Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:12, 28 October 2008

Template:Fiction notice

• WT:FICT

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

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

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

Archives

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

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

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

Discussion points from Misplaced Pages Talk:Notability

As I replied in FICT, we need to determine exactly how strong the GNG is to be taken, and for that we really should present the RFC that we have been working to the community so we can establish that. But as also noted by someone else at FICT, talking about redirects and notability together is not a good approach, as redirects are cheap and we want to support those as much as possible; topics that aren't notable can be redirected freely. We need to talk about what articles should legitimately remain as articles pending policy/guideline/consensus of Misplaced Pages. --MASEM 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As a precisionist, I have two concerns. One is that these lead to imprecise rule where virtually anything can be considered notable, and the other is that this leads to articles that don't meet the WP:PROVEIT section of our policy on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.

• An article "trees in final fantasy" would become notable by your first criteria, since they appear in multiple final fantasy games. "Superman's boots" would be considered notable too, by the same rationale. Yet most people wouldn't consider that an encyclopedic article for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, even if someone engaged in extremely detailed descriptions of them (e.g.: the boots are about 75% of the size of Superman's head, which is abnormally large for a human being. They are blue, but in issues X and Y they appear as black).
• Trivial coverage isn't enough to satisfy notability. That's because notability isn't about "GameSpy mentioned it, therefore it's important!" Notability is "we can actually write something about this topic that can be verified in reliable third-party sources". You can't write a whole article about "the back of the Inn in Final Fantasy 6.5 Japan re-release" just because one (good) article said "if you go to the back of the Inn, you can find a lot of treasure". You need much more research, or else you end up with a stub, or a ton of original research from fan-made observations.
• A licenced encyclopedia on a fictional topic is nothing more than a fanguide. There's no criticism or objectivity. There is actually an official business relationship between the maker of the encyclopedia and the original maker of the work. It may as well be the back of the DVD, or an instruction manual. This is the exact same danger in writing an article about the government by only using research generated by the government itself: that's not an encyclopedia, it's propaganda. It's advertising. Vanity. Spam. Primary/affiliated sources can be used to fill in certain gaps in an article, but you *need* those reliable secondary sources to be able to give real context and perspective.
• In these days of cheap mass production, literally anyone can have an action figure made. And looking at the action figure still doesn't give you anything to write about.
• If "X" is the name of two topics, one notable and the other non-notable... we write about the notable one, and drop the non-notable one. Let's not complicate that, lest we start cluttering up well-written articles with a ton of original research.

I'm glad you've finally opened up to a compromise, instead of calling for a ban on a central guideline or turning it into a vote. But this isn't really the right place or the right time to propose a compromise. You're proposing a new subguideline, rather than a change to notability. Also, we're in the process of trying to figure out the actual relationship between the GNG and specific notability guidelines, and it is unclear that specific guidelines can wholesale rewrite or ignore basic notability requirements. We need to answer that question first, because the past attempt at compromise failed when nobody really even knew how far the WP:FICT guideline could deviate from the main WP:GNG. Masem is right, and any other discussion is kind of moot at this point. Randomran (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the above - I do not think that adding in a new subguideline, particularly with the ongoing discussion regarding how subguidelines related to the GNG, is really the way to go. I'd elaborate further but I think that Randomran got it about right. Shereth 22:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. As for the GNG - subguideline debate: subguidelines can only be more strict than the GNG, not more lenient. Fram (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be generally true that context-specific guideline is intended to be more restrictive than a general notability guideline, but as a matter of past and current practice it is not always true, and I don't believe it should be so. There are many good articles where a consensus of editors accepts content which would fail a GNG scrutiny. patsw (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Before this gets into a lengthy debate, the question of whether subguidelines are more or less strict than the GNG is one to be discussed in the RFC; it would not be a good idea to get into a long discussion about it now. --MASEM 13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being dense here, but which Misplaced Pages:RFC/POLICY would that be? Fram (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not yet a full RFC; Randorman has been finalizing a draft that will be presented to the WP world at large (we'll watchlist-notice, for example, to get the input). It should be close to being ready to go. --MASEM 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that instead of following the general practice of starting a conversation in one place, and then point people on other discussion pages to it, the lead post on this section was posted verbatim at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)#Time_to_compromise, thus causing two completely parallel discussions on the same topic.Kww (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have an idea: let's only have articles on which there are multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources. That way we can ensure we stick within policy - WP:V and WP:NPOV plus of course WP:BLP where applicable. That is, after all, what guidelines are for. You can't use a guideline to subvert a core policy, and I am sure nobody would want to do that, canning WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV would be a disaster and would destroy precisely the thing that brings the various fans here in the first place. We've had long discussions about fictional topics which result in every case I can remember in a consensus that major elements which have good sources stay, and minor elements that don't, go (or get merged to lists). If people who are obsessed with certain fictional genres don't like that, then they are probably looking for a fan-wiki, which Misplaced Pages is not, so going back to core policy looks like a great idea to me. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  So simple Guy... which means it'll never fly ;) Sceptre 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think Guy is right; I have yet to see a proposal for new inclusion criteria that could better WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is a rename necessary/appropriate to make this point clear?

