Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::::::::::Yes, we certainly make the standards, but the standards we have probably aren't going to change in the near future, especially VERIFY. NOTE could possibly change, but not to the extent that Phil wants it to. I don't think there will ever be adequate community consensus to overturn VERIFY's requirement of third party sources though. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 08:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes, we certainly make the standards, but the standards we have probably aren't going to change in the near future, especially VERIFY. NOTE could possibly change, but not to the extent that Phil wants it to. I don't think there will ever be adequate community consensus to overturn VERIFY's requirement of third party sources though. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 08:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Look, if you are going to be so transparently silly as to argue that ], a redirect to ], applies to ''plot summaries,'' then just stop. You're not arguing anything that has even the remotest relationship with reality or sense. For the last time, the phrasing of WP:WEIGHT is, and I quote, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A description of what happened in an episode of a television show is not a viewpoint about the show. There is no extended debate about the contents of a television show that we are stepping into and coming down on one side. That is not to say that overly long plot summaries are OK. But they're bad for stylistic and copy-editing reasons - not because they violate one of our most fundamental content principles. As for the WP:V issue, as I have said, it is for the most part sanest to treat episode articles as sub-articles of the series that we keep not because they're completely autonomous topics, but because when we're dealing with a 109 hour television series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer we can't possibly provide all the basic plot and character details that one expects for a work of fiction in one article without it being unforgivably long. ] (]) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Look, if you are going to be so transparently silly as to argue that ], a redirect to ], applies to ''plot summaries,'' then just stop. You're not arguing anything that has even the remotest relationship with reality or sense. For the last time, the phrasing of WP:WEIGHT is, and I quote, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A description of what happened in an episode of a television show is not a viewpoint about the show. There is no extended debate about the contents of a television show that we are stepping into and coming down on one side. That is not to say that overly long plot summaries are OK. But they're bad for stylistic and copy-editing reasons - not because they violate one of our most fundamental content principles. As for the WP:V issue, as I have said, it is for the most part sanest to treat episode articles as sub-articles of the series that we keep not because they're completely autonomous topics, but because when we're dealing with a 109 hour television series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer we can't possibly provide all the basic plot and character details that one expects for a work of fiction in one article without it being unforgivably long. ] (]) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: Actually, I wouldn't normally interrupt. But I think you missed the part of ] that says "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints". It's a guideline that's also used at ]: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Just offering a small correction. ] (]) 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Partly because of recent discussions, here and at WT:FICT, mainly, I think we need to clear something up.
As I read it, the current notability guideline (WP:NOTE) defines notability as nothing other than "worthy of note", and then says that something is considered notable if it meets the general notability guidelines (GNG) or any of the accepted subject-specific guidelines that are applicable. However, a great many people seem to read this as that notability (for WP purposes) is defined by the GNG and that the other guidelines give guidance on interpreting it for specific areas.
The first reading means that, generally, subject-specific guidelines (such as WP:BOOK et al) can be more permissive than the GNG, as if they were less permissive they could simply be ignored and the GNG used to pass instead. The second reading means that subject-specific guidelines should be less permissive, and if they fail to be so, then the GNG will effectively nullify them. Well, the first reading does also mean that they can complement the GNG, such that it becomes possible to pass the GNG and fail the subject specific and possible to fail the GNG and pass the subject specific; the second reading doesn't seem to allow for this possibility. So which is it? SamBC(talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(Oh, as a final note, as currently written the GNG is not a corollary of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc, as they permit sources that the GNG says don't speak to notability (such as directories and primary sources), and it's possible to pass the GNG without then being able to say more than a few sentences per WP:V, as multiple independent secondary sources might all be saying the same thing, for example. V/NOR talk about individual bits of content, WP:NOTE is all about the article, in fact the topic, as a whole. This may be a separate point of debate, but if WP:NOTE and the GNG are taken as a corollary of WP:V, then WP:NOTE ought to be rewritten quite massively to reflect that, and all the subject-specific guidelines refocussed and, in a few cases, probably deleted. SamBC(talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC))
You probably know my stance on this already. I am emphatically not one of the ones who believes Wiki notability to be defined in absolute terms by the GNG, largely because so many clearly notable fictional characters fail the guideline utterly. Most notable fictional characters and elements of literary fiction, video games, Dungeons and Dragons, do not have and will never have what we consider sufficient coverage in secondary sources to be notable. And yet I think the consensus at AfD is clearly that another standard of notability may be applied to even minor characters who have been kicking around their respective notable fictional universes for a while (take Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet as a representative example). I believe it is the persistence and recurrence in the work(s) that confers notability in such cases. I came to this discussion largely because fictional characters was the first area I noticed that was completely failed by our current WP:N guidelines. I can't think of any other examples, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Would anyone else care to enlighten me? Ford MF (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The AfD for Ego the Living Planet is an embarrassment of WP:ILIKEIT. There is not one logical and supportable Keep argument and I think that the participation was due to canvassing. The AfD was closed early by a non-admin which I think is a horrible practice. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I see notability, and its burgeoning sprawl of sub-guidelines, as a ridiculously complex way of expressing some relatively simple concepts. This is due to, in my opinion, bad pseudo-compromises and exactitude in wording demands. Notability simply means there is a reasonable presumption that enough independent reputable sources to craft a complete and well-sourced article. Or following the guideline name, that independent reliable references consider the topic noteworthy enough to provide substantive/comprehensive coverage. All the sprawling subguidelines generally just provide some common sense bits, such as if someone won a major award, we should presume enough sources exist to support an article. Whether its the GNG or the subguidelines, it all returns to a presumption that sufficient sources exist. This is also true of the common "inherently" notable topics, such as towns. This "auto-notability" derives from the (perfectly reasonable) presumption that plentiful sources almost assuredly exist. It should also be noted that fulfilling notability is not necessarily sufficient for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. For two prominent examples, there are some things that simple don't belong here and an article about a living person must meet certain standards.
Touching on fiction specifically, in my experience, there is rarely (if ever) an actual lack of sources for prominent fictional topics. There is simply a lack of motivation to find the sources. I do not see the need to relax our basic inclusion guideline to accommodate laziness or other lack of willingness to do the grunt work to find sufficient sourcing. Using comics as the example, there are industry and mass market periodicals that cover the market fairly intensely. There are additionally numerous "encyclopedias", "fan guides" and similar resources available. There isn't even much of a need to cite the primary artistic works for comic book characters, as the major comic book publishers release numerous books, yearbooks, who's who listings and so forth that conveniently compile the most salient primary source appearances and facts. There are even academic articles and books about comics. Vassyana (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I would just point out that, while those sources (the comic yearbooks and suchforth, and "encyclopaedias" and guides from the pubishers) are allowed (if not ideal) under V, they aren't acceptable per NOTE to demonstrate notability, as they aren't independent of the subject. This is one of the flaws in the note-just-ensures-V view. If we want NOTE to be something that just ensures V (and I don't say that it should be, or shouldn't per se) then it needs changing. If it's trying to do something else, that should be clearer. SamBC(talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I was using those "in house" sources as examples that could be used instead of the direct appearances in comic titles. As I mention, there are numerous industry and mass market periodicals, among other independent sources, which do suffice for the purposes of notability. I disagree with the notability = verifiability and notability just ensures verifiability views. Saying that, as a whole, the available independent reliable sources should present comprehensive coverage of a subject is a distinct, if related, matter from indicating that information must be verifiable in reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Notability is just a "guideline" which is to be interpreted with "common sense". Editors who are familiar with a subject area know what is and isn't worth covering. The problem seems to arise when editors who are hostile to a subject area engage with it. The resulting Wikilawyering is a huge waste of everyone's time and we should not encourage it by creating volumes of detailed guidelines, essays and policy talk. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The general notability criterion was a nice attempt at an "objective" inclusion standard, but I think it has failed in that is deletes too much content that is perfectly reasonable to keep, and keeping some content that ought to be deleted. We have too many articles on murderers and murder victims, etc. and are too trigger-happy with deleting articles on pop-culture topics that while perhaps trivial have an enormous audience and are "in demand". I view our mission as being fairly responsive to the actual demands of our audience, and would like to see us address that audience more appropriately. Christopher Parham(talk)23:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The proliferation of murder victim articles are a failure to enforce WP:NOT, not a failure of notability (which specifically mentions that meeting notability is not necessarily sufficient). Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In practice this guideline is the means of enforcing the relevant provisions of WP:NOT. Moreover, this guideline perpetuates the notion that the number of independent sources available on a topic is the primary determinant of whether a topic ought to be included, but as exposed by these examples, in many cases the number of independent sources does not tell us much about our ability to write a useful encyclopedia article on a subject. Christopher Parham(talk)19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines are guidelines: think WP:POINT, WP:NONSENSE, WP:PROFANITY. They've developed out of a consensus about what generally improves wikipedia's overall quality. Exceptions should be occasional. But there's definitely a problem with WP:N because a few people find it's causing harm. We do need a workable standard: if it were just based on a small consensus on an individual article, wikipedia would take the form of urban dictionary with a page for every little fansite, internet meme, and web celebrity that could get voted up. The requirement of two reliable (e.g.: not self-published) sources that are independent of the subject (e.g.: the subject itself can't just generate its own notability) is meant to exclude a lot of crap (yes, crap). But a lot of people think it goes too far. This can't be fixed by letting each article make up its own subjective standard. We need that workable standard for some level of quality control. My question is simple: what would you change about the notability requirement? My gut feeling is we need a parallel standard that isn't just based on independent reliable sources, but then I'm not sure what that would look like. Randomran (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, while I might be arguing rather vociferously against the GNG on the WP:FICT talkpage, I have to say that in pretty much all other cases I find our current notability guidelines to work fine. I was sincere in asking if anyone know of a class of articles that our current WP:N fails the way it fails fictional characters and objects, because I can't think of one. Many properly notable fictional characters without a shred of secondary source (because generally nothing non-trivial exists) easily pass AfD in an I know it when I see it kind of way, and maybe we just need some language to reflect that. Honestly I think an additional page of guideline at WP:FICT is lunatic, when all that is really needed is a clause here that says something like "Fictional characters are a special case, and characters notable for their persistence or popularity in fictional media often have not received secondary source coverage." Ford MF (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been following discussions at WP:FICT, so please forgive my ignorance. My knee-jerk reaction in the past has been to say something like "if those reliable secondary sources do not exist, the character should be discussed as a subsection of the article about the fictional work, rather than in a separate article." As I read through parts of this discussion, however, I am second-guessing myself. A concrete example would probably be helpful to me; can you point me in the direction of a fictional character who clearly deserves his/her/its own article but who doesn't have adequate secondary sources granting that character notability per WP:N? Thanks for helping me learn about this issue. Aylad19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
One I've hauled out before is Ego the Living Planet, and the corresponding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet, which elicited a fairly strong and unambiguous consensus to keep, despite not having a single secondary source. And speaking as someone fairly knowledgeable about the subject, I'd say that no such sources exist, or if they do they are so trivial or obscure as to be virtually indistinguishable from nonexistent. I think the contention voiced here--that for notable articles, there will be some secondary sources, somewhere--is mostly true, but not entirely true, which is what makes it problematic. There will be a whole subclass within the class of fictional "X" articles for which secondary sources, for all intents and purposes, do not exist. And yet it's clear from watching AfD that a community consensus considers at least some of these articles notable, despite failing the letter of WP:NOTE utterly and entirely. Ford MF (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
To try to brainstorm this, can you provide an example of how this character can be sourced from anything besides the comic itself, ignoring any other restrictions on reliable sources or the like? Are there writer's bibles? Are there comprehensive fansites? Are there newsgroup postings? The reason I state this is because there is a bit of allowance for moving the goallines in WP:V to have the "best sources possible" for a topic, and if we consider the same here, trying to see if there's a way of relaxing what we consider as possible sources, such that the topic can be shown to be notable and have semi-independent sources... To meet the general concept (not the GNC, just the concept) we need to make sure that the subject is widely notable within the overall class of materials; just like local figures represented by only local sources are not considered notable, we need to make sure we're not pulling material from the only fan site that goes into depth for one minor character. --MASEM20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, not much more than a passing mention, and unclear if it's even about Ego, rather than about someone else referencing it. Ford MF (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Arguably, the fact that it's mentioned in a published book which was important enough to be featured on Google Books (however important that may be) hints at some notability. Anyway, as I indicated earlier, I'm second-guessing my earlier opinion, and I'll keep an eye (and an open mind) on this discussion. Thanks. Aylad01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think my point is being missed here. The question isn't whether or not Ego (and similar articles) is notable. That the character is in fact notable has been confirmed by editors knowledgeable about the subject and by an AfD that was passed without much reason beyond a bunch of energetic editors saying "Trust me, he's notable." I'm trying to work backwards, starting from the point at which the community consensus says a character is notable, and figuring out how to establish that through guidelines when the current guidelines (which require secondary sources that are, for all intents and purposes, next to nonexistent in these cases) fail, as our current guidelines fail. I'm trying to brainstorm ways to show this, and the best one that I can come up with is that, for fictional characters, primary sources might have to be considered acceptable. I admit I'm only mostly coming at this problem from one specific domain--comics--but it is the one in which the guidelines most drastically do not work. (Although an argument can be made for television characters being utterly broken with regards to WP:NOTE as well.) Ford MF (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
One problem is that we can never be sure if an apparent lack of sources is an actual lack, or just that they haven't been found yet; the corollary problem is that some people want a tight deadline, if you don't find the sources (to demonstrate notability, not verify the content of the article) soon enough, they want the article gone. SamBC(talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I know, except I'd have phrased it "we can never be sure if there is an actual lack of sources, or just that no one has been motivated enough to try and find the sources. If/when I get an example here, the first thing I'm going to do is make an honest effort to find the sources needed. I've seen editors who spent days arguing that a topic is notable without spending one minute trying to find the sources to prove it. Aylad20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to compose a generally applicable alternative; to my mind, that's the point of the subject-specific guidelines. Anything can be considered obviously notable if multiple independent reliable sources have covered it non-trivially, but within various limited domains (such as books, movies, athletics, etc etc) one can derive other ways of determining whether something is worthy of note. That's what the preamble to WP:N currently means to me, anyway, and it's the way I see things making sense. And if a domain isn't suited by the GNG, editors who edit in that domain (as in constructively edit, rather than just try to reduce or remove coverage) should try to develop guidelines. Then, however, there's no need for those domain-specific guidelines to be based on the GNG, or refer to it at all. However, what should they be measuring? That's one of the main problems, as far as I can tell; in the absence of an actual definition of what we mean by notability (one that is usable for anything, anyway), people are taking the GNG as a definition and insisting that subject-specific guidelines conform to it. SamBC(talk) 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've taken a copy of WP:N, removed the interwiki links, categories, etc, and then edited it. It's at User:Sambc/Notability Demo. The point of this, for now, is to indicate as clearly as I can manage how I think notability should be interpreted, and how to change the guideline to clarify it in this direction. The changes aren't terribly major, with some tweaks and a couple of additions in content, and a slight change to some organisation. One very important point is the addition of the "definition" section, which makes it clear that the GNG isn't a definition. SamBC(talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's worthwhile bringing up the previous topic that I suggested here of establishing an "inclusion policy" (yes, policy), which notability as a guideline would be underneath (in the same fashion WP:RS is a guideline to policy WP:V). But going this direction, and I know I've seen this idea suggested before, is that WP:N now, and how its treated, is basically "notability by coverage"; if there's secondary sources, we can cover it. If you look at some sub-notability guidelines like MUSIC, we then have "notability by importance per WikiProject", in that there are cases that have been determined to be considered notable despite the lack of currently existing sources (though with the assumption that sources may reasonably likely to exist).
Maybe the solution is that we creation inclusion policy (why its needed, what it is meant and not meant to do, such as limiting content of articles, and so forth); and then make WP:NOTE, as stated, "inclusion due to coverage" guideline. The subguidelines, for the most part, then become "inclusion by importance within field". Now, I do raise a big red flag here is that I can see editors, free to create importance within a specific feild free of having secondary sources, to introduce importance terms that significantly fail our encyclopedic goals (eg the example of a WikiProject Smith to include every person with the last name of Smith), so there needs to be quality control here. In otherwords, while a project may present a set of inclusion guidelines, they need to gain acceptance at the global level. Then these can be listed on this inclusion policy page. Of course, we don't want too many levels here; I'd expect we'd have inclusion guidelines for persons, and then likely one for sports figures, but I wouldn't go any further to expect one for specifically baseball players, though WikiProject should be free to clarify specific aspects of a higher inclusion guideline (eg, if the sports player inclusion guideline says "has played in any non-regular season game", the basebase project may clarify this to mean AL/NL division games, the World Series, and the All-Star game.
