or would a discussion here be enough? PS. For now, should it be tagged with {{tl\|Proposal}}? An essay written by a single user should not give an appearance of a community-endorsed view, and clearly, an essay on notability template {{tl\|notability essay}} present there is not enough, since it is also present here, and this falsely suggests NCOMIC is equal to NFICTION (which is much better known and much more widely cited). -- <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 04:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
	== Drive-by comment ==

			== RfC on whether and how to cover J. K. Rowling's trans-related views in the lead of her article ==
	Been a while since I checked in on the debate, but the last time I looked, I thought the winds were blowing in the direction of once again decoupling inclusion guidelines for works of fiction and fictional things. Which decoupling I heartily approve of, in no small part because of the wrenching ontological confusion that comes from equating the two -- the ropes and straps used to try to yoke them together show all over the place. A quick glance at the voluminous archives doesn't find when the winds shifted again, so a plea from a passing editor: please, ''please'' separate them. Focus this on just inclusion guidelines for fictional things, and leave works of fiction to format-specific guidelines like ] and ]. —] (]) 22:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
	:Format-specific guidelines have been created because a work or element of fiction can take many different real world forms, and establishing their notability can be done in a variety of ways, e.g. ] is not only a notable work of fiction in itself, but the book itself was the subject of a notable obscenity trial. Establishing the distinction between of works and elements of fiction which have not been distributed seperately is more difficult. The terms works and elements can be used interchangeably to describe episodes in, say, a television series, or individual works which can be grouped together, such as a collection of short stories. This guideline is necessary where a work/element of fiction is not format-specific, simply because the boundry between the two is not clear. For this reason, it seems sensible to me to have a seperate guideline for "fictional topics" which covers both. --] (]\|] 10:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
	:: If your Lady Chatterly example is intended to show how something can be shown notable as both a work of fiction and a fictional element, it's not working -- both of those demonstrate the notability of the work of fiction. Admittedly most of my experience working on articles on serial works has been manga and comics, and I've never fought in the trenches of a television series, but I've yet to find a short story serial art collection where the distinction cannot be clearly made between the stories and what they narrate. Given that television episodes seem to be the main point of difficulty, possibly that format alone needs separate inclusion guideline. But as I said, I haven't been engaged in this debate for some time, and don't have your experience. —] (]) 14:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
	*I tend to agree with you to a certain extent, Quasirandom. The problem appears to be working out how to change the guidance on this page. Do you have any ideas? Maybe yet another restart? ] <small>] </small> 12:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
	** No specific ideas. To be honest, I stay out of guidelinewonkery these days, because it's my road to wikiburnout. So I occasionally kibitz from the sidelines. —] (]) 14:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

			{{FYI\|pointer=y}}
	== Sniff test ==

			Please see: ]
	This proposal is, as it stands, a more rigorous version of WP:N. That is, it sets up criteria in addition to WP:N for inclusion. All articles that pass this will pass WP:N, but it is possible for an article to pass WP:N and fail this.

			I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.
	This, to my mind, fails the sniff test. There is clearly nothing resembling a consensus that fiction articles should be governed under a ''stricter'' standard than WP:N. There is no way, looking at the past debate on this matter, to come even close to that interpretation.

			Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
	This proposal is clearly DOA, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Unless its advocates can provide some reason why, given the context of this debate, there is community consensus that the notability requirements for fiction are actually stricter than WP:N (when in fact this dispute arises primarily because of the large number of people who advocate for extremely lose notability criteria for fiction, and their ability to sway AfDs), this proposal should be delisted, as it is disingenuous at best to give the suggestion that a proposal that so blatantly fails the sniff test is a serious possibility. ] (]) 13:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
			: The idea that WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Women Writers are {{tq\|likely to vote-stack the RfC ''with a single socio-political viewpoint''}} appears to come from a place of profound ignorance, and certainly the RfC in question has nothing to do with Notability.
	:You could say this of any or all the SNG's. The reality is that, in the same way ] provides practical guidance on the application of Misplaced Pages's ] to article inclusion in general, so too do ], ], and ] provide practical guidance on their application of to specific subject areas. In this sense, WP:FICT and the other SNG's are not stricter than ], they just illuminate the various notability issues that apply to fictional topics, the key being that plot summary on its own can't be used as evidence of notability. <br />As you have not said what your "sniff test" actually represents, I would guess it is based on some set criteria loosely based on ]. I am afraid I would have to dismiss your bald assertion that this guideline is in any way stricter than ]. So far, your proposal at ] has skirted around the issue of article inclusion criteria. Instead, I think it is a vague and deliberately misleading essay in which various exemptions from Misplaced Pages's content policies are currently nesting. --] (]\|] 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
			: But by all means, we do need fresh eyes on the lead of the article, which has seen so much whitewashing and FALSEBALANCE POV-based editing. ] (]) 02:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