As a precisionist I generally like the notability requirement, even if I would be okay with some tweaks. It's not 100% precise, but we want to leave room for reasonable interpretation. A subject that is mentioned by a few reliable sources at least begins to be notable: then we discuss whether these sources are actually independent (or if they're just press releases or authorized fan guides), and whether there is enough coverage to write a verifiable article. And verifiability is the real issue:

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. - quoted from WP:V

People get confused when you say "notable", because the gut reaction is it just means "important". "I think it's notable, so how can you say it's not notable?" But that's not the issue. The real issue is being able to write an article that can be verified by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It doesn't matter HOW important the topic is: if the only sources on it are unreliable, then you can't write a reliable article. If the only sources on it are primary sources or sources authorized by the subject, then you end up with propaganda/advertising/spam/vanity with no objectivity or critical coverage. Notability is really about this: How are we supposed to write an article that *you* say is important when there aren't any appropriate sources to write the article?

In that sense, "non-notable" really means "un-writable" or "un-coverable", or "un-sourceable", or "unsupportable". All of these would be much better names for WP:N, because they don't invoke intuitions about what's interesting or important. Arguably, "non-notable" and "unverifiable" are really the same thing: there are no reliable, third-party sources that can be found on the article topic, and so Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. As much as I'd support a rename for WP:N, I might also support a merge with our verifiability policy. It's really about being able to support something with research that is both reliable and independent. Randomran (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would support an RFC to add that line above to WP:NOT, but I think that WP:N still has to deal with the vague in-between of subjects which are obviously going to be included (Cat) and subjects which are obviously not going to be included (My cat). So we can write in the CLEAR language above into WP:NOT and craft WP:N to deal with the subtler questions (Articles with near-trivial coverage, articles with one source, articles with related coverage, articles split for size purposes, etc). Protonk (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, notability (as we call it) goes beyond what the statement in V says, otherwise, a mere passing mention of a term would be used for article justification. This also points to the difference between what primary/secondary/tertiary sources are and what first/third party sources are; a reliable third-party source may still be a primary source if it doesn't going beyond just presenting facts. The concept of coverage (and what is "significant coverage") is the key part of this debate. They are still two different sides of the coin, and thus V and N should be two distinct considerations; V is the highest priority to maintain WP's mission while N helps to keep the work at a reasonable size. --MASEM 16:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So if we don't merge the few unique aspects of WP:N into WP:V, what about a rename that doesn't invoke this gut-feeling of "importance"? Randomran (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Notability is just a label for inclusion criteria that ensure an article meets Misplaced Pages content requirements. The issue of which label should be used to describe the inclusion criteria has already beem discussed at length when the guideline WP:IMPORTANCE was replaced by WP:NOTABILITY (see Misplaced Pages talk:Notability/Historical/Importance for details); it was thought the label "Importance" implied that the criteria were subjective, where as notability was a (relatively) neutral way of describing the basic sourcing requirement.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe we need to go a step further, because "notability" is still misconstrued as measuring the article's value or worth. As you stated, this guideline is about the basic sourcing requirement. Wouldn't "unsourceable" be just a little clearer, even if people had to read the guideline to understand that the sources have to be reliable and independent? Randomran (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can get behind this, but then would you get people arguing, but an article on Silly-Man isn't "unsourcable", you can see him in my webstrip Silly-Man and on my Silly_man website. It's kind of back to unverifiable. Would "undocumented" be any better? Hiding T 18:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think any term of art we pick will have some connotation with people that we can't avoid. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Masem, I'm picking you up on a point here, that I've always wondered. What real need for "notability" is there if the relevant information could be folded into its brethren policies and guidelines, specifically NOT, RS, and V? You can easily distinguish what 1/2/3ary and 1/3rd sources are in WP:RS if you need. As you say, it is indeed the concept and depth of external coverage which is the key part of notability and which is so frustrating to console between WP:N (fiction) and WP:N. I don't think a rename can address these points either; while notability in the WP sense is often confused with notability in the real world, it quite succinctly sums up the idea of external coverage. If anything, a name I would suggest would be something to the tune of "Real world notability", but then, you're possibly further confusing the difference between WP:N and "notability". No, the simplicity inherent in Notability seems correct to me. --Izno (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with Izno, not only because notability is a good label to use, but also because no one has come up with a replacement for it that is better. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

we would still have the problem of deciding what things are considered significant enough to be included, and at what depth, no matter what word we chose to use. Some of this is an artifact of being in format like a conventional encyclopedia--being divided into Articles. Topics in this or other areas do not really fit into significant/not significant, and any article/no article boundary is going to be unsatisfactory. But even if we were to agree on always merging into large articles or the revers, there is still the problem of depth of coverage. The people who do not want individual articles on most fictional characters do not want to give them extensive coverage in more comprehensive articles either. I don't care in the least whether or not they have separate articles as long as they have full encyclopedic coverage. I don't even care if individual fictional works have articles, we could combine all of shakespeare's works into one article as long as we gave the proper detailed coverage for each plot, each character, each setting element, scene by scene, each stage or cinema production by production, and each printed edition for every one of them. If however we;'re going to write a scant two two sentences about a named character it's just as wrong if it appears in the pseudo-glory of an individual article as if it's a redirect. And the proper length plot summary is the proper length no matter where it appears. There are relative degrees of importance, a continuum. Given that we do not agree on even the most basic question of degree of coverage when its yes/no notable/not notable, maybe if we bypassed it by some arbitrary decision on how big chunks to take, we could compromise by adjusting the extent of coverage of the parts. Of course, we have to be willing to compromise about that, and trust each other not to go to extremes--for it would be a succession of small decisions, not a single poll on policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

In a nutshell, the notability guidelines cannot be allowed to artificially constrict our presentation of notable subjects, which forced merges do. --erachima talk 06:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

oh gawd

I've been generally avoiding this discussion for a while, and I've just gotten back from a nine day break from all things internet. I decided to poke my head in here to see what the current status of everything was.. I'm getting the feeling I should run and hide, but maybe I'm getting the wrong impression. Would anyone like to do me a favor and give a brief summary, or some highlights? I'll probably attempt to follow some links and read up for myself in a little bit.., but these discussions tend to be huge.. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I started reading the seciton above, and stopped at "GNG" in the first line. OK, I now realise it is "General Notability Guidelines", but still, I'd like a summary as well! Carcharoth (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Best summary I can give is that LGRoC provided this "compromise" on notability on both here and WT:NOTE (after reporting about the way an AFD was going in one of the more general boards (WP:AN or ANI, I think). Of course, that split the discussion so after some time, I closed the WT:N talk and moved it here (those comments in that section all were based on the same list of compromise). Most editors disagree that this is a compromise position, as they favor LGRoC's view of a more expansive encyclopedia. Of course, this begat several different discussion (WP:N should be policy, etc., etc.,) which, at least in my case, I tried to point out that we have the no-longer-pending RFC on WP:N to hammer out core issues that we can then come back and address those questions.

So, basically, the bulk of the above few sections is that: you haven't missed much of anything new. Nothing's been decided from that. --MASEM 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise

• Note that Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise now awaits your review and response.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I know this isn't canvassing. But I'm apprehensive towards reaching out to a specialized area of interest like "fiction", because it could imbalance and skew the view of notability. I think it might be important to reach out through all other notability guidelines too, on music, history -- everything. (I haven't checked if anybody else has done so, because I'm pretty busy these next few days.) Randomran (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that most specialists in fiction are aware that WP:FICT cannot work in isolation from the rest of Misplaced Pages, and that the guidelines and policies must have universal application, so I don't see this as a problem. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Random, I think that the recent activity at WP:N is substantially a result of my invitation some months ago for participants here to join us there. In the past similar invitations have been posted at various subguideline talk pages to join in at WP:N and conversely posts are typically made at WP:N to encourage greater participation in subguidelines and proposals for subguidelines. I think that Gavin is quite correct in his action. Maybe you might broaden the result by advertising this at other subguidelines and the Village pump too. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I will note we're trying to get a watchlist notice for this as well, just that no one has responded there after this was posted, yet. --MASEM 15:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with getting feedback from here. But since this issue is bigger than fiction, we'd be better off getting a more representative class of Wikipedians from a wider variety of interests. That will reveal the true consensus, if there is any. Hopefully that watchlist notice will go through soon. Randomran (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Topical

From

• "reference works that share the lexicon's purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled"
• "Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide".

seems like this kind of debate isn't just limited to Misplaced Pages. Guest9999 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead links

{{editprotect}} Not interested in getting into the debate here, I just wanted to note that the link to gaming-wiki.com under the "Relocating non-notable fictional material" section seems to be a dead link. It's a poker spamvertising landing page now. The page is protected, so I can't remove it. 66.18.231.70 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. Link needs removing. Added an edit protect request here.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Replaced with WoWWiki, which is the largest site on Wikia. Seemed like a reasonable substitution. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A minor point, but Wookieepedia is still a tad larger than WoWWiki. I am however content with WoW's link. ;P --Izno (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiction Survey 2008 draft

This is a draft of a survey. It is not finalized yet. I've created a survey to find out where consensus lies on various fictional topics. The first draft is in my userspace and is not ready to be presented to the entire community yet. I would appreciate any comments and criticisms and suggestions for the survey. This is an effort similar to Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus which was created to discuss recurring themes regarding entire categories of articles, before it was later moved to Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion. If people think it's a good idea, I could post it to Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)/Fiction Survey 2008 or Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion/Fiction Survey 2008 and spread the word about it (maybe with the centralized discussion template, at the village pump, a watchlist notice, etc). We could even contact random editors to participate. It would be nice if at least 300 to 500 people could respond to it if it goes live. I would like participation to be as wide as possible. It could get very large, so if it goes live I think there should be at least 35 sub-pages with 3 fill-in-the-blank questions each (and each subpage placed in Category:Fiction Survey 2008 to make it possible to check related changes). It may be that an inclusion guideline for all fiction is too broad and guidelines for specific subjects could be created instead. The survey is meant to generate discussion on this guideline since it seems discussion has stalled. If you think the survey is a bad idea and think something else would be better, please say so. Please tell me what you think about it here, or on the talk page of the draft. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this (generally) covered in the notability shindig they've had going? I'm not sure another poll is what we need. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No. This survey is about specific categories of articles, something that Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise does not cover. Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise was created because someone misunderstood this very simple sentence in WP:N, "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." WP:FICT is a subject-specific standard. I don't even know how the questions in Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise were decided upon, nor what conclusions can be made from it so far. If the arbitrators want a notability guideline for fiction, I think this is a good idea to jumpstart discussions on one. --Pixelface (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The RFC included how we use sub-notability guidelines like FICT; the entire course of the discussion leading up to it was about how FICT interacted, so what FICT has to become was covered by the RFC. --MASEM 01:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between "SNGs" and the "GNG" is the fourth sentence in the intro of WP:N: "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." That sentence is still in WP:N, so I'm having a hard time understanding why the RFC was started. Did people in the RFC say that sentence should be removed or changed from WP:N? --Pixelface (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The RFC was partially there to make sure it was still valid, if SNGs were still needed, or if SNGs should have more freedom to allow topics that the GNG would not normally allow. The wording at WP:N as it reads is presently unclear and so the RFC was to try to resolve that. --MASEM 04:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To make sure what was still valid? The fourth sentence in WP:N? Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise doesn't mention that sentence from WP:N at all. Instead, Randomran wrote "To what extent can subject-specific guidelines re-write or override the General Notability Guideline?" The idea that SNGs "rewrite" or "override" the GNG seems to have been made up solely by Randomran. I think the sentence "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." is perfectly clear. How is the RFC supposed to make Randomran understand that sentence in WP:N if the RFC does not even mention that sentence? How is the RFC supposed to find out what editors think that sentence means if the RFC does not even mention that sentence? And how is the RFC supposed to see if SNGs are still needed when there is no notice of the RFC at any of the SNG talkpages (WT:PROF, WT:BK, WT:MOVIE, WT:MUSIC, WT:NUMBER, WT:CORP, WT:BIO, or WT:WEB)? FICT wasn't even considered a SNG as of July 18, 2008, so how does that RFC apply to WP:FICT? What wording in the intro at WP:N is unclear? Randomran created an AFD on his first (visible) edit, and linked to WP:NOTE, WP:OR, and WP:OC, so I find it impossible to believe that Randomran does not understand that sentence in NOTE — a sentence that existed in NOTE when Randomran linked to NOTE on his first edit: "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." FICT was listed as an inclusion guideline at NOTE at the time Randomran linked to NOTE. Am I missing something? --Pixelface (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea is right but the approach is not. As David states above, the RFC on WP:N makes it clear about that a topic (including fictional elements) can have its own article only when there is notability shown; the question mark we seem to be trying to figure out is when it is appropriate to have lists of non-notable elements to make sure they are not indiscriminate. Also the number of questions is going to be overly daunting to anyone coming into it; even with 10 proposals on the RFC, !voter exhaustion was apparent.

My suggestion is to focus this on two aspects: what is appropriate notability or sources that show it for singular fictional element topic articles, and to define what type of lists are appropriate when elements are non-notable. I would also avoid getting into too many subcategories - let users decide if "tv characters" need to be differently as general fictional characters in their responses, for example. The way I would do the survey based on is is two parts:

• "What sources are sufficient to show notability of the following?" and leave this to a list of 10 or 12 top level elements such as "characters" , "episodes or published serial volumes", etc. (Books and films are already covered by other sources). Let users expand if they think they need different notability requirements for various different elements (eg tv characters vs movie characters)
• "What type of lists of non-notable fiction elements are appropriate?" pointing to the same list of 10-12 elements above, but allow users to expand this as well.

Both of these would help , in light of the RFC results, to better address what FICT should look like. Mind you, while a survey, what results will have to be put to a consensus, and what may gain majority in a consensus will be vastly different. --MASEM 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

People can answer as many questions as they want in the survey. If they think one criterion should be applied to every fictional character, every fictional element, every fictional element, that's 3 answers they have to give. Of the two main questions in the RFC on WP:N, one pre-supposes that "notability" should be used when deciding whether a Misplaced Pages article should exist or not, and the other asks how subject-specific guidlines should be interpreted alongside WP:N. WP:N was created because "nn" was commonly used in deletion rationales. That would be like creating Misplaced Pages:Coolness because "lame" was commonly used in deletion rationales, or creating Misplaced Pages:Smart because "stupid" was commonly used in deletion rationales. "Exhaustion" in that RFC may be a result of the pre-canned statements users were asked to vote on. In the survey, editors simply answer as many fill-in-the-blank questions as they want. Where are the results of the RFC if it's not finished? As of right now, I see A1 (59 support / 129 oppose / 17 neutral), A1.2 (73 support / 69 oppose / 6 neutral), A2 (82 support / 57 oppose / 2 neutral), A3 (51 support / 48 oppose / 8 neutral), B1 (26 support / 64 oppose / 6 neutral), B2 (65 support / 17 oppose / 3 neutral), B3 (23 support / 30 oppose / 19 neutral), B4 (14 support / 62 oppose / 6 neutral), B5 (14 support / 53 oppose / 5 neutral), B6 (40 support / 21 oppose / 9 neutral), B7 (4 support / 0 oppose / 2 neutral). By my estimation, B2 appears to have the most support. But how would that change the content of WP:FICT? Will it change the content of WP:BIO? Anything in Template:Notabilityguide? --Pixelface (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are !votes. We are waiting for a second (and third, even) opinion after mine own on how to interpret all the responses, ideally from someone never involved in notability discussion, and that just takes time to find someone invested. However, I will point out that A1 - allowing any spinout without notability - is strongly opposed and perhaps the clearest one we can build from for now.

As for the length of the survey, I look at it and feel exhausted - I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to figure out how to deal with these specific areas, but by breaking it up as you have, it does bias the discussion - I would like to see input naturally develop if, say, tv characters are treated differently than comic book characters, instead of presuming a difference. Again, I'm trying to help here - I feel this is a definitely move to rewrite FICT, but we want do it right to end issues for the long future, and we don't want to invalid what global consensus has given us from the RFC. --MASEM 01:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the survey is fairly long, but fiction is a fairly broad topic. How does breaking it up bias the discussion? If an editor thinks there should be one criterion for every fictional character, every fictional element, every fictional work, they can give the same answer to those three questions or three answers to those three questions. If an editor thinks different types of things should be treated differently (like WP:POLITICIAN, WP:DIPLOMAT, WP:ATHLETE, WP:CREATIVE), they can fill in the blank. The survey doesn't presume a difference. It allows for a difference of opinions to be heard. I suppose if you want, the first survey could just ask 6 questions:

• Should one and only one standard be applied to every fictional character when deciding whether or not it should have an article on Misplaced Pages? If yes, what should that standard be?
• Should one and only one standard be applied to every fictional element when deciding whether or not it should have an article on Misplaced Pages? If yes, what should that standard be?
• Should one and only one standard be applied to every work of fiction when deciding whether or not it should have an article on Misplaced Pages? If yes, what should that standard be?

It appears to me there already are different standards for different types of fictional works (WP:BK, WP:MOVIE, WP:WEB), different types of people, and different things (see Template:Notabilityguide), so that's why I broke the survey up. Whether different types of fictional things are treated differently is up to the community. I don't see how the survey would invalidate anything coming out of the RFC. But even if it did, consensus is not immutable. So what is the global consensus at the RFC? --Pixelface (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already described why having too questions will lead to voter exhaustion but the other point to make is that we need to avoid creating too many rules (eg WP:BURO]). FICT should be as simple as it needs to be to reflect consensus, and thus we should start on the assumption of the most simplest rules and work inwards to more specifics as they are needed, which is why starting with as few questions as possible and letting the responders reply with what they think are exceptions is better than trying to exhaust all exceptions and making the reader decide for every case. As for the RFC, while the input phase is closed we're still waiting for a second and third outside opinion to review the comments to provide what they see as the global consensus but there are a few obvious things: that SNGs are still needed though need better scrutiny, that articles on topics have to show notability with respect to the GNG but at the same time the SNGs may help to delineate sources that can better show notability for a given topic, and that there's allowances for collecting non-notable topics into lists but these must be discriminate and avoid too much cruft. Thus, in relation to the survey you are trying to write, trying to ask "when is a character article appropriate?", by its wording, bypasses some of these RFC results; instead, the question should likely be "what sources should be available for a character to have its own article?" or something of that nature. --MASEM 13:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with David and Masem, this seems to heavily repeat the RfC as it covers much of what was already covered there. It really seems to be trying to argue the issue again from another side when, as far as I know, the RfC is still on-going. Until that is done and the results finalized, should anything addressing the areas where consensus isn't clear be started. To do this now gives the appearance of "my point of view is not being supported, so I'll keep arguing it elsewhere" (i.e. it appears like a form of forum shopping. Let the RfC finish before arguing its results. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What does the survey repeat from the RFC? The survey doesn't argue any issues. It's a survey where editors fill in the blank. The RFC is about WP:N. The RFC on N does absolutely nothing to rewrite FICT. If anything, the RFC on N is "forum shopping", because people took the conflict at WT:FICT over to WT:N. WT:FICT is the place to talk about changes to WP:FICT. I'm not "arguing the results" of the RFC on N. I don't even know what the "results" are. Four days ago the person who started the RFC, Randomran, asked "time to close?" and said "I think it might be a good idea to close up this RFC. Is there anyone who objects?" on the talk page. If you want the fiction survey started after the RFC on N is finished, that's fine with me. Right now I'm giving everyone a chance to offer up any suggestions they may have for the survey. If you don't want people to have an opportunity to review the survey before it goes live, you can keep on removing it from {{fiction notice}}. --Pixelface (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Arb. Break: Impact of WP:N RFC on FICT

I'm combining my comments to two of Pixelface's replies above since they're connected.

The whole issue with the failed FICT was two-fold. Inclusionists felt that FICT did not allow for fictional elements that lacked secondary sources to have articles, a statement that is in direct conflict with the basic principle of the GNG. Thus, one question raised is how immutable is the requirement of secondary sources in SNGs. The second issue with the failed FICT was the allowance for lists of characters and episodes and the possibly of spinoffs, all lacking secondary sources but supporting a notable topic; deletionists stating that it would allow for too much cruft. Thus a second question raised is exactly what is the nature of spinouts or list articles with respect to the GNG.

Those two questions, while specific to FICT, needed to be handled in the most generic manner possible as to make sure fictional elements weren't getting special treatment over other fields. Thus, this turned to WP:N, where specific guidance as listed above was found to be lacking. Thus, at the point of starting the RFC, it was considering the fact that WP:N was no longer a fixed point, and any consensus-determined changes to it would be put through another consensus process based on the results of the RFC. The lead statement of WP:N, that "topics either meet the GNG or an SNG" was found to be a point of contention in relationship to the first question above, so it made sense to verify what exactly that meant to editors. Based on my analysis (but I am not calling my analysis the authoritative one), it seems clear that "either/or" is not what people read this as, instead that "topics must meet the GNG; SNGs can define more limiting cases, cases where sources are presumed to exist, or types of sources that may demonstrate notability". So the first question, in how it reflects back to FICT, is that FICT has to support a strong assertion of the GNG - fictional element articles must be sourced, but we have a bit of leeway in what determines that sourcing. We should have the survey figure out what people believe to be appropriate sourcing or what elements presumably lead to sourcing to allow FICT to still line up with the GNG.

The second question on lists is also something not clearly lined out in WP:N nor anywhere else. WP:N applies to topics, not articles, and while spinouts were expressly disallowed by the RFC, the allowance for certain types of non-notable lists were acceptable. We know this is the case from countless AFD that merge non-notable characters and episodes into respective list articles. So while there does need to be a more firm statement that such lists are allowable when they are given strong criteria to prevent indiscriminate lists, we can safely approach FICT and determine what types of lists of fictional elements are appropriate as well, keeping in mind that consensus warns against lists that can grow crufty. This should be another point of the survey is to determine the bounds of what non-notable fictional element lists are acceptable or unacceptable.

But again, I preface all this by saying this is based on my analysis - I don't consider myself unbiased or separated from the discussion, only someone in the center that wants to get this all resolves so we can all go back to working on the encyclopedia, and thus I'm just listing out what I read to be the main points. Randoman is trying to get at least two more people to read through the comments to provide additional analysis so that we have a clear path of how to move forward on WP:N and subsequently the SNGs (including FICT). There is no reason that at the same time we cannot have your suggested survey to try to work out elements I've outlined above to be prepared for this, but the key is that FICT cannot move from essay to guideline until we've gotten WP:N cleaned up, so that there is no conflicting advice between the two. That is my primary concern (length being the other) of your current survey - it does not start from a point where the RFC leaves us but instead almost begs for allowing any and all fictional elements regardless of notability to have articles. If we start the survey from the point that we know that non-notable fictional element articles will not be allowed, and instead how to define what sources we can use for notability and what to do in cases when elements are non-notable (grouping to a list), then we're more in line with the RFC and can have a better shot at moving forward. --MASEM 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Masem, I think everyone here knows what the word "or" means. That sentence referring to the table (Template:IncGuide, later renamed Template:Notabilityguide) has existed in one form or another in WP:N since Radiant! rewrote it in September 2006. The fourth sentence in WP:N has always meant either/or. And it's never been intended to trump the results of an AFD debate. That sentence is not mentioned at all in the RFC so how could the RFC possibly be able to determine what that sentence means to editors? Your analysis is that "topics must meet the GNG"? That's obviously false. First, the GNG is not a policy and thus can only give recommendations, not requirements. Second, whole categories of topics on Misplaced Pages are allowed due to what they are: mountains, settlements, fish, etc. Your analysis is wrong. If that RFC has to do with all SNGs, why is there no notice of the RFC on any of the SNG talkpages? If what you're saying is true, the RFC at N affects WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, but it doesn't affect WP:FICT at all — because FICT is no longer an SNG.

You say "spinouts were expressly disallowed by the RFC", but where do you get that from? I see 63% against "Every spin-out is notable." That's like building a man out of straw, knocking it down, and claiming you've won the boxing match. I see 58% support for "Every spin-out must prove notability." I see 48% support for "SNGs can define that some spin-outs are notable." I see 76% support for "SNGs can outline sources that assert notability" and that proposal calls a gold record a "source". That just redefines what WP:N already says: "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." If an album is certified gold, that is evidence of notability. If an athlete has competed in a fully professional league, that is evidence of notability (and supposedly a "source" now?). If a film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking, that is evidence of notability. So, when it comes to fictional characters, what is evidence of notability? Hence, the survey. Lists are already covered by Misplaced Pages:Lists and WP:CLN and WP:SAL, but the survey asks about lists too. The survey doesn't "beg" for anything. It asks editors what makes an articles on a given topic acceptable to exist. That is all. It doesn't use the loaded word "notability." Editors just fill in the blank. I suggested this to you over four months ago after you asked me to participate in resolving the issue. If you want, the survey doesn't have to ask about specific categories — it could all be fill in the blank.

I would say the RFC on N has no impact on any of the SNGs, because none of the SNG talkpages even know it's going on. In my mind, it's clear that Randomran started Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise based on this conversation me and Randomran had during the RFC in June, and Randomran's misunderstanding that SNGs "modify", "clarify", or "apply" the GNG. The GNG began as a summary of the SNGs and was later replaced by Uncle G's "primary notability criterion." There is absolutely nothing in WP:N that suggests SNGs "modify", "clarify", "apply", "override", or "rewrite" the GNG. Since August 2003, articles about people have been judged against Misplaced Pages:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, also known as WP:BIO, (later renamed Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) by Jiy in December 2005 after this requested move) — not WP:N. Articles about people that do not meet BIO have then been judged against N. But ultimately it is editors, and not rules, that do the judging. This is not difficult to understand.

As the editor with the most edits to WT:FICT, I think you are in the center of this — and I have no idea why. You weren't an involved party of E&C2. But I think your heavy involvement here and the lack of progress is telling. Sometimes outside parties can help resolve a dispute. But sometimes outside parties do more harm than good. I appreciate your efforts Masem, but if you've been trying to mediate this dispute, I think it's safe to say you've failed, and you should withdraw. You started an RFC on FICT in June, I participated, and I sat out the rest of it because you didn't like my tone. If you want to see this resolved, you may want to consider stepping away and letting other people try to resolve it. At this point I think a sitewide survey would be the best way of doing that. Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise does nothing to unprotect this page. --Pixelface (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to help you here make an effective survey that will speedily get us to a working FICT, not trying to hinder you. I just feel that if you present your current survey as is to the same people that participated in the RFC on WP:N, there will be a lot of confusion and disagreement with the RFC results. Mind you, yes, the RFC wasn't announced on the SNGs, but it was announced via a watchlist notice and got much more input from that than the other notices; however, the RFC is technically not closed and if you feel their input is going to make a difference, then by all means post a notice there. Remember, the RFC is a discussion, not voting, so looking at the pure numbers and percentages is not a direct measurement of what consensus says. --MASEM 03:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can help by editing the survey into a version you consider an "effective survey." You've already suggested several questions. If you don't want to edit the survey, or don't think a survey would be productive, please say so. There are over 8 million registered volunteer editors on this site, and over 159,000 of them have made at least one edit in the last 30 days (according to Special:Statistics). There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to present a survey to just the people that participated in the RFC on N. I would prefer a random sample. If the RFC affects every SNG, I'm sure the people who worked on the SNGs would want to know about it. --Pixelface (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A simple random sample of editors will suffer from extreme (non)response bias. There's a reason that we don't do things scientifically or democratically; it's impractical and infeasible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I support a survey along these lines - I think the RFC showed a definite lack of consensus one way or another, and that, failing a consensus on the theoretical issues, the next logical move is to try to figure out what our actual operating procedure is and try to codify it.

That said, I think this survey is far too long, and far too demanding, and that it is not likely to work. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)