This still ends up that meeting what is currently the GNC is fine for inclusion, however, this makes it very clear that other standards may exist. --MASEM16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we need guidelines here, though they will be extremely difficult to do in a comprehensive way,except in very general terms. MASEM's approach, of doing it for particular types of articles in Wikiprojects or otherwise , is probably the way to go. I remindus though that the decisions of wikiprojects are not binding on the community, though they should certainly be taken very seriously as considered input. (There have even been cases, as schools, where wikiProject guidelines are much more unsettled than actual results at AfD, because of the smaller number of people in the project and the easier possibility of unrepresentative changes.) DGG (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Masem's idea actually sounds like a fine way to do this, in which in absence of secondary sources (which would justify inclusion of an article of any topic), refer to the specific guideline for that type of article. It allows for the specialist knowledge of the local WikiProjects to be utilized in a community-sanctioned method, and I can see it drastically reducing possible conflict. The only issue I'm seeing is that it might lead to too much instruction creep, but that can be resolved by ensuring each guideline covers a broad category. Sephiroth BCR23:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd be okay with some mechanism to refer (or defer) Wikiproject related deletions to the Wikiprojects involved. Ford MF (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There's already the deletion sorting project though not to specific projects, though many projects include their own transcluded AFD list. You still need more that just project input, of course; a project may become so biased to have a very low threshold for inclusion that is in stark contrast with the rest of WP, so while we consider them "experts" they can't operate in a vacuum. --MASEM00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there still has to be a minimum standard, if only to avoid purely original research and prevent articles built entirely from primary sources. Randomran (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
To try to keep this as open a thought process as possible, we do want standards, but again the suggestion is that there may be topics that are notable in their field that should be included but they are limited to primarily primary sources. Yes, there needs to be a good objective metric for this to start. --MASEM01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I tend to agree. I think the subject-specific guidelines get too much into instruction creep, in terms of "Keep, this band played a few bars in California and some in Virginia, that's a national tour", or "Keep, album by previously-mentioned band", or "Keep, was on a pro team as a third-stringer for a couple seasons." Secondary sources are already a non-negotiable requirement, and that's defined by WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." Verifiability is policy, not just a guideline. Notability requires significant secondary sources. Notability is a guideline, to which the occasional exception can be made, but such exceptions should be exactly that—occasional. Subject-specific guidelines should be intended to help by saying "Here are some circumstances under which it is more likely that one will indeed be able to find significant amounts of secondary source material." It should never be used as "Here is a class of articles which are appropriate even if such source material does not exist." That just results in keeping garbage articles. The only acceptable "keep" argument should be "Keep, I've found these secondary sources", or "Keep, it's likely for (insert reason) that such sourcing exists, and more time is needed to find them". Seraphimblade01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"reliable third-party sources" is a non-disjoint, non-identical set with "reliable secondary soures". For example, The Academy's own publications/website is a primary source, but it is third-party to the award-winners. WP:N is the only major policy or guideline to completely require secondary sources. WP:NOR requires them for any analysis, etc, but for many subjects it's possible to have a perfectly worthwhile article without analysis (remember, we combine aspects of almanacs as well). SamBC(talk) 10:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not quite true. I would suggest that both WP:V and WP:NOR require secondary sources:
"Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." WP:PSTS
"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." WP:BURDEN
(undent)Well, the issue here is that "should" does not mean "must", and "reliable, third-party" does not mean "secondary". Misplaced Pages articles, generally, should have some analysis in, which requires a secondary source (not necessarily third party, that is, not necessarily independent). Articles also require third-party (independent) sources, because otherwise we can't trust there to not be bias. However, neither of these alone, nor combined, require there to be any specific number of "independent secondary sources", which are source that are both third-party and secondary. Once again we see problems from editors conflating "third party" (aka "independent") and "secondary" (meaning what WP:PSTS says it does). An author analysing there own work is secondary, but not third-party. An official announcement of an award is primary (it is the original source) but third-party when considered in the context of the award recipient. Newspaper coverage of awards would be both secondary and third-party, while a press release in which the recipient says they were pleased to receive the award would be primary, and not third-party. SamBC(talk) 12:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's try and get a little specific. Could everyone please take a look at User:Sambc/Notability Demo. I'm not proposing it as a change, I'm just asking people to look at it and see what they think is wrong or right compared to the current version; this can be seen more readily, perhaps, with this diff. Given as the changes represent attempts to address what I see as the problems, this ought to help illustrate whether people agree or disagree on any points, and may help elucidate other specific problems. SamBC(talk) 12:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The one thing that struck out at me as troubling is the point about notable things within a subgroup or subculture. We need at some point a global metric or a global oversight to prevent topics that may be notable at the subculture level but are not "worthy of note" at the global level. (I am not saying this necessarily the rquirement of secondary coverage, though that's a possible global metric). Eg: I'd consider the World of Warcraft to be a subculture, and I'm that specific quests, locations, and items in the game are very important, but from a global standpoint, they are not. --MASEM13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree actually, as that was overkill for what I was aiming for; I just couldn't actually find a simpler way of doing it. Amicable numbers are not of any real sort of global importance, but they are important enough within maths. We combine aspects of specialist encyclopaedias, so we can't be looking at just "general public" interest. However, we don't want any old subculture. Just "subject" and not "subculture" may be nearer the mark, but goes back to the other side. "Significant subculture" ends up with the subjective decision of what's significant. However, seeing as this is for the general definition rather than any criteria that would be worked with, it can be more fuzzy. I'm willing to tweak my demo to improve it within the same intent, and maybe then some aspects of it can be used to improve the guideline; can you suggest a better version with the same intent that doesn't have such overkill? SamBC(talk) 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As a secondary point, does that mean that you approve of and/or agree with the other clarifications, restructuring, etc, or just not object to them? If a bit of both, which bits are "agree" and which are "not object"? SamBC(talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In general, no problems - some of the wording choices are questionable but the spirit I don't see a problem with, one that exacts that GNC is one approach to notability, and subject-specific ones are another way, but subject-specifics don't have to build off the GNC to be usable. --MASEM13:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
While I generally am in pretty close agreement with Masem, I have to go the exact opposite way here. Sub-guidelines should not be able to exempt or loosen the requirement for significant independent sourcing, they should only be able to offer pointers when it's likely to be found. We should never have "Keep, even though there's little/no independent source material available, it passes WP:MUSICORWEBORWHATEVER." Seraphimblade13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you say that the current notability guideline, at WP:N, is in line with what you're saying? If not, does my demo bring it closer to or further from what you believe should be the case? SamBC(talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, also, do you feel that "significant independent sourcing" is/should be a requirement for all articles generally, or that it should be a requirement for the concept of "notability". I ask, because there are already separate requirements that all actual content be sourced, and that there are independent sources (per WP:V), but the GNG requires significant coverage in sources that are both independent (third-party) and secondary, which is more restrictive. It also does not admit directories and similar, and is often read as not including sources which cover something (even in some detail) in passing, while covering something else (to give a recent example, a videogame review discussing characters in some detail is accepted by some as a reasonable source per WP:V, but not as indicating notability). SamBC(talk) 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the general intention, especially including a "definition" section to ensure that it's clear that the GNG isn't a definition. SamBC(talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, there's just too much deference to the individual wikiprojects and what not. I'm willing to concede that "specific notability guidelines" (SNGs) can be more loose OR more strict than the GNG. But they're not a free hand to come up with an SPG that totally contradicts or ignores the GNG. You need that standard in place to prevent people from creating truly non-notable articles in the overall scheme of wikipedia. What I might suggest is that you MUST have coverage in secondary sources, and those sources have to be independent (e.g.: not just toys, movies, gameguides, etc.). Where the SPGs come in is their ability to define which of these sources are reliable, relaxing the standard so that you measure reliability by coverage on mid-level website (rather than the higher standard of a professional peer reviewed site, newspapers, journals, books...) Just thinking out loud here. Randomran (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit I've had some similar thoughts, albeit for different reasons and as part of wider changes. I would suggest that subject specific guideline be allowed to define things in two ways:
Alternative notability criteria independent of the GNG; these would not be required as well as the GNG, but rather as alternatives. WP:V ensures that sourcing is always needed, but as I've demonstrated it's possible to satisfy WP:V and fail the GNG.
Clarification of the application of the GNG; these would clarify which sources are considered as speaking to notability in that area.
In practice, both of these are used in some existing guidelines, and it would be useful for this framework to be made clear by WP:N. Note, however, that it would be vital that it not be seen as redefining WP:RS for different subjects, but rather defining which sources give notability. These could be more or less strict than the basic idea of "third-party reliable secondary", as appropriate to the topic. SamBC(talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I also feel the need to point out, though, that subject-specific guidelines should never be simply the purview of a wikiproject; they should have the same standards of community consensus as any other guideline, with wikiprojects being listened to as knowledgeable advisers. SamBC(talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In my view, the GNC are best indicator that a topic is notable, given that probably 99% of all Good Articles use reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, but also, reliable secondary sources provide real-world content, analysis and critism which is need for encyclopedic articles. Specific guidelines relating to certain subjects, like biography or books may provide evidence of notability, but on their own they do not provide a good source of content. However, the guidelines for living persons and books are about real-world subjects; for elements of fiction such as characters, GNC are the only way to establish notability, as the notability of fictional characters cannot be observed in the real-world; it is only through the opinions of reliable secondary sources can evidence of notability be found. There are lots of content available from reliable secondary sources, more so for fiction than any other subject in Misplaced Pages, so there is no need to provide exemptions from GNC. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remember that this is a broad discussion; while one reason for it starting was the ongoing fiction issue, the purpose is to examine the whole question broadly. SamBC(talk) 11:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment, I've arrived late to this, but I'd like to point out that the AfD on Ego the Living Planet was not at all typical of anything, and represents (in my mind) the high water point of the anti-notability movement, coming just after the banishment of TTN. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: if I may say so, I think that in the case of BLPs, whichever guideline – the general one or the specific one – is narrower should prevail. Bwrs (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
On global vs "subcultural" significance
Okay, I've got a problem with the discussion immediately above, since it implicitly holds as received wisdom that a value judgment of subcultures (whether or not you replace that with "subjects" is merely a semantics game) it both desirable and possible. I'm mostly an editor of articles on classical subjects, and I've added more than just a few damn obscure articles to Misplaced Pages. Like, super super obscure. And I can tell you from a perch of some expertise that even the most profoundly obscure classics article will never suffer the same AfD tribulations that moderately well known pop culture articles routinely experience, particularly if they're affiliated with youth culture. This is due largely, I think, because classics is perceived to be an august, honorable, serious discipline in a way that, say, the study of Pokemon characters is not. And forgive me for being blunt (and I swear I'm not trying to be uncivil), but that's bullshit. The publications of Marvel Comics should carry no less weight as a source than those of Apollodorus. It's just a judgment call cloaked in guideline, call it a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that's more like WP:IDONTTHINKITISSERIOUS, wherein people (who actually might "like it") do think one kind of culture is inherently less serious than another. Yeah, sure, on the one hand classics articles are imbecile-easy to ref, but if notability cannot discern that Banshee (comics) (with a doubtful possibility of external refs at present) is far more notable than Apollo Agyieus (which has nice little blue refs), then notability has no meaning.
And believe me, I am one of those recalcitrant curmudgeons who believes that 99.9% of youth culture is inherently idiotic. Young people are stupid, and by and large, they like stupid things. But if you want to talk about WP:NOT, we should talk about how Misplaced Pages is not "the encyclopedia that all adults" can edit. People seem to be basically saying that, yes, Misplaced Pages is a combination of specialist encyclopedias, but only certain specialties. Yes, part of the problem is that a lot of the younger editors who create and maintain these articles are shite at finding and adding acceptable sources (and lots of the older editors prefer to go to AfD rather than actually look for sources), but that doesn't concern the problem of establishing notability for obviously notable things that haven't been much written about.
This difficulty does not necessarily equal lack of notability, yet our guidelines treat it as if it does. And that is the problem. Ford MF (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It goes without saying, I presume, that if there are no secondary sources to provide analysis, an article may not contain analysis. Following your assertions (which I broadly agree with) to their logical conclusions, I can assume that you are suggesting one of two things: either we admit that these subjects are notable, but that we still can't have articles on them because there's no source for analysis, or we admit that they are notable and allow articles that contain only bland statements of fact and information. Either makes sense to me; there's nothing wrong with an article which is more of a factbook entry, as we are supposed to include aspects of almanacs as well as encyclopaedias. We just have to be very careful to avoid OR in that case. If this were the case, however, WP:V would have to be amended; where it currently says words to the effect that "if there are no independent sources, we can't have an article" we instead say "if there are no independent sources, we must be very careful in writing the article". The situation is made slightly more complicated by the interaction of the primary/secondary axis and the first-party/third-party (not-independent/independent) axis. SamBC(talk) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Of the two, I obviously lean towards the latter. And in fact I think "bland statements of fact" is exactly how fictional articles should be written, unless secondary analysis can be uncovered. They should essentially be treated like biographies. And I think it is exponentially preferable--by orders of magnitude, I really can't stress this enough--for us to err on the side of content that may be helpful and useful and has an opportunity to grow, than for us to say, as someone did on one of the other talkpages, "if you don't have sufficient sources in hand, don't even bother starting an article." I don't think we need to start imagining new strategies to discourage the creation of articles. Ford MF (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't write an article on fiction that is a "bland statements of fact", because fiction by its nature is not about fact at all: fiction is the creative opinion of an author from what ever perspective they choose to write it in. To summarise fiction is, at the very least, a passive endorsement of the authors opinion and perspective; that is why articles on fiction should cite reliable secondary sources so that they don't fall into the trap of being based on original research or synthesis. A "classic" example is the article I, Claudius which is a fictional autobiography of a Roman Emperor, partly based on contemporary accounts. Becasue the contemporary accounts are biased or conflicting (it seems historians at that time were more interested in slander and rumour than writing truthful accounts of his life), the plot summary for this book is disputed, because no one is sure whether the story itself is based on fact or fiction. If we err on the side of content, we will be making exactly the same mistake that ancient historians made when they wrote their accounts of Claudius - they did not cite relaible sources, and as a result, their writings are disputed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You've made this point several times, people have rebutted and explained several times. A "bland statement of fact" about fiction is a statement of fact about what the fiction depicts. To repeat my last rebuttal (in part), the bland statement of fact would not be "there is a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain", but that the fiction depicts the operation of a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain. Not every sentence is going to make that clear, because it is clear from context. It doesn't stop it being bland fact. The case of historical or biographical fiction is, indeed, more complex, but that does not extend to all fiction. SamBC(talk) 11:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, without reliable secondary sources, you cannot be sure that statements of a fact which are unsourced or based on primary sources alone are correct or comprehensive. The statement "there is a Stargate under Cheyenne Mountain", may appear to you to be uncontroversial, but if this fact has not been sourced from a reliable secondary source, there may be a detail omitted or unintentionally added. This cavalier approach maybe acceptable at Wookipedia, but here it is not, because once you start off sourcing an article on fiction from primary sources only, you are going down the road of original research. An article that is not compliant with WP:N is likely to be comprised of bad or defective content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This is lunatic. Citing characters from the works in which they appear is no different from using the Bible to cite Lazarus. This isn't cavalier or a slippery slope, it is simply a way to cite fictional characters and events. You don't need a reference to state that Anna Karenina is about Anna Karenina, it is self evident. Ford MF (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, I can't imagine what you mean by "controversial". Refs are used to give the reader a guide, a place to look to confirm the truth of a thing stated. Primary sourcing for fictional characters ought not be any more controversial than secondary sourcing. Why does it let in the spectre of controversy when our readers look at the original work for confirmation, but not when they look at someone else talking about the original work? What makes secondary sources more factual than primary ones in this case? Ford MF (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
And that argument would apply just as well to summaries of secondary or tertiary sources as well. The only way to refer to any source while being sure that one hasn't added or removed something is to quote the entire thing verbatim. And no-one could watch Stargate: SG-1 and fail to reach the conclusion that the show depicts a stargate being under Cheyenne Mountain, just like no-one could read Harry Potter and disagree that it depicts magic, and school of magic called Hogwarts. It doesn't need a secondary source, just like no additional source is needed to summarise a secondary source. SamBC(talk) 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying reliable secondary sources are perfect, but what I am saying is that Misplaced Pages is not the place for writing research papers based on a synthesis of primary sources. Take for example the article Ancient characters in Stargate, in which all the sources are primary. I have no idea if this article has featured all characters as there is no overarching primary source that can do this. Nor can I rely on the "facts" drawn from primary sources such as "Ayiana is one of only two Ancients appearing both in Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis ("Rising") - the other being Moros". Such statements are drawn from the recollections of the primary source material, and those recollections may or may not be accurate. More importantly than this, the article suffers badly from a lack of reliable secondary sources: it is written from an in universe perspective, and comprises almost entirely of plot summary. Primary sourcing for fictional characters provides no real-world content, context or analysis, which is what Misplaced Pages is about. An article that is not compliant with WP:N is very likely to be comprised of bad or defective content.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"Ayiana is one of only two Ancients appearing both in Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis ("Rising") - the other being Moros" is blatantly an analytical remark. It can't be simply verified from the primary sources. Thus, per WP:NOR, it shouldn't be sourced from only primary sources. The fact that people misuse primary sources in fiction doesn't mean they shouldn't be used; people misuse all types of source in all types of article. SamBC(talk) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth can't that be simply verified from the primary sources? All you'd need to do is, like, view the primary source(s). You could argue you 1) don't have the time to do so, and/or 2) your DVD player is broken, but other than that, I don't see the problem. 68.81.95.231 (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that a given character is in a given episode is, generally, verifiable from primary sources. To say they are the only character of a certain type to appear in X number of episodes requires analysis, which cannot, per WP:NOR, be done from purely primary sources, as that would be original research. SamBC(talk) 12:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
shrugs* Maybe it's a borderline case. I'd be concerned about the degree of analysis involved, and the implicit assertion that no other characters fit the same bill. Let's not get hung up on specifics. The general point is that analysis etc (listed in WP:PSTS) can't be sourced from primary sources, bland statements of fact about what is contained in the fiction can be. SamBC(talk) 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between research and analysis, and stating facts from a fictional work. Just because a work is fictional doesn't mean that facts cannot be derived from it. It is a statement of fact that J.K. Rowling's fictional character Harry Potter has a lightning-shaped scar on his forehead. It is a statement of fact that the fictional character Winston Smith works at the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Both of these facts need no other source than the primary source to be verified. Explain to me how reading a physical description of the character Gandalf in the New York Times, free from analysis or interpretation, is better than reading it directly from The Hobbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiguy330 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for getting here late but I've been lazy lately. One big question: why are secondary sources so much better at determining the content of a TV show or book than we are? What makes the NYT better at reading The Hobbit than I? Why is TV Guide better at watching SG! than you? I can count just as high as they can, why the difference? Padillah (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; however, per WP:NOR and the like, we don't trust any-old-editor to know how to analyse the book, programme, film, play, be it for meaning, significance, analysis of motives, etc. Counting (she's been in both series) is fine; asserting this to the exlclusion of others hits, to me, the borderline; offering a reason for it is right out. SamBC(talk) 16:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It is vital to note that notability serves a purpose. It is not something that was implemented for the fun of it. What is this goal? It's not to constrain our content, but, as I understand it, to ensure quality - the idea being that we simply cannot effectively maintain an article on every street in every city in the world even if all of them are verifiable on Google Maps. But when we apply this guideline we have to keep in mind the purpose. This is, I think, the major problem with fiction notability debates - the tools created - notability guidelines - tend to work contrary to their intended purpose in this area, deleting information that we are perfectly capable of maintaining at a high quality and that is genuinely useful. This suggests a flaw in the guideline. That so many are willing to uncritically accept the guideline and contort themselves into ever more ridiculous arguments defending the patently ludicrous results is a deep and unfortunate flaw in our community. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
A Very Specific Question
Okay, here's a very specific question; please answer below with reasoning, but try to avoid getting into a debate (yet). For now I think it'd be good to see how many people think what, and why. SamBC(talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the responses in this have been very useful and very illustrative. While I'm not suggesting this as any formal process, I'd just like to let people know that I intend to try to summarise the points made into "talking points" on the afternoon (UTC+1) of Sunday 15th, to try to move the discussion forwards. If people want to suggest a different "deadline", that's fine, but I'm basically offering to carry on facilitating here by doing this. If people think it's a good idea, the same could be done with other sections under this RFC. SamBC(talk) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Is notability a way of
a) determining what topics are worth having an article about, independent of the question of sourcing that article
b) determining what topics will be able to have a suitably-sourced article written
I think basically a
As I've explained previously, above and elsewhere, I think that N is and should be independent of V; it says if it's worth writing an article, and part of V is whether it's possible to write an article. SamBC(talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of WP:N, as opposed to WP:V, is to limit the scope of Misplaced Pages. If a topic does not have reliable sources, then apparently it's impossible to write an encyclopedic article about it (unless we start inventing the content). But verifiable material does not imply that a topic falls into our scope. I'm quite sure that all the English-speaking media of the world produce more material each day than Misplaced Pages could cover in a decade; there needs to be some kind of selection. Or to give a more extreme example: Almost everybody in the developed world has reliable sources written about him. (Official birth records, for example, are very reliable!) But that doesn't mean we should have an article about everybody. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with the statement, in practice you can't have an article without sources at WP. While on the other hand you could have verifiable sources to provide content, but no reasonable demonstration of notability. I firmly believe that mention of a topic in a broadly distributed or respected source brings to WP the reponsibilty to expand on the topic for our readers, when possible. If I am watching TV and see a person (actor, politician, artist, etc) mentioned in the news, I come to WP to findout who that person is -- trusting WP to be a credible source. If I read the name of an ancient warrior leader in a history book, I come to WP to find out who that person was -- trusting WP to be a neutral source. Even if the article is stubbish and has links to further information, I have been well served. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the whole "occurring in broadly distributed media but not widely reported on in secondary sources" I think is the crux of the whole problem here. Ford MF (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Just trying to understand your view; would you then agree with the suggestion that non-GNG notability criteria are of value, although they may lead to "bland statement of fact" articles with no analysis? And if so, are such articles okay? (This is not a question to everyone, although it's discussed in a subsection above; I'm asking Kevin Murray specifically, to clarify his view) SamBC(talk) 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, even though you didn't direct this at me, that is a suggestion I would agree with. And of course such articles are okay. All Misplaced Pages articles ought to be "bland statement of fact", with the analysis of others reported on, where it exists, but not a necessary component. Take Ellis Loring Dresel (another obscuro creation of mine); there is zero analysis in the article, and yet I think few people would state that it is an undesirable article because of it. We are an encyclopedia; we deal primarily in facts. Analysis should be a consideration far secondary. Ford MF (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
NO. Sam I oppose most non-GNG notability criteria, and only support some as compromise (e.g., BIO and ORG). I believe that a universal set of standards should apply equally to all topics. My examples above are probably unclear. Any topics for which a broad base of typical WP users develop questions or interests in the course of life should be notable. Whether porn queen, potentate, pope or politician they need to meet the standard that people may have a question about them based on media mention or historic coverage. This is hard to quantify in a rigid standard or set of standards. I think that AfD participants need only ask two questions: (1) does this article answer a legitimate broad based and demonstrable question, and (2) can we write an article or even a meaningful placeholder (stub with links). Most of the articles that I begin at WP are because I have a question, and as I answer the question for myself, I share my findings with WP readers, and as the article grows I learn from my peers. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: I think that we should allow protected stubs and what I call soft redirects, where there is a placeholder-page with a link to the suggested redirect. For example a search for "Lord Morphdon Ontang" yields a page of that name, with a redirect link to Star Trek XXIII. The page might have to be protected to keep it from being a junk magnet, only to be opened for editing when demonstration of notability can be made to an admin, project, etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I will point that this solution, creating a redirection for any likely search term, cannot be stated nearly enough as being a necessary part in any solution. We absolutely should have mention (but not necessarily a full article) on any likely name or term that may arise, and make that term easily findable with redirects and anchors and disambig pages. Those are cheap and should be exploited to make WP useful. --MASEM23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, still trying to make sure I understand; I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth. You seem to be suggesting that we should have more-or-less just a GNG, but not necessarily this GNG (as in the current one at WP:GNG)?
YES! I agree with that statement. I think that the criteria at this GNC are really quite good to the extent that they allow inclusion of topics where legitimate and significant recognition by third parties is demonstrated; however, we need to go a bit further to allow topics where we answer questions posed or prompted by legitimate and significant third parties, but where the verifiable material may be the result of secondary research from primary or less significant sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to say this more than the combination choice; I agree V and N are separate concepts: V is how we talk about a topic, N is why. However, N still needs some aspects of sourcing requirements: "Because I said so" is not sufficient. But it's not the same sourcing as one needs for V, though more often than not, the same source works for both V and N. --MASEM20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Another question to make sure I understand: so you're suggesting that articles may be notable without satisfying the GNG, and yet still satisfy V, but in any case we can never accept any notability standard that doesn't call upon sources to support a notability claim? SamBC(talk) 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think so, though not 100% sure. We have notability criteria that do not use the GNC (such as at MUSIC and BOOK) but we still want to provide sources. On the last part, you have what I'm saying right, though I will say that the word "sources" may be taken broader than we current take it. --MASEM21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As I have frequently said, because the other position leads us in many cases to results that contradict both common sense and the consensus of editors. I recall that in one of the first AfDs I commented on, I defended an article on the basis of sources alone, even in the clear absence of other notability. With more experience, I have learned better. DGG (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty definite about statement A. Having said that, I'm starting to suspect that notability guidelines could accept a wider variety of sources in some circumstances. If Superhero X appears in 1,000 issues of Marvel Comics, do we need secondary and/or third-party sources to assume notability? I still am convinced that such a character would have secondary and/or third-party reliable sources out there somewhere, even if we haven't found them yet, but do we want to base guidelines on this assumption? Aylad16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think A. Last night's traffic accident was covered in the local newspapers. Shouldn't have an article on en.wikipedia. Ever. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think basically b
Verifiability is, or should be, the absolute determiner of the article/no article axis. Everything else is judgment call. This is why WP:V is policy and WP:N is merely a guideline. WP:N limits the scope of the encyclopedia, and limitation is both necessary and beneficial, but it should not be doing so in an arbitrary manner because of a rule-based framework and people who are all too happy to delete the baby with the bathwater. Ford MF (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait, perhaps I have misunderstood the question, because I'm starting to see points of view that I agree with under "A". Ford MF (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to clarify: either notability is a quality independent of verifiability that determines what we should cover, rather than what we can cover (point "a") or it's a means of ensuring that we will be able to write a decent article without breaching WP:V et al (point "b"). Of course, it can be both. SamBC(talk) 20:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The two are related, but notability isn't the same thing as verifiability, which is why we have those pages, one a hard policy, one a guideline (that tends to get treated like hard policy). You can't write an article while breaching WP:V, period, end of sentence, so I'm not sitting here screaming "Sources? Who needs sources!" All the things I've been talking about are easily verifiable, as anything appearing a primary source is by definition verifiable. All I'm saying is that for a certain class of articles, that is, fictional "X"s, the restrictions to secondary sources fail, because they exclude obviously notable things. Ford MF (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
While I am not, at least right now, questioning that the GNG causes problems for coverage of fictional topics, I must ask why you feel it is only fiction that is limited as such? An example: if we know, from objective evidence, that a musician is notable (whatever that evidence is, but assuming it doesn't satisfy the GNG) but we can't source any analysis, why not have an article listing their releases, release dates, and basic biographical information? SamBC(talk) 20:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel that at all; I just couldn't really think of other examples, and fiction is the subject with which I'm most familiar, and I thought it an illustrative example of an area in which WP:N is broken. And yes, why not have that musician article if the information is verifiable? Ford MF (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And I do get that that's also asking for a whole lot of genuine bullshit to be included in Misplaced Pages, since the verification of the existence of non-notable people is fairly easy. I just think the guideline as written fails a lot of areas, and I think it better to err on the side of content retention. Ford MF (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And thirdly, as someone pointed out before, notability isn't a mathematical proof. Proper guidelines would need more subjective flexibility and less hard-ruliness. Ford MF (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As a separate point, I think that rather means taht you don't agree with point "B", and I'm not entirely sure you agree with "A" but I'd say you seem to. SamBC(talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think basically both
Not sure what you're getting at, but I'll bite. I'm glad we're having a real discussion. We've talked about WP:N as a guideline for what topics should have their own article, and that's pages of debate in of itself. But let's say we already knew what was notable, and it was based on something looser: popularity, longevity, or even just reader interest -- no secondary sources required. If articles are based entirely on primary sources, how do you prevent wikipedia from being a cruft of articles based on observations and original research? How do you stop someone from writing an article about The Incredible Hulk's Cut-Off Shorts? The shorts appear in comics, movies, and toys. They're recognizable by millions. And for the 12 or so editors who work on it (along with the hundreds who are redirected towards it by wikilinks), the topic is very interesting and filled with original (but factual) observations about how the shorts rip, the typical length of the shorts, how the shorts appear as the Hulk transforms, variations on how the shorts are represented based on realism/character/etc... Without any reliable secondary sources, there's nothing to guide the focus of the article except whatever observations that the most devoted fans can notice. (Have you noticed that in three issues, the shorts are purple?! Add it to the article!) So having at least a few reliable secondxary sources that are independent of the subject itself is tied to other basic policy, like avoiding original research, avoiding undue weight to certain facts, and making sure the information can be verified. I think that the guidelines are redundant to an extent, but I also think they all depend on each other to form a coherent idea of what should be covered and how to cover it in an appropriate way. Randomran (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
For me, notability is a way to presume what article can become at least a B-class (i.e. decent) article, preferably higher. IMO, all perma-stubs and perma-start-class articles should be merged somewhere (a), and all articles should be suitably sourced (b). Mind you, there are articles like surname pages, math-related pages, general lists, and articles about dict-def-notable people who lived centuries ago but simply don't have more sources. But for most intents and purposes, the GNC is (in my mind) a necessary hurdle that any article must ultimately demonstrate to pass to be save from deletion or merging. – sgeureka16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think something else
Please don't use this section if you think something slightly different; just make the difference clear in your explanation in the sections above
Notability is the logical synthesis of several of our core policies and concepts, such as what we are not, the requirement for verifiability, the prohibition against original research, and the need for a neutral point of view. The requirement for multiple independent sources assists in the fulfillment of all these requirements. It ensures that we do not become a directory, collection of random crap, or fansite, and instead remain what we should be—an educational reference work. It ensures that any article we write has a substantial quantity of information which is verifiable, and verifiability itself specifically warns against articles consisting only of first-party sources. It ensures that significant analysis has already been made regarding any subject we have an article on, reducing the temptation to try and synthesize primary material ourselves or insert our own personal experiences or thoughts. And it helps in ensuring that undue weight is not put on topics—if reliable, independent sources have chosen to write little or nothing on a subject, what are we doing besides second-guessing and contradicting them if we do? It also ensures that a good body of sources is available if any question of neutrality arises, allowing us to settle such a question, not through our own opinions, but by properly referencing those sources. In short, notability is where our core policies naturally and inevitably lead. It is an excellent, indispensable means of quality control, something Misplaced Pages is often lacking in. Indeed, Misplaced Pages:Quality control is a redlink, and probably likely to stay that way. This is it, right here. This is the mechanism we have to prevent crapflooding. So let's not punch holes in it. Seraphimblade05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Seraphimblade. As regards the question, I don't think WP:N determines anything. It does not determine what topics are worth having or deleting: this is determined at WP:AFD; nor does it determine what topics will be able to have a suitably-sourced articles, because notability is not the same as suitability. WP:N was never intended to act as a road block to adding content which some editors attempt to circumvent, or get around in order to write about their favorite topics; on the contrary, it is a guideline that encourages good content, so that the readers of Misplaced Pages will be able to "stand on the shoulders of giants".--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In addition to agreeing with Seraphimblade and Gavin Collins, I would like to chime in with my own thought that policies and guidelines can't be changed by changing the wording on their pages, but only by changing what is in the minds of the editors. I have yet to see anybody change their mind due to the continued debate about notability; the disagreement is philosophical. The sign of a good compromise is that it pleases no one. The current wording of WP:N doesn't please the inclusionists, and the suspend-all-rules keep results at AfD don't please those who nominated them for deletion under their interpretation of WP:N. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that WP:NOTE is necesssarily the problem. If used as it is written, a way to determine if something is notable enough to be included even if it does not meet the four actual policies for inclusion - namely V, OR, NPOV, and NOT, it succeeds as a guideline. The problem is more in the hierarchical structure of policies, guidelines, and sub-guidelines. If a subject meets the four policies, it should be beyond the reach of AfD other than for the purpose of gaining consensus on meeting the requirements of those four policies. NOTE is a guideline encompassing those subjects that may merit inclusion even before those four policies have been met because we believe that they can and will eventually be met due to the nature of the subject. It is an inclusionary guideline, and not an exclusionary one. The sub-guidelines like WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:FICT go even further to provide reasons for maintaining inclusion until the basic four can be met. The legitimate arguments are really about how long we allow articles that meet the guidelines, but not the policies, to remain. WP:NOTE should never be counted as a legitimate criteria for deletion, nor as an argument for deleting. It is far too easy for NOTE to serve as a mask for WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:WHOCARES, or even a catch-all for hiding systemic bias due to the inherent subjectivity of "notability". The guideline contains an unabiguous definition that is too often ignored - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." If that first sentence is met, there is no reason to even look at the rest of the guideline anyway. What we need is to reinforce the structure of how policies, guidelines, and WP:IAR are supposed to be used to justify our actions, and guidelines are only useful if something fails policy. Jim Miller (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreeing with Seraphimblade. Verifiability is not enough. Every fire truck in New York City, or every mailbox in my home town, or every character, scene, event or weapon in every work of fiction is verifiable, but does not necessarily need its own encyclopedia article. Articles about the New York Fire Department, mailboxes, or the work of fiction (if it has achieved sufficient notice itself) are the proper venue for the information which would otherwise be fanspewed into a multitude of permastub articles. Lack of a claim of notability is an appropriate reason for speedy deletion. Lack of reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage is a reason for deletion in AFD. The existence of a small number of fans of something establishing a "project" is no reason to automatically make the objects of their fandom entitles to individual encyclopedia articles. This is not "fanpedia." It is supposed to be an encyclopedia. There are other websites for fandom. Edison (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with Seraphimblade that verifiability, while incredibly important, is not the only consideration in determining notability. Notability describes instead the way our policies should interact. Karanacs (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"Inclusion"
Masem (talk·contribs) has, on several recent occaisions and in several locations, raised the idea that it might be better to have an overarching policy on "inclusion" for Misplaced Pages, perhaps by defining "what Misplaced Pages is", perhaps with other focus, and Notability becoming a guideline in support of this in the same way that WP:RS support WP:V; this has been raised most recently (to my knowledge) in a section below. I'd like to consider this idea, and people's reaction to it, as part of the RFC, to help give ideas and talking points for later moving forwards.
I'd like to discuss the idea without focus on any single topic area. I'd like people to think about it in the abstract. So, I would like people to outline a few things, some or all of which may be applicable to any individual:
How you think this idea could take form, if you think it could at all. You might think of more than one way.
Your immediate reaction to the idea in complete abstract (as I describe it above), without taking too long to think about it.
Your more considered reaction to the various possibilities you have read or thought of, after giving it more thought.
Hopefully, this can lead to some general discussion. I would ask that people not directly reply to one another's statements, so we don't get bogged down in adversarial debate. Please use the further subsection "discussion" to air reactions to what you have read, but try not to get adversarial or confrontational. Oh, and let's try and keep "optimistic" now and not consider arguments along the lines of "it'd never get consensus". Let's just try to explore whether it would be a good idea or not (and why). SamBC(talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
My immediate vision is that this could be much like verifiability: describe general principles of "what we write about", of which "notability" (in the abstract sense, not specifically the GNG) is one aspect, much as which sources to use (RS) is one aspect of verifiability (V). I have some fairly foggy ideas as to what else would be said.
My gut reaction was that this would be over-complicating things. However, after some consideration I can see value here, as it would have a number of potential advantages:
clarify that notability (by whatever measure) isn't strictly sufficient for inclusion
put WP:N in a clear place in the guideline/policy structure, as RS is
help explain to those who don't get it what the purpose of notability is
support claims in other policies and guidelines that any particular quality makes something eligible/non-eligible for inclusion, and centralise the broadest of these
Overall, my reaction is that it's worth exploring, but I'm not convinced that it's the best way forward, or even a good one; I'm also not convinced it isn't. I'm convinced that it's worth thinking about, talking about, and exploring. SamBC(talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Place responses to statements here, and please avoid adversarial and confrontational approaches
"Sambc" said ""notability" (in the abstract sense, not specifically the GNG) is one aspect", but what is "notability in the abstract sense"? What is notability, exactly? There appears to be a problem here with the current guidelines in that they do not spell out what notability actually is. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
SPLASH
Holy crap, have you people forgotten that these pages are guidelines, not policies? If I could dump a bucket of cold water on some of you I would, in hopes it would bring you to your senses. We need advice for new and existing editors, to help guide them on the creation of articles. It's not an exact science, it's not a set of black and white rules, and one size won't fit all. -- Ned Scott06:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion on the modified wording?
Hi.
Someone reverted the changes I made, and said I should bring it here for discussion. May I hear their objection?
The revised text was:
""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of suitability for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. This is not done wholly arbitrarily and subjectively: for example, it may violate what Misplaced Pages is not. Not even all "notable" topics are fair game for Misplaced Pages. Notability is a criterion for inclusion, but not the criterion. To be guaranteed for inclusion, material must pass all relevant content policies and guidelines. "
from
""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Misplaced Pages is not. "
To me I do not see what the problem here is. First off, that notability is _a_ criterion, but not _the_ criterion, for inclusion, should be uncontroversial: WP:NOT is not part of WP:N, and passing it is required for inclusion. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IHATEIT are not valid arguments for keeping and deletion either, so that the idea the process of deciding whether or not X is worthy of inclusion is wholly subjective is false. That material must pass all relevant content policies seems obvious as well. Unless you're saying that somehow, biased, unverifiable, original research is allowed somewhere on Misplaced Pages... If so, where is this? I'd like to hear some real objections to the change. mike4ty4 (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who reverted, but personally I think we should leave it at this:
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion.
We don't need to go on to state that articles must (generally) conform to our policies and guidelines in general -- not only is that intuitive, it's rather out of scope. It wouldn't hurt to clarify somewhere that although WP:N generally most the pertinent guideline with regard to inclusion standards, there are other considerations (BLP deletions for example) -- but I don't think the clarification of "presumed . . . to be notable" is a good place for that. — xDanielx /C\ 02:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's another. What do you think?:
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable and presumed to be worthy of inclusion.
"Presumed" means that the criterion establishes a presumption, instead of a guarantee, that the subject matter is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. This presumption may be refuted if there is rational, objective evidence to point to other reasons it should not be included."
Failing WP:NOT, WP:BLP, etc. do not make it "non-notable", it makes it "not worthy of inclusion". "Non-notable" means it fails WP:N and/or it's associated subject-specific guidelines. Also, the emphasis on objective evidence and logic I feel is important since it helps provide a stumbling-block for WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IHATEIT types of nonsense arguments whose acceptance as valid criteria for the inclusion and removal of material are detrimental to Misplaced Pages. Also, there's those "NN, D" (non-notable so delete) "arguments" which occur so readily in Articles for Deletion (AFD) "debates". "NN, D" is not a good argument for deletion -- why is this "NN"? What evidence do you have to refute the presumption of notability/suitability for inclusion? 170.215.65.87 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're correct, the guideline should not talk about presuming notability. It should instead use that space to make clear the distinction between notability and worthiness of inclusion. As I've said before, we can't say "presumed to be notable" if it is not possible to "defeat" that presumption. It's vitally important that policies and guidelines use words to mean something that they actually mean. Croctotheface (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, so therefore why not draw such a distinction? Notability is a, not the criterion for inclusion. I don't think WP has a single criterion for inclusion, either. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to ask, what has promted these proposed changes? Can you give provide examples of articles where the changes would apply? Otherwise I propose we keep the guideline the way it is, as change for change sake makes no sense.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this is what prompted the initial changes, but per the above, I think we've come across something of a flaw. Currently it says "subjects are presumed to be notable if X, but consensus may preclude this presumption of notability based on other concerns". So in the context of a BLP deletion of a notable subject, our notability guideline would essentially say "the subject is presumed to be notable, but the article fails an unrelated policy (BLP), so the subject isn't notable after all." It doesn't quite make sense. The guideline should read either "subjects are presumed to be notable if X, but consensus may dictate that they are non-notable despite X", or "subjects are presumed to be worthy of inclusion if X, but consensus may dictate that they should not be included for reasons unrelated to X (i.e., matters not related to notability)". — xDanielx /C\ 18:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You are mostly right. It makes it sound like a non-notability policy or guideline somehow affects notability, which is weird. If something passes WP:N but fails WP:NOT, for example, it does just that: fails WP:NOT, not WP:N. Furthermore it stresses "consensus" that it not be included as opposed to "evidence", which suggests unwritten, subjective, and even ad-hoc criteria could dismiss the article's inclusion. But ILIKEIT/IHATEIT are bad arguments. So I'd suggest "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" become "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable, and presumed worthy of inclusion". Then have ""Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption that can be falsified by presenting logical reasons that the article may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If a consensus is reached that these reasons are valid, the presumption is falsified the article is still not worthy of inclusion even if the notability criterion is satisfied." This stresses both and gives less "wiggle room" for ILIKEIT/IHATEIT crap. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the phrasing you suggested; it eliminates that confusion while still being fairly succinct. The only (potential) objection I can foresee is that some non-notable articles might receive "incidental" coverage, but it is just a general guideline after all; we generally regard the more specific notability standards (including WP:NOT#NEWS) as preclusive of the general notability guideline anyway. — xDanielx /C\ 02:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Although I don't really see how the proposal would suggest such an objection. If it's not notable then it is not worthy of inclusion, no? Unless you are referring to mentions of the subject in other articles, not it having it's own article. In that case, though, the suitability of such coverage would seem to be determined more directly by policies like verifiability, no original research, and neutrality (especially due/undue weight considerations.). mike4ty4 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, I just thought of one more proposal. One could have "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable.". Then go on to have another section called "Notability is not a guarantee of suitability for inclusion", similar to the sections "Notability is not temporary" and "Notability requires objective evidence", and then put under that something like "Notability is not the sole arbiter of inclusion. Just because a subject satisfies the notability criteria does not automatically make it worthy of an article. All other Misplaced Pages content policies still apply, and if there are solid reasons accepted by consensus that it's inclusion goes against such policies (for example, it violates What Misplaced Pages is not), it is still not suitable for inclusion.". mike4ty4 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Much was discussed last year. What is it that you specifically object to or what types of articles does WP:N preclude which you would prefer to include? --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
NOTE precludes articles on fictional characters that people deem notable in AfDs based on "I know it when I see it." It would be nice if a certain number of trivial references could add up to notability. That would help out characters who make many appearances, but the articles are about the comics or episodes they appear in, not about the character specifically. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an interesting proposal that I'd be willing to hear out. Right now, the guideline says that anything without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are not notable. Significant is defined as more than trivial, but less than exclusive. How many less significant or "trivial" references (e.g.: just someone who mentions the character by name, maybe in a plot summary, but without any further detail or analysis) do you think would make something notable? I'm not asking for a precise number, but more asking you to try to articulate your gut feeling about something that you feel is notable, but would be rejected by the current GNG. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I tried to sell this concept last year but failed to get it included in WP:N, but I have had reasonable success with the concept at AfD. Writing a guidline that doesn't open the door to a plethora of trash will be tough but not impossible.--Kevin Murray (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring that it's not a generic guideline, what this suggests is that "Major and minor/reoccurring characters in a notable serial work (tv show, comic, etc.)" should be considered as this type of notability. At least, as I'm reading these responses. Mind you, it would be nice to generalize that if we can avoid a separate guideline but we may not be able to. --MASEM20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Trivial - Moi?Like Masems proposal for non-notable lists, I don't think criteria for inclusion based on trivial sources will be the least bit popular: there are no editors who would ever admit that their contributions are non-notable or trivial, anymore than they would admit to, say, plagiarism or clubbing baby seals. However, this proposal does provide me with a useful idea: why not have a guideline called WP:TRIVIALSOURCES which would provide guidance on what are condsidered to be trivial sources and how to avoid them? I think this would be a practical application of this idea. As regards what is trivial and what is not, this is a very subjective concept like Misplaced Pages:Importance, which was dropped in favour of WP:N because it was thought to be too judgemental in approach. As regards the effect of this proposal, I see no benefit. Readers notice when articles are sourced from trivial sources, and prize reliable sources not just for content but for research purposes. If articles were sourced from trivial sources, there would always be the temptation to replace trivia with reliably sourced content or merge the article with a more notable subject. One clever thing about WP:N is that it marks the end of the line in terms of quality; its not a minor stop along the way to a good article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
(EC)I actually see this as a great answer to the specific discussion we were having in Paladine. I can find several "tiny" references to the character but no "one big source" that you were arguing for. This would allow the article to stay displaying several trivial citations. I don't see an issue in calling a citation trivial, it's done right now (only in a much more belittling manner, as if they don't mean as much ). I see this being a nice equalizer. An example (Please put aside WP:BIO#Athletes for this), I couldn'r care less about sports, doesn't interest me. So, to me, the idea of a sports figure getting an article simply because they are a sports figure is, quite frankly, stupid (at least win an award). That does not mean that the subject is not notable to someone, just that it's not notable to me. Even if they were written up in some obscure, but important, trade magazine I can dismiss this as not notable - "if they aren't in Sports Illustrated then they can't be that notable". Allowing for the use of less than internationally renowned sources would give more stability to these and other articles. Padillah (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with most of the trivial sources cited in the article Paladine, and indeed with trivial sources generally is that they are questionable at best or fail other guidelines, such as WP:SPS and WP:V. The article now cites one reliable source, but that is Italian, and no translation has been provided as required by WP:V, so technically notability is still unproven. It seems to me that to draft a clause within WP:N to accomodate trivial sources without conflicting with other policies and guidelines would be a complex and verbose undertaking. By contrast, GNC are simple and easy to understand. As regards WP:BIO, I agree with you on this point about having articles about athletes such as Ashley Fernee make no sense, but I don't think anyone could disagree with such infomration being rolled up or merged into a list such as List of Adelaide Australian rules footballers.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I propose that WP:GNG explains that more specific guidelines are allowed to define what kinds of sources assert notability. This reflects the current practice. Allow me to explain. NOTE is based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. When we think of sources, we think of journals, books, academic articles, and so on. But we also have WP:MUSIC that says notability can be asserted from sources such as having a certified gold record in one country, or charting a hit on a national music chart. These are really just an extension of "reliable independent secondary sources" for the purposes of notability. I think if WP:GNG were to clarify this point, then a WP:FICT guideline could focus on the kinds of reliable independent secondary sources that could assert notability for characters, episodes, and locations. This isn't really a change to the current guideline so much as a reflection of the existing relationship between WP:GNG and the specific notability guidelines. Randomran (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
(Having lurked for a while viewing all of the conversations...) This is how I've always viewed the subject specific notability guidelines. I don't think they exist to somehow "subvert" WP:N but to clarify them in the context of their subject. Like Randomran said, WP:MUSIC says that notability can be asserted by a having (verified/verifiable) gold record. WP:BK has, for example, a criteria about awards, etc. I don't view these criteria as a contradiction to the GNG, but rather how to interpret the words "independent", "reliable", "sources", etc in the specific subject field. WP:NUMBER, for example, clarifies what sources can (or should) be used to assert notability for a number or class of numbers (like the Smith numbers, which admittedly needs more sources, or the Bell numbers). So, contrary to what has suggested elsewhere, in my mind this isn't a case of "GNG and a subject specific guideline" vs "GNG or a subject specific guideline" as (if they are correctly written), the subject specific guidelines won't be contradicting GNG. Your mileage may vary however. (Now back to lurking...) --Craw-daddy | T | 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is something I can get behind as well. It allows the subject matter experts to determine the extent of notability. Where I see an issue cropping up is when a subject crosses boundaries. For example, when a video game is made into a movie. Do the movie reviews get to be used by the VG editors as reference to allow the creation of fancruft articles? I think it's this type of crossover that is at the heart of the NOTE#FICT debate. Padillah (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I definitely see issues cropping up, but that's step #2. Step #1 is clarifying how WP:N works with more specific guidelines. After that, we can figure out the specific notability guidelines. Randomran (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Me personally, no amendments. Only clarifications. But in abstract, as many changes and proposals as possible. Let's find out what the consensus actually is, instead of speculating about it. It's not just that people disagree about WP:N. It's also that people have different understandings of WP:N as it is now, since it's not 100% explicit about everything. If all we do is clarify WP:NOTE and establish that it has a consensus, then it will allow other subjective specific guidelines to move forward with that assumption. Right now, discussions are stalled because there are people who don't even agree with the general guideline, so how can they give an accurate assessment of the specific guideline? Randomran (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
In general, this is fine, but already can be implied through WP:V and WP:RS - we use the best sources possible for the topic area for verification; however, there's absolutely nothing wrong in the general idea of including provisions that what make good secondary sources for a topic can be defined in subguidelines/projects.
The concern I have is that when this is applied to fictional elements, even with lax standards, secondary sources simply don't exist for the bulk of these works that other editors are demanding we retain. I am presuming we are not going to weaken RS and allow forum, blogs, and wikis to satisfy secondary sources, and when you take that out for many works of fiction, the work itself may be notable but nothing else about it is, no matter how lax you go with secondary sources. One point that I remember being made during FICT's rewrite was that this appear creates a bias on "popular" works of fiction where numerous sources exist to show notability for nearly every element of the series, but less popular works have little-to-none coverage of anything beyond the work itself. We have to admit that bias exists - we can only write as well as the sources allow us - but be aware that this provision alone won't likely satisfy those that want larger coverage.
Basically, we need to make sure that we don't end up treating notability as a game: people that want to keep an article find barely non-trivial references, and others tear those down as being trivial or non-coverage. Are we trying to make notability shown by having a minimum number of non-trivial mentions in secondary sources, or are we trying to have notable topics show they are significantly covered in secondary sources (which is a more strict point that the first)? I would think the latter is the point we want, but to me, going down the path of loosening what are secondary sources seems contrary to this. Again, I'm not saying this is a bad point to include, but there are several ramifications that need to be considered as a result. --MASEM14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's something that would have to be resolved with discussion at WP:FICT. WP:MUSIC says that a song is probably notable if it's covered by multiple notable artists. It says that an artist is probably notable if they've been the subject of a 30+ minute broadcast. That blurs the line between primary and secondary, and really relaxes the "independence" requirement. But it offers a way to show that an "element of music" is notable that's based on objective evidence, rather than subjective opinion. You're right that no matter what we decide, there will be a lot of people who end up unsatisfied. But the problem now isn't a lack of satisfaction. The problem is a complete lack of understanding. At least 25% of the people at WP:FICT said "WP:NOTE doesn't have consensus, so I'm not gonna listen to it." Let's find out if they're right. Is WP:NOTE a good guideline? And if it is, whose interpretation is correct? If it isn't, what needs to change? Let's establish a consensus over WP:NOTE, and the other guidelines will fall into place. Randomran (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
As I noted in WP:FICT (and, now, below) this is what I wasenvisioning. The GNG would tell us what we need to do (we need to establish true notability, not just flash-in-the-pan gossip). Then the specifics would be handled by the specific article (WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC...). In defference to something Masem "said", I think the GNG should establish the base-line of notability and the ability of the SNG to declare, through consensus, a criteria notable. In other words we should do what we can to eliminate "barely" notable. If something is notable, then it IS notable. There should be no degree, no possibility to be "argued out of notability". padillaH(help me) 12:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
(I was asked to re-post this here. Originally from WP:FICT)Randomran, you said something that made me think:"...it's unclear if the specific guidelines can literally make up their own contradictory version, or if they can only clarify and apply the general guideline..." The phrase "Clarify and apply" struck a chord, I think that should be the exact application of the specific guidelines. WP:NOTE says there must be multiple reliable sources to establish noteability. Then WP:MUSIC says a gold record can be considered a reliable source. One says what is generally being looked for, the other specifies what they consider notable in that particular field. padillaH(help me) 12:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I think that's a good phrasing too, although we'd obviously work out a consensus on that too. I think this would give some parameters for specific guidelines to work with -- WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE, and so on. Randomran (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a provision where notability can be established by whether our article can answer a notable curiosity. This would allow us to use information which meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:OR to answer logical curiosities where interest in the answer is likely to be widespread. Clearly the answer would have to be documented with references to independent verifiable sources -- but this would open the door for notable article where only primary source materials are available. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the idea is confusing. It is hard enough to explain yet alone try to write a guideline. I often run across articles on journalists or writers at AfD, where it is argued that nobody has written a comprehensive book or article about them. But we see their names everywhere on article and in blogs, and they are cited in many places including our WP articles. I would at least like to have a WP stub that tells us who they work(ed) for, academic affiliations, and a list of publications. All these things can typically be found through verifiable primary resources. It doesn't give much, but it can be a starting point for our readers to do further research and interpret a variety of sources which we can't use. I can't use a book jacket at Amazon as a reference for WP, but I can link to it and let the reader determine the validity. I can't quote from the subject's website, but I can send the reader there to make their own assessment. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Would another example be NASA missions? Let's be honest, the only real source for infromation about the Mars Rover is NASA. Which kind of makes it a primary source that fails WP:N, but there's no reason to doubt NASA and it does answer very valuable scientific questions so it's worth the technicallity. Padillah (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a separate class of notability allowing what I call "soft redirects" where there is a brief page to describe why you are being redirected and to where. These could also be modeled after a disambiguation page, where the topic is pertinent to more than one redirect. I think that these would have to be protected in an established format to keep them from becoming POV magnets etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is an example of a protected soft redirect: Napolean Solo
Interesting, it's like an alternate variation on using redirects to non-notable lists of characters, except that each character (or element) is brought to its own page with minimal details about it. Yes, they would definitely need indef protection to keep them clear of OR/POVness. --MASEM22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
We need to have clear guidance if notability needs to apply to every article (including articles that come out due to WP:SS) or if it is applied to a topic which may be something covered across several articles, some limited types of supporting articles lacking their own form of notability (eg, specific, is a list of major characters w/o their own notability fine as part of coverage of a notable work of fiction?) I know, this is one of those areas that FICT got dinged at by those wanting stronger notability guidelines, but NOTE is presently not clear on this, and it needs to be more explicit. --MASEM21:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think WP:AVOIDSPLIT squashes that question. That said, I'd be comfortable with a FICT guideline that says a *list* of characters is notable if the fiction itself is notable. But that could only be determined by consensus. Until then, I'm enforcing the GNG as is. Randomran (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Even AVOIDSPLIT is passive in that the final advice does not exactly answer the question "are split-off articles required to be notable"? I don't strongly care which way it is taken, but this has been a key point that was argued back and forth in that there is conflict between how this and NOTE interact, and thus should be resolved if we are talking a new proposed version of NOTE. --MASEM21:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that a topic has to demonstrate its own notability to justify a split. Are you proposing that we change this? It would be a perfectly legitimate proposal. Randomran (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm only suggesting changing NOTE to be specific about this point, whether it is or isn't a requirement for split-offs (I don't have a good handle on what that consensus is, my guess is that it's generally "split-offs are required to be notable") --MASEM21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles that concern fictional characters or weapons that appear in multiple works of fiction (films, video games, television shows, and or toys) are notable, because of the millions of fictional characters and weapons only so many have actually appeared across multiple media. So, any notability guideline to actually reflect what the article creator, writers, and readers want would allow for say video game weapons that are titular weapons and that have been made into real life replicas, or characters who also have been made into toys. It is unreasonable to claim these exceptions are not notable. So, again, what I suggest we indicate as notable characters or weapons are those that share the name with a major work of fiction (like say the Soul Calibur sword), those that appear in multiple media (like the BFG from Doom in the game and film), are those that appear as special controllers (like the Resident Evil 4 chainsaw), those that appear as toys or also in comics, etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles22:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with asserting notability purely through primary sources, even if those primary sources are across multiple media. That's because everything within the primary source becomes notable. Not just the plot, characters, and setting, but every person, place, or thing. Every single article of clothing would be worthy of their own article because they would have appeared in multiple primary sources across multiple media. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more than a prolific creator to prove notability. Don't get me wrong, you're welcome to propose this guideline, but I'll reject it strongly. Just my two cents. But I'll make it count. Randomran (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with it as that's what the original encyclopedias did. We are a paperless encyclopedia with thousands of editors; we can afford to cover these things and notability should not be the basis of inclusion and I'll reject any proposal that prevents such articles as those I'm referring to. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles02:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Chances are you'll extract more consensus by showing a willingness to accept proposals other than your own. But you're entitled to try. Who knows? Maybe you have more support than both of us know. Randomran (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
In answer to Masem's proposal that exemption from WP:N should be given to supporting articles lacking their own form of notability, such as characters of unproven notability as part of coverage of a notable work of fiction, there is a combined problem with WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:POVFORK that only reliable secodary sources can resolve. For instance, The Terminator character played by Arnie has been split a few too many times into multiple articles: Terminator (franchise), Terminator (character) and Terminator (character concept). Clearly these articles more or less address the same topic matter, but only reliable secondary sources can determine which is suitable for inclusion. If we relaxed WP:N, I think we would see many more articles supported by primary sources, but which essentially cover the same notable topic. In this instance, WP:N acts as a common sense check on when it is appropriate to split an article, and it is difficult to see how the guideline could deal with the issue of redundant duplication, without having to resort to a set of complex and verbose rules. I think we should stick to WP:N, because it is the Best, Least-complex, Unbiased Equivalent (BLUE) of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Could we assert that you can't split an article that's already been split? Terminator (character) is a child of Terminator (movie) so you'd have to provide valid reasioning to split the other articles from the parent Terminator (movie) aricle. This might help with the proponderance of split articles that end up with circular support. Padillah (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is an important issue. Our notability guidelines essentially mandate that we evaluate notability on a per-article basis, which at times is extremely undesirable. It makes more sense to treat certain articles as extended components of their parent articles. Editors seem have become comfortable with the idea of applying different standards to lists, even when they technically (and often blatantly) don't meet our notability standards. (List of bridges is most certainly not notable; neither is List of Harry Potter characters. There are many other examples.) But looking for "list of" in an article's title is a poor test; hence we end up keeping bad lists while deleting good plot summaries and what not. Admittedly, it's hard to define what a good test would look like, but IMO it should center on whether a page has a strong child-parent relationship with another article, and whether the notability of the parent article is great enough. List of bridges is strongly associated with the parent Bridge, which is a subject of very high notability. As it is now, our notability guidelines don't acknowledge these important exceptions. — xDanielx /C\ 22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should take advantage of the linking characteristics of a web-based format to do this and keep the parent article more manageable, but establishing notability for each component stands in the way. I've seen logical splits end up in AfD, which has cused lost info. or recombining. Though one problem I see is that splitting up controversial articles, makes the small articles targets for special interest cabals. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with giving a free notability pass to any article that can demonstrate a relationship with a parent article. We'd have to reign this proposal in. WP:FICT tried to do this by letting lists of characters piggyback on the notability of the fiction that they are from. But this proposal has been rejected so far. So we're back at the general notability guideline of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Randomran (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a problem for a comprehensive reference guide to do that. The problem that I have is that I am increasingly seeing some actually dismissing reliable secondary sources even in AfDs, so we need to prevent that as much as possible. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles02:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a piggyback-esque system contains a lot of potential for abuse, but we could give careful consideration to both the strength of the association and the notability of the parent article. The standards would need to be looser, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing -- en-wp seems to have become far more bureaucratic than it ever intended, to the point where AfD is mostly just a matter of scrutinizing sources (and little else) and debating policy interpretations. Most other large wikiprojects are far more discretionary, and it seems to work effectively. — xDanielx /C\ 04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
We can keep the rule simple and still be precise. WP:MUSIC does this by having specific rules for songs and albums, rather than having a blanket piggy-back rule for anything associated with a band/artist. Randomran (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this movement toward specificity is a Good Thing, and if carried out effectively, would at least mitigate these WP:N problems. What I don't like about previous work in this area, i.e. the recent developments around WP:FICT, is that they've been guided primarily by the existing (and general) notability standards, as opposed to pragmatic notions of what's most favorable -- hence the flaws, in particular the per-article assessment problem, have for the most part just been propagated. — xDanielx /C\ 09:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Not technically my proposal, but Masem and Percy Snoodle and a few others have worked on a proposal called WP:POSTPONE. Basically, it would allow an AFD discussion to be postponed until more evidence had been gathered. Even though this isn't directly related to WP:N, I think it might actually solve a lot of problems with WP:N. I hear a lot of people saying that WP:N isn't bad in of itself, but that it's often abused in AFDs and used on articles that haven't had a fair chance to be worked on. I basically support it, although I think it needs work. Just wanted to put it out there. Randomran (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Outstanding idea! I think that WP:N and the deletion process must be considered together. Logistics and enforcement are a concern, but the concept is great! --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the guideline as it stands now is too weak and watered down. It should really make clear that, firstly, no number of trivial mentions or name-drops confer notability, regardless of what or where. Secondly, it should reiterate the prohibition from verifiability against articles which have no reliable, third party sourcing. And thirdly, while we certainly need to go back to requiring significant coverage in multiple independent sources, we should clarify that this does not mean "two such sources mentioned it"—if we were going to write an article from only two such sources, those two had better be very reliable and in-depth. Finally, it should be made quite clear that it applies to every article, every time, and that "spinoff" articles must assert notability of their own subject. If they can't, and the parent article is becoming bloated with information about it, it's time to trim, not to split. Quality control is important, and as the number of articles we have grows, we must make sure that any article we have has the potential to be excellent. The way we do that is by ensuring that we have sufficient sourcing to write from. It is verifiable that a subject is notable. Have reliable sources, that aren't affiliated with the subject and don't have reason to promote it, actually taken significant note of it? The answer to that question tells us whether the subject is notable or not. Seraphimblade09:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Seraphimblade's statement make a good argument for keeping WP:N as it is or improving it so that it clear and more succinct. An article that cites reliable secondary sources that provides non-trivial real-world article content is the bare minimum should expect, why should we settle for less?--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I will add that we need to consider as much consolidation of notability subguidelines as possible (a point others have stated, but lets clearly add it here). I don't think they are going to go away unless the GNG is made policy, as while there is leaway in how to interpret notability, editors will wikilawyer over this, and the subguidelines help to prevent constant battles. However, the number we have now is probably too many. I know there have been efforts to consolidate before here, but if we are reconsidering all ideas, this is another one to add. As Kevin Murray stated in FICT, each of these should be stated as simply as possible, being that notability for topics in that area is either through GNG or a specific list of subjective criteria; any other explanations should be moved to other places if possible. Ideally, we want these to look like our non-free content criteria - a checklist of questions that can be answered yes or no to determine notability. (I am not implying anything, however, that there's a relationship between notability and non-free content, just in case that is presumed.) --MASEM15:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Seraphimblade's statement, but I have a proposal for improving WP:N so that it can be more widely understood and be applied more consistently. I feel that the subject specific guidelines share a flaw about how notability may be presumed in the absense of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is probably best illustrated by the stub Ashley Fernee, an athlete about whom nothing has been written but is presumed notable under Misplaced Pages:BIO#Athletes. The question I have is "In the absence of non-trivial real-world coverage from reliable secondary sources, when can a article or a list be presumed to demonstrate notability?" The General notability guideline suggests that the article Ashley Fernee is of unproven notability. However, what WP:BIO implies, but does not state, is that somehow an athlete inherits notability from participating in a notable sporting tournament even if there is no coverage to provide independent evidence that this is the case. It seems to me that what WP:N is lacking is guidance on general aspect of inherited notability, other than notability cannot be inherited for a short time (i.e. Notability is not temporary). The most widely known discussion on this aspect of notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, which is usually cited in AfD debates. However, behind the subject specific guidelines, there is an implict assumption that it is, and I think this may be area where limits of article inclusion need to be debated and discussed. I propose therefore that we need to have a seperate guideline, such as WP:PRESUME, which goes along the following lines: "In the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, a topic is presumed to inherit notability from/because/subject to certain sources/reasons/conditions....".--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a very subtle difference in this case that is spurred from another comment here or on FICT, but basically, it is not that these subguidelines are prescribing notability be inherience/association, but instead, they are ways to show notability by implicit acknowledgment of a third-party. A profession player is notable not because they gain notability from the team they are in, but by the fact that their athletic skill is sufficiently good as to be have been hired as a pro player by that team; the acknowledgement of the team is the third-party source that the person is notable. Nearly all the other sub-guidelines can be read in that fashion: there is some third-party, whether an awards committee, a sales tracking company, or the like, that says this topic is notable in its field (considering all others like it that are non-notable); it is just that this notability is not always written down in a secondary source. --MASEM12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Notability is a matter of deciding what material is desired by the community to be in the encyclopedia--it is not an intrinsic property, and the meaning is only in some particular context--our context is whether it is appropriate for an article in this particular encyclopedia. This has nothing to do with whether 2 sources of a particular type should happen to have highlighted it. That's confusing it with V--whether we have adequate sources suitable to the purpose to write an article about. If a fictional character, for example, is important in an important work, it may well be that people think it is appropriate o have an article based on the work of fiction itself. It doesnt matter in any way whether or not it happens to have been written about in secondary sources, as long as we have some means of writing a verifiable article, and think the article is worth the writing. I accept that there is an ongoing question of what fictional characters are worth writing about in a separate article, and there are very widely different views on that. We should therefore discuss it in its own right, not tied to irrelevant criteria about plot and particular types of sources. DGG (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
So what do you propose we do with WP:N? What changes would you like to see that can reasonably gain consensus? Randomran (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
To be blunt, I think DGG is wrong, not so much that he people may believe in that sort of real-world interpretation, but because it is the wrong way to go. Material that is desired by the community sounds like Misplaced Pages:Requested articles, an entirely different animal.
WP:N is about deciding whether sources exist now to write an article now. We want wikipedia to have some degree of reliability, and as we don’t engage expert contributors, our reliability is limited to the reliability of the sources. We don’t decide if the article is worthy based on some intrinsic property of the subject, but on whether anyone else, of sufficient reliability and reputability (ie not myspace, etc) has written about it. A logical consideration of this necessarily means that not just any sources, but secondary sources are required. Someone has to have written about the subject, not just reported or regurgitated data. Going in this direction means that to write an article on any subject, you have to have sources to base your contributions. If you don’t have these sources, then what are you doing? Making it up? Synthesizing original commentary? Perhaps you think and article needs no commentary? Well, to me, that means it is directory information, and probably an original directory too, because if such a directory of data already existed, then it would be best to simply link to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I would also disagree with DGG's analysis, as identifying what is desired by the community and what is not desired by the community is either impossible ascertain, or is too subjective a criteria to specify in a guideline. At the moment, we have 3 articles on The Terminator character, but we have the means of writing a verifiable article for 6, 9 or 12 articles on the same subject. I don't see how content forking could be controlled, except by writing an a set of inclusion criteria that have exactly the same effect as WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I, oddly enough, agree with Gavin 100%. Leaving the whole thing up to "the community" would lead to so much fancruft it would ruin any credibility WP ever had. If that were the case we could get stuck with "the tree in front of the Simpson's house" and we'd have to live with that article. Not the way I see WP going. Padillah (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy for the exact reasons that we have guidelines and policies that limit what people would otherwise want to do. Just because "enough" people want a POV article about pundits who have compared Barack Obama to a terrorist, it doesn't mean that we have it. Just because "enough" people engage in edit wars to genuinely improve the encyclopedia, it doesn't mean we ignore the 3RR. If the guidelines need an update, they need an update. But the standard required for inclusion isn't "people want it". It's totally circular. Virtually every article that is created is wanted by an interested minority, at the very least. There are rules here, and our foundation comes from the policies set by the founders. WP:N strikes me as a logical outcome of WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:V. But if someone wants to suggest an tweak to WP:N that's consistent with policy, I'm willing to hear it. Randomran (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
As a food for thought question: The current discussion is basically saying that a topic without any secondary sources should not have an article (hard-nose sticking to GNG); let us assume this stays. What do we do with such topics?
I am getting a very strong read that people want to not even have these covered unless there's third party sources available for it, but in going this direction, I think we're losing the focus of what WP can be. I am not proposing that we give non-notable topics their own articles, but, it is completely reasonable that a user should be taken to an appropriate page of context when they enter a non-notable search term in the search bar to the left; it may be through a re-direct or through a disambiguation page, but the user can identify with what large, more notable topic the term is associated with. This is regardless if there's no third-party or secondary sources to describe that one specific aspect. V and N limit "article topic" issues, and while V says "should" for third party sources within the context of an article, it is important to note that between it and WP:RS give flexibility when the topic matter is not one usually covered in academic sources.
Obviously we need balance this type of coverage against OR, POV, non-verifable information that can typically result when we loosen the sourcing requirement. We don't cover non-notable aspects of non-notable topics. We don't give non-notable aspects a significant amount of weight. Non-notable topics need to be defined in terms of their relevance to the main notable topic. What non-notable topics that are covered should be objective and not subjective.
Remember, we have a good number of editors that are pushing back against pure GNG requirements for notability and want to have things that are non-notable per GNG covered to various degrees. WP's policies and guidelines are built on community consensus, and I'm worried that the direction the discussion is going in is going to disenfranchise their view. If it was only one or two people fighting this point, I'd say they'd be fringe editors, and a blip in overall consensus, but this group is large enough to not be ignorable. --MASEM13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
But we can't ignore the people who think the WP:GNG is already a low standard. There's a good chance that the people who feel this way are beyond a majority. I'm still concerned about every minority opinion. But people who push for an abolition of WP:N may very well marginalize themselves if they lack the support they hope they have. I've tried to offer several compromises, as someone who basically likes the GNG. But I'd really appreciate more proposed compromises from critics of the GNG. Randomran (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am in fact going to propose an alternative policy where notability is defined as importance in the RW, or the part of the RW where the material is pertinent, and where sourcing is considered a completely separate issue. I dont want to denigrate the need for sourcing. But we all do agree we do not want to write about everything we can possibly source. The secondary source requirement for notability is a different issue--I accept primary sources for many things, I accept informal web sources for some things. And I'm a realist about it. the rules in Misplaced Pages are made by the community for its own purposes, where the community means the groups of active editors--the 10,000 or or so people who work regularly at enWP, and those additional ones who will choose to join us. We can have whatever rules we want to have. At least, if we're going to keep Misplaced Pages as it is we can have whatever rules are compatible with the basic purposes.
I dont think people realise I am not really all that much of an inclusionist, even about fiction. I want to keep this a general encyclopedia, not a conglomeration of purely parochial interests. There is some level of detail which is not appropriate here, because in practice we do seem to be used by the wider world as a standard of the importance of things. We have the obligation to maintain this just as we do to maintain a standard of accuracy and responsibility. and, in fact, I'm not primarily interested in popular fictional media. I personally would be very happy if nobody either here or in the RW cared for television serials, and a lot of similar things. I'm just in the situation of defending them because I think they are being unreasonably attacked. what I want to expand our coverage in is the traditional academic subjects in the humanities. since many people think it not important, the practical way is to let people have a good deal of flexibility and not dictate to them, and for all of us to put up with each others hobby-horses. When I came here, I was horrified by the inappropriately childish and uncritical coverage of most fictional material--but then I saw people trying to reduce it below the level of intelligibility. The first step is to accept the material, the second is to improve it. My key example, and what really got me started, was the attempt to reduce the coverage of what is wrongly called trivia, but is really cultural influences. To many academics, this sort of material is the main point of studying fiction in the first place--to see the development and the influences. Traditionally, thats what most scholars actually write about. I also know what the first part of any serious academic study of fiction consists of: an analysis of the plot. Plot and characters and setting. and the very same people who disliked the cultural influences part, which is as real-world as you can get--authors influencing one another--also disliked the coverage of plot. And then I see that some oft he people who dont like the coverage are actually themselves interested in these fictional worlds--I interpret this as a reluctance to realise that what t hey themselves spend time on may actually be important.
The other reason why I disagree with relying primarily on fixed types of sourcing as a factor for inclusion is the inconsistency it provides: a mature well developed work of reference offers consistent coverage. this is very hard in Misplaced Pages , because we have no way of getting people to write on particular topics. But the first step is to provide that everything at a certain level of importance is treated similarly. To take a different unsettled question, we can include professional minor league baseball players or not, but we should have a consistent standard of level where we do so or not, rather than have it vary according to what sources seem to be available to the people who work here. (Thats the other problem in sourcing as a criterion for notability--most of those working here are unable or extremely reluctant to use proper professional sources and research methods.)
so I see it as two levels--the things we want to include if we can, and the things we can in practice write about. notability, and verifiability. One depends on importance, the other on reliable sourcing. DGG (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking for something totally set in stone where a robot decides what's notable or not. But as a precisionist, I'm really uncomfortable with defining notability with something as vague as "real-world importance". You're also assuming that wikipedia is a democracy, which it isn't. Policies like WP:SOURCE and WP:PRIMARY have been formed by the founders of Misplaced Pages. The reason WP:N is useful is because it has a very low threshold for articles to cross, and leaves the articles that do qualify to the discretion of editors. (e.g.: apply WP:NOT, apply WP:NPOV, merge it into a broader topic, etc...) It's precise, but still flexible. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
In answer to Masem, "coverage" is not limited by WP:N, but seperate articles are. You can still cover most non-notable subjects within a notable over arching article, so you don't have have articles that fail WP:N, at least in theory, as WP:N does not specifically regulate the content of articles. This aside, I think what Masem is proposing is that WP:N should be replaced by a new guideline such as WP:COVERAGE, which if use our imaginations for a moment, would be accepted by both inclusionists and deletionists in equal measure. However, drafting such a guideline based on Masem's idea that "relevance" is the key to this revolutionary guideline has already been tried before at WP:RELEVANCE, and similar attempts have been tried as well, such as Misplaced Pages:Article inclusion. The problem is that, at best, such a guideline would be the same as WP:N but dressed up in new clothes, or at worst it would be WP:N with complex exemptions for everybody's favourite line of articles, such as trading cards. What we realy need is a proposal for article inclusion that would be the Best, Least-complex, Unbiased Equivalent of WP:N, but this is were my imagaination fails me, and I suspect this is like the Holy Grail, its going to involve a long fruitless search. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's any support for a revolution. I think there might be support for evolution, though. We should focus on improving WP:N, rather than trying to toss it out or rewrite it. Randomran (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to argue for a COVERAGE proposal; again, I'm keeping the presumption that the GNG sticks for article topics (not necessarily something I agree or disagree with, just a point). However, what I think that if we are rethinking NOTE, I am suggesting we need to consider non-notable topics that can clearly be covered in the scope of a larger, notable topics - making sure that we keep in mind that deep coverage of these is not appropriate.
Specifically I'm calling back to the part that I know Gavin had problems with in FICT: the section for allowance for lists of non-notable fiction characters and episodes as supporting material for a notable work of fiction. As I read the general attitude here, I don't see anyone against the inclusion of discussing characters and the like within the body of the article when they can only be sourced from primary sources; such inclusion usually easily brings concern if there are problems with the include: undue weight, in-universe coverage, OR/POV discussion, etc. (If editors are against this specific case, please speak up) However, at some point, we have to recognize SIZE issues come into play, even if all primary-sourced materials are kept in strong check. At some point you have to split off part of the article, and per general splitting process, you want to split off the information that has the least value to the general reader; this for most works of fictional are the specifics on the characters. Yes, this split may create some problems in that you now can't easily keep some aspects in check compared to the main work, and basically you now have a non-notable article floating around. However, if we agree that coverage of non-notable primary items within the body of the article, but that splitting off of the same information into a separate article per MOS/SIZE is not, then there is a serious disconnect that we need to resolve because either our MOS/SIZE approach is wrong (which I don't feel is the case) or the absolute adherence to the GNG when it comes to not enforcing "coverage" is not consistent.
This is the general type of concern that needs to be made here. I'm not saying that it's wrong to try to make the GNG more absolute if that's the way it goes. However, we need to make sure our approaches are consistent throughout to remove concerns of subjective treatments of various subjects. --MASEM21:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
In practice, I'm just not buying the size problem. If a topic has so much coverage in secondary sources that you can write a 100K+ article, then surely you have enough sources to split that article into multiple articles that all pass the GNG. And if an article is 100K+ based on first-party sources, primary sources, unreliable sources, or all of the above, then you shouldn't be splitting. You should be cutting and summarizing the information in there as per WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no beef with lists, navigation aids, and templates. The problem is when they summarize and organize non-notable topics. List of famines is notable because famines are notable. Topical outline of chemistry is notable because chemistry is notable. Someone can make a list of characters from a book, game, or movie. But then the characters from that book game or movie would have to be notable. Randomran (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
In practice, I think it is very simple. Either it is a list of mostly blue links (with explanatory prose is good) or it is a stand-alone list which is (or should be) usually subject to a notability guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. My impression is that the hostility to fiction is just intellectual snobbery - a pretentious form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If we have an article about an obscure insect that might only live in a single tree in the Amazon jungle then this would be considered notable (it's an endangered species!). The same applies to obscure bits of pure mathematics, minute asteroids, hamlets, etc. But, if the topic is something popular and well-known like Pokemon or Scrubs, then it is furiously attacked. This is blatant systemic bias. It should be resisted firmly because it specifically attacks material that is popular and so hurts our readership. Misplaced Pages is here more for its readers then its writers. And wannabe legislators and arbiters of taste are not wanted at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the "destroy all fiction" boogieman exists somewhere out there. But speaking only for myself, I have no problem with articles about fiction or elements of fiction. But whatever we write an article on, it should meet our guidelines. Randomran (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
In answer to Masem, you know that there are two problems with non-notable lists: no editor will want admit their list is non-notable anymore than, say, they would want to admit to clubbing seals, and secondly, a list of non-notable stuff will probably fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE in any case. From the perspective of writing the Best, Least-complex, Unbiased guideline, I object to providing exemptions from GNC/GNG on two grounds: such an exemption is basically a method of evading criteria which have consensus support, but also because everyone will want their own exemption for their favorite topic. The implications of this are that people will ignore any exemptions provided to non-notable lists, becuase WP:N has not been replaced by a better guideline, and see through the attempt to evade WP:N in this way. And if an exemption were ever granted for a non-notable list, the guidelines would be under a continous state of revision, as everyone woule then try to get an exemption for their favorite topic (which in a way is what is happening now). These issues aside, the only reason I can imagine why you want to change WP:N and WP:NOT is because, and correct me if I am wrong, you want to be able to write articles (dressed up as lists) about television episodes that just contain a plot summary, without the effort of citing secondary sources which follows on from your failed proposal at WP:EPISODE. Am I right in my understanding, or am I wrong on this issue? At least make it clear why you have an interest in non-notable lists, when I don't think anyone else wants them.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I could care less about actually writing such articles; I want to see the right balance so that we still cover all notable topics and non-notable topics that are part of that notable topic, just not as far as giving non-notable topics their own article. The issue I am more worried about is that while strong guidelines should be present to prevent large amounts of fandom creep or math kuzdu or what the field's equivalent is, the extreme position of what people have expressed they want to see for notability both completely neglects ~25% (based on the FICT RFC) of the editors and also puts restrictions on content which it is not supposed to do. We need to prevent creep, that's a given, but at the same time, we should be able to cover every single non-notable aspect of a notable topic (pending any issues in WP:NOT) as part of that topic, obviously with not a lot of weight, but enough to establish context. If the only place that this can be mentioned is in the main article on that topic and no other aspects can be split off as they are the key parts to understanding the topic (per SIZE, SS, and other guidelines), then the argument is turning to trim (which yes, should be done, but there's practical limits necessary to establish context) or remove, because moving these details is being stated as not an option, and thus is implicitly restricting content that is otherwise allowed by all other policies. --MASEM11:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You say that like that's a big change. There IS an implicit restriction on the content of a topic beyond our policies. WP:UNDUE and WP:NNC suggest that covering every single non-notable aspect of a notable topic would not be appropriate. Randomran (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a big change if we are allowing the only definition of notability to be "significant coverage in secondary sources"; UNDUE and NNC are neutral on the exact definition of notability , but once defined, it describes what should be done with non-notable aspects. However I still feel that there is room for balancing both a strict adherence to notable topics via sources, while also allowing certain allowances within the context of other policy/guidelines and WP's general mission that we can further include concise, balanced details of non-notable aspects of a notable topic to provide well-rounded coverage that all readers of that topic (those learning for it for the first time, and those that already know it and want to know more) can appreciate. I stress heavily that this is a balance that has to be achieved - it is not free passes for separate articles for every non-notable topic, nor to use a separate list as a new empty glass to fill with excess details. We still want a high quality encyclopedia that minimizes OR and POV, and is verifiable through established sources, and notability should help towards that. The question is, exactly what is the balance between the rigorousness of notability to meet those aspects, and the extent that WP is not paper or simply a traditional encyclopedia thus allowing for farther expansion in what topics it can cover? --MASEM16:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we'll ever have a problem with less notable aspects of a topic being covered in a main article. I understand that you're worried about WP:SIZE. But I don't think it's possible to violate WP:SIZE without having either (1) enough good sources to support a split or (2) too much inappropriate information that violates WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:NNC and so on... Randomran (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Without any examples, it is difficult to imagine a topic which Masem describes as covering every single non-notable aspect of a notable topic that is restricted by WP:N that does not fail other guidelines, like WP:NOT#PLOT. Can Masem give some examples of the articles he is refering to? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The easiest example I can think of is about 90% of the episode lists that are out there. Only a select few shows have nearly every episode as notable (per secondary sources), so obviously a list of episodes as a navigation aid to these makes sense (see, for example, the Simpsons). Other shows have non-notable episodes but when broken down by season, each season has its own demonstrated notability (such as Smallville (Season 1)). However, that's the 10% of the episode lists. The others are for shows where individual episodes are not notable, but have gone on for multiple seasons. Now, reasonably, it makes sense to provide a list and brief plot summary of each episode with the airing dates, production codes, writers, etc. -- information that is generally considered trivia and thus not sufficient to assert notability -- in context of the actual notable show itself, say List of Animaniacs episodes as an example. If we strictly limit that no non-notable content can exist outside the bounds of its notable topic article, then these TV show pages suddenly become huge (Animaniacs is already 57k, the list would easily push it above 100k, and we're still not yet talking about the various characters that are part of it). Now, it has been argued that notable information could be split off to a separate article, but there are two reasons against that. First, there's no single section of TV show articles that are typically long that their move into a separate article will help with size. Second, Summary Style suggests that information be split that is most specific and least of interest to the general reader, so in this case, the list of specific episodes is the most specific information that should be moved. Now, I'm sure there's other reasons to get rid of these episode lists all together, but they have been a long-standing "accepted" form for non-notable episode consolidation (but of course, WP:CCC); if we are arguing that strictly these cannot be allowed unless shown notable, there is definitely going to need to be a discussion to achieve global consensus on that issue, because I believe a lot of people will disagree with that. I'm in a weird position because I could care less about these types of articles or not, beyond seeing them as the best solution between inclusionists and deletionists - I'm more worried about the general dynamics of WP, and what such decisions will do to the community if taken without appropriate care to make sure they are the right ones. --MASEM17:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me you are suggesting that all television series, regardless of notablity, should be covered in same range and depth as The Simpsons on the grounds that it makes sense to provide a brief plot summary of each episode with the airing dates, production codes, writers. As you know, the Simpsons is a very exceptional television series, as each of its seasons has received extensive secondary coverage and won many awards, and even the plot summaries have been sourced from secondary sources (which is rare). The range and depth of secondary coverage has enabled Simpson's related topics to be split in a large range of articles right down to episode level, but there are still a cut off point where spliting cannot be supported, e.g Eat my shorts. However, just because one television series is notable, I am not sure that other television series inherit that notability in the sense that they deserve equivalent coverage as you seem to be proposing; every article series needs to stand on its own feet in terms of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not I said. I'm talking about the fact that it is currently established practice that for television shows which have lasted for more than a handful of episodes to split off the episode list, regardless of any secondary sourcing of that list, into another article for sake of clarity on the main article page per MOS. Not specific episodes (those have to be shown to be notable) but just the overall episode list for the show. These lists , as long as they include production and broadcasting details (writer, producer, episode #, air date) do not fail any other policy beyond a strong adherence to the GNG. --MASEM12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Without evidence of notability, I don't see why you could provide brief plot summary of each episode with the airing dates, production codes, without failing WP:NOT#PLOT and/or WP:NOTDIR. I disagree with your interpretion of WP:MOS that this information needs to be covered at all. As Randomran stated earlier, there is an implicit restriction on the content of a topic beyond our policies. WP:UNDUE and WP:NNC suggest that covering every single non-notable aspect of a notable topic would not be appropriate. I don't see why we have to change WP:N for the purpose of making room for lots and lots of what you call non-notable content. It also seems odd to me that if articles like Animaniacs are stuffed full of primary sourced content, you would think that contributors to this article could or will add secondary sources for an article split. I don't believe that for this class or article that this is where the front between inclusionists and deltionist lies; it seems to me that these articles just need improvement, rather than changing WP:N so that improvements can be indefinetly postponed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Except again, episode lists of a notable show that lack secondary-source notability have established consensus as the appropriate place to merge non-notable episodes and as secondary information for the main article. Even TTN offered this as a solution during the E&C ArbCom cases, and while it's likely not the best measuring stick, those cases showed that all of those commenting generally had that the GNG was not absolute (of course, in some cases, there should be no GNG).
We have to remember that consensus sets guidelines and policies; trying to insist that GNG is immutable for any article is strongly against a large proportion of editors and current editing practices, even if you think those are wrong. There are only a few fixed truths about WP: it's mission statement and the few resolutions passed by the Foundation - everything else is up for us as collective editors to decide. Even the 5 Pillars are flexible, as long as they reflect the mission. That is not to say that we need to challenge those, or WP:V, or WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV - those as policies are stable and rarely see any flak (there's issues on what reliable sources are for V, but V itself mostly holds). Thus, I think it very important that we need to consider that notability is not a concept fixed in stone. Notability standards are needed to help improve the quality of WP, but we also need to remember that we also want breadth of coverage as well, otherwise, we're failing the fact that WP is more than just a run-of-the-mill encyclopedia. There is no reason in WP's mission or overarching policies that we cannot cover non-notable topics, but we do know that unrestrained coverage of these (giving them their own articles) leads to unmaintainability; that's a hard lesson from the first five years. But with the pendulum swinging far to the side of "no non-notable topics should be covered at all", it's very obvious this extreme is not being accepted by all editors, so thus saying that the GNG is non-negotiable for any article is not going to work either. That's why its important to note that we have flexibility to completely rewrite this to be more strict or more broad, but either way it is taken, it needs to meet what the current consensus is, which is someplace in the middle of these two extremes based on discussions, RFCs, ArbCom, AFDs, and numerous other places. --MASEM14:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Masem, it's not important that you convince Gavin -- that's not likely to happen. Debating in long statements isn't solving any issues here. Let's try to get back to making specific succinct proposals and trying to gain consensus. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
In theory it is easy to change or rewrite WP:N or replace it with a new guideline such as WP:COVERAGE, but in practise I have yet to see a set of criteria that will be Better, Less complex or Unbiased Equivalent of WP:N. What is amazing about GNC/GNG is that they provide notability guidance for every subject matter under the sun in less than 260 words which can be summaried in one sentence, yet still offer flexibility and a high degree of quality control. I think that is pretty amazing, so if you can beat that, you deserve a prize. However, if you merely intend to tinker with WP:N until it is watered down, or create a class of articles or lists of articles that are exempt from WP:N to accomodate your favorite topic, I don't see how you can avoid unrestrained low-quality coverage to which most Wikipedians are opposed (even if Kevin thinks it is just me). I think WP:N makes good sense, because it enables the reader to climb on the shoulders of giants, rather peep over a wall of primary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Masem / Gavin, I don't think the goal should be to convince one another. The goal should be to translate this disagreement into concrete proposals. A "total revolution" for WP:N is not going to happen. What we need is either a clarification or a small amendment (or the rejection thereof, just to show consensus). I actually think my proposal #2 is the most honest clarification of how the GNG and the SNGs interact. It would enable discussions to move forward at specific guidelines like WP:EPISODE. (Read the proposal.) The specific notability guidelines are about using less conventional "sources" to assert notability. This would enable us to come up with a criteria that makes a WP:EPISODE notable. (For example, a list of episodes is notable if there are multiple seasons on a major television network. But that's not the discussion to have here. That's just a possibility that becomes enabled by clarifying WP:NOTE.) If someone disagrees with #2, I'd welcome them to offer an alternative proposal for how to clarify or amend WP:N. Randomran (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
In answer to Randomran, we have already had an extended discussion at WT:FICT regarding how, if at all, the notability criteria could be changed to be more inclusive for elements of fiction. I have argued that there aren't any criteria other than GNC/GNG that can be used to provide evidence of notability to elements of fiction (such a fictional characters), although this view is not generally accepted. For elements of fiction, there aren't any less conventional ways of asserting notability, because WP:FICT covers the one subject area where less conventional criteria such as real-world observation cannot be applied in the same way as for, say, people who are presumed to be notable if they are observed as holding high political office or participating in athletic competition at professional level. Since elements of fiction such as fictional characters cannot be observed in the real-world, we are wholly reliant on reliable secondary sources that discuss them to provide evidence of notability. Although television episodes could be classed as elements of fiction (being a subset of a larger work), they are typically broadcast through the medium of television or film, so subject specific notability criteria identical to or similar to WP:MOVIE can be applied to them. If we assume for just a moment that my arguements are correct, then only way to make WP:FICT more inclusive would be either to provide an exemption from WP:N for non-notable list (as is the case in the current draft), or to amend WP:FICT to that notability can be established through a mix of primary or Questionable sources. However, I have argued that both these approaches are fatally flawed, because in practise, no subject specific guideline will be accepted if it conflicts with or seeks to circumvent GNC/GNG which has both widespread acceptance and is congurent with other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was there for that discussion too. And I more or less share your view on notability: it ain't broke, don't fix it. But this discussion isn't about who's right or wrong, but about establishing a consensus. That means clarifying what the guideline already says. And one person's clarification might be another person's change. I think it's worthwhile to propose "clarifications" that I disagree with, even so we can see if that clarification is in fact how most people understand notability. As for my proposal, that's a clarification according to how I think WP:NOTE already works. It would basically explain how WP:MUSIC and WP:BOOK extend the WP:GNG. It would also clarify that this is the way forward for WP:FICT. What would happen at WP:FICT? No idea. Look at songs under WP:MUSIC. A song is probably notable if it's been covered/performed by multiple notable artists. A musician can be notable if they're the subject of a 30+ minute television broadcast. This blurs the line between a secondary source and a primary source, and severely relaxes the "independence" requirement. But it offers a way to assert notability that's based on some kind of objective evidence, rather than subjective opinion. I honestly don't know what would happen at WP:FICT. But clarifying WP:NOTE in this way would allow the discussion at WP:FICT to move forward. So would the acceptance or rejection of ANY proposal to change WP:NOTE. That's why we should consider as many proposals / changes / clarifications as possible, even if we ultimately reject all of them. It's about developing a consensus. Randomran (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see that making a solid proposal is better than just saying I like this guideline or I totally agree with it. I agree that if it is to be modified or replaced, we need to see the proposals, rather than just disputing each others viewpoints. Apologies to Masem if it appears I am picking on him. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Implementation
I've seen a number of good ideas for clarifying / changing WP:NOTE, and many of them have at least some support. How should we go about soliciting feedback on these proposals from the broader community, and eventually implementing/rejecting them? Do we have enough proposals to begin settling long-standing debates about WP:NOTE? It would be helpful to build up a new consensus around WP:NOTE so that it has the weight of the community behind it. Randomran (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I would consider an RFC (maybe on a centralized discussion page to avoid weighing down this page) that is set up to scope each of the above points, whenever possible, as a "do you agree or don't agree" type question, each having a support/oppose/neutral section. Responders should also be allowed to add in their own similar questions if they were not privy to this discussion, though I would say questions that are undermining to the process ("Should NOTE be abolished?") can be removed or if possible grouped to another point. The points that show significant consensus should then be drafted into a new form for NOTE that is put forth for a new !vote. Either or both of these should be tagged in the watchlist notification area if we can to get widest possible interest.
Alternatively, we can attempt to draft a new NOTE now without larger community feedback based on the ideas above, but my fear is that because those involved is a small number of editors, the move to gain global consensus will be more difficult since people may opposed on one or two points. --MASEM14:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I think going straight to a draft is a bad idea, since a lot of these proposals come from different perspectives with different goals. We might use any number of them, or none of them. You're also right that it will also make it harder to gain a consensus if even one of the proposals is controversial. An RFC on every proposal is probably a better approach. I'm not sure what you mean by a centralized discussion page, though. Do you have an example of how that might work? I think one challenge is that people might agree with something in general, but disagree on specifics. Some of the proposals may be basically good, but I wouldn't want people to reject them because they're not in a more final form. One thing I'd like to happen in the RFC process is the acceptance of a proposal in spirit, so we can begin to hammer out a specific wording at some later time. Randomran (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
See WP:CENT, we create a subpage here (say Misplaced Pages talk:Notability/Proposed Changes, make sure it is linked there (though I note there's already a bit for GNG there). RFC'ing it and watchlist notification can't hurt as well, as well as broad announcement at WP:VPP. I would preface to explain what the goal is (these are all "clarifying"? proposals to NOTE, not meant to drastically disrupt or change it but to help to provide better continuity between it and subguidelines), and explain that several options have been suggested, and to have people just !vote/comment on each one yea, nay, or neutral. It is not to be an all-or-nothing approach, just to see which parts have most concensus. --MASEM16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
More discussion on the changes I tried to make.
Well they got reverted again, by Kevin Murray. He said he was willing to discuss it on the talk page.
May I hear his objection, if he's here? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
"Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption that can be falsified by presenting logical reasons that the article may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If a consensus is reached that these reasons are valid, the presumption is falsified and the article is unworthy of inclusion even if the notability criterion is satisfied
Mike, the above seemed a bit complicated and a unclear. Can we distill it down, and then discuss whether it serves the purpose? --Kevin Murray (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I support Mike's change on a substantive level (we discussed this above), but I agree that some of the rhetoric may be confusing (though the old version was a bit unclear as well). Here's how I would word it:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable, and presumed to be worthy of inclusion.
"Presumed" means that notability establishes a rebuttable presumption that an article is worthy of inclusion. It is possible that a notable subject may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other policies or guidelines. If a consensus is reached that this is the case, the presumption is overruled and the article should not be included.
Not withstanding other issues, the last sentence is not necessary since the outcome is described elsewhere and each paragraph does not have have to stand alone.
I support a clarification of this paragraph, but only with some demonstration of consensus at the talk page. It is not worth destabilizing a delicate consensus to make a minor clarification. Sometimes stability is prefered to precision. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't support saying that. It simply is not what presumed means. We may as well say "a topic is oglornaxed to be notable," since if we're just going to make up a brand new definition, we may as well make up a brand new word, too. If we actually mean that something that meets the guideline IS notable, but it may not be worthy of inclusion, we should say something like that. We shouldn't use a word differently from the way it's defined anywhere else. Either something is notable if it meets the guideline or it's presumed to be notable. They're not the same thing. Croctotheface (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not getting the proposed clauses mixed up? (They are admittedly rather disorganized.) I agree that nonliteral language is a Bad Thing, but I don't think that's a problem with these proposals. For instance, the wording I prefer is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is considered notable, and presumed to be worthy of inclusion. "Presumed" means that notability establishes a rebuttable presumption that an article is worthy of inclusion. It is possible that a notable subject may still be unsuitable for inclusion under other policies or guidelines." So according to this, adequate coverage (as defined elsewhere) establishes notability (no presumption involved), and notability establishes a presumption that an article is worthy of inclusion. Seems logically sound, no? — xDanielx /C\ 05:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I didn't see that "presumed" was moving someplace else in the main definition. I'd be fine with that change as far as the language and use of words. My only remaining concern is that I'm not sure that there exists a consensus behind saying "is notable...presumed worthy," but I don't object to it personally. So long as there's a consensus behind that change, I'd be fine with it as well. Croctotheface (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why we need any change at all. Can you explain which articles this will impact or why? I am against cosmetic changes for changes sake. --Gavin Collins (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Gavin, see above discussion. The main motivation for tweaking the wording is that, on close examination, the current version isn't quite logically coherent, resulting in minor ambiguity. — xDanielx /C\ 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gavin about not making minor changes for the sake of nit picking. But I mildly object to the current text as a bit of a WP:coatrack for restating other issues and having links to other pages. All we are trying to say is: "Presumed" means that a subject may meet this guideline, but might be rejected because it fails other policies or guidelines." Why say more, or better yet, could we even make that statement more precise and concise?--Kevin Murray (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason I prefer the other wording is it makes it clear that if an article's subject is notable, the burden of proof falls on those wanting the article deleted to show that other policies or guidelines are not met. Your wording clarifies that the presumption can be negated, which is of course true, but it doesn't cover the other side. (Of course we don't exactly need either point to be clarified.) That said, I'd prefer your wording to what we have now -- at least it makes sense and is succinct. — xDanielx /C\ 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
no, presumed refers to presumed notability -- not to other Misplaced Pages guidelines. Notability is not the only criterion for an article, and the reasons why an article might not be suitable would apply regardless of notability. The intended and accustomed meaning of this is that in the absence of other evidence about whether something is notable or not, the presence of the sources is a determining factor. (now I personally have some doubts here, but I think I'm stating what has been the consensus--personally I think it's close to irrelevant, but I know perfectly well the consensus is not with me there--I am not trying to argue that). Something can perfectly well be notable in the absence of such sources being present, and most certainly not every notable thing gets into Misplaced Pages -- se the follow section on NOT NEWS for an example. DGG (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Becuse what evidence can rebut a presumption of notability when the notability criteria are satisfied? The text says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion." One should not be able to rebut it on arbitrary criteria. Whereas rebutting a claim of inclusion requires one to point to Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines and evidence why it fails to meet the criteria there. Then also notice the text says "it is not suitable for inclusion", not "it is still not notable". Since the former makes more sense given the context, that's why I proposed the changes I did. And of course presence of sources satisfying the GNG is not the only form of evidence for notability -- see WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:MOVIE, etc. The trouble I have here is that it seems to open up a can of worms: it's saying that although something passes all these "notability guidelines" it may still not be notable, not just unsuitable for inclusion, without giving any explicit criteria on what would render something non-notable in spite of passing the guideline. Without such criteria we get something very arbitrary and GAMEable. In addition, it still seems self-contradictory: it says later that it is referring to suitability for inclusion! What gives with that? PS. CCC, you know. mike4ty4 (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel that there is a bit of a contradiction between WP:NTEMP and WP:NOT#NEWS, and it may be better to rectify it somehow. This is especially true since WP:NOT is a policy which trumps WP:N which is a guideline. WP:NTEMP implies that once a topic receives sufficient coverage, that topic becomes and remains notable even if that coverage quickly ceases altogether. This goes somewhat against WP:NOT#NEWS which says:"Misplaced Pages considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." The key phrase here is historical notability. To me this means that there has to be some evidence of a historical impact and significance of an event, as demonstrated by coverage that extends beyond the time the event was taking place. Of course, such coverage need not be as numerous and intense as the coverage during the even itself. An example of this would be something like a crime (a bank robbery, a highway chase, a murder) that gets significant coverage for a few days and then no coverage at all. Or a presidential press-conference. Or a 300 points DOW drop on a particular day.
There is a related but somewhat distinct issue which I think ought to be addressed as well. It'd be good if WP:N mentioned that notability is not the only factor in deciding if a topic deserves a separate WP article. There may be some topics that formally pass WP:N but should be covered on WP in the context of a somewhat larger topic rather than on their own. A good example here would be something like a sports game, e.g. the recent victory of Russia over Netherlands in the quaterfinals of the Euro 2008 soccer cup. The game received plenty of coverage in national and international media but it is fairly clear that it does not deserve a separate WP article, but rather should be covered in the Euro 2008 soccer cup article. Another example is a significant political announcement (e.g. somebody announcing their presidential run). Nsk92 (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I see no contradiction at all, but there is plenty of scope to explain it better. WP:NTEMP says once demonstrated notable, always notable, and stems from the notion that notability is only established by proper sources that show that others have already written about it. WP:NOT#NEWS says that we are not about recording mere news.
A subtle but critical distinction here is the difference between news coverage/stories and news reports. Here lies the fine line between primary and secondary sources in journalism. Mere reptition/republication of information, without commentary or tansformation does not change the information from primary to secondary. Reports are just reproduction of facts, times, events, quotes, etc. Stories are different in that they include editorial commentary or opinion. “Coverage” implies some non-trivial breadth of coverage, implying that the information is not mere repetition or reporting from a single source. WP:NOT#NEWS is referring to news that is primary source material, “reports”, routine journalism, and is not referring to news that can be called secondary source material.
So, they way I see it, WP:NTEMP and WP:NOT#NEWS are not in conflict. They have different purposes, but both presuppose that “news reports” or “new events” are not suitable bases for articles, and that “news coverage” or “news stories” may be suitable.
I agree with you on the related but somewhat distinct issue. Editorial consensus is required to judge whether a subject should be stand alone, or part of a broader subject, and WP:N doesn’t necessarily offer guidance on such a question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm-m, I have seen people invoke WP:NOT#NEWS in AfD debates quite a few times and they usually do it in different circumstances from what you describe. Namely, it is invoked even where there is substantial in-depth but very short-term coverage of a particular topic, and not merely superficial reporting. The phrase "historical notability" in WP:NOT#NEWS also suggests this approach. For example, U.S. Presidents give many speeches and these speeches usually are covered and analyzed in substantial detail by the media. But very few such speeches (even very few State of the Union speeches) receive substantial coverage beyond a few days after they happened and very few such speeches get their own WP articles. Rare examples of this, like Nixon's Checkers speech or Reagan's Tear down this wall speech, do get their own WP articles but only after it becomes clear that their significance and effect extend beyond a few days or weeks after the event. Another example of this sort of thing is various crimes that often get detailed but very short-term coverage in the media and then quickly fade into oblivion. There was an interesting recent AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joshua Packwood where this kind of a problem came up. The AfD resulted in a "no consensus" closure and it was clear that there was indeed no consensus on how to reconcile WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E with WP:BIO in that case. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Can specific topic guidelines be more inclusive?
One issue that is not specifically addressed is whether a specific notability guideline can be more inclusive than the general notability guideline, or whether they are limited to be more exclusive. WP:NOT#NEWS is an example of a guideline that is more exclusive ... it outlines topics that may have multiple, impeccable, detailed sources that are, nonetheless, considered to be insufficiently notable to get an article.
Other guidelines attempt to allow things to be considered notable despite not meeting the general notability guideline. The guidelines on geographic places previously attempted to include every possible speck on the map as being inherently notable, a problem which has since been fixed. Some people arguing on the fictional guidelines are attempting to generate guidelines for fiction which would allow things to have articles even if they have never been mentioned in any independent source, by attempting to propagate notability from a parent topic to a child topic.
I would like to change
A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right.
to
A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. Additional guidelines which may prevent a topic from being considered notable are listed in the table at the right. Kww (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
rather to
A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. This is a rebuttable presumption, if the material appears insignificant. Additional guidelines which may prevent a topic from being considered notable are listed in the second table at the right.
I really dislike the GNG, but at least the version I've written states clearly the logical relationship. As proposed above it was rather a complete reversal of policy from accepting both GNG and specific guidelines. DGG (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I was stating a "complete reversal of policy", because I think this issue is really at the core of the fiction battle. There are many (myself included), that believe that a part of subtopic guideline that attempts to include material rejected by the GNG is invalid on its face. The purpose of the subtopic guidelines are to exclude, not to include. Look at WP:MUSIC ... you can find documentation on nearly every single ever made, but WP:MUSIC says that most of them should not have articles. It doesn't try to claim that being a single is inherently notable. The cases it lists can nearly invariably be supported by documentation. Kww (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an interesting proposal however it still sounds as if there are hidden criteria that can rebut the presumption, as it does not define what material "appears insignificant" nor does it seem to say whether the "additional guidelines that prevent notability" define this. That term "appears" makes it sound really subjective and GAMEy. mike4ty4 (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Notaility in English
There is a prolific inclusion of articles in Misplaced Pages which are coming from other language Wikis. Many subjects can never be verified from English sources and sources provided are often not in English. Are subjects of articles for which there are no English sources, notable for the English Misplaced Pages?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sources need not be in english, but they must be verifiable. If you can have the source translated, then you can have it verified, and it is good enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is an issue. If a topic has not been discussed at all in the English language then it is ipso facto not notable within the English-speaking community from which our readership comes. We should have a barrier of this sort to prevent this version of the project being used as a content-fork for other linguistic groups that often have strong POVs about their parochial issues. We also be wary of such sources being used to support linguistic invasion - seeking to change English usage to conform to the usage of other languages. I have seen many recent examples of this, such as at Taoism where it seemed that some foreign editors wanted to change the article's title into a Chinese ideogram. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think getting swamped is really a likely scenario here. We simply ask for notability (and for the articles to meet all other English Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines), not notability in the English-speaking world - a likely majority of en. editors and readers are not from English-speaking countries and there is no reason I can see why events and people and places with which they are directly familiar cannot be documented here. In addition, cooperation between admins on en. and a number of the other wikis is much more solid than many would realise, so we can get trusted and reliable admins from other projects to give us a neutral third opinion if we are concerned the wool is being pulled over, so to speak. Orderinchaos19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
yes, the only way in which it being the english WP matters is that there has to be people prepared to actually write the articles in acceptable English--not machine translation from the other WPedias--and to try to find additiopnal or replacement English sources if they do exist. DGG (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Why inclusion of fictional subjects matters
It occurs to me that, in several years of fighting for a more inclusionist stance on fictional topics, I've never been thoroughly explicit about why I care.
I am a PhD student in English focusing on popular culture. I have written and taught on comics, video games, television, films, and all manner of obscurities. I am, in this area, not just an editor of Misplaced Pages. I am a serious user of it. I routinely use Misplaced Pages to look up and check basic facts about fictional subjects - what episodes a minor character appeared in, who the creator of an obscure 70s DC comics villain was, what the plot of a random episode of something is. I use Misplaced Pages for background information to decide if something is worth looking into in more detail.
When an area that has been thoroughly worked on has not been decimated by deletion and notability police, it is an invaluable resource that often has not been duplicated elsewhere. When articles are deleted, the information and work that went into them are gone, and I cannot get at them. In a few cases of specific TV shows there may be a Wikia that duplicates the content, but more often the information deleted is gone.
Plot summaries, cast lists, biographies of fictional people, etc - these things are not "fancruft." They are information that I use for serious scholarly research. Regularly and routinely. When they are deleted, my work becomes harder. When they are present, I can save hours of searching for minor details.
I am all for adding more in-universe material, and cutting summaries and the like to manageable lengths. I do not advocate scene by scene or chapter by chapter analyses. But on the other hand, it's tremendously useful to be able to get a general plot of a television series from the first episode up to the present. Useful. To real research.
When the information is easily verifiable (as in-universe information almost always is), the purpose of a notability guideline is to restrict Misplaced Pages to useful information. The "multiple independent sources" rule has, in the past, been a somewhat effective way of handling this. But we must not forget that the point of a notability guideline is to make sure that Misplaced Pages is limited to only useful and important subjects.
Plot summaries, episode descriptions, minor characters, etc are useful. They are important. To real, peer-reviewed research. We are not talking here about webcomics that end after three weeks, or about obscure garage bands. In most of these cases we are talking about television shows with audiences in the millions. People study these things. They are legitimate objects of academic research. And Misplaced Pages's coverage of them helps. It is an area where Misplaced Pages directly serves the public good.
I support what you want to do, but "useful" needs to be defined a little carefully. It means useful in a sense appropriate to an encyclopedia--providing the sort of information that users will reasonably expect to be in a contemporary comprehensive user-oriented free open-content internet encyclopedia--not on the one hand a repeat of all the directory information or fan fiction found in the web, but also not on the other hand containing the information that people ought to want, what any group here might think is appropriate for them. there are purposes for more and less restrictive information sources of various kinds. This project should stay doing what it does, which is accommodating a very wide range of general interests. There is no reason why anyone looking for the name of any character in a soap opera should not find it here in context, with an appropriately proportioned amount of information. The key is proportion. DGG (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - I would expect, for a character of a soap opera, a general biography with major life events and a quick guide to when they appeared. For most television shows I would think an article for episodes with a general plot summary would be reasonable and helpful. Doesn't need to be scene by scene or anything. I think most responsible WikiProjects - Doctor Who springs to mind as one I'm familiar with - strike a very good balance if left to their own devices. Other areas need more reform, but the solution here isn't deletion, it's good editors to pay attention to the area, same as any other subject area. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "notability" doesn't limit what content will be in wikipedia. It just limits what content will warrant its own article. And it also has an indirect impact on the proportion of what you'll see: so you get a concise summary, but not an exhaustive in-universe biography of every character. Plot summaries belong in articles. Concise descriptions of characters belong in articles. Nobody's talking about deleting that stuff. Randomran (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
However when articles are removed we get rather monstrous organizational problems - individual articles for individual episodes of a television show become a very nice organizational tool in lieu of including all of that information in one article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
As has been mentioned before, notability is not a good way to organize info. Take the list compromise. Say it allows 1,000 words of text. Depending on the situation, two 500 word articles might be better for navigation and readability in our hyperlinked version of an encyclopedia, but NOTE forces us to cram them together. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
In practice, I just don't think you'd ever have so much information that you'd be forced to create multiple non-notable articles. Either the information is verified by reliable sources and would support a split into multiple notable articles, or there's just an overabundance of crufty details that really should be left outside Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not google. Randomran (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
We need to purge the nonsense and unconstructive non-word "cruft" from our vocabulary and I strongly recommend focusing on verifiability rather than subjective notability as inclusion criteria on a paperless encyclopedia with thousands of editors. Sicnerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles06:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, as Le Grand Roi says, the word "cruft" here is monstrously unhelpful. Summaries of individual episodes of a television series are not "cruft" for me - they are valuable research material that greatly speeds my ability to do research on television. On the other hand, I find articles on individual British nobles of the 18th century to be about as useful as you find articles on television episodes to be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
(1) Purging words from my vocabulary is something I don't do. Not where I'm from. (2) Don't presume anything about what I find useful or not. When I'm looking for information on non-notable bands, I go to myspace and hypem. I still don't expect that to be on wikipedia. (3) As fun as it is to discuss whether the notability requirement is good or bad, if someone has a problem with the notability requirement they should propose to change it, or learn to love it the way it is. Randomran (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Please calm down. The point I was trying to make is that "cruft" is a subjective judgment, and the judgment I'm having so much trouble with, in that much of what is widely labeled "cruft" is, in fact, my research area, and I use Misplaced Pages for it. We're not talking about garage bands here - we're talking about television programs and comics with national distribution and audiences in the millions. As for the fun, I am not trying to discuss the general notability requirement. I am proposing that we be sensible about the specific issue of notability in fiction and allow ourselves comprehensive and thorough coverage of the area. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I am calm. Misplaced Pages has a lot of guidelines that define cruft. It's a useful shorthand. "It's useful" doesn't change what belongs or doesn't belong in wikipedia. Honestly, if you want to read more about non-notable topics, there's always google. That's what I use. Randomran (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not really true - WP:CRUFT is an essay that spends a lot of time cautioning against the term. As for the notability of topics, we're talking here about an area of academic study that exists because, well, mass culture is massive. That is, millions of people watch television shows. I mean, I'm not a casual oddball looking for esoteric information here. I'm looking for basic information about the plots of successful children's books or critically acclaimed television shows so I can figure out if I want to look at them further. That is, I'm trying to use an encyclopedia for its intended purpose. This is not cruft. This is valuable information on important topics. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Sub-articles like episodes, characters, and the like are, however, often useful for serialized fiction as organizational tools for the rather large amount of plot that exists. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not the place for a large amount of plot information. See WP:PLOT. That's a fundamental policy of wikipedia supported by its founders, and it indirectly informs this guideline. I know you find it useful, but that doesn't mean it should be on wikipedia. I find lots of useful information outside of wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Misplaced Pages. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles18:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't need large amounts of plot information. But there are 109 hours of Buffy, and another 81 of Angel. It's not exactly feasible to cover that plot in the same level of detail we cover the plot of a two hour film in a single article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I refuse to take the bait on WP:EVERYTHING arguments. I definitely think that there should be a sub-guideline for fiction that allows for lists of episodes for truly notable long-running series like Buffy or Angel (I say that not knowing anything about either series, this isn't personal). WP:FICT was supposed to allow that if you look here, but there was no consensus to extent notability in this way. Don't look at me, I thought this was a fair guideline. Our debate with each other is a distinction without a difference. Randomran (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(EC reply to Phil Sandifer) I don't think there's any problem independently and reliably sourcing Mr. Obama's Illinois Senate career (and if there was before he ran, there sure isn't now!), so that doesn't seem to be a particularly apt comparison to details of fictional work not covered independently. I think you seem to be characterizing any position other than "We should have a separate, in-universe article on every minor character in every work of fiction" as "We should not cover fiction." This is a false dichotomy. There are many ways in which we can cover fiction. Handling in-universe-only elements with brief list mentions is not failing to cover them. Nor is "It's useful" a valid inclusion argument. Almost everything on the list of what we don't do is useful. Dictionary definitions, howto and instruction guides, travel guides, news articles, directories of various types, open discussion forums, personal/social networking web page sites, media repositories, and publications of original thought and research are all useful. But despite the utility of all of these things, they are outside of our scope—an encyclopedia, a general overview and introduction to the topics it covers, not a comprehensive, exhaustive coverage of every detail of those topics. We should also be careful to give the proper weight to the topics we cover, mirroring the weight sources give them. If a few episodes of a TV show generated significant coverage and the rest little to none, we should mirror this example, giving the episodes we have plenty of coverage for in independent reliable sources full articles while providing brief list entries for the rest. This would make the episodes with importance to the real world stand out in immediate relief, and for someone seeking an introduction to the topic, that's exactly as it should be. The same is true of characters or any other fictional element. Important to the real world, plenty of independent source material? Full article. Important to the fictional work but not really outside of it? List entry or mention in appropriate parts of plot summary. Not even really important to the work? Little if any mention at all. A researcher needing more detail has plenty of resources available regarding the complete work, not least among them actually viewing or reading it. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be the endpoint of in-depth research, it should be the starting point. That's the whole purpose of an encyclopedia.
(To Le Grand Roi de Citrouilles) "Cruft" is simply shorthand for "fictional material not covered significantly by reliable secondary sources." Since that's a bit cumbersome to type out every time one refers to such material, we could, I suppose, refer to it as a spade, but what it's referred to as doesn't change what it is. Seraphimblade06:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"Cruft" is a needlessly critical if not insulting term that I just couldn't see serious encyclopedists using in a collegial and constructive discussion. When I see it used in any discussion, I usually cannot take that comment seriously. Now, if I see someone who says, "Delete as after trying to do what I can to improve the article in question, I could not find sufficient reliable sources and the best I could make the article is still excessive detail that is cumbersome to get through," I can respect such a comment as that. And such a comment is one that I can actual engage in civil discussion. You can tell someone that there work needs to be concise without calling it "cruft". So, it is a matter of tact and compassion for fellow editors. Knowing that I and others (even those who are more on the deletion side of things) have expressed such concerns, seeing further use of it, just makes it that much less likely to be taken as part of a serious argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles06:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There's a difference between the things on your list such as "dictionary definitions, howto and instruction guides, travel guides, news articles," and articles on fiction. The biggest difference is that people generally agree with how we treat those things in the list, and don't agree with how we treat fiction. Some of the stuff we created sister projects for (dictionary), other stuff there's no debate at all whether it should be included (media repository). We kind of are a social networking site with our userpages. Basically, those are all things we've come to agreement on. Either the info gets a sister project, everyone agrees it shouldn't be included, or we work it in in a way that pleases us. Those examples do not lend themselves to analogy with fiction. Most of what you listed comes from NOT, and we may be working our way there. First FICT, then NOTE, then possibly onto NOT. It's how we make up our rules as we go along. It's pretty fun really. The pro inclusion arguments seem to include some very good reasoning. At FICT, the main disinclusion argument was "NOTE prohibits it." Now we're at NOTE, and again I hear good arguments refuted by "NOT prohibits it." If the only real argument against inclusion is that we must follow the rules regardless of the arguments that justify them, inclusion will win. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The line I am trying to draw here is "our coverage of fiction should be as informative to a scholar in that area as our coverage of British nobility is to a scholar in that area." That is, we ought provide the same service in all areas. It's a pretty basic threshold. Lemme give some examples of what I'm looking for.
I'm interested in designing a course on American visions of the future and technology. So I think "Oh, gee, it sure would be a good idea to put a Tom Swift book in the syllabus. I wonder which ones I should look at." What I need here is one or two paragraphs outlining the general plot of them so I can figure out which ones I want to read. And I go to Tom Swift, Jr. and there are no articles on individual books. Now that may be because nobody has written them. The point stands - summaries would be useful. A lot more useful than tracking down 33 out of print books and reading them all.
I read Greg Rucka's comic series Queen & Country, and I learn that it's heavily inspired by The Sandbaggers. I find Queen & Country interesting, and I want to follow up on this thread to see if there's something interesting to do with this line of spy fiction. I don't even have a paper in mind here - I'm just trying to learn more about something that has piqued my interest. I'd love to get a feel for what a typical episode is like. Unfortunately, the articles that were written on specific episodes were all redirected back to the main article, so that information is gone. I guess in order to even find out if this would be interesting to me I have to buy the DVD sets at $7.14 per episode.
I just finished off a paper on superheroes. I needed to do a quick check on a point about Iron Man - I couldn't remember if his origin had originally been in Vietnam or Korea, whether it had been explicitly retconned in the comics, and at what point in the comics the whole "his suit keeps him alive" thing was discarded. All pretty big points in the character's fictional life - nothing like "in what issues does he kiss Pepper Potts" or anything. These are major beats in the overall narrative. And, sure, I could read hundreds of comics to get the information I need for a one sentence throwaway. But that would take days and thousands of dollars to acquire the comics.
That's what I'm looking to be able to do with fictional subjects. It's not an undue bar to clear - all of that is easily answered with verifiable sources. All of it is very basic background information about the material - as basic as what we provide without angst for hundreds of other subject areas. All I'm asking is that my area of research be given the same thorough coverage as any other major area of research. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If we have a bias, then it is because that bias is reflected in the availability of significant coverage from reliableverifiable sources independent of the topic. If you can provide such sources in any given situation for a fictional character, an episode, or whatever you wish, then you can create an article on it. That's the bar to clear - it isn't a matter of "usefulness", it's a matter of what is available in terms of adequate sourcing. We don't have double standards for other fields, and all articles are expected to meet WP:NOTE or have a damn good reason as to why they are ignoring it (usually in the case of character lists, episode lists, et al). This still, however, does not stop the information itself from being included in a relevant article. The only boundaries here are WP:WEIGHT, WP:SS and WP:NOT. That said, you seem to have more of a concern over whether the information itself is present more than whether the individual subjects actually have articles, and the answer is that a good majority of fiction articles are written poorly and don't follow WP:WAF (largely due to those types of articles attracting fans of the material who have little to no regard in terms of how to properly present the material, i.e. excessive in-universe information and point-of-view). That article on the British nobility probably includes more detail and is more informative simply because it's written better (and attracts people who probably a bit more dedicated to presenting the material in a better encyclopedic format). We don't need a special standard for fiction that contradicts WP:NOTE - it's simply the type of editors that are attracted to that type of material and the quality of the articles they create. Sephiroth BCR09:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
We should remember that our policy for sources independent of the topic is not some immutable holy law, but a practical invention to serve a purpose. It is thus worth checking and making sure that the policy is actually useful and productive in this specific area, instead of applying it blindly. After all, that rule was made top-down - it's pretty unlikely that it will apply seamlessly to two and a half million articles. So the question is why, for fictional subjects, are independent sources useful? What does source independence get us here? Because most of the reasons we implemented it - bias, self-promotion, etc - aren't really applicable here. So it's an open and significant question. Similarly, I have trouble figuring out how WP:WEIGHT even begins applying to a plot summary. A plot summary is not generally considered a point of view about an episode of a television series.
I will whole-heartedly agree with you that fiction articles attract pathologically bad editors who make decisions that, if comparable ones were made in other areas, would get them drubbed out of the project in a week. This is a significant problem. Aggressive deletion, however, is a terrible solution, as it also drives away contributors who want to write good articles about fiction. And, indeed, few articles are improved via deletion. Were we to put the notability argument on the shelf for fictional subjects and apply some measure of common sense belief that, say, every episode of a television series should be summarized, and every significant recurring character should have their role in the show summarized then we would have a lot of crappy summaries. But we would at least have stuff to improve. Certainly I am more likely to trim an overly long summary I come across than I am to write one where none exists. I suspect I am not unique in this regard. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The general notability guideline is not absolute, but should be followed unless there is good reason not to. It isn't something that we can blindly ignore either. It isn't about maintaining "usefulness", it's about ensuring that there's some sort of standard for topics to meet in order to have articles, and is derived from WP:V's dictum that there must exist third-party sources on a topic for it to have an article. Anyhow, WP:WEIGHT applies if the article is completely plot summary or goes too in-depth into the plot summary, which is undue weight on one part of the subject and is excluding the rest (conception/production, reception, merchandise, cultural impact, etc.). As for the deletion of fictional subjects, it's because of the poor editors that are there, and a natural consequence of it. If you have more bad editors, you end up with bad articles that are viable targets for AfD. Sure, you can offer merge solutions or cleanup beforehand, but a good portion of the time, deletion is probably warranted. Anyhow, your argument is drifting into the "keep all fictional subjects" area, which may have sympathy, but will probably never be implemented on Misplaced Pages. Yes, it would be nice to present a "useful" plot summary for every episode, fictional character, and whatnot in existence, but it creates a double standard that we apply towards fiction that we don't use elsewhere, which is unacceptable. As a common editor of articles relating to fiction, I have sympathy for your ideas, but trying to implement a double standard in regards to fiction is not the way to go. Sephiroth BCR06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but why do we want a standard for topics? I mean, there is a reason there, and we need to keep that in mind. As for WP:WEIGHT, your argument here is a ridiculous distortion of the policy. WP:NPOV has nothing to do with this, since plot summary is not a viewpoint. That is not to say there are not issues to be considered about appropriate length for various things, but it's not a NPOV issue, which is what WP:WEIGHT is.
And the last thing I want is a double standard. What I want is, in fact, a single standard - I want fiction articles to be as useful to someone gathering background information in the area as articles in other subjects are. I want the basic details like the plot covered for fictional works. When that fictional work is a comic series that has run for decades or a television series that runs for tens of hours, I expect the summary to be as detailed as it is for a novel, or for a biography of a dead English noble. I expect, in short, the same basic level of detail on all subjects. That's not "keep all fictional subjects." It's "do not arbitrarily decide that fictional subjects shall get less thorough treatment than other areas." Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
We have a standard to have an encyclopedia. Anyhow, your points concerning WP:N are a bit moot, as WP:BURDEN states specifically that, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." WP:VERIFY is policy and as such, more or less immutable. Yes, we aren't going to follow it blindly, but the scenarios in which you ignore it are basically nonexistent. And again, WP:WEIGHT applies because we're covering something with undue weight that is not demonstrated by third party interest in the same area. We're a mirror of that third party interest, which is why WP:V indicates as such. And no, you're creating a double standard. Everything else, whether it be in the sciences, history, literature, or whatever, follows the general notability guideline, and even more basic than that, VERIFY's dictum that third party sources are required. You're saying fiction doesn't have to, which is not acceptable. There are articles on the minute details of those fields because there exists third party sources on them, while this is not the case for many areas of fiction. This is beginning to drift into the same argument you had with A Man in Black on WT:FICT, but again, I point to the fact that nothing is stopping you from writing the detail you want on the relevant articles. Why do you want an episode article when the episode list summarizes the plot? Why do you need a plot summary on a specific character when it is in a list of characters? Frankly, lists are the extent to which the community has accepted deviation from VERIFY's third party sources requirement and the general notability guideline, and it's probably not going past that. Sephiroth BCR07:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone has their own standard of what an encyclopedia should be. Saying we have a standard is ignoring the fact that we make the standards. Abiding by WP:V and it's third party requirements are fine, it's NOTE that's the problem. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we certainly make the standards, but the standards we have probably aren't going to change in the near future, especially VERIFY. NOTE could possibly change, but not to the extent that Phil wants it to. I don't think there will ever be adequate community consensus to overturn VERIFY's requirement of third party sources though. Sephiroth BCR08:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Look, if you are going to be so transparently silly as to argue that WP:WEIGHT, a redirect to WP:NPOV, applies to plot summaries, then just stop. You're not arguing anything that has even the remotest relationship with reality or sense. For the last time, the phrasing of WP:WEIGHT is, and I quote, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A description of what happened in an episode of a television show is not a viewpoint about the show. There is no extended debate about the contents of a television show that we are stepping into and coming down on one side. That is not to say that overly long plot summaries are OK. But they're bad for stylistic and copy-editing reasons - not because they violate one of our most fundamental content principles. As for the WP:V issue, as I have said, it is for the most part sanest to treat episode articles as sub-articles of the series that we keep not because they're completely autonomous topics, but because when we're dealing with a 109 hour television series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer we can't possibly provide all the basic plot and character details that one expects for a work of fiction in one article without it being unforgivably long. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I wouldn't normally interrupt. But I think you missed the part of WP:WEIGHT that says "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints". It's a guideline that's also used at WP:NNC: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Just offering a small correction. Randomran (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Please Quantify Notability
How do I know if a topic is notable - must it be discussed by just one independent reliable source or one million. Is notability purely subjective so that whether a topic gets deleted or not is determined by the whim of a single editor, or are there some objective criteria by which these decisions are made? Galapagos42 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The short answer is "enough". A longer answer will vary from editor to editor, and is typically a case of "I'll know it when I see it". Major publications are your best bet, and two or three good articles will typically stave off AfD. Nifboy (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The standard is "multiple independent reliable sources". As Nifboy wrote, 2-3 is usually enough, if they they actually deal with the subject (i.e. do more then mention it is passing). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
well, as discussed above in considerable detail, that may be the conventional view, but not the universal one., nor in fact the one that is actually applicable at afd most of the time. the practical standard, generalizing from actual results, is sufficient sourcing discussing the subject in such a way as to lead people here to think it important enough for inclusion in wikipedia. There ar any number of times when common knowledge of those in the field substitutes for sourcing, and where sourcing alone isnt held enough unless it's the elusive "sourcing for notability" which begs the point entirely. If people here want it, its notable enough. If they don';t it isnt. the only practical way to find out is experiment. DGG (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What would be useful
As a follow-up to the above, here is what would be useful, to me, as a researcher on popular culture. I have tried to restrict this to things Misplaced Pages can plausibly do - that is, this is not intended as a vision of some ideal resource. This is a list of things that can practically be achieved within Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines (considered broadly) and without violating copyrights. (i.e. while full scripts or scene by scene analysis of every issue of every comic book ever would be useful, that is obviously not something Misplaced Pages can or should provide).
Thorough summaries of any fictional works covered. This is simple. I am not asking for scene by scene description - most films can be covered very adequately in two paragraphs. For things longer than films (TV series, etc) more paragraphs are obviously needed. (You can't summarize 7 seasons of Buffy or Star Trek in two paragraphs. Ain't gonna happen.)
Basic overviews of individual characters. Major characters should have their roles in the story mapped out. Minor characters are a matter of diminishing returns. There's a line here - I don't think it needs to be spelled out at this exact moment. Suffice it to say that Captain Kirk is on one side of it, and the random red shirt who bites it in a given episode is on the other. There's a contestable middle.
Overviews of other major elements. This is a bit catch-all, but it's worth noting. If something traces a lengthy thread across a work of fiction, it is useful to highlight that thread.
Basic production information. Major creators, actors, release dates, etc.
For minor topics that do not merit articles, useful redirects if the information someone would be looking for if they typed that in is present somewhere. An example I hit today was The Medusa Cascade - a minor plot point in a couple of Doctor Who episodes. Clearly not article material. However the individual episode articles have useful information and are generally cross-referenced in the continuity section. A redirect pointing from Medusa Cascade to any of these articles would be useful - it barely matters which one, since the thread can be traced from there. The point is that someone who is looking for information on this topic should be taken to the place where the information is offered.
Real-world information - critical reception, popular success, publicly shared production details, etc. Out-of-universe material is worth its weight in gold.
I have no particular investment in the form that any of this takes. That is to say, I don't actually care whether all the plot summaries and characters are in a single article or individual articles, and I think it differs for different types of works. For the most part, few characters in a novel or film will ever have long enough threads to not be traceable in a "characters" section of the article. On the other hand, it is routinely the case that individual characters have sufficient narrative histories to warrant splitting off in the case of television.
What is important, to me, as an active researcher, is that there be enough information on a given work of fiction that I can figure out if the work is of interest to me, and, secondarily, so that I can check basic facts about it.
Again, my goal here is to map out something attainable - something that makes our coverage of fictional topics as thorough and complete as our coverage of other major topics. I'm coming at this not as an editor trying to work out the correct fine-tuning of guidelines, but as a reader - this is something I use Misplaced Pages for as a part of real research. I am trying to create a goal - that Misplaced Pages should function like an encyclopedia for fictional topics. From there, I'm hoping we can craft a guideline that will help it do that, instead of the other way around, where we appear to be fighting first over the principles and rules, and then applying the results of those debates to articles in a way that seems to me to overlook the actual use of encyclopedias for researching of stuff. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Also sounds like something we had until not too long ago. One thing we don't talk about much is that much of what is deemed unsourcable, isn't. I recently checked out a book from the library about comic books, and it has paragraphs and even pages on what would be considered non-notable characters. It's similar with TV episodes. When I try and improve one right after it airs, I can easily find 10 sources with google news, but a month old episode turns up nothing. This is because newspapers archive their articles after a few weeks. Every episode of prime time television shows from the recent past are notable, although you may not be able to prove it without a $3000 archive subscription. Foreign subjects like anime also have the problem of being notable without being able to prove it with a reasonable effort. I think this is part of why AfD doesn't agree with NOTE. Article subjects are frequently notable, but no one has the resources to prove it, so they just vote keep and it's put up for AfD at a later time. Because these articles are notable, but not provably notable, we need to adjust our guideline to take this into account. The flip side is we only allow articles of proven notability, which is a possibility, but I don't think a good one until we can teach our editors to source more proficiently. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What you are asking for is what FICT was trying to present - though a bit tighter as some insisted there must be more restrictions on non-secondary-sourced lists. However, the fact that there's significant disagreement on both sides (it is either taken as too strict, or not strict enough), means we need to resolve something here at NOTE before we can define these more. --MASEM03:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Which is fine - but I think it's crucial that we approach the discussion of WP:NOTE not from abstract principles but from the perspective of readers. Our goal is to provide a useful reference. We need to build guidelines up to accomplish that goal. Which is why I felt it was important to lay out the basic needs of the area from a researcher's perspective. Because whatever is settled on really ought to accomplish those goals. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Masem, what you were trying to do at FICT was noble, but the result was actually much more deletionist than you may think. AfD + NOTE may seem more stringent and permanent, but because it involves a larger group of editors with varied opinions it is actually much more lenient than quarantining fiction articles into lists. It takes a number of editors to complete an AfD, it takes one editor who "knows what's right" to redirect hundreds of articles into lists and then edit-war them into submission. Passing FICT as written would lead to the most massive "cleanup" we've ever seen. It would be carte blanche for anyone who wants to continue TTN's little project. My guess is that some sort of new process is needed, and because people people will fight against that with all their might, something like a Disputed tag will be needed on NOTE and possibly NOT to force them to consider a compromise. Anyways, that's just my (wishful) thinking on the multi-year debate we have going here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
No, we were well aware of that. People jump to AFD too fast; it is supposed to be the last step for dispute resolution if one believes content to be non-notable. The idea was that we needed more people to work cooperatively - starting merge discussions instead of AFDing things from the start, among other steps, and we tried to stress that. We know behavior like TTN's is unacceptable, but we also need to make sure that the ideas behind TTN's actions (which fall in line with what Phil suggests) are not outright ignored - there are topics that are better covered in lists instead of individual articles. We still need AFD for even Phil's suggestions, but we need to offload articles on fictional topics from AFD as much as possible (partially why the fictional-related noticeboard was made). Even if we do put Phil's suggestions in place verbatum, you are going to meet resistance in implementing them from those even more strongly inclusist. --MASEM11:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I like this. Phil has done a good job at outlining the basics of what we should strive to include. This is a good way to approach the situation. -- Ned Scott08:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Phil, for reminding us what Misplaced Pages's final goal is: a research tool for others. This is something that we forget in the effort to edit and correct various articles, we misplace the fact that many editors come here to "look stuff up". We need to keep this in mind when estabishing guidelines like WP:NOTE and submitting articles to AfD. padillaH(help me) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