	::You manifestly can't say it for, for instance, ], which says explicitly that these are additional options for satisfying notability. And for something like ], there is a clear consensus to tighten the notability guidelines.

			In wikipedia about smurf list,
	::Given that it is a dodgy claim to say that there is consensus to apply ] as is to fiction, the claim that there is consensus for an actively stricter version is transparently false. Hence my saying it doesn't pass the sniff test - it is self-evidently false.
			numbering of episodes is quite disturbing, without any further explanation.

			Why there are 75a and 75b for many seasons?
	::And I don't see how you're rejecting the claim that this is stricter than WP:N. It's the exact words of WP:N with extra requirements written in. I mean, you're not even being subtle here - you're transparently saying fiction has to meet some standard of supernotability to be included. And you know full well there's no consensus for that view, which makes me wonder what the point of this page is. ] (]) 17:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
			Why there is 75th , 75a, and 75b episodes? What a and b or "75" alone means?
	:::What specifically are the extra requirements built in? Exactly in what way does this differ from WP:N? --]]<sub>(])</sub> 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
			No explanation at all! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Adapted characters ==
	::::"Real world" appears nowhere in ]. ] (]) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::You want to debate this, I'm cool, start a discussion about it if you feel it is misplaced, but don't dismiss this proposed guideline on the pretext that it more stict. Note that ] and ] go out of their way to explain why plot summary without critical commentary is not allowable as evidence of notability. ] simply makes this clear: plot summary on its own is not independent of the primary work, even if it comes from reliable source. This is not strictness, this is common sense application of ] which says that ''Independent of the subject'' means that works produced by those affiliated with the subject are not evidence of notability. There has to be some real world coverage to show that the primary work being ''noted'', not just ''regurgitated''.--] (]\|] 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
	::::::And I'm saying that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this viewpoint has consensus for elements of fictional works, and plenty of reason to believe it doesn't. And until you provide evidence otherwise, this proposal should be delisted as a proposal, as it does not appear to be even remotely serious. ] (]) 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::This things going nowhere. - ] (]) (]) 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::I agree. It's either redundant since it restates ], or it goes further than ]. What I find strange is the fact that Gavin is arguing that FICT is similar to ] and ] when it patently is not. FICT goes further than WP:N by adding extra hurdles '''to''' the route proposed at WP:N, whilst ] and ] add '''alternative''' routes to that set out at WP:N. Someone please, please, mark this as rejected and then put up an index of all the versions of FICT and all other related stuff, similar to ]. ] <small>] </small> 23:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::It would be cool to see all the different versions. There must be a bunch. - ] (]) (]) 23:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

			There is a proposal to add guidance on adapted film/television characters to this page at ]. Comments are welcome, thanks. ] (]) 15:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
	Phil Sandifer's been the biggest holdout in shutting this atrocity down, so I'm confused as to why he's suddenly throwing in the towel now that it finally has in it most of the things that make it worthwhile including the substantial real world coverage? I think this is a dodge to get people away, so that in a month the zombie corpse can rise to again try to get through the 'if it exists, it's notable' level that Phil long advocated. We don't need Phil to make this stricter proposal into a recognized guideline, and we should push for this version to rise to that of a guideline. ] (]) 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

			== Significant coverage about merchandise ==
	:Thuran, does it take work to spew your pathetic lies about me, or does it come naturally for you? ] (]) 03:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

			Hi @]. I saw ] removing the word "merchandise" after ]. I definitely appreciate and agree with your edit summary indicating that merchandise alone doesn't indicate notability. My intention with that inclusion was around secondary sigcov in independent reliable sources about merchandise. For example, merchandise announcements or churnalism noting a cross-promotions and such would not qualify, but an article in a reliable source with an experienced journalist providing a few paragraphs reviewing a toy could qualify in many cases. What do you think the best way to reflect this in the text would be? —]]] 06:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
	:There is no one person "holding" this project up. There are many contentions. We still have an RfC outstanding. There is still the problem this would not pass in its current if a similar number and demographic of respondents came to comment on the proposal as a whole since it was split evenly with that less strict proposal (and there were a number who didn't like the more liberal version thought the GNG was good enough). I think people here do not understand this is absolute base level of what should constitute enough evidence of importance to be kept as an article, not to create feature articles; people also seemed trapped by the past and use it at times as a weapon to point out that because it already is, it cannot be anything but (specifically in regard to the GNG, even though the GNG lacks consensus on its current form).]]] 06:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
			:The main problem is if the article is discussing the merchandise or the subject in question for the article in a significant manner within it, and in all honesty I have next to never seen that happen. In the few cases where merchandise has been brought up in regards to how a subject is viewed, it's mentioned in the context of articles discussing the subject where the merchandise is a lesser point overall. Do you have examples of articles focused on merchandise you think helps provide notability towards a fictional element?--] (]) 13:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
	:: In answer to Jinnai, I think there are many undercurrents out there that mean that this guideline in its current form will not be accepted immediatetly, but I am confident that it will be accepted gradually, grudingly and maybe with some more amendments. But it is clear its precepts have precendent in ] and ], so Phil's bald assertion that it does not have consensus does not hold up - everything in here is already policy or is included in another guideline. The innovation this version has over old versions is that the inclusion criteria are consistent with ], ] and ] together. The exemptions from that have been proposed over the past two years do not work, and have been shown to be nothing more than special pleading for fictional topics because they ignored the bigger picture. --] (]\|] 09:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:42, 8 October 2024

Skip to table of contents

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Misplaced Pages essays Mid‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

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.

Shortcut

WT:FICT

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 page was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

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.

More restrictions on List of fictional elements

I noticed we have large groups of lists for fictional elements.

List of fictional robots and androids

v t e Fictional countries
General list List by region
Africa	Azania Babar's Kingdom Bangalla Genosha Khokarsa Opar Wakanda
Americas	Brobdingnag Jesusland San Escobar San Sombrèro Val Verde
Asia	Glubbdubdrib Lilliput and Blefuscu Luggnagg Madripoor Phaic Tăn San Serriffe Shangri-La Skull Island
Europe	Baltish Borduria Grand Fenwick Graustark Freedonia Latveria Listenbourg Lower Slobbovia Molvanîa Poictesme Pottsylvania Ruritania Slaka Sodor Soviet Unterzoegersdorf Syldavia Veyshnoria
Oceania	Patusan
WikiCommons Category

v t e Fictional professionals
Entertainers	Hypnotists Actors Journalists
Medical	Medical examiners Doctors in television Dentists Psychiatrists Veterinarians Nurses
Science	Actuaries Anthropologists Astronauts Geneticists Scientists and engineers
Education	Professors Librarians
Politics	Politicians Monarchs fictional countries Presidents of the United States Nobility Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom Dictators Princes Princesses
Detectives and private investigators	Female detectives Police detectives Sci-fi and fantasy detectives Private investigators Double agents Secret agents Spymasters
Other	Butlers Clergy and religious figures Housekeepers Language interpreters Nannies Patent attorneys Pirates Postal workers Salespeople Valets
Category

v t e Fictional military
Military science fiction
Weapons	Doomsday devices Military robots Military aircraft Rayguns Ships Swords
Military	Space warfare in science fiction
Other	Dictators

v t e Fictional transportation
Ground transportation	Buses Cars Metro/rapid transit stations Railway stations
Air transportation	Aircraft Flying cars
Water transportation	Ships Royal Navy ships Submarine aircraft carriers
Other transportation	Vehicles Marvel comics Spacecraft Space stations

Lists of fictional life forms

Plants

Plants

Animals

Amphibians

Frogs and toads

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

Canines	Animation Comics Literature Dogs prose and poetry comics live-action film live-action television animation animated film animated television video games Foxes Wolves
Felines	Animation Comics Film Literature Television Big cats animation
Rodents	Animation Comics Literature Video games
Non-human primates	Animation Comics Film Literature Television
Ungulates	Animation Horses Literature Pachyderms Pigs
Miscellaneous	Bats Bears Cetaceans Marsupials Musteloids animation Badgers Raccoons Pinnipeds Rabbits and hares Rhinogradentia

Humanoids

General	Comics Film Literature Television Video games
Specific	Aquatic Avian Reptilian

Other

Cryptids

Humanoids Parasites Symbionts
Legendary	Fictional dragons popular culture film and television games literature Fictional ghosts Fictional mermaids Fictional vampires Fictional werewolves
Theological	Fictional angels Fictional demons Fictional deities

Should we start an initiative to delete the majority of these lists?

I'm wondering if we should start deleting some of these. At least the more obvious ones that are invented topics.Blue Pumpkin Pie 17:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No, too early. We should first establish the minimum expectations for these lists (previous section), make sure there's community consensus for those, and then give a time frame like 6 months or so for editors to clean up. THEN we can start a deletion spree as we have given editors fair warning throughout this. (Any such RFC and results would be posted to relevant wikiprojects and VP). --Masem (t) 17:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem here. There's no huge rush and decency demands at least some prior warning before starting an enormous cleanup campaign. The voice of cynicism- and prior experience- says that no amount of prior warning will actually get the defenders of these lists to sort out any of the problems, or prevent them from complaining loud and long when they are nominated at AfD. But we should still behave properly. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

True, but other editors who aren’t reflexively defending such lists would be far less likely to sympathetic to the defenders if they had fair waring and ample opportunity to improve the lists and chose not to as opposed to being seemingly blindsided.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Comic book notability guidelines / WP:NCOMIC

This essay was created two years ago and seemingly has the same "status" (essay) as NFICTION. It is however not very well known; it is not linked from NFICTION, it is cited only in a dozen+ AfD discussions since its creation two years ago, and also seems much more inclusive than NFICTIION or GNG. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Comics links to NFICTION not to NCOMIC. It seems clear that this essay has been created by one person (User:Etzedek24) with no input or recognition from the community (I only found this which does not constite any wide endorsment; I did not see any other discussion of this essay on any public project discussion space), and it can mislead good faithed editors who can cite it thinking that it is a community-endorsed viewpoint, rather than a view point of a single editor. Few months ago on its talk page an anon suggested it should be deleted/depreciated, and I concur (not to deletion, but to tagging it with {{Failed proposal}}, but how to go about it? RfC? Or would a discussion here be enough? PS. For now, should it be tagged with {{Proposal}}? An essay written by a single user should not give an appearance of a community-endorsed view, and clearly, an essay on notability template {{notability essay}} present there is not enough, since it is also present here, and this falsely suggests NCOMIC is equal to NFICTION (which is much better known and much more widely cited). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC on whether and how to cover J. K. Rowling's trans-related views in the lead of her article

FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead

I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.

Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The idea that WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Women Writers are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single socio-political viewpoint appears to come from a place of profound ignorance, and certainly the RfC in question has nothing to do with Notability.

But by all means, we do need fresh eyes on the lead of the article, which has seen so much whitewashing and FALSEBALANCE POV-based editing. Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

In wikipedia about smurf list, numbering of episodes is quite disturbing, without any further explanation.

Why there are 75a and 75b for many seasons? Why there is 75th , 75a, and 75b episodes? What a and b or "75" alone means? No explanation at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estatistics (talk • contribs) 09:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Adapted characters

There is a proposal to add guidance on adapted film/television characters to this page at WT:FILM#Survey. Comments are welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Significant coverage about merchandise

Hi @Kung Fu Man. I saw your recent edit removing the word "merchandise" after my recent update. I definitely appreciate and agree with your edit summary indicating that merchandise alone doesn't indicate notability. My intention with that inclusion was around secondary sigcov in independent reliable sources about merchandise. For example, merchandise announcements or churnalism noting a cross-promotions and such would not qualify, but an article in a reliable source with an experienced journalist providing a few paragraphs reviewing a toy could qualify in many cases. What do you think the best way to reflect this in the text would be? —siro χ o 06:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The main problem is if the article is discussing the merchandise or the subject in question for the article in a significant manner within it, and in all honesty I have next to never seen that happen. In the few cases where merchandise has been brought up in regards to how a subject is viewed, it's mentioned in the context of articles discussing the subject where the merchandise is a lesser point overall. Do you have examples of articles focused on merchandise you think helps provide notability towards a fictional element?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories: