Misplaced Pages

• We try to avoid talking about list articles in the guideline. If we were forced to, my guess is that plenty of the Sopranos characters would meet the GNG straight out. All of the main character would. The episodes of who's the boss would be harder to answer. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• This guideline does not cover lists at all.じんない 05:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On purpose, we're avoiding the list question. It will take something similarly as unruly as this to figure out, and we want to do one at a time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Father Goose, the vast majority of the episode and character pages will be deleted or merged. I would estimate that 90% of the characters of List of characters from The Sopranos will be deleted or merged with the 3 prong (hurdles) being proposed. Right now, four prominent editors who supported WP:FICT are voting to merge Logan Family. The same thing will happen to the Sopranos character pages, unless contributors jump over the 3 prong (hurdles) that these same support editors will force them to jump over.

See:

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters,

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters 2 for what has happened in the past with many of the above editors. Ikip (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that any editor could go through all of those pages with a scythe by citing WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT, right? Both of those offer a much stronger deletion argument than WP:FICT, in which case arguing that the central characters to the series are necessary would be a stronger argument. It also would be easier to argue for their inclusion by opening the field to developer commentary from sources that in current AfDs, would not be accepted per the GNG. FICT is not opening the doors to the deletion of all those articles. Those doors are already open. FICT closes them a bit and allows some of the better articles to sneak through by acknowledging their potential to be a quality article; if they don't fulfill their potential in the future, then fine, but that's a chance that has been given by FICT that our current guidelines and policies would not permit. Why people don't realize this is really beyond me, but whatever. And if you're bringing up the E&C cases, ArbCom has practically begged the community to come up with a guideline for fictional elements. We're obliging. Not doing so opens up the door for more of the same behavior that led to the previous E&C cases. — sephiroth bcr 09:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)One thing to remember is that if this guideline recommends merging those character, NOTE recommends deleting it. This guideline is more inclusive. I don't think what happens at AfD will change (I could be wrong) other than a few fiction articles that would have been deleted will be kept or merged instead of deleted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: "You do realize that any editor could go through all of those pages with a scythe by citing WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT, right?" and One thing to remember is that if this guideline recommends merging those character, NOTE recommends deleting it.

Absolutely, but there is 4 years of edit warring which have prevented this. Supporters talk about this being a compromise, but they ignore the status quo for four years. WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT have not been successful in deleting these articles because of this strong backlash. WP:FICT opens the door wider. The "take this because the consequences are far worse under WP:NOTE" is therefore an empty warning, used to sooth editors who don't know the full history of this conflict, and who are unaware of the unofficial exception to rigid rules and mass deletion, which characters and episodes now enjoy.

If WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT were so widely embraced on character and episodes, many of the support editors here would have "tag-wait-merge-noticeboard-merge" in mass already, as sgeureka called it. The arbitrators in the arbitration wouldn't have topic banned TNN for 6 months for mass merging.

I would support a guideline which respects editors contributions and embraces WP:PRESERVE. This guideline will only inflame the four year edit war and solve nothing.

This is not a compromise, it is a defeat for hundreds of editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

According to TTN's it doesn't appear that he was ever banned for 6 months. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

TTN was under a 6month ArbCom restriction from initiating merges and deletions of fiction articles due to his fait accompli editing from about Feb 08 to Aug 08. I will note that as soon as that was done, TTN was back at merging and AFDing articles - but in a manner that was not fait accompli, specifically denied as such by at least two different attempts at ArbCom to re-instant the restriction post August 2008, and the fact the rejected Characters and Episodes 3, again attempting to cite TTN's more recent behavior of discussing a reverted merge attempt to try to promote merges, among other merge/AFD processes, further pointed out by ArbCom that what TTN was doing appeared to be against no policy or guideline. The fact that this FICT was close to being proposed for global acceptance by RFC was a factor in their decision to reject it, as it extends from their Ep&Char 2 ruling that we're all supposed to work to find a middle ground.

Ikip's concerns, specifically with addressing editors contributions and preserving information, is outside the scope of what notability guidelines should tell us. This is a red/green light indication if a fiction element should have its own article or not. What to do after that is a function of the deletion process or merging process and something we should not go into detail here. --MASEM 11:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kraftlos, they topic-banned him for six months. A ban is distinct from a block. And to Ikip, no, you're looking at the past the wrong way. The E&C cases resulted in TTN receiving his ban solely for his edit-warring. It's why E&C3 was rejected because TTN was not breaking any policy or guideline simply by bringing forth nominations and because FICT was in production. NOTE and NOT#PLOT still enjoy consensus, regardless of what you claim on the matter and can be utilized in the same manner as TTN did (mass nominations, discounting the edit warring, which brings up a slew of other stuff), as we've seen since he came off his topic ban. A rejection of FICT implies that NOTE and NOT#PLOT can be utilized in that manner with relative impunity, the mass ILIKEIT !votes to keep articles at AfDs aside. Part of the reason FICT is here is a result of the failure for E&C3 to result in anything substantial. In any case, this is a compromise. Editors with very different opinions have brought forth what they think is going to produce the best method of managing fiction. Is this going to result in more articles being deleted than inclusionists want? Yes. Is this going to result in more articles being kept than deletionists want? Yes. To say that there is no compromise here only points to your overwhelming bias on the matter. — sephiroth bcr 11:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ikip may have a valid point. As an inclusionist, I take solace in the low success rate (and low frequncy overall) of AfDs, and the fact that (many) fiction articles are created each day. While this guideline may be looser than NOTE, will the results on the ground be looser? It seems that having to point to NOTE instead of the old FICT was viewed as a bit weaker in AfDs. Even though it's a tight guideline, it isn't specific, and I think that carried a bit of weight. You may say it will lead to merges that increase the quality of WP, but what you say to someone who wants it all kept? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 10:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, what do we predict this guideline will actally do? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 10:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith by all editors, in the short term the number of articles on fiction that get created on a daily basis and the number of articles that are merged or ultimately deleted on a daily basis should not change with this FICT. It was built to codify as best as possible current practice of AFD results, and thus if done right there should be no status quo change.

Assuming worst faith, there will be an increase in the number of fiction articles (with determined editors using weak arguments to support the 2nd and 3rd prongs) and an increase in the number of merges and deletions (with determined editors challenging all but the strongest arguments for these prongs). As this case is harder to predict (and is also a bad way to start since AGF is not used), we do need a "see what happens" approach. Again, my gut is that there will be a few rotten apples (both ways) but nothing that can't be handled; most average editors won't care about what happens.

More importantly, there is no Magic AFD Fairy here that will tag any article that fails and sends to AFD. There's no bot that could ever assess the three prongs, and editors know that they cannot evoke fair accompli on cleanup. Over time, there may be a decrease in the number of fiction articles, but it will be a very slow one, and one amendable to all parties via suggested and discussed merges outside of AFD-space. --MASEM 10:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you I really love your question Peregrine. I think it is important that editors look at the end results of their behavior. Editors may have the best and noblest intentions, but what is the end result? I have discussed the end result of WP:Articles for Deletion a lot, and I discuss the end result of this policy above.

Masem, I am glad that you have more faith in wikipedians. Unfortunately, many editors use policies to bully others, we have all seen it. The two arbitrations are a result of this behavior.

Once this proposal becomes a policy, it will be nearly impossible to revert it back to a guideline. For a troubling history of what happens when editors attempt to demote a guideline see this sister article WP:Television Episodes, which I document here: Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#2.

"a "see what happens" approach" is trusting in the "good faith by all editors". I think the five year history of this conflict shows a lack of good faith by many editors.

More importantly, there is no Magic AFD Fairy here that will tag any article that fails and sends to AFD.

The two AfD were actually about mass merging of articles. This has continued since the AfDs: Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#3. Even as we speak a Article for Deletion is open on Logan Family were four of the editors who support WP:FICT are voting to merge over a dozen other articles. This is with no effort to WP:PRESERVE.

Logan Family and Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#3 is the face of the future of this policy, mass merges and mass deletions.

I agree with Masem, but a little stronger, there will be a decrease in the number of fiction articles.Ikip (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realizing that merging with redirects left behind is preserving the contributions particularly with respect to the GFDL? (Also, see WP:EFFORT) --MASEM 11:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Ikip (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sijo Ripa says it best. Her comment is so intellegent and thoughtful, I copy it here:

While I agree with the criteria put forward, I think that adopting them would cause too much disruption. Let's be honest: More than 75% of all articles about fiction would not fulfill the proposed criteria. Hence, some articles will be proposed for deletion, causing uproar and endless discussions, making the implementation of these rules for already existing articles cumbersome or even impossible. Other articles will randomly escape the executioner's axe. In general, it would just disrupt our attention and time too much from the real editing work.

Ikip (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And without a guideline like this, probably closer to 90% of them will fail due to strict adherence to WP:NOTE. I don't think that's what you want. --MASEM 13:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, this guideline is more inclusive than current standards. --Bill  13:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me like all of these articles should be merged or deleted anyways, and that WP:FICT would only be the tipping point. Passing this guideline would cause no further disruption than it would by properly enforcing existing guidelines. The only negative consequence it will have will be the disruption of some fantasy land where some think that every minor character deserves an article. This is simply not true, and the Wiki needs to accept that to progress to the next plateau. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• If people are satisfied with the status quo without

We currently have unenforced standards. I was under the impression that this was intended as a looser, more-palatable standard that could actually be enforced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. What follows from that, is that the opposes, on the basis of opposing NOTE for fiction entirely, may be valid. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

TNN's huge deletion tally needs to be kept in the context that TNN was topic banned for 6 months in the last arbitration, and that many of the editors who voted to delete and merge these articles support this policy here. Why? Also as Mr./Ms. Fisher writes above: "I take solace in the low success rate (and low frequency overall) of AfDs, and the fact that (many) fiction articles are created each day." Ikip (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The arbcom has also very, very actively declined to further sanction TTN for his deletions. Heck, I raised a request to sanction him, but the fact of the matter is, mass deletion nominations are clearly not considered actionable at the moment. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What do votes in those AfDs have to do with the price of tea in china? I voted to delete in some of those. I voted to keep in some of those. "many of the editors who voted to delete and merge these articles support this policy here." What does this mean? Protonk (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) To Peregrine Fisher, Father Goose, and other editors who favor inclusion:

"To justify articles on individual elements, the work of fiction from which they derive must be of particular cultural or historical significance. This requires that the work significantly exceed the basic threshold of the relevant notability guideline."

This guideline, as I read it (and as those who merge and delete articles will surely read it) makes the requirements of fiction higher than the already existing notability guideline.

What do votes in those AfDs have to do with the price of tea in china?

I don't know, ask Randomman, he brought the AfDs up originally.Ikip (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point I'm having a lot of trouble assuming that you are simply misunderstanding the guideline. Please tell me that you honestly think that is what we are trying to do: raise the requirements for fictional works. I've explained prong one a half dozen times in this thread and I will do it again if need be. But I want to make sure we are speaking about the same guideline in the same terms. Protonk (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, given that this guideline states, explicitly, that satisfying WP:N is sufficient for inclusion of fictional subjects, it seems to me flat-out impossible that this guideline could hold a higher standard than WP:N. "WP:N or the three prong test" necessarily sets the bar, at most, at WP:N. I can understand that a cursory and careless reading of the guideline could lead someone to make a comment that is misinformed on this point, but given the length of Ikip's involvement here, I have trouble understanding how he continues to miss this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)\

Ikip, really, you need to read the guideline a little slower or something so we don't keep on having to clarify things. What the language "This requires that the work significantly exceed the basic threshold of the relevant notability guideline" means is that it prevents editors from spinning out non-notable elements from barely notable parents, as proscribed by common sense and WP:WAF. What needs to be looked for is something beyond "this is notable", and that's really not that hard to do. Scholarly articles of life, death and rebirth in Star Trek II; good vs. evil themes in Star Wars; comparison of dystopic futures a la Blade Runner and 1984; this kind of info is surprisingly easy to find for many things; even Halo has this kind of research behind it, and it's a franchise less than a decade old. You're making mountains out of molehills. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not alone in my confusion (RfC above):

"The most glaring would be the role of WP:GNG: at one point the text requires that articles exceed it, while at another it lowers the bar significantly. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)"

If this is what the notability prong meant, then it should have been clarified before the RfC.

I encourage editors not to talk down to other editors, simply because they disagree. I have never told anyone here to "read the guideline slower" and that I have a hard time WP:AGF.

I read, "This requires that the work significantly exceed the basic threshold of the relevant notability guideline" exactly as it is written. "explain prong one a half dozen times" shows how the guideline is confusing and that I am obviously not alone in my concerns. Ikip (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you did not read "This guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole, only elements within those works." then. As I said, missing that is understandable for someone who has just glanced over the guideline. You really should know better, though, and I share David's frustration that, after quite a while discussing this guideline, you're still not informed enough about it to avoid basic misunderstandings. If anyone can see any ay to make the fact that the guideline explicitly does not cover "works of fiction" clearer go for it, but honestly, "This guideline does not cover works of fiction" seems to me about as clear as that point can get, making me suspect that the problem is not the guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, we understand and agree that the guideline was confusing (or may still be). We get that some people may have been confused. But you have been advocating against this guideline for about a week now. You have participated in almost every discussion, thanked every opposer, posted notices to bring folks into the discussion, accused the major authors of a conspiracy, alleged without evidence that this guideline will cause thousands of articles to be deleted, opined about deletionism, and so forth. At some point we should expect you to know what you are talking about. If you are confused, SAY SO. Don't just operate on that confusion to assert anything you like. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to look at just one user to see a ton of fictional articles getting deleted. We can look at tons and tons of AFDs. There's a lot of great ones at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Deletion/2008. If you support the deletion of all these articles, then by all means, reject this guideline and stick with WP:N. But if you don't, you might want to help seek some middle ground. Randomran (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of those AFDs are non-notable fictional works, forums, or shit someone made up. Very few are characters/places/chapters, and most of those are merged or not based less on notability and more on article quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am glad that we all agree that the "guideline was confusing (or may still be)" I am glad that we all agree that "some people may have been confused".

"I think you may be misunderstanding the guideline." --Phil Sandifer

"a lot of these comments are drive-by and are clearly demonstrating a misunderstanding of the guideline" --Phil Sandifer

"do not clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding, but with such widespread misunderstanding it is hard to take them entirely seriously either." --Phil Sandifer

As A Man in Black wrote:

"The fact that there's such widespread misunderstanding is a sign that this is not very clearly written. If it's being misunderstood now, it'll be misunderstood at AFD."

As Michael wrote:

"Is wiki edited only by folks with Master's Degree? Wouldn't it be prudent step back from this fiction proposal and see if it can be written in a way that even an fresh editor might understand?"

I have read and reread this proposal, and I agree that:

parts of this policy are "confusingly worded" (Nick-D), "the text of the proposed guideline is very confusing." (SMSpivey) "The text is confusing and vacillates frequently" (CRGreathouse) "The text is confusing and too complex." (Taprobanus) "Its time to simplify in the extreme..... not confuse with more and thicker layers of beaucracy...The existing standards are confusing enough to newcomers" (Michael)

For this reason, this proposal should remain a proposal. Ikip (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So you understand the intent, scope, and proposed effect of this guideline clearly? It doesn't weaken your argument if you do, but this well I must've misunderstood what you meant! nonsense has got to stop. Either you're campaigning against something you understand and oppose or you're shouting an uninformed opinion as loud as you can. The former is productive, the latter is obnoxious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinly veiled accusations of bad faith do not become you, nor do they serve this discussion. Ikip (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so accusing someone of bad faith is like a trump card on these discussions? Yeah, I must be new here. --Mblumber (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're making two different kinds of arguments against this, and they are contradictory. Pick one and stick to it. Either you understand the implications and are against them, or don't understand the implications and want clarity. Switching back and forth as it suits you is intellectually dishonest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That quote is verbatium from Black, so maybe Black can answer your question Mblumber. Black, calling other editors "intellectually dishonest" with "veiled accusations of bad faith" does not "serve this discussion" Black. Again, as I reminded you above, if you have something of substance to argue, argue it, piety personal attacks simply show how weak your argument is, and not only insult me, but insult editors who are also confused by this policy. There has been 110 edits to this policy since it was put up for RfC, and this page is larger than any main page now. Ikip (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a veiled accusation, nor am I accusing you of bad faith. It's a direct accusation of argumentation tactics that make it difficult to have any sort of productive discussion with you. You are adopting the position that suits you better at the moment, even though the two are mutually exclusive. Either you oppose this because you don't understand the implications, or you oppose this because you don't like the implications (even if those implications arise due to the misunderstandings of others). They are both valid arguments but you need to stop slipping from one to the other when it suits you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, if there are genuine misunderstandings due to unclear language, those should be fixed. On the other hand, if you're taking a guideline that explicitly says "This guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole, only elements within those works" and complaining about its coverage of works of fiction as a whole, I think that one's pretty much on you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Both lists should be kept per WP:LISTS. Best, --A Nobody 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"This guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole, only elements within those works." for example, this guideline does not cover The Golden Girls, it only covers the characters and episodes within the Golden Girls. Those characters and episodes in Golden Girls: "To justify articles on individual elements, the work of fiction from which they derive must be of particular cultural or historical significance. This requires that the work significantly exceed the basic threshold of the relevant notability guideline" Character and episodes must signifigantly exceed the notability guidelines. Are we all on the same page now? I am simply reading what is clearly written in the proposal. Ikip (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This guideline does not cover works. So when "the work" has to "significantly exceed the basic threshold" we are clearly, and by definition, not talking about the subject of the article covered by this guideline. Since that subject is not a work. You're not actually dense enough to miss this, so I assume you're just being querulous? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I have not met someone with so many personal attacks in a very long time, is this the way an admin is supposed to act? Ikip (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So that's querulous then? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I take that back, Man in Black has edged you out. Congratulations Black. Ikip (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot possibly comprehend how you can interpret the language that way. The "work" stated in the guideline is mutually exclusive from the "episode or character". Nifboy (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

GENTLEMEN. This is not the place to bicker. Flat statement: The proposal, despite its best of intentions, is confusing. Telling me or others that we must read it slower does not convince. Add a new first line to it: "Editors must read this slowly and carefuly, as its content and presentation may be confusing". Frankly, I do mot care if you call them "elements of fiction", or characters from The House of Glue. If inclusion of a character (read element) in an article (read work of fiction) would overburden the article, guideline allows that it may have a seperate article. Your prong says the character (read element) must have notability beyond the requirements of the GNG in order to have its own article. Are you now suggesting that articles (read works of fiction) are now allowed to be as overburdened as they will definitely become with the eventual and ultimate push toward merges and redirects? Wiki is paperless. Why the rush to create monster single articles? Schmidt, 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The prong says the work must have notability beyond the requirements of the GNG. "To justify articles on individual elements, the work of fiction from which they derive must be of particular cultural or historical significance." What about this sentence does not clearly distinguish between elements of a work of fiction and the work of fiction? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Then the prong is superfluous and need not be included as written. That an article about a work of fiction EXISTS means it has the required notability in reliable sources as already required by guideline. Your very clear explanation tells me the article about a work of fiction must now exceed the requirements of the GNG. I have repeatedly read above that the proposal is a loosening of requirements, but your very clear explanation tells differently. You explain that the characters (read elements) can only have seperate articles if the work from which they derive exceeds notability requirements. The phrase "must be of particular cultural or historical significance" is totally redundent to existing guideline and acts to confuse, not enlighten. Sorry... and thank you for the clarificatiom... but no sale yet. Schmidt, 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It does create a second path to notability for episodes and characters. The first prong requires that the overall work exceeds the GNG. So, for instance, imagine two articles on episodes of TV shows. One is an episode of Seinfeld. The other is an episode of a show that got cancelled after four episodes and forgotten. The Seinfeld article is more likely to survive, because Seinfeld is significantly above the minimum threshold for notability. Whereas the other show, meeting WP:N more minimally, is likely to see articles on individual episodes deleted for failing the first prong. Clear? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Crystal, Colonel. Im understanding you explanation, I still respectfully feel this propoasl is an unneccessary complication to an aleady complicated system. Your 1st prong requires an overall work must exceed the GNG. Not neccessary. A work should MEET the GNG, but there should be no expectation that it be exceeded. You describe two articles on episodes of a TV show. It does not matter if the episode article is about Seinfeld or I Love Lucy or My Mother the Car. That the parent article exists, means it showed notability per current guideline. And article about an episode from any of the shows is allowed to exist if its inclusion in the parent article would overburden it. There is no need for a subjective phrase that indicates the parent articlemust exceed. If its notable, its notable. And this does not matter if it has been written up in articles around the world and has won a dozen Emmys. Notable is notable. That the presumed lessor parent article might only have one review in the New York Times and one review in The Post, was cancelled after one season, and never won an award... does not matter. Notable is notable. If an article is required about an element of the former, due to size contraints in the parent article, fine. That an article might be required for an element of the "lessor" article due to size constraints of its parent, fine too. Both parents are equal having met inclusion criteria. A proposed guideline that essentially tells us one is more equal and more deserving flags in the face of existing guideline. Additional regulation is not a way to make wikipedia easier to use for newcomers OR the old guard. And with respects, that you had to be here to hand walk me through it means its still too durn complicated. You understand it... but then, you wrote it and know what you meant it to say. Now if it only clearly and conciseley said just that.... Again, and with respects. Less is more. Simpler improves Wiki. No sale. Schmidt, 06:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal seems to be that sub-articles are inherently notable. That position failed spectacularly to get community consensus when last it was pushed. I know, because I was the one pushing it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Phil. The "no notability needed for sub-articles" failed by a huge margin at the WP:N RfC. If that's what you're shooting for here for fiction, then you're honestly not going to get it. The only type of sub-article that enjoys relative community consensus at the moment are character lists for series big enough to justify splitting them out of the main series article. That said, that's an argument for another day and another time after the discussion here at FICT concludes. — sephiroth bcr 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

? I have no proposal here. Am merely refuting his contention that a parent must have notability beyond the GNG or the child will get axed. That dimishes Wiki. Further, guideline for the sake of more guidelines is counterproductive in improving the project. He answered me and I responded point-by-point. Schmidt, 07:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil is saying that your assertion that all "sub-articles" are notable isn't true and doesn't have consensus. We understand that you oppose the guideline. Protonk (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be clear consensus for any particular position - that's why this matter is so vexed. But the general argument about sub-articles is not generally settled. Consider, for example, the similar structural argument about geographic entities - towns, villages, streets, stations, schools, etc. Some want articles to be held at a high level of abstraction, others want numerous stubs going down to a fine level of detail. The essential problem is that the division of topics into discrete articles is somewhat arbitrary and guidelines like WP:SIZE and WP:N push in different directions. What I've noticed recently is that the online Encyclopaedia Britannica has a different approach. Its articles are quite huge, for example, its article on Judaism has 213 pages. But this doesn't matter because its search engine will take you directly to any appropriate subsection with nested headings such as The history of Judaism > General observations > Nature and characteristics. We should likewise aim to build nested tiers in a similar way and be relaxed about the level at which the article split takes place because this is just an implementation detail. But from a technical point of view, it seems best to have articles at an atomic or elemental level because these provide the most flexible framework for assembly into multiple parallel hierarchies. For example, suppose we have a character like Tarzan. He doesn't just appear in the original ERB stories but also in numerous developments, spinoffs and crossovers such as PJF's Wold Newton family stories. By having a linkable article upon the character, we are easily able to reference this in numerous separate places and this is a good thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tarzan is so notable, we could probably make three articles on him, each with 50 references. We need to figure out what to do with less famous subjects. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The same principle applies to less well known characters such as Andrew Blodgett Mayfair. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I do agree that there's no reason we could not consider the coverage of a TV show (for example) to be covered by a large number of articles all effectively part of a "single" topic article, just representing many subparts of it. However, and this is important, based on the WP:N RFC, there is no way to achieve that without deconstructing a lot of policies and getting over some of the perceptions that a large number of editors have about how WP articles are written (on both sides) - just as need to work policies to aim to include more, we need to realize that redirects are key to helping prevent thousands of permastubs while still allowing searching. FICT is too small a guideline alone to try to establish this change, and I'm working on a path forward that reflects what I believe is a more practical matter for coverage in that light. For the time being, we have to recognize that fiction element articles are highly criticized (spinouts more so), and this is an attempt to at least assert what are the foundations of a good fiction element article. --MASEM 12:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Warden makes a valid point in addressing the flaws inherent in this proposal. I am making no claim as to the notability of secondary articles. I am simply stating that if an article is required about an element of the former, due to size contraints in the parent article, that is fine and already covered by guideline. That an article might be required for an element of the "lessor" article due to size constraints of its parent, fine too, and already covered by duideline. Both parents are equal having met inclusion criteria. A proposed guideline that essentially tells us one is more equal and more deserving flags in the face of existing guideline, and works to the degradation of a paperless encyclopdia. Beauracracy for the sake of beauracracy is to be discouraged. Schmidt, 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

While I could argue for this case, we are limited by the results of the WP:N RFC that outright denies that spinout articles lacking notability are ok. As I've mentioned above, there's a lot of work to get to that point, but present attitudes and interpretation of policies overall do not really allow these articles to exist without any concerns. --MASEM 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please help me understand this without personal attacks:

My example, again:

"This guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole, only elements within those works." For example, this guideline does not cover The Golden Girls, it only covers the characters and episodes within the Golden Girls.

So: "This guideline does not cover Golden Girls, only elements (episodes and characters) within those works."

Those characters and episodes in Golden Girls: "To justify articles on individual elements, the work of fiction from which they derive must be of particular cultural or historical significance. This requires that the work significantly exceed the basic threshold of the relevant notability guideline"

The series Golden girls must signifigantly exceed the notability guidelines. Does the golden girls pages then inheriet the notability of the Golden girls? Are we all on the same page now?

Thank you. Ikip (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Terms like "inherited notability" carry a lot of unhelpful baggage. The work needs to be important in the real world, the element needs to be important to the work, and there has to be something to say about the element in the real world. What you're describing is the first part of that, and the first prong in this test. Being really important to Joe's Webcomic is not enough. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Episodes as elements

This is one spot that is attracting confusion that I am inclined to understand. When we started the guideline, we had in mind, basically, "episodes, characters, and other similar stuff." Which means we were thinking in a TV paradigm, and we wrote a guideline that works very well for TV. Most of the underlying principles work well for comics, video games, and other media. But the work/element distinction, which works great for TV (Work = series, element = episode) has some trouble porting cleanly. Adding to this the existence of multimedia franchises (Star Trek, Doctor Who, etc) and you've got a bit of a problem.

There are limits to what I think we should solve about this here - the guideline will not be helped by explaining the work/element distinction for every medium. But some clarification is warranted - probably a footnote to the following effect:

The line between a work of fiction and a component is not always clear. In general, the distinction should be analagous to the difference between a television series and an individual episode. When considering what a given subject is a component of, care should be taken not to split articles beyond where significant real-world perspective will exist for each sub-article. Individual WikiProjects or notability guidelines may have more subject-specific information.

The final sentence, I imagine, will change to include examples as WikiProjects and notability guidelines adjust to this guideline - it's something that will happen over time.

Thoughts? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that it would a great idea to explain the work/element distinction for a lot of media, at least initially. If we start with the most common (films, TV, novels, comics), we may find that that's enough, and stop, or it might help make it easier to consolidate them at a later stage. cojoco (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I just don't want to step on the toes of existing guidelines/WikiProjects is my main concern. Comics, in particular, are a thorny one, and I wouldn't want to even try it without getting lots of input at the comics WikiProject. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying is that this discussion is more about establishing consistency across different types of fiction than as a guideline for editors? If you are a new editor attempting to come to grips with the guidelines, it is much easier to make decisions if there are clear examples to guide you. More general statements about notability are harder to digest, and may lead to Wiki lawyering and general arguments. cojoco (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a balance of a couple of things to me. We want clear guidance in this guideline. We also want appropriate decisions for different media. And we want to get those appropriate decisions without empowering WikiProjects to undermine the guideline with overly lax interpretations. Which is why I find the matter vexing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• To tell you the truth, I still think we should separate our guideline for in-universe elements from our guideline for chunks of serialized fiction. Trying to tackle too many things in a single guidelines leads to confusion, which creates unnecessary opposition. Short, simple guidelines are better than one huge one. I also think it will be easier to reach a consensus on how to handle episodes than how to handle characters and other stuff. Randomran (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd agree, but the three prong test does seem to me to work for both, and we seem very far along in dealing with both. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• With the exception of episodes, I don't really think that we should be looking at works of fiction for this guideline. Films are covered by WP:NF, books by WP:BK, and webcomics and similar web stuff by WP:WEB. We're treading on a lot of toes that way. — sephiroth bcr 06:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah - the issue is, say, with an individual novel in a trilogy of Star Trek novels. If such a novel passes this guideline, do we keep the article? People will say yes, and have a fair point. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:BK still applies in that case though. Doesn't matter whether it's the first, second, or third book in the trilogy. In any case, as the guideline currently reads, we're focusing on "rticles covering elements within a fictional work," so I'm pretty sure this is a moot point. — sephiroth bcr 06:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • So we want to just limit this guideline to episodes and comic book storylines? That'll be a tough sell - I don't think we'll have a very good answer to give someone who wants to use it on one book in a series. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)We need some separate qualifiers for an article on an episode. It's too easy to point to any ratings page, or eipsode summary website, or other forms of coverage that say 'the episode existed' and claim 'notability'. Almost every tv episode aired nowadays has such pages out there, and certainly not every episode is notable by current standards and practices here. We would have to set the bar at detailed review or something similar to make it worthwhile. We also run another risk, in that we're crossing into the TV Wikiproject's milieu here, and they might have higher standards, to avoid every episode of The Bachelor, or Tila Tequila Gets Drunk, getting its own page. Establishing a standard for Fictional Story shows will rapidly cause bleeding out into other forms of TV, and saying 'well, not our problem' isn't going to work.

It seems to me that for a while at least, the thinking has been Series, Season, Episode. Prove the Series is notable, write a page. Prove a given season is notable ,break that out and make its' own page. Prove an Episode of the Series is notable, break it out from the season, with some reasonable exceptions, like the Finale of M*A*S*H. I do not think that IF we try to push into this long-working approach, we should do so lightly, and we shouldn't do it without hitting any wikiprojects which may be affected, including WP:TV, and the WP's of any shows out there... buffy, star trek, House, whatever. ThuranX (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a cheap punt, though - episodes are half of the issue that drove the guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not meant as a punt at all. Almost everything I've seen since I got here has focused on... static... elements of fiction. Characters, Locales, Objects of importance. I wouldn't call an episode an element of fiction, but a work of fiction, or better, a part of the ongoing WORK of the fiction. I cannot equate a character to an episode, because the story has to be told in some way, and we're not about to create articles on each chapter of a book, are we? Episodes, like chapters, are a convention of the medium, not an element of the story contained within. Episode articles run the risk of just being bloated PLOT bubbles; many of those not merged by TTN are just that, in fact. The notability for them needs to be measured differently, especially since the biased hype is that every episode is a 'very special' or 'shocking' episode, depending on if it's a sitcom or a drama. We've seen careful good work at episode with the WP:SIMPSONS and WP:South Park, but... do we really need articles for every episode of Lazytown? We'd need to be quite careful in any attempts to push FICTION into this, and I'm averse to even trying. I think that establishing a guideline for the Elements of Fiction is hard enough. Consider, for example, that as an Element, we could focus on the aspects of Lazytown that matter, and while I doubt there are many, we might be able to support articles on the Series, the main character, hero, villian, and the puppetry of the series. But we don't need 40 or 50 or however many episode articles. Similarly, we don't need articles on each episode of every Adult Swim cartoon; the articles about the series seem to work just fine. ThuranX (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, even ignoring the second prong - if such articles have concise plot summaries, the Adult Swim cartoon is highly notable, and the articles are largely out of universe information, I'm hard-pressed to argue for a problem, and extremely hard-pressed to believe that the articles would be deleted. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. But I can't find an episode or character article with significant real-world perspective that has been deleted recently. And I've looked. In practice, that really does seem to be the decisive factor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So glad you brought your own strawman kit, and built it yourself. What I explicitly talked about were non-notable episode articles, and the need for a careful examination of what will constitute genuine notability for an episode article, and that creating such a rubric will equire input from the groups far more familiar with the intricacies than we are. Imposing policies on them from outside will go over as well as a surprise cholera party. You instead cherry picked phrases, and promptly glued them together into your standard 'in practice, good articles already stay' screed. I said nothing about unfair deletions of good articles. What I said was about the creation of undeletable BAD articles. Re-read what I said. ThuranX (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I didn't say good articles stay, I said articles that pass the three pronged test stay. Which is the more relevant point. The test accurately describes our keeping and deletion of TV episodes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, strawman. What you said was "I can't find an episode or character article with significant real-world perspective that has been deleted recently." that's NOT the tpye of article I am talking about, and you know it. let me be clear. I am concerned that the non-existent threshold for inclusion established by this policy will permit bad articles about episodes, which only cite viewership or tv guide quality webarticles for 'notability' and have no actual real world content, to stay. that's what I'm concerned about. I've been very clear about this twice already, and you know it.ThuranX (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple people at Misplaced Pages:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability said the number of viewers is evidence of notability. There's more discussion about it at WT:EPISODE. --Pixelface (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would clarify matters a great deal if we didn't try to deal with episodes (or issues of comics or serialized novels or whatever) here. They really are distinct from the other kinds of elements that the proposal deals with, and I think a different mechanism is needed to cope with them. Let's leave any proposals for how to handle them for another time and concentrate on the core of the proposal, which has always seemed to me to be the fictional elements, i.e. the characters, locations, plot devices, etc. JulesH (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can make such a large change to the guideline without effectively restarting the comment process, and given as it looks to me like the guideline is passing with only a few changes needed, I'm loathe to do that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I look at this again, I think the issue may not be as large as I thought on first glance. Right now, element is defined as including "individual components of serialized work, (such as television episodes or comic book storylines)." The "such as" clearly extends this to other serialized works, but outside of comics (which are exceedingly thorny) I don't think the serialization issue is that hard. And as the risk here is inadvertantly covering something we don't want to cover (since WP:N will still cover anything we fail to cover that we should have), being conservative seems to me wise. We definitely want to avoid covering individual issues of comics, but "comic book storylines" already sets that grain above issues. Past that, I don't see any landmines, which leads me to believe that until someone starts abusing this guideline, the whole issue is not a big deal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The only real distinction is that there will be items within a serialized work that will be considerd both a work and an element and that may be what needs clarrifying. FE: A TV series may be made up into seasons, which could be considered both a work and an element because those seasons could be made up into episodes. I'd consider episodes probably the lowest rung here though since anything else, characters, universe, etc. would likely come based upon a higher level. However, video games have broad series, indivisual game series which include main and spinoff series and each of those include indivisual games and each of those game usually can include characters and settings. Thus the lowest rung is the characters and settings.じんない 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes people make this more complicated than it already is. This guideline has 'rungs of priority' now? Who determined these rungs, where are they linked, how do different rungs interaction with the three prongs? are the standards varied by rung? Can we get a chart of this? I'm so confused, and no one wants to play battleship to calculate a notability standard. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia."

Jimbo Wales: "I agree with this one completely."

...from at least as far back as January 2002 --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What's confusing?

Since this seems to be the biggest outstanding issue - will some of the people who complain that this is overly complicated or confusing please flag the parts that are unclear or overly wordy so we can work on them? So far I've got:

• There's some confusion on whether the first prong raises the standards for notability.
• The GA section is still confusing people.

What other portions need work? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as confusion is coming from specific parts that are poorly worded, a lot of confusion is also coming form the sheer length of the guideline. I know you like the explanatory portions, but they're actually interfering with peoples' ability to read and understand the guideline, because there's just too much to read. Randomran (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, this is one of our shorter notability guidelines. I think saying that 13k is too much to read is a hard sell. I mean, excessively wordy bits that can be shortened, yeah - let's trim. I just want to know where people are stumbling. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to sell anything. Repeated comments in the RFC are misreading it, or saying more or less "I can't figure out what you're really trying to say". Randomran (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's fair. I'm looking for leads on where to fix things. For instance, the first prong doesn't seem to me to be fixed by shortening - on the contrary, it apparently needed another sentence to reiterate something that was otherwise up in the lead. "The whole thing is too long" is a bit like "there are too many notes in it." One wonders where to cut. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is something that needs a few quick copyedits. I think Goodraise has a better starting point, erring on the side of briefness. We should take something like that, and add in a few extra sentences for clarity. Randomran (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Are you joking? You don't throw out a proposal that's garnering this strong support. Starting over is not the right move. The comments are such that, barring a major change in the next day or two, we can fix any areas that are flagged as confusing - I've already got one, and I'm working on something for the GA bit - and tag. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, just for you, I made a general trimming copyedit, which took the guideline down to 10.6k. It would now be our third shortest notability guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've come round on the goodraise draft. When it first came out I was inclined to think about it the same way you are. The more I read the two the less I see on common. I'm not inclined to substantively move toward that length or formatting. Protonk (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as what Goodraise offered either. But I think there's something to be said for starting minimal and adding what's necessary, rather than starting with something comprehensive and nuanced and trimming it down. Randomran (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• A somewhat bold idea, because a lot of comments have been concerned that the three-prong test is just too complex to apply at AFD. What if we just scrapped the first prong? It's by far the least valuable of the three. I don't doubt that it has *some* value. But is there anyone who loves it so much that they feel we have to have it? If people can live with it, it looks like a lot of opposition could be swayed with the simplicity of a two-prong test. Randomran (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's vital, actually - most obviously for webcomics. Losing it there would, I think, lead to an utter shitstorm down the road when webcomics get overgrown via this guideline and someone tries to take a hatchet to them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • ...maybe. I'm aware that it causes a lot of opposition, but I also think that it has some utility. If we "scrap it", I would just rewrite it to say "the work the element appears in must be notable". But I do think that there are some on the deletion side who would be moved away from supporting were the first prong to be eliminated. Remember, with respect to the opposition, some of the complaints are a matter of rhetorical flourish. they see three prongs and they say "bureaucracy!". Again, not trying to rag on the opposition, but some of that feels a little excessive. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking out loud. I'm aware that people are worried that this might lead to a shit storm of over-inclusion. But most people who are worried about that have pushed for us to add stuff about independent sourcing, as a requirement under WP:V. It's possible that independence is a much simpler and uncontroversial control on trivial articles. Randomran (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I know, didn't mean to jump down your throat. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd think that those who are worried about over inclusion would simply be able to point to WP:N and WP:V for their arguments. — Ched (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
          • That's exactly what I'm getting at. If we already say in the "independence" section that we often merge articles with no third-party sources, then I'm not sure we need the first prong as well. Why make a mess with two bullets, when only one bullet is necessary? Randomran (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The more I read the proposal, the more I'm convinced you could scrap the three-pronged test entirely and the guideline proposal would be vastly improved. It would help if there were more specific examples, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm also finding this proposed page confusing. I'm going to read a the archives to try & make sense of it, but a guideline shouldn't require that. - brenneman 23:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you find unclear? Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a compelling reason for this to exist given in the guideline itself: "In lieu of meeting the general notability guideline..." doesn't tell me anything about why I need another guideline, as opposed to the generally accepted one, and "Facts about development and reception can be verified in self-published sources..." doesn't seem required (based upon what's presented on the page) and is at odds with how we treat such sources in general. As I stated above, I'm trying to plow through a lot of archives, but pages need to make thier own case for existance. - brenneman 00:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on the volume of discussion, we know there's a number of fiction articles that, based on consensus developed through AFD "keep" results, that will generally exist. There is a subset of those that clearly surpass the need of the GNG, that's fine. But by far, a large number of these articles (a majority) fail the strict wording of the GNG and what "secondary sources" are generally considered - yet they survive at AFD based on other metrics. This metric generally includes some type of real-world sourcing, whether a third-party or first-party source. Now, we can spend days trying to justify if developer comments are secondary sources, such that there would be perfect alignment of the goal of this guideline with the GNG and thus nullifying the need for it, but the fact is: there is a strong disagreement that developer comments are secondary, but we presume that if such comments exist to begin with, there's likelihood for further development to get clear sourcing to meet the GNG, and thus the article should not be deleted. Thus, there is a need for at least the third prong and this separate guideline.

And that brings us to the first two prongs, which are needed to prevent a work of no or little notability that has extensive developer commentary (the example I use is my own webcomic that has one independent article about it, but which I've maintained a daily log of my writing notes) for having a plethra of articles that really should be covered (if they need to be) in the main work. There are editors that want to dissect fiction topics ad infinitium, and the laxer standard of the third prong will give them fair game to do that for minor fiction works. The goal is still cover the aspects of the fiction but not split out to a separate article if there's no good likelihod of improvement. --MASEM 00:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The third prong is not the "laxer standard"; in fact, it's the strictest one, since you need to find secondary srouce documentation, and that doesn't always exist. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The third prong is more lax than the GNG. Secondary =/= independent. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be laxer than the general notability guideline (why is it, in the first place?), but it's not the laxest prong proposed. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is that way in the first place because we are trying to carve out one of those "exceptions" to the GNG. I think (as do many people working on this guideline, though the feeling is far from unanimous) that the GNG generally does a great job of giving us articles that end up meeting our core content policies. That is its job. Where it does not do so perfectly is fiction. And this guideline, hopefully, offers some way to let us have articles that meet our core content policies but wouldn't meet the GNG. Protonk (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's in conflict with the glossary at the top of this page, which reads "General Notability Criteria (GNC) refers to the catch-all criterion in WP:N itself, that may indicate the notability of any topic. Failure to fulfil the GNC means a topic is not notable; subject-specific criteria may only indicate where sources are likely." By offering "some way to let us have articles that meet our core content policies but wouldn't meet the GNG", the proposed fiction guideline does not adhere to the GNC and is ultimately flawed. This guideline proposal completely misses the point of what a subject-specific guideline is supposed to do. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can change the glossary at the top of the page if you like. I'm sorry if your opinion of what an SNG is supposed to do differs from mine. I don't think we are likely to make much headway in continuing to talk about this. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to change either the glossary or the proposal, because otherwise you have a glaring contradiction being presented here. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what the "good article" section is supposed to describe. I'm becoming warmer and warmer to the idea of being very clear and blunt, and putting in something like "No subnotability guideline can override the GNG, so this one can't either. If there aren't third-party, independent sources, the article violates the GNG, and all this one can do is buy it some time. Sources need to be found quickly, because articles that come to AFD a second time without an independent demonstration of notability should be deleted at that time."—Kww(talk) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Such a view would, I think, lead to the proposal having a net loss of support. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Need is an awfully strong word. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but this section is called "What's confusing" and that's very confusing, not to mention completely undermines the proposal. You're outright contradicting what you want people to understand going into this discussion. As long as it's consistent, it's an improvement. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Most four letter words tend to be. "Must" is equally strong, and fairly appropriate. "Should" is pretty namby-pamby, and allows for an indefinite lifespan for articles completely lacking in independent sources ... that's a sore point for a lot of us. It may not quite contradict WP:N or WP:V, but it encourages a kind of "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" state to go on forever. I'll live with it, but Wesley is quite right that our refusal to be explicit about it is a point of confusion.—Kww(talk) 01:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We may well have to recognize this as a necessary vagueness, though. I mean, at this point the guideline is already getting more complaints of strictness than of leniency. If we clear this up, based on the comments, I don't think we can in good faith clear it up in the direction you want. (I suspect we're equally hard-pressed to clear it up on the opposite direction, mind you.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a necessary vagueness we're talking about. Protonik said the purpose of the proposal is for there to be "some way to let us have articles that meet our core content policies but wouldn't meet the GNG" and then I pointed out that the top of this very page says that the GNG is the end-all, be-all of notability. That's a contradiction. So either Protonik is arguing the wrong point, or whoever wrote the glossary is wrong. This needs to be clarified. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The top of this page (i'm assuming you are saying the talk page) says the GNG is the catch all notability guideline - if it doesn't fit any sub-notability guideline, a topic can still meet the GNG to be given its own article. There's no contradiction. --MASEM 02:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it uses the stronger version that I generally prefer, that if an article fails the GNG, it is not notable. That pretty much states that no SNG can attempt to include a broader range of subjects, which is what we are all dancing around with the "good article"/"search for sources" language.02:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Then change the glossary. The top of this page....aw, nuts I'll just change the glossary. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support Kww's inclination to change to blunt language. I also concur with Wesleydodds re: the attempt to circumvent GNC being self-defeating. ThuranX (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

examples

And that response calls upon facts that (as far as I can see) are not in evidence. Can I please be provided a link to the page where "they survive at AFD" has some illustrations? - brenneman 00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the policy page because we thought it would clutter it. Would you like some examples of AfDs where we feel the guideline matches the outcome? Protonk (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And the point of "the prongs follow AFD results" that the 15-20-so active editors that helped developed it felt was a true point without evidence, and thus we have no exact list to provide. However, you can review AFDs at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television or a few other ones there and quickly get the flavor of what occurs. --MASEM 01:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also probably worth looking at some fictional subjects articles - including ones that are A or B class in their respective WikiProjects - and seeing if they meet WP:N and if you think they'd be likely to be deleted. For example, as it stands Lando Calrissian is almost entirely unsourced, with one sentence of real-world perspective that was added yesterday. However I think anyone trying to delete it would have been laughed off of AfD. Numerous similar examples exist - Xander Harris has no independent sources, but would overwhelmingly survive an AfD. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at the Cordelia Chase article for contrast. –Whitehorse1 10:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(responding to Masem) Thank you for the pointers. However, looking at them makes me question the need for this guideline even more: Currently both "deletion sorting" lists are at (characters) ot very close to (television) 100% deletion for items that would be covered by this list. (Three "list" articles are outside the auspice, no?) - brenneman 11:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

scrapping the first prong

The watchlist RFC is on hold. Seeing as RFCs are supposed to provide commentary, rather than up-vs-down support, we have an opportunity to improve this guideline based on feedback. I'd say the inclusionist "kill all notability guidelines" and deletionist "WP:N needs to be enforced more strictly" camps roughly cancel each other out. But there is another group of opposition who fall into neither camp, as they simply find this guideline confusing. This group of "confused" people can be divided into three sub-camps:

• Those who misinterpreted the guideline and opposed it for inaccurate reasons. (e.g.: "this guideline lets us use unreliable sources", "this guideline is stronger than WP:N")
• Those who freely admit they are confused or put off by it, because it's vague, long, and/or contradictory.
• Those who can understand the guideline, but find it tedious to apply in AFDs. Especially for novice or casual editors. People who think new rules should be short and simple.

I think we need to go beyond copy-edits to address this. Three prongs *are* too much, when all other guidelines can be distilled to one simple principle. "Verify stuff", "use reliable third-party sources", "don't push points of view", "we're not censored". This one is three principles in one, plus other exceptions and clarifications.
The best "beyond copyediting" idea I can think of is dropping the first prong: the importance of the fictional work. This prong has attracted the most confusion and misreading. It's by far the least important and easiest to pass, so it doesn't have too much value. And since we've started to reintroduce the value of independent sources in this guideline, we probably have a better way to reign in trivial articles than the first prong anyway. Besides, an episode or recurring character with real-world coverage should at least be merged, even in cases where the work isn't particularly important (e.g.: fails the first prong). I'm not sure we need it, especially as the guideline has evolved. Randomran (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I second this. It's really not a good way to determine notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

An alternative approach without sacrificing what we've worked is as follows:

• Stating that FICT is basically taking the GNG and clarifying the types of sources we use (eg dev comments), and that we're still talking WP:IMPERFECT articles akin to how WP:MUSIC does it; it may not be as a strong a line as MUSIC et al, but it's a line that can be passed
• Note that, not as a requirement but in general, elements from weakly notable works or very minor plot elements generally are covered in parent articles, are not given separate articles.

That is, we could say something along the lines:

Elements of fiction (which includes both in-universe details of a work of fiction, and, for serial works, serialization of that work such as episodes or printed volumes) are presumed to be notable if they have coverage in secondary sources. For elements of fiction, secondary sources should provide information on the element's creation, influence, reception, and legacy.

Editors are cautioned that elements of fiction from works that lack cultural impact or legacy tend to not have articles on their own, instead discussed in the parent work. Similarly, elements of fiction that are not essential to the plot of the work are often covered in the work's article instead of a separate article.

It's a bit wordy but I think captures the points we're been making (the three prongs are effectively still there). --MASEM 06:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's better. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's wishy-washy, and doesn't actually set a bar anywhere. It completely discards independence - Kww and ThuranX will categorically reject it on those grounds, and it wouldn't surprise me if we lose Gavin on it too. Dropping significant lowers the bar considerably. I'm hard-pressed to think of articles that fail this. Which, I mean, as an arch-inclusionist who does not want to see any episode or major character article deleted, yay. Wonderful. But this won't fly. And I think it actually ends up being worse for use at AfD. At least with the three-prong test the strange editors who like to leave excessively jargony, short comments can say "fails prong three of FICT" and move on. This... resists citation in a way that will please virtually no one.

Which is sad. I mean, I like it better. I think it's a beautiful field of ambiguity that provides guidance and principle without providing bright line tests. I think it's great. It'll never fly. It'll lose ground from what we have now. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to this. Removing it in favor of independent sources, frankly, means we should scrap this proposal and use WP:N. Which we know, in practice, means we should have fiction notability be a continual edit war and battle ground. Either we're creating an alternate track to the GNG or we're not.

Now,. of the three "oppose due to complexity" categories, the first one I simply have trouble taking seriously. I cannot believe that the people who are saying things like "The guideline does not require secondary sources" have actually read the guideline with any care, since it explicitly says otherwise. So, honestly, that category of opposition? My feeling is, cross it off. It's the risk of an RfC - you get careless comments. Part of interpreting an RfC is figuring out the signal to noise ratio.

That leaves the second two categories - which, between them, amount to a relative handful of comments. So we should not treat this as a tidal wave of opposition. The supporters vastly outnumber those who are confused by the guideline. Heavy reworking of the guideline in the face of that is inappropriate, and will lose support, starting with mine.

Of them, I have some serious issues too. A 10k guideline - the third shortest notability guideline - is not too long. It's not. Anyone who says it's too long is being ridiculous. As for the confusing, contradictory parts, I see very few of those that have been pointed out, and those that have, we've gone and fixed with straightforward copyedits. And the idea that the three prong test is too much? Please. Misplaced Pages:Notability (numbers) and Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies) both apply approaches similar to this one.

That leaves the "Too hard to use at AfD" crowd. Which, well, tough. It's hard. The "it's too hard to use on AfD" comment isn't a complaint about the guideline. It's a complaint about the community. This is an incredibly fractious, contentious issue. The idea of a guideline that can attract support from both sides of the issue while being simple and easy to use on AfD and preventing unwieldy discussions is a chimera. I'd like a guideline like that too. And a pony for Christmas. I'm not getting either, though.

We've done huge work in the last 48 hours simplifying, clarifying, and streamlining this guideline. We've made concessions and adjustments as substantial as any that have been given to any side of this debate.

This proposal has an unprecedented level and diversity of support for a notability guideline on fiction. At the end of the day, we have to accept that there's a real limit to how much support can be generated for any single position in this debate. And honestly, at this point, this guideline already has more support than I thought possible.

It's not going to get any better than this. Last, best hope and whatnot. No more restarts. No more bold, new ideas and directions. A guideline that looks basically like what we have now, or an unending battleground that gets settled by the arbcom. Those are the options. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If people are saying that the guideline is "it's too hard to use on AfD", that says something about its usuability, and editors need to be able to utilize this guideline effectively. Aside from that, I feel the guideline could use far more specifics. It's too short and too broad. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I mean, I never really thought "it's one of our shortest notability guidelines" was a selling point, but with Club Brevity around, I kind of felt obliged to give that one up. But I honestly cannot imagine this being hard on AfD. "Fails prong 3 of FICT" will be the new "Delete nn." It'll be great. I mean, what do people what? We don't have a magic wand to wish the controversy away. This is a hugely controversial point. Hell, WP:N is a hugely controversial point. Have you ever looked at how it got its guideline status? It was edit warred over for two weeks, with no vote, and less harmonious consensus than this has. I mean, we're not going to do better than we are now. It doesn't get better than this on highly contentious issues. We need to stop dreaming that there's some magic solution waiting to be found. There's not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think some of the past revisions of this page were more useful as guidelines. This guideline proposal has been stripped down and summarized so much that, as you pointed out, if you alter or remove the prong test, then it real is redundant to the GNG. I really don't see the current version as the best solution possible, and I wouldn't support something simply because "we're not going to do better than we do now"; that just strikes as defeatism to me. One of the positives of the RFC is that you can get an influx of new ideas and suggestions. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to wonder if the guideline is better now or in an earlier version. I worry that we've tried to appease too many minor complaints at this point. There just aren't that many people complaining about confusion. And this isn't going to be a universally palatable guideline. It's a controversial issue. Eventually there's going to come a point where someone has to gird their loins and say "Screw it, it's a guideline." Which is basically how we got WP:N - the fundamental guideline everyone is referring to here. There was no vote there. It was, frankly, rammed through. We're already doing wildly better than the process to establish a supposedly fundamental and uncontradictable guideline. I really, really have no qualms about our process at this point.

Honestly, looking at the RfC, it's clear to me that the basic approach is the best one we're going to get. I'm inclined to wind down the RfC, return to the core group that has formulated this, and, with what we learned from the RfC, come up with the best version of this that we can and tag it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to this as well. We've gotten a lot of feedback, not much of it has been "I understand the guideline and think that the first prong is either superfluous or harmful". Maybe the first prong isnt' binding. I don't know. But it seems to be reasonable. Apart from the risk of confusion, I don't know what the problem is. Also, once we cut the first prong, what stops us from cutting the second (it is arguably more fuzzy than the first)? then we are left with "has some real world info that is verified by a secondary source". Not much of a fiction guideline. Protonk (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should use examples to explain things. They can quickly convey info. Maybe not articles, but "secondary sources i.e. DVD commentaries" (if that's what we decide). A few links to versions of articles might actually be good too. I think this would vastly reduce misunderstandings. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Stick the word 'independent' in from of Secondary Sources, return the 'significant', due to the inclusion of episodes, because otherwise a TV Guide listing becomes grounds for notabiltiy of each episode, like "...are presumed to be notable if they have significant coverage in independent secondary sources", and I'm on board. ThuranX (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And that makes this stricter than the GNG (the inclusion of "independent". We can't add that if its not in WP:N. --MASEM 07:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, and just playing devil's advocate here, the reason that this is proving so difficult is that it's not a good idea? I've been plowing through the archives, and some threads keep emerging. It had been noted that this is now being derided as both too inclusionist and too strict. While "everyone equally unhappy" is often a sign that a sloution is near, I'm not seeing this here. And (no offense to Protonk here) if he isn't sure if the first prong is binding or not, who is? Is there an exit strategy here? - brenneman 10:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not like I'm unclear whether or not it is binding in the guideline, but whether or not it actually causes us to delete or keep articles. The term "binding constraint" was a tip to Constraint (mathematics). I would also argue that a solution being derided as both too inclusionist and too strict is pretty close to where you want to be in a compromise. Compromise usually means "everyone kind of unhappy" not "everyone happy". If we have a community that is defined by a sharp political split along this fault line and we don't want to privilege one side or the other, the solution will cause both extremes to find it distasteful. Ever notice why there is more talk than action aboud bipartisanship in washington? It isn't because there is some magical solution out there that makes both sides happy. Protonk (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I really, really oppose scrapping the first prong. By requiring the main body of work to pass the GNG by a mile, we guaranteed that there are third-party sources at least about the context and environment the character is set in. If we drop it, the flood-gates open to any obscure work that the developer blogged about. You all can tell I'm biting my tongue so hard it's bleeding, and this is one of the things that keeps me going ... at least the main body of work has to have substantial independent sourcing. And people, don't misread me ... I don't mean secondary, I mean independent. Removing the first prong would allow the creation of entire groups of articles based on nothing but developer commentary, and that is wholly unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What if we supplemented what we remove? We drop the first prong, but we also add a caveat that "articles without independent sources are generally merged into another notable article". We would remove one control, but add another control in its place. Randomran (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I've been able to handle weak language like "are generally merged" is that umbrella provided by the first prong. I come from the stance that articles without independent sources should always be deleted or merged, and I have a hard time stomaching a guideline that tries to carve out an exception. The larger the exception, the harder it is. Allowing character articles from works that are themselves scarcely notable is too large of an exception.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for the sake of brainstorming... What if we dropped the first prong, but had stronger language that "articles that meet these two prongs but fail WP:V for a lack of third-party sources should be summarized and merged into another notable article." My goal is finding a simpler way to accomplish roughly the same thing. Fewer prongs, same quality. Randomran (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"The watchlist RFC is on hold." How is the rfc on hold? The RfC tag is still on the page. Thanks for the clarification. Ikip (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean: MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Add_notice_to_advertise_WP:FICT.27s_adoption_as_a_guideline Ikip (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Approaching this from the standpoint of the GNG

Given the above discussion, I put some thought into exactly what we are doing with this to be actually necessary to include if we otherwise consider the GNG to be otherwise the default notability guideline for fiction (that is, do we really need FICT). Note that I'm considering the the GNG to be "a topic is presumed to be notable (and thus appropriate to have an article) if it has significant coverage in secondary sources)". I came up with three strong distinctions:

1. The term "secondary source" is not changed but instead clarified that this can include creator commentary in addition to normal independent and/or third-party sources, with careful warnings about self-published sources. There are editors that do not feel creator commentary is a secondary source, and would outright consider articles only written from primary and from creator commentary to fail this point. Thus, we need to describe what are considered secondary sources for fiction elements (a point that seemed to have consensus at the WP:N RFC), and thus this points to "coverage" being the "real-world" information about development, influences, analysis, reception, and legacy of the fiction element, some which only can be gleaned from the creator.
2. In the same vein as other subnotability guidelines (ala WP:BIO) we apply an approach that the article may not immediately fully meet the GNG when initially created, but, as per WP:MUSIC, It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert (a fiction element's importance) on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability. Thus, the "significant coverage" part is weakened in this light, and instead we want just "non-trivial coverage" (which can mean, simply, one source) such that authors of these articles on fictin elements have a good chance at working on improving them instead of forcing merges too early. This is not a means to allow articles to stay with only one source (even a developer source) forever, and has been argued, if articles, given time and good faith effort to improve, cannot grow to meet other policies/guidelines like WP:V, merging/deletion may still occur.
3. Because some treatments of fiction can become highly detailed depending on the level of enthusiasm behind the editors (with extensive effort to address the first two points above any way they can), we do need to employ limits. Our limits are determined to some extent by WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information and summary style (with possible a helping of undue coverage), and basically has to be considered advice, not so much guideline. That is, elements from works of fiction that otherwise meet the above points, while the work itself lacks significance (being barely notable) likely don't need to be split from the parent work and can be covered there. Similarly, elements that are not critical to understanding a work or cannot be expanded beyond a few paragraphs should not be split out to separate articles even if they also meet the above points. Our advise should strongly suggest merging of these types of fiction elements to the parent work article (using redirects always). The discussion on the RFC shows that its hard to give this point real teeth (a strong line) that can be used, but I think we can advice that editors should look to the parent work's size and the size of the element in consideration and determine if a merge is in order. All I think we can really do on this point is caution and warn that this types of articles are generally frowned upon and will be seen for AFD or merging unless these really do meet the GNG.

Of these points, 1 and 2 are restatements of what we had with the three prongs version, but simply put in the light of the GNG instead of built from the ground up. The three aspect, I'm a bit disappointed I can't figure out how to make it more objective, but I think the RFC results show that we really can't and only warn that articles that over-detail on a work of fiction will tend to be merge/deletion targets. Thus, we could write the bulk of the current proposal from scratch with emphasis on the basis still being the GNG (to satisfy those deletionists) but that we're clarifying that creator commentary is considered secondary, while presuming that if there's some real world information for a fiction element, it is sufficiently notable to have a page (though editorial merging can still take place). --MASEM 15:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No fair saying you approach it from the perspective of the GNG and then rewriting the GNG. It really says (emphasis mine) If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article..."Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject....—Kww(talk) 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kww here, even if the two of us don't agree on what this guideline should read. Regardless of what we write here, the GNG is crystal clear on what sorts of sources allow us to presume notability. Protonk (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I got that wrong. I meant to state this as coming from any other SNG, but noting how close we are to the GNG. In otherwords, we can view FICT as an SNG but with only one specific criteria, "non-trivial coverage in a secondary source", with the same stipulations that the other SNGs have (it's neither sufficient to say they exist without evidence, and all other policies and guidelines hold for article quality). It is just that our criteria is close - but not exactly - what the GNG gives, but that is by design, but so is the case for the other SNGs. --MASEM 16:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• The GNG isn't the issue. I didn't bring this up because of a substantive issue with what is or isn't notable. I brought it up because a lot of opposition is based on this guideline being too complex. (Which is not the same as being too long or badly written.) Dropping the first prong isn't a matter of people disagreeing with the first prong, but a matter of people hating WP:BUREAUCRACY. Three prongs is a lot of red tape. We're not just talking about applying three tests to every article, but offering three different issues to argue about in an AFD. It's going to be a mess. Now imagine throwing a newbie into an AFD, with all the talk about prong this and prong that, and you failed one prong, and you think you met the other prong but you didn't because you're not reading it correctly. There isn't a single other guideline this annoying on Misplaced Pages. If we can find a way to drop the prong without sacrificing quality, we should do it. We'll gain a lot of support just based on improved clarity and usability. Randomran (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think if we had a way to drop the prong in the first place, we would have. Wasn't the whole issue before this was put up for adoption that the guideline only worked when all prongs were met? That's the whole point; if we're dropping a prong, we are changing the guideline completely; there's no simple way around that. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • No doubt, we would be changing it. But not to become more strict OR more inclusive. Rather, to achieve roughly the same balance, with fewer, simpler rules. Randomran (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not call the three prongs "pillars" instead? Then instead of seeing them as something to jab at articles with, they can be seen as something to build them on (c.f. WP:5). Or alternatively refer to "legs" and call it the "tripod test" because it will only stand if all three legs are present and stable.  —SMALLJIM  23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A tripod may have greater stability than some other structures, but I find that I am able to stand just fine on my two legs. While it's good brainstorming, I'd like to avoid forced metaphors. -Verdatum (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Abandoning prongs

The more I edit this page, the more I see that this guideline boils down to a handful of long sentences. The most (only?) important point here is that elements of fiction can bypass the GNG if they have secondary sources, thereby letting them have an article. Everything else in this proposal is just an extension of this or repetition from other guidelines. There is an easier way to say this than a test.

If I was to be so bold, I would condense the third prong into the Sources and Notability section, then blend the last paragraph o the intro with the first two prongs and the Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria section. This would probably leave it at about half the length, but it would cease to make this guideline a checklist and make it more of a guiding light. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When the test has three parts (really four parts, since we add other stuff about independent sourcing later int he guideline), you kind of appreciate a checklist format. But I think we should try to get the test down to two parts. When it's that short, you *can* afford to make it into prose, rather than a checklist. Randomran (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a rather dramatic refashioning for what is, all told, a relative minority of objections. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely critical that the work itself have extensive third-party sourcing. Please don't minimize the importance of that. I am somewhat surprised that people believe three tests makes the guideline hideously complex.—Kww(talk) 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble taking the complaint seriously, honestly. Nobody seems to be able to explain what it is that's so confusing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe, that I made myself clear. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned a few things in my feedback comment. Whitehorse1 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not yet certain that we have enough support to call what we have a consensus. These are minority opinions we might be able to appease without losing the overall inclusion/deletion balance. Three separate tests is confusing to understand... and even once people understand them, they're tedious to apply. We're talking about something that has to make for a reasonable AFD discussion. There's a whole group of opposition who simply doesn't want people wikilawyering over three separate factors... plus Wikilawyering over some of the other nuggets tucked in here, like "merging when there aren't independent sources". Randomran (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that there isn't another one-factor test: WP:N has the best one, and that is exactly what people are trying to expand on. Prong one is critical before allowing any expansion into gray areas of notability, or people will try to expand every obscure one-shot anime under the sun. Without the second prong, we'll have articles on the "third guard from the right" in Antigone. Without the third prong, we'll get articles that consist of nothing but plot summary.
• If we really want to short the thing, change the first sentence of the third prong to Significant real-world information must exist on the element, at least some of which must be derived from sources independent of the creators of the work. Then the whole remainder of the guideline which serves to explain things can be scrapped. The more I look at it, I see three simple tests with a complicated explanation, not a complex test.—Kww(talk) 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think you're onto the right track. We can't get down to one prong -- that's WP:N. But if we're going to drop a prong, we need to build in some strength somewhere else. We've already created a de facto fourth prong, by saying "independent sourcing is necessary". Since we already have that, why do we really need the first prong? That will prevent people form expanding every obscure one-shot anime, unless they've truly made an impact enough to attract independent notice. Randomran (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• But how does that simplify anything? Just because you knock three to two doesn't mean the force of the first prong has been lost, according to your plan—so it's no less confusing, and has the possibility to be more. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The force is still there, but the prong is not. We've simplified it. We've removed an item from the checklist. Take a look at the RFC. Look at how many of the oppose !votes come from people who, in good faith, think that three prongs plus explanations are tedious, bureaucratic, and wikilawyer-ish. Who dread the very idea of turning fiction AFDs into a three dimensional battleground. If we can win their support without changing the force of the guideline, then we should do it. We do that by simplification. Randomran (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I do not think the language regarding independent sources amounts to anything like a de facto fourth prong. The three prongs are things that there must be affirmative evidence of in order for an article to exist at all. Independent sources, ultimately, there has to be evidence against - i.e. an active, real search for them that fails. That's a key difference. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's in the guideline, and thus it becomes a factor in peoples' arguments about whether there should be a stand-alone article. We have 3 prongs plus, whether we like it or not. If we didn't, then I could remove that part about the independent sourcing and still garner the same support. But you know that's not true. It means something. It counts. Randomran (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. It counts. So does the language about preserving content, article potential, and all the other stuff that isn't a prong. It's still not a prong. I mean, that was the compromise, in a nutshell - independence went in, but simple lack of independent sourcing was not a reason for deletion. The whole compromise was that it wasn't a prong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent)There isn't really an end to this reductionism. If we drop the first prong, we have only the second (importance to the work) and the third (secondary sourcing that denotes a real world connection). At that point we may drop the second as "fuzzy" or "editor determined" (both defensible positions that I don't happen to agree with). Then we have the third prong which merely requires secondary sourcing (not independent sourcing) and some rw connection. At that point we lose everyone left of Kww unless we reword the third prong to be the GNG. then why didn't we just have the GNG in the first place. So I'm against this. three is fine. there is some symbolic stability in threes. The first prong lets us know that some preponderance of independent sources have discussed the work in detail--this means that they are likely to have discussed an important element of the work at least in passing. the second prong supports the first but also supports the foundations of this guideline:that we don't delete major characters but we may delete or merge minor characters. the third prong requires that we have verifiable evidence of some RW connection from secondary sourcing--it doesn't mandate independent sourcing but does provide a strong hedge against editors hoping to bluff their way around the first prong. All three together provide a cogent exception to the GNG. Separated and turned into bullet points or condensed into single paragraphs they are just a word salad. Please, please consider this when attempting to mollify some of the critics of this proposal. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well how do we gain a consensus without mollifying some of the critics? Randomran (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that we mollify none of them. But I am saying that dumping the first prong isn't the solution, as it messes up the rest of the guideline. Each of these requirements rest on each other in important ways. If the guideline is going to look anything like it does today, then that is the form it has to take. If it isn't going to, then we should think strongly about going back to the major/minor list/main/spinout older form of the guideline. That has the disadvantage of being arbitrary and too generous to relatively nn works, but it was simpler to apply. We are at a (*sigh*...hate that phrase) tipping point here. Up to this point, simplicity was being gained with each reduction, when you kick out one of the three legs, the rest tumble. We don't gain simplicity from that next edit. We lose force and coherence. Any smaller and we need to abandon this form and pick another. I don't think we want to do that just yet. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• :Shrug: I think we're already there. Support has stalled around 60/40, with a lot of opposition based on the tedium of a "three prongs plus details about sourcing" guideline. We have to start simplifying the form, instead of just copyediting and shortening the language. But obvious it depends on how you read the RFC, and how far the RFC still has to go. At what point do we have enough evidence that we can decide whether this guideline has a consensus, and (if not) determine how to modify the guideline to gain a consensus? Randomran (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, so what about instead of abandoning prongs, we change one of the prongs? What about if we get rid of the first prong, and find an alternative criteria? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer abandoning the prong system myself, because I feel it has lost sight of being clear and useful for a guideline. Now's a time to try something new. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Protonk that we loose force and coherence by dumping the prongs. This guideline works best by leading us through the inclusion criteria in stages, in the same way that WP:GNG is broken down 5 or more important definitions (and lots of footnotes) to explain how it works. The fact that Phil Sandifer and Masem have boiled down the inclusion criteria to three prongs, each one of which builds on the other, is a stroke of genius in my view. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Simpler Instructions

My pass at preserving the language of the prongs while simplifying the instructions is at User:Kww/fict.—Kww(talk) 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Shorter != simpler. Randomran (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between the third prong and the Sources section?

Is it just me, or do I not see one? In a bit of a round about way, they're both talking about the need for at least some secondary sources. I don't see why they can't be drawn together. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

more feedback

on RFC Notability guideline for fiction here as edited by Phil Sandifer at 20:26, 29 January 2009.

Perhaps due to over-ambitious goals, the end result comes across a confused and twisted mess — its provisions unnecessary, given how much it rehashes & repeats existing well-established guidelines/policies.

The proposed guideline is for deciding notable (or, worthiness for inclusion as The Economist clarifies) if they meet a three-pronged test. Its bullet points such as the 'Importance of the fictional work', 'Role within the fictional work' are hard to follow; or "For fictional subjects, terms such as reliability and independence have specialized meanings" (huh?). It is filled with subjective and vague wording like "should be significant" or "an encyclopedic understanding".

The proposal is composed of redundancy after redundancy: "Some care, however, must be taken to ensure that the distribution of fictional articles avoids corporate promotion and adheres to a neutral point of view." By core Policy all Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. "Original research and original analysis of primary sources should be avoided.". Already disallowed sitewide as a core Policy. More unnecessary instruction dissuades "trivial detail or information about the plot", when trivia sections in any article are already discouraged, in favor of incorporating pertinent parts into the article body; and, by policy mere plot summaries are too. "This test does not supersede Misplaced Pages's content and inclusion policies such as those on verifiability and what Misplaced Pages is not." It can't.

Narrow statements like "may be decided by consensus to be better covered in the article on the work of fiction itself instead of a separate article if there is limited information available." ignore merits of summary style spinouts and sub-articles, which organize content for readers, improving readability and navigation.

Evaluating "element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work… other essential elements…" brings to mind for series's without plot arcs this means losing all episode articles. For example, the Doctor Who episode-set Horror of Fang Rock, which was set in a lighthouse. There's probably sufficient material for a decent real-world perspective article. Is the episode-set central to understanding the fictional work i.e. Doctor Who? Definitely No Way. It could only be so if in every subsequent episode the main characters talked about "that time in the lighthouse". Unintended favoring of plot arc-based shows skews inclusion.

We have Featured articles which "represen the best that Misplaced Pages has to offer showcas the polished result of the collaborative efforts that drive Misplaced Pages". An example is Beyond Fantasy Fiction, which explains it was a "fantasy fiction magazine", "lasting less than two years" "ten issues", and "not commercially successful"; its talk page announces it "appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 1, 2009". The community chose to spotlight it online, for the world to see. Arguably, it's conceivable it could not meet the first prong. Taking a media example from further down the page, 200_(Stargate_SG-1) it's conceivable it could well not meet the "central to understanding the work" or "essential element" of the work requirement of the second prong.

A sea of distinctly unusual claims or statements include determine "whether a source meets our guideline on reliable sources through consensus ... at specific WikiProjects." It suggests individual wikiprojects be held up to overrule established practice and policy…this tends not to hold water at an articles for deletion debate. The demand works of fiction be, of "particular cultural or historical significance" is arguably set too high. It continues, saying survival depends on sources with 'clear claims' of "artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work". You even state what you want the authors of sources to say!

Some issues are probably fixable through copyediting - "about fictional subjects"; "—issues that are less likely to crop up" (I wondered if this was meant to mean more likely at first). Other issues with the proposal are deep-rooted.

Even the proposal fails to decide on acceptable sources. eveloper commentary is not "independent", nor is red blue; it mandates "non-promotional sources". Material produced or otherwise contributed to by "content creators" are, excepting rare disowning - years later - of early work, by nature promoting the work. Any press pack, for example, may offer production and development information; yet, is regardless promotional. Scholarly journal coverage of popular culture is another issue, of course.

Its description persistently unsourced/unsourceable articles that “resist” (??) improvements are often merged into others—as against deletion—seems questionable. To decipher the point being made, if indeed there is one, is no easy task. The answer lies in the first line of the proposal: "proposed guideline that defines the inclusion criteria for elements of fiction" — i.e., as opposed to criteria for removal (deletion by any other name) for articles that would stay under "existing thresholds" referred to by this sentence in the proposal.

Substantially the proposal, which announces itself as a fiction guideline, is about film and especially television; other mediums too. Discussing the worthiness for inclusion of detailed coverage of popular culture encounters different views. Certainly, popular culture including fictional articles are among Misplaced Pages:Most visited articles, so are desirable by those who consulted Misplaced Pages. That's completely different to any editor whimpers of their 'like' for them. Undoubtedly other niche and specialized topics aren't swamped or lost if fiction and its elements form part of the encyclopedia, thanks to things like categories and search engines. A past discussion referred to above mentioned Category:Episode redirects to lists - the first subcategory there reads "following 200 pages are in this category, out of 1,796 total.". Different perspectives continue to be discussed, and probably will for some time. –Whitehorse1 10:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Certainly, popular culture including fictional articles are among Misplaced Pages:Most visited articles, so are desirable by those who consulted Misplaced Pages." Yes, they are amongst the most popular, together with articles relating to news items and articles related to sexuality and porn. However, Misplaced Pages is not a news site, and Misplaced Pages is not a porn site. We should not adapt our policies and guidelines wrt what is popular, but wrt to what is and is not fit to be included in an online encyclopedia. Opinions on this will always vary, but should not be influenced by what is the most or least visited. Fram (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, broadly. Articles relating to, for example, sexuality and porn merit encyclopedic coverage — be they coverage of pre-20thC erotic poetry or RS analyses on the adult movie industry; yet the aim should always be not to titillate, but to inform. Likewise while we don't need an article on every news story, longer-term stories with rs-demonstrable long-term wider impact may belong. Our inclusion policies should not restrict 'highbrow' or 'lowbrow' culture nor encourage it, by default. Our goal should instead be placing things in context, considering not just works in themselves but their vintage - impacting likelihood of academic journals coverage - and avoiding judgements on their intrinsic value based on their popularity, prestige or lack thereof. –Whitehorse1 12:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The articles that we want and the articles that we get do not match up in any logical sense. I'll pick on "Dodds" (forget the first half of the user name), who noted that he writes articles based on the secondary sources. When he writes an article about a fictional character, he goes and looks in a book or looks online or in the library. That's admirable. I do the same thing. I write articles working from secondary sources almost exclusively. But saying it is admirable doesn't mean that most people do that. Most of our articles are written from memory, summary of plot, or summary of recent news articles. When people write about Comic book character XYZ they don't look in Alphabetical Anthology of Comic Book Characters. They look in the comic featuring the character. Most of us, the editors, the janitors, the handimen/women, don't do that. We look for sources, create structure and follow rules. We attempt to walk down this wild hose of open editing without shutting off the flow. Websites that try to shut the flow off become a complete joke. they become little fiefdoms where the owners can be princes of all they can see, but where no one bothers to go. So we've got to work on a compromise. We have to have some inclusion criteria. That ship has sailed. We have decided, for good or ill, to have some inclusion criteria based on "notability". We try here to generate some criteria that would make sense given the kinds of articles that we get and the core content policies we want to enforce. I understand your point that we shouldn't give the impression that we want "high-brow" or "lowbrow" or "middlebrow" works. We don't. the first prong doesn't demand that. We have written it for specific reasons (see the above sections). those reasons were not immediately apparent when the guideline was presented to the community. they are now (hopefully). Protonk (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's probably true most articles are written like that. It's not unreasonable to begin an article saying what the thing being written about is i.e., using a brief plot summary; of course expansion with production, critical analysis and reception etc., is necessary.

It seems the proposed criteria would artificially determine if an element is includable using arbitrary factors. An unintended consequence. As I suggested in my comment above, the requirement an element be central to understanding the fictional work favors a work dependent on how the writer/producer etc. structured the particular work. Thus, a series without plot arcs could lose all episode articles, while one having an overarching plot would generally warrant their retention. Using the example I gave above, the classic series of Doctor Who for the most part didn't use plot arcs, much less one spanning its entire run. By contrast, the 2005 revived version does. Ditto Stargate SG-1, Buffy, etc. All 3 of those had occasional standalone episodes, but an overarching plot with an eventual full or partial resolution. A majority of episodes from those last 3 would therefore meet that criterion; the vast majority from the classic series example, would not. Whitehorse1 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since my featured articles are being dragged into this, 200 (Stargate SG-1) meets the GNG so its use is completely moot. Same with any element, faction we can think of that meets GNG. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, DWF, I wasn't suggesting your work was sub-par in any respect. Far from it! I simply referred to an article deemed high quality, and which I also knew from past viewing was not key to understanding the work (Stargate SG-1) as a whole. The FA list is ordered alphanumerically. Yours, got picked by virtue of being first. Whitehorse1 11:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, fictional works are sources. News articles are sources. If an editor can summarize a news article, they can summarize a fictional work. So-and-so wrote such-and-such. This is what happened according to this source. When speaking of fiction, this is what happens according to this source. Editors obviously can summarize news articles — that's evident from the "In the news" section on the Main Page. Most editors write plot summaries directly from the fictional work, the primary source. It's acceptable to do that. Look at our featured articles about fictional topics . Note how many citations you see in the Plot sections. It's understood that the fictional work is the source.

I could write an article about Maria Bolkonskaya — completely sourced to Wikisource — that would be verifiable, contain no unpublished opinions or facts, and be written in a neutral way. Those are Misplaced Pages's core content policies. For people wanting to know "Who is Maria Bolkonskaya?", the article would answer their question.

Maybe Misplaced Pages needs inclusion criteria. But does "notability" need to be that inclusion critera? We need to stop and think: What are we trying to keep in? What are we trying to keep out? That's the most important question: What are we trying to keep out? Misplaced Pages is a paperless encyclopedia. It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So people naturally have different opinions about what Misplaced Pages should contain and what should be kept out. That's apparent at AFD. Misplaced Pages can cover more topics than traditional encyclopedias, and it does. A lot more. Which fictional things should be kept out?

Scores of people think the concept of "notability" is broken. Scores of people think Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines are broken. Guidelines that say topics "should be notable" are not a given. This is a wiki. Misplaced Pages:Criteria for inclusion of biographies was created in August 2003. I can understand that. We don't want an article about every person who has ever been born. But the only reason that Misplaced Pages:Criteria for inclusion of biographies was renamed Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) in December 2005 was because an editor named Jiy wanted to create a common naming scheme for several different guidelines. That's the same reason Misplaced Pages:Fiction was renamed Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) in December 2005. I've created a timeline of Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines.

If Misplaced Pages:Notability was written to describe common practice, it should have said that articles are frequently deleted because people say the subject of the article is not notable. That's their opinion. That's common practice. People try and persuade each other that something is worthy of notice by providing evidence of notability. That's common practice. "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is considered evidence of notability by a large number of editors. But that is not the only evidence of notability. Debates over "notability" have become a sideshow to the real debate: Should this subject have an entry on Misplaced Pages or not?

Why should an article about Maria Bolkonskaya be kept out? --Pixelface (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Keeping aside the fact that Maria Bolkonskaya undoubtedly has enough sourcing to meet the GNG in full, we have one problem here. I see PLOT as part of NOT. You don't. I see generation of analytic claims from primary sources as original research (I don't know where you stand on that). Unless we reconcile that, we are just going to talk at each other. Not discuss things. If you believe that an article compliant with the core content policies can be written entirely from a single primary source, then we will never come to agreement.

Likewise, you may be correct about notability guidelines stemming from the project's "need" to deal with weightier stuff. We are closer in agreement to that then you may believe. Misplaced Pages has (and has had for some time) a pretty big inferiority complex about not being the "elder medium" (despite the fact that we are obviously phenomenally successful because we aren't paper). You can see it in the flagged revisions debate. You can see it in the debates about preventing anon-editing, about FAs and GAs and about deletion. Some of the notability guidelines were borne out of that. We figured "I'm tired of people saying, "oh this pokemanz article is longer than this Napoleon article. WTF?", so lets make it so that this is some respectable publication (under the ill conceived preconception that slightly moderating our content and inclusion policies would cause ignorant and belligerent academics to treat wikipedia as something other than a hotbed of vandalism)" Hence, we will only cover biographies if they have won an award. We will only cover music if it is charted. Etc. That's part of it.

The other part is that we face (and have always faced) serious threats from content that we actually don't want (And have never wanted) which works its way onto wikipedia. Promotional content. POV forks. Malformed essays. Etc. That's a big part of the wild hose I mentioned (and a huge proportion of the roughly 30,000-50,000 articles deleted per month). Deleting those with some regularity in a system like ours requires some inclusion criteria. Those criteria are meant to be applied fairly and are (presumably) derived from shared principles.

The last part of the motivation is a partial rebuttal to my first point. The fundamental justification for anonymous and pseudonymous editing is that authority is not derived from the speaker. What I write in articlespace is supported by sourcing with a minimal amount of authorial interference (there are some arguments that this isn't possible, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion). As such, NOR is a critical component of our content policies. It is a companion to V, showing the reader that what they have in front of them isn't bollocks, despite the fact that it might have been written by an unemployed longshoreman in his underwear. So the generation of those analytical claims must be offloaded to sources where the voice is known and vetted. Where does this put us? We can only write PLOT summary from firsthand knowledge. We can't add any claims of real significance apart from summarizing the plot.

Coming back to WP:N. while I can see your point about the specific subject guidelines, I'm having trouble seeing it for the GNG. DGG makes the point (somewhere else on this page) that the GNG was a dodge so that we could eliminate articles which didn't get sources in traditional media in an attempt to stamp out the Pokemanz. I disagree and I think the GNG bears me out. I have yet to see a more clear and factually neutral guideline on wikipedia (save IAR, which is a policy, I know). It is well motivated, clearly laid out, unambiguous where it need be unambiguous and fuzzy where it need be fuzzy ("signficant" and "multiple" are two important points where textual flexibility is key). It privileges no specific editor group, no faction, no format. Unlike the SNGs (including to some extent this one), it doesn't make arbitrary distinctions (as well thought out as they may be), it doesn't have unnecessary prongs (seriously, any editor who thinks this guideline is too complicated is invited to read Misplaced Pages:BIO#Additional_criteria in its entirety). It is beautiful, almost (It has some symmetry to it as well). The only way I could like it more was if it were in iambic pentameter.

So yeah. Some of these guidelines were written because editors wanted to exclude things they didn't understand. But not all of them. And not all of them are constrained by this unfortunate provenance to remain instruments of exclusion and ignorance. They can be views as positive formations of what an encyclopedia is--especially what an encyclopedia of amateur editors is. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I see an example like Maria Bolkonskaya, and someone asks "Why would we want to keep out this obvious example of a high importance character?", I just shake my brain. OF COURSE we don't want to keep those articles out, we want to keep out all the unimportant crap. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Maria Bolkonskaya. But War and Peace is a notable novel, and that character is a major character in that novel (according to the War and Peace article). I don't know how important the character is. But the article for Maria Bolkonskaya could be completely sourced to Wikisource and still meet Misplaced Pages's three core content policies.

What are some examples of "unimportant crap" we want to keep out? --Pixelface (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I went to AfD to find some examples, but I guess since the last ArbCom freeze about episodes and characters, the flow of character articles has slowed. That said, I'm sure you could find a great many in PROD and older AfDs. The problem with these examples of bad articles is that they are usually worked out quickly. It just bugs me when people use something good as an example for something bad to illustrate their point, because it feels like the argument amounts to nothing more than trickery. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That injunction ended months ago. If the flow of character articles up for deletion has slowed, that's probably because since TTN hasn't edited since December 26. Protonk doesn't seem to think Maria Bolkonskaya is an example of something good. What do you personally think are some examples of "unimportant crap" that should be kept out? --Pixelface (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Protonk doesn't seem to think Maria Bolkonskaya is an example of something good." ?? Not sure what you mean. If you mean I don't think it is a good example by which to judge this guideline, you are correct. If you think I don't believe it should have an article you are incorrect. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, heres some examples from some books on my shelf. Some already have a presence on the wiki, others do not. Loial an ogier from Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time series, the Records Department the location where the character Winston works in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Shadowfax, a horse from J.R.R Tolkein's Lord of the Rings series, Harry Bryant the superior officer to Rick Deckard in Philip K Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, and Frankie one of the hyper intelligent mice from Douglas Adam's The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. These are examples of characters/settings that I do not feel should have standalone articles. It is worth noting that Shadowfax has what I would consider a perfectly adequate compromise. I hope most articles go that route. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that character article, my intitial thoughts are, "How many sources exist on the character? Are there enough to justify a separate article, or could the character be sufficiently covered in the War & Peace article or an overall character page?". Even if the character is pivotal to the story and you can get a number of fantastic sources together on the character, you might still only have enough for a stub, or the information you insert could be redundant to what's in the War & Peace article. That's the sort of thing these guidelines should be helping us determine. The question is: do they or don't they help us address these questions? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are Leo Tolstoy, and Louise and Aylmer Maude unacceptable sources? My initial thoughts are "Is War and Peace a notable fictional work?" Wikisource says "War and Peace is generally thought to be one of the greatest novels ever written." So I guess that's a yes. And then I think "Is Maria Bolkonskaya a major character in that work?" The War and Peace article seems to indicate so. That novel has 580 characters in it. What's wrong with a stub for a major character? Not all articles are going to appear on the Main Page. All character articles are going to repeat at least some information from the fictional work aricle. That doesn't matter. If a reader wants to know "Who is Maria Bolkonskaya?", if someone looks up Maria Bolkonskaya in an encyclopedia, if someone looks up Maria Bokonskaya on a search engine, why should there not be a separate article on Misplaced Pages for that character? --Pixelface (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

personal summary of the issue

1. Some of us are primarily concerned that there be full information on fictional topics
2. Some of us are primarily concerned with getting rid of the excessive number of over-specific unencyclopedic low quaiity articles on fiction

These tow concerns are compatible. This compromise provides for this s follows

1. Those concerned with full information accept that not all of it will be in separate articles but some in combination articles
2. Those concerned with quality accept that detailed content will still be present, but not in separate articles

Who might rationally oppose this?

1. Those who doubt that the combination articles will be able to keep sufficient information
2. Those who fear the combination articles will have excessive inappropriate information

This discussion can then be postponed until we deal with the content of such articles, which the present compromise does not address.
So who would still oppose?

1. Those so dedicated to childish writing on fiction that they want to keep the individual articles to indulge themselves in
2. Those who want decreased Misplaced Pages coverage of fiction, in all sorts of articles
3. Those on both sides who distrust each others good will -- which may not be exclusive of the other two groups.

What will be the alternative if we reject it?

1. The various sides will continue to fight at individual AfDs and talk pages
2. This will take time that is urgently needed to improve articles
3. The arguments will basically cover the same ground as the above: the actual need for secondary sourcing and the applicability of the GNG and of NOT PLOT
4. The decisions will be erratic--essentially random--and continually challenged
5. The newcomers interested in the subject will either get good stuff rejected or low quality material kept, and will get no consistent advice on how to do this topic right. They will get annoyed, and we will be back here a year from now.

DGG (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your summary is very misleading. I believe that what you mean by "full information on fictional topics" is actually prohibited by WP:NOT#PLOT, i.e. plot summary that on is its own offers no encyclopedic content. What you are proposing is that in universe plot summaries about non-notable fictional topics should be dumped into "combination articles", but this proposal has been tried before and was rejected under the name of "Aggregate articles". The bottom line is that such articles/lists fail WP:V, WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT, and providing an exemption for them in this guideline will not work. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's going to be a certain level of plot summary on Misplaced Pages. It's just necessary to be complete. (And if you suspect that I'm an inclusionist, I invite you to review my edit history.) Once we agree that an article or article series can have too much detail or too little detail, the rest is just editing and negotition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A concise plot summary is necessary to give a full understanding of a work of fiction, together with an explanation of the work's relevance. What I object to is articles that consist entirely or primarily of plot summary. This is particularly true of many character articles which start out by saying "Captain Craptastic is a fictional character in the Blahblah universe" and then just regurgitating the plot of the Blahblah universe from the Captain's point of view. Such articles are useless and redundant. And they actively mislead the reader because such excessive and repetitive coverage might lead them to think the Blahblah universe and the characters in it are more important than they actually are. Reyk _YO! 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Drawing upon this response, personally I've found the main problem with a lot of fiction articles on Misplaced Pages to be that a lot of people working on them just don't know how to write articles. There are people who will pick it up eithe ron their own or by receiving help, but if they generally just hang around the fiction articles and never check out a chemistry or music FA, or even subject-specific manuals of style, they can go a long time without learning the basics and not knowing that simply recounting the plot of Captain Craptastic issues 1 through 267 isn't good writing. There are some great fiction-based articles on Misplaced Pages, such as Jack Sparrow, Jurassic Park, Mary: A Fiction, and Watchmen (full disclosure: I completely rewrote this during a Featured Article Review in October). But the bad vastly outweighs the good, and this is why. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's part of it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who cringes a little on seeing a breathlessly enthusiastic, sourceless and unpunctuated wall of text where an article should be, but there's nothing wrong with a bad article on a worthy subject- nothing that can't eventually be fixed anyway. But there's a difference between that and an article on some obscure fictional character or thing that consists entirely of plot summary, speculation and editorialising because there's just nothing else to say about it. It's like "OMG OMG OMG Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article on my favourite character yet!!1!1!one! I'd better write one immediately. Oh crap, I can't think of anything to say. I know, I'll just regurgitate the plot of the series. Woot!" Reyk _YO! 07:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually these lists do frequently pass WP:V and as we have seen on its talk page, notability is interepreted subjectively, and PLOT has been disputed for quite some time. Best, --A Nobody 19:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm kind of alone in my opposition, but I oppose because I see this imposing an incomplete structure on fictional articles which doesn't adhere to any sort of overriding logic. This implied organization is barely preferable to and scarcely more productive than the current chaos. There's a fair bit of opposition because people want to radically change things to be more exclusive or more inclusive; I agree with that, not in either extreme, but in that the scheme implemented here will only require more cleanup down the line.

I think we were onto something with the oooooooold "transcending the work of fiction" standard, and I think something that worked more with that and less with counting footnotes would be a better way to go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Usability and focus

The thing I want everyone to consider throughout the discussion is that--hatever are ultimately determined to be the final guidelines for this subject--they need to take into account usability. Guidelines work best when they are tools, and not just rules. Compare this proposal to other notability guidelines and ask yourself: are people having trouble understanding this? Does this help users write an article? Does this help users determine what kind of sources are acceptable? This is why examples are handy: it gives readers a nice frame of reference.

Another thing: there's some unnecessary focus going on in determining notability of, say, episodes of TV shows. Leave that to the TV notability guidelines. Why? Because television is a medium, and not all television shows feature fictional stories. That seems to have been forgotten. Ask yourselves: what aspects of notability do we need to address that aren't addressed by other guidelines? Remember that the focus is "fiction", and not necessarily "television", "books", "film", or "comics". WesleyDodds (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We should be trying to normalize all of our notability guidelines, not further fracturing of them. Having different guidelines for TV episode notability from other elements of fiction may cause the two to develop in different directions and leave one "weaker" than the other. Now, the case in point about TV shows not all being fiction is true, but I have yet to see any non-fiction TV show expanded significantly beyond a show summary and possibly season wrapups (ala most reality TV shows). So there's no need to provide advice when they seem to be ok already. --MASEM 06:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already notability guidelines for books and films; there's no going back there. Considering that, what should this guideline address that those can't? This is a practical question. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Television episodes are elements of a fiction, because they don't standalone outside of the series they are part of, from the perspective of their narrative, nor their actual production and distribution. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Television episodes are ultimately productions; they are copyrighted and catalogued by the companies that make them. The stories they tell are elements of fiction. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

They do have a point episodes of Nova are not considered fiction.じんない 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some merit to this comment. The scope of the guideline is not intuitive. It's called "notability (fiction)", but applies to elements of fiction and not the work itself. Then an episode is not a work of fiction, because it's an element of fiction. It's not intuitive at all. Randomran (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

what's next?

The guideline is roughly hovering around 60/40 in terms of its support. The RFC has been tremendously useful in the sense that it's given us valuable feedback to improve the proposal. But at best, the RFC reveals the need for improvement. At worst, it's inconclusive, due to the changing nature of the guideline, and problems with people WP:CANVASSING and votestacking by messaging specific audiences. The watchlist notice is on hold until we reach a new stable version, if not indefinitely.

To some extent, the 40% opposition cancel each other out by bickering between "no exceptions for fiction" and "complete exceptions for fiction". The remaining comments -- somewhere between 10% and 20% -- refer to the guideline as confusing, unclear, and excessively bureaucratic. Of course, several people who have been intimate with this proposal over the past few months are unable to imagine a clearer guideline. But if you are able to take a step back, you can see that this is far from the simplicity of "no original research" or "neutral point of view". Each of Misplaced Pages's core policies is a single intuitive principle, which is then clarified and expanded with some nuance. This guideline may be fair, but it's a mishmash that is difficult to read, apply, and discuss.

There's nothing intuitive about this guideline. It starts by calling itself "notability (fiction)", but then it says "this guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole". In the same breath, it wiggles around by saying that episodes and comic book storylines aren't categorized as "works of fiction", but that they're elements of a fictional work. Ugh. You're not going to appeal to anybody's intuition with logic like that. The guideline then goes on to offer three separate principles, all of which much be applied at AFD, all of which must be debated as we discuss words like "significant" (prong three), "exceeds" (prong one), or "central" (prong two). Then, if the casual reader couldn't be any more frustrated, the guideline adds a de facto fourth prong buried in the "independence" section by making independent sources a necessity, but in the most wishy-washy unclear language imaginable, even marrying notability with "good article status" somehow. And then the folks try to resolve this convoluted mess by shortening and expanding these explanations.

Alright, so no changing the balance, and no changing the structure. How do we build a consensus? Randomran (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with a rename to clear up the awkwardness of the start. Notability (Elements of fiction). That and the considerable tightening we've done, I think, comes out to the right level of reaction for the volume of opposition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the rename and intro. copyedit. I also suspect that tuning prong 1 might alleviate some angst -- the "exceed"s piece seems, well, excessive to me, and every knows I'm a heartless anti-fiction, fiction-burn-in-hell jackass. In terms of compromise, I think setting (okay, lowering) the bar for prong one to "source material is itself notable" might be amenable. Really, this is starting to look like a hybrid between an fiction-specific rewrite of WP:GNG and WP:WAF. Maybe all this would be a bit simpler if the two were somehow merged into a WikiProjectElementsOfFiction that really combined the two. Or maybe I should go back to paying attention to my newspaper students, and find out why they're all hovering out a workstation in the far corner of the room. Shit... --EEMIV (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think we need both "the work should be very important" *and* "articles without independent sources will get merged". If we drop one and keep the other, we'd still do a good job of containing the cruft. ... that said, I support the rename, and think it could improve things a lot. Randomran (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But the "articles without independent sources get merged" is merely advisory. And, in some sense, it stands in contrast to a two prong test. If our three prong test says: these three prongs mean that an article may be written about the subjects and independent sources may exist (for the reasons I noted a few sections up), then it is not contradictory to say "articles without independent sources get merged in practice", because we are offering something of a presumption of independent sources. One could argue that we need the first prong but not the "independent sources" claim. But I don't think we need to remove either. Also consider that we don't just have opposition to the first prong AND not all that opposition comes from a clear understanding of it. Most of the opposition to the first prong comes either from a flat misreading of it (where they assumed it modified the element, not the work) or from an extension of the "cultural importance" point (where they talked about limiting ourselves to museum pieces). Both of those two objections are dealt with through rewriting the first prong. We make it more clear and more democratic. There is some opposition that says "I understand the limitations of the first prong but it is still not a good idea". Those (IMO) split into two categories. People who think the firs prong will be non-binding and people who think that it will unfairly limit our range of coverage. It is those two camps we need to think about addressing. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my argument about the first prong isn't that people oppose it specifically. Just that we can accomplish the same thing with less. A lot of our opposition comes from people who think this proposal is too bureaucratic, with too many things on the list to check off. We can afford to drop a prong. Again, if we're telling people to merge stuff without independent sources, then don't we have a way to reign in stuff that would fail the first prong? On a whole other note, how do you feel about the rename? Randomran (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well. I think there are rebuttals to "too bureaucratic" that don't involve changing the guideline. I mean (I know I mentioned this in a response to Pixel above, but bear with me), look at Misplaced Pages:Notability (people). That is a hell of a lot more intricate and byzantine than this guideline. Look at Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies) or Misplaced Pages:Notability (web) (which is much shorter). I know WP:WAX applies, but really, how bureaucratic is this guideline? How many people would say it is too bureaucratic looking at the current revision? How many would have said it was bureaucratic if there weren't 2-3 people above them in the poll saying so? How many were saying it just because they couldn't be bothered to read it (I would discount anyone who says "too bureaucratic" and "the first prong means that you are making this worse than the GNG" in the same sentence). I can assume good faith and say that people said what they meant and understood it...but only up to a point. where we are talking about using this as feedback to change (IMO, and I know there are disagreements) the scope and nature of the guideline, we better be sure that it is good feedback. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the copy-editing has made a difference, but I'm not confident that it has. I think you're focusing too much on readability. Yes, the notability (people) guideline is long, with a lot of clauses. But in application, it's simple: if you meet any one of those criteria, you're notable. This one is much more onerous: we have to apply three different prongs to an article to make sure an article meets all of them. It's like three guidelines in one. And the application won't always be obvious: people will argue about whether the original work is important enough to deserve expanded coverage, or whether the real world coverage is significant enough, or if the character/episode is central enough. That's a lot of arguing. And even then, we still use a litmus test of third-party sources as a reason for merging. Again, usability is even more important than readability. Randomran (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of those guidelines are merely longer. But in some senses we seem to have an inherent predilection for guidelines with multiple possible routes to notability (rather than three which much be satisfied in tandem). so people would be ok if we said: here are your three criteria, meet one and you are good but are somehow flummoxed by the instruction: meet all three. I don't see how it is so hard. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Meet all three" isn't harder to read than "meet one of the three". But it *is* harder to apply. It turns any AFD debate from a one dimensional discussion (does this meet the test) into a three dimensional discussion (does this meet the three tests, plus the other little nuggets tucked in the section on independent sources). I'm what you might call a "veteran editor" and I'm foreseeing this as a huge pain to explain and debate. Now imagine a new user who creates their first fiction article. Randomran (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

People seem to think WP:GNG is clear enough and it 5 point, not 3, that must be satisfied. And there are also "other little nuggets" in every guideline as well.じんない 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, WP:N is really just one prong with a lot of explanation, like most other guidelines and policies. If we were to look at these three prongs and get into words like "significant real-world coverage", "reliable", "significant artistic impact", "central to understanding"... we might be talking about a dozen points, all of which have to be satisfied. Randomran (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that all AFDs should be multidimensional, and people get lazy. Did the single chart? Yes? People are still supposed to examine whether there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article ...... articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. We get the argument on music articles as to whether WP:NSONGS acts as an exclusion filter, or whether an article that satisfies WP:N can always be included. Even after that's over, in all cases, editors have to evaluate the sources used in an article and determine whether they are reliable, and whether they actually support the content attributed to them. We are faced with an old problem, and I think we need to take Albert's advice: "Make everything as simple as possible, but make nothing simpler than possible".—Kww(talk) 00:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• You persuaded me that some of our other guidelines are multidimensional, but still I see this guideline as being more complex than most, and more complex than necessary. Again, if we generally agree that there shouldn't be an article on every character in some obscure manga or webcomic, then why do we need both prong #1 *and* a statement that we merge stuff without independent sources? It seems to me that we'd only need one or the other, not both. Can you give me an example of something that would have independent sources, but still fail the first prong? Randomran (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, for things that meet the GNG or transcend their parent work. But we already kind of cop out there (for good reason). Protonk (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• If any article that has independent sources and fails the first prong would probably meet WP:N, then you've shown that the requirement for independent sources and the first prong are completely redundant. Randomran (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think that's it. I don't think there will ever be a case when the first prong won't be satisfied, but the third one will. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• No, we are looking for a much more narrow set of articles: those which don't pass the GNG, but have some independent sourcing and their parent work doesn't pass the first prong. Even then we would have just shown that the first prong isn't strictly the same as the requirement for independent sources. We know that already. It just lets us know that independent sources are more likely to cover the subject in some depth. that's an important distinction. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's a set so narrow that it doesn't exist. If the first prong is there to let us know that independent sources are more likely to cover the subject in some depth, then why do we also need to say that articles without independent sources are merged? Again, the requirement for independent sources makes the first prong completely moot. Randomran (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Because if you meet these three prongs, the independent coverage doesn't have to be a direct and detailed examination present in multiple sources. I have personally set Bulbasaur as my standard for the worst tolerable article ... if it can't be that good, it has to go. As it stands, Bulbasaur fails WP:N miserably ... the independent sources are passing mentions, with the exception of one joke about pesto. It would, however, pass this guideline. I'm sure that you could find such trivial mentions of characters in works that didn't pass the first prong. "Aun Freya", for example, was the meddlesome sister in "Photon: The Idiot Adventures", an anime of such minor import that it doesn't even get a Misplaced Pages article (nice to know that there's a level to which we do not stoop). There's commentary on the DVD, and I'm sure that NewType had an article that you could extract one or two facts about character. Google turns up a few hits on some sites that might be reliable and independent. However, the work doesn't even approach meeting the first prong.—Kww(talk) 02:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm w/ Kww here. If we say "every article that this guideline covers mush have independent sourcing, then we are 1 step from the GNG. If instead we say "here are three prongs that indicate we might want an article and that the subject might be the subject of independent sources--that is good enough for inclusion. If editors determine that independent sources don't exist it will probably get merged". That's fuzzy, sure, but it is closer to where we want to be. And huh...I thought Photon would have an article. :) Protonk (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• We're pretty much already there. What does the independent sourcing requirement in the "independent sourcing" section mean, if not that? Or are we leaving it deliberately vague to avoid pissing people off, only to force people to wikilawyer over it when proposing merges? Randomran (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Randomran, when did elements of fiction become its own subject area? Talk about creating an editorial walled garden - this would be a tiny one. Either we have a notability guideline about fiction as a unified subject area now, or have a notability guideline about elements of fiction which be absorbed into a notability guideline about fiction later. It makes no sense to draft a guidleline that applies only to elements of fiction, when the inclusion criteria apply to both elements and works just as easily. Nothing could be more intuative that have a guideline about fiction as a unified subject area.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well what we have now is a notability guideline for elements of fiction. Have you read the part in the lead that says "this guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole"? Randomran (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• While i agree 100% with the sentiment Gavin (ie if you removed all instances of "element" it could easily been seen to apply to fiction in general), I believe that altering the scope would undermine the entirety of the proposal and any sort of consensus we have now. The biggest problem is that we allow stuff like director commentary for fictional elements here, but not fiction itself.じんない 23:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well...they are a class of articles. They have the rather unique attribute of universal subordination to a notable parent article (with the minor and relatively rare exceptions of character or elements which transcend all parent works equally). This creates a reason why we might want to treat them differently. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm still around and have a pretty clear idea why this guideline is hard to understand (anyone who knows the difference between "if" and "only if" will also be able to help). But I also have thoughts about alternative ideas. I'm most likely too busy until the weekend, and fairly likely too busy until the end of the weekend, but I've kept this on my watchlist and followed many of the issues, so I hope I can make a useful contribution next week. Geometry guy 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you guys are trying so hard to fix this up. Some guidelines are just not meant to be. AfD hero (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the alternative is applying WP:N strictly, with a few editors stonewalling its application by turning AFDs into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Trust me that numerous editors are infuriated that WP:N is applied strictly to fiction to delete articles, and that just as many are infuriated at those people for being infuriated. This is a pretty important issue to settle, and the only way to do that is to come up with a guideline somewhere in the middle of these two camps. Randomran (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

exactly. except that by now its more than a few who think it not useful, at least here. We don't get handed the guidelines by some authority, & then make an encyclopedia to fit. We try to make a reasonable encyclopedia, and devise guidelines that will get us what we want with the minimum conflict. Sometimes minimizing conflict is as important as getting exactly the right thing for every article. DGG (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, you need to look at Geometry guy's comment about "if" and "only if." There's a difference between:

1) If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

and

2) Only if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

You could rewrite the second sentence to say:

2b) A topic is presumed to be notable only if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

But WP:N doesn't say 2 or 2b. And it never should. N is an inclusion guideline. Not an exclusion guideline.

Does Misplaced Pages need a guideline about fictional topics? If so, why? If so, I suggest a survey. --Pixelface (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't WP:GAME WP:N by wikilawyering. There is an entire section on what we do with articles that don't meet the guideline. We haven't had an exception to WP:N for fiction, unlike other subject areas like WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. It's time we did. But I think people like the WP:BATTLEGROUND too much, doing battle one AFD at a time. Randomran (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an important issue of comprehension, not wikilawyering. Geometry guy 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The challenge with notability guidelines is that they have two roles. The first is to say "If the topic meets multiple criteria X, it may be presumed notable enough for inclusion". The second is at least to suggest that "If the topic doesn't even meet multiple criteria Y, it is almost certainly not notable enough for inclusion". There is, and there should be, a gap between X and Y, and the most contested discussions at AfD concern the articles which fall between X, the stricter criteria for presumed notability, and Y, the less strict criteria to avoid a snowball delete.

Fictional elements (and possibly spinouts in general) currently have the problem that the gap between X and Y (at WP:N) is too large, so too many AfDs lie in the hotly contested middle ground. This proposed guideline is an attempt to close that gap based upon consensus, both from experience at AfD (which I would call case law) and agreement among editors of differing viewpoints.

To do that it has to be utterly clear where it is lowering the upper boundary X or raising the lower boundary Y. There cannot be any confusion between a statement that says "If the topic meets these criteria, it is presumed notable for inclusion" and one which says "The topic is only suitable for inclusion if it meets these criteria". ("If" versus "only if".)

However, the proposed guideline jumps between the two perspectives without warning.

• (Intro) "Articles covering elements within a fictional work are generally retained if their coverage meets these three conditions"
• (Second prong) "Other essential elements of the work are appropriate too, but only if their significance is verified in commentary from reliable sources."

The first of these suggests that the three criteria are conditions for presumed notability (X). The second seems to ruling out certain elements as notable (Y).

The first and third prongs are more ambiguous: they both use the word "must". To attempt to combine the forms: "The article is generally retained if the fictional work from which they come must have produced... and significant real-world information must exist". How can something happen generally if a condition must be satisfied?

It is a good exercise to analyse the rest of the guideline from this perspective. Some sentences are clearly prohibiting certain articles, some are accepting them, and others are ambiguous. I'm not surprised that editors find the proposal hard to understand.

There will always be a gap between X and Y: accept that, and try to narrow it. If this is not done with utter clarity, it will be ignored. Geometry guy 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem with notability on WP (not just FICT); it is a mix of "inclusion" and "having an article", and desperately needs to be split, though this requires a lot more work than just fixing WP:N or the sub-notability guidelines. Unfortunately, we have to build FICT on the framework that the "notability" guidelines determine when a topic should be included and described in its own article. There is the issue of topics that should be included but should not have their own articles as to what we do with them, and I think that is going to take a lot of work and is presently beyond what FICT is attempting to do, but is what is hinted by your note on the second prong above. In other words, the conflict you describe is true if notability was simply inclusion, but in reality, with notability being about inclusion and article worthiness, there is no discrepancy. It's nuanced, unfortunately, but in so much as WP's concept of notability is in the first place. --MASEM 23:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a gap in our guidelines. WP:V says articles without reliable third-party sources are deleted. WP:OR says the same thing. WP:N is a logical extension of that, and requires reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject -- just like our policy. WP:FICT is here to create a gap in WP:N, and show where reliable third-party sources aren't strictly required. If there already *is* a gap, it comes from WP:IAR. Our goal is to document that gap, and I think Phil Sandifer has done the best job of anyone yet. That's where this proposal comes from. Randomran (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, I've found many of your comments sensible, but WP:V and WP:OR don't refer anywhere to deleting articles, only removing material, as far as I am aware, so there is no sense in which WP:N is an extension of them. Instead it builds on Pillar One and WP:NOT. Please read my comments more slowly. I can't believe anyone can digest them in 10-15 minutes. Geometry guy 00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got hasty. But WP:V and WP:OR do say that we should not have articles without reliable third-party sources. You're right that it doesn't necessarily mean deletion: it can also mean a redirect or merge. That's consistent with WP:N as well. Randomran (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

An illustrative flowchart

I have no doubt that this proposed guideline is amenable to logical breakdown, so I've tried to create a flowchart based on the text. I've put the GNG test first because if the element of fiction meets that, there's no need to deal with the prongs at all (shouldn't the text clearly reflect that fact?)

I've assumed that the first sentence of the 2nd prong: "The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work" should be read as having a comma after "episode", so that episodes (and, though unstated, comic book storylines) do not have to be central to the understanding of the work, but recurring characters do. This may be a misinterpretation.

This is, of course, just the bare bones of the logic - it's necessary to read the text to understand what the words mean in context. If you disagree with the flowchart, don't shout at me, it's just my interpretation of what the text says and it's probably wrong because I'm pretty stupid. But by correcting it perhaps we can clarify some of the outstanding points.  —SMALLJIM  00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice job and effort! Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is tremendously helpful, and helps to make the three-prong test easier to understand and apply. That said, I think you could afford to merge the middle two boxes with the box to their left: "is the element an episode or recurring character?" That would be simpler, and still basically accurate. Randomran (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think epsiodes should also have to apply the "central to understanding the work" as well. They shouldn't get a "free pass" on that.じんない 01:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I should get a pony. But sadly, we are both doomed by external forces to disappointment. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Heh, well FICT is suppose to be a compromise from what goes in AfD, and those who want to show some improtance, then why do episodes not have to show importance to understanding, but characters do? That's a blatant double-standard of not needing to meet the 2nd prong.じんない 01:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, recurring characters don't either. So individually released chunks of plot and major characters get a pass. Because, well, that seems to be the norm. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not according to that flowchart. That flowchart requires characters be "central to the understanding of the plot", but not episodes.じんない 01:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil/Jinnai -- I think there's a genuine disagreement about whether "central to understanding the work" is itself part of the test, or just a clarification of what already passes the test. You see why people were concerned that this proposal was excessively bureaucratic? Because one person sees a set of words and interprets it one way, and another interprets it another way. It's a wikilawyer's dream, and a newbie's nightmare. Randomran (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I think you have right now episodes in that one only being assessed on the 1st and 3rd prong. I mean any number of Dragonball Z episodes have commentary on them, but almost all of them would fail the 2nd prong if they had to show importance to the work because many of them just have them staring at each other making comments with cuts to an aside story of no significance. Looking at the flowchart as it stands now though, every episode with at least a few commentary reviews by reliable sources would make it in.じんない 01:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment later, but just to emphasis here: there is not a missing comma, and the importance test applies to episodes of a series.—Kww(talk) 02:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is absolutely great. Let's get a cleaned up version in the proposal ASAP. And then, I suspect, we'll have definitely done enough to satisfy the "too complicated" folk and can think seriously about tagging. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I generally like it, although perhaps the first prong's -- is the element part of an important work -- "No" answer should point to a new box off to the far right: "A Misplaced Pages article might not be appropriate". --EEMIV (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A redirect might still be, though. Best, --A Nobody 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a poor idea given that this refers to the first prong - that could be read as us applying the first prong's standards of significantly exceeding the GNG to entire works of fiction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I'm still holding out hope that the first prong might be trimmed to works that merely meet GNG, rather than exceeds. I see your point, though, and agree in light of the current phrasing; NM. --EEMIV (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to be on the safe side and just say "a stand alone article is inappropriate", rather than "include it in the article on the work". We shouldn't be preempting editorial decisions like this. It could be included in a list, or not at all. Let that be determined by consensus. Randomran (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If people are going to interpret the second prong this way, I'm switching over to the oppose camp. 99.999% of television episodes should never have an article. The only way an episode of a television series gets an article is if it is crucial to understanding the series. Episodes don't get a free pass, and there was not a missing comma. Placing a comma there completely changes the scope of the second prong.—Kww(talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange that I am in agreement with Kww here...じんない 02:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A flowchart is a nice idea, but the second outcome "include the article in the work" is effectively a directive to delete and/or merge an article on an element of fiction into the main work. That suggests a standalone article is possible only if the criteria are met, whereas the guideline suggests a standalone article is possible if it meets the criteria. I think the main reason efforts to find consensus for this guideline have so far failed, is that it does not make explicit that there is a gap between criteria for inclusion (if editors see the need) and criteria for necessary exclusion. Geometry guy 21:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We do want to say that a standalone article is possible if and only if the subject meets this or the GNG (Think of the notability guideline as one big OR gate). If an subject doesn't meet this or the GNG (and it is within the remit of this guideline), it doesn't get an article. Whether that means merge/smerge/redirect (which I guess is a particular form of smerge)/delete is up to editors, and we make that explicit. I'm not sure that the guideline suggests otherwise. If it does, let's start to modify it in order to make that more clear. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The resulting issue of Episodes

Are all episodes created equal here? Is an episode of a national, major network, prime time show like "Lost" fundamentally "more important" to a work compared to an episode of a kids cartoon show (like "Spongebob") compared to an episode of a daily soap opera (like "Guiding Light")? Does it matter if its a more dramatic presentation with a series/season-wide plot line or a sit-com with minor long-term plot elements? Does it matter if it is cable verses over-the-air shows? (I don't know, I think we're going to need to figure out this distinction.) --MASEM 03:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• My preferred interpretation of this would probably be rejected by the preponderance of people who we have polled as "too complicated". I think that the format of the show has little if anything to do with the importance of having a standalone episode article. The biggest consideration is the nature of the narrative and the granularity of episodes. The next biggest consideration is the availability of information on those episodes that isn't DIRECTORY and isn't PLOT. The next biggest consideration is the importance of the narrative itself to the show. Obviously if reliable, independent sources treat episodes as individual and in some detail, we may as well(I'm actually surprised that the X-files is lists by season rather than episodes, there is no shortage of sourcing for those episodes). Protonk (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think this is why we had the "central to understanding the work" part. Because some episodes are central (like in a serialized drama), and some aren't (like in series of one-shot cartoons). But "central to understanding the work" is ripe for Wikilawyering and battleground bickering. We could clarify what we mean by central, but then that only makes the guideline more complicated, and alienates support. Randomran (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think you get different answers from the analysis, but the fundamental question is the same: is understanding the key points of that particular episode key to understanding the fundamental meaning of the series? Most comedies, animated or live-action, will have difficulty ever justifying an episode article on basis of importance (although some will make it based on GNG, like the "master of my own domain" episode of Seinfeld). Some episodes of dramas will qualify, most will not. An occasional soap opera might even qualify. I don't think that separate guidelines are necessary based on genre.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So to combine the above comments so far, this is telling me that episodes of a more dramatic show like "Lost" where there is significant plot development each episode are weighted more heavily than less over-arching plot shows such as "House" (yes, even though there's character development throughout), "Scrubs", and the like. That's not to say that these shows can't have episode articles, but if we are considering the weight of all the prongs, this suggests that an episode of a dramatic show can likely live with less real-world info, while those without it should have a bit more to balance it out (more closely meet the GNG, as most Simpsons episodes can do). --MASEM 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • While accurate, I think this is getting absurdly nuanced. Most editors don't have enough direct experience to really say that's an accurate description of our practice. And even then, most editors will see a guideline based on that kind of nuance as excessively bureaucratic. Imagine applying the test to an episode -- after dealing with prong one and prong three, you look at prong two and argue about whether the episode is central or not, based on whether there is enough of an overarching plot, and then if it would need to be offset by more real-world info. That's a recipe for a lot of long tedious arguments. Randomran (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The easiest way to determine if it's notable is basically if it's the pilot, series finale or the general question "If someone missed watching this particular episode, would it impede their understanding of other episodes significantly because of plot development, new characters or other criteria?"じんない 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Meh, I'm inclined to treat this solely as a sourcing question. It's easier to justify the concept of "importance" with characters and other fictional elements (the line between the main characters and the secondary characters is fairly apparent in most cases; conversely, an article on in-universe locations is probably on the unimportant side), but with episodes, you have such a host of interweaving problems (does a new character introduced mean it's important? A major character development? Setting changes? Many series have one of these in every other episode) that I'm pressed merely to make it a sourcing question. The problem then is that we're putting episodes on the same level as non-character fictional elements when they're obviously more important most of the time, which is the perplexing part. I can't think of another way to quantify importance past that though. — sephiroth bcr 08:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That's why a means question like mine would work. If missing the episode does not significantly impair your ability to understand the plot, then it's not an important episode, unless it's the pilot or finale, or meets the GNG on its own. I could find enough reviews on various BLEACH or Naruto episodes to list almost every single one shown in English, but do we want that?じんない 08:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, we do, as it would make us that much more comprehensive of a reference guide and that much more useful for our readers. Sincerely, --A Nobody 08:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Personally I would not, especially for a lot of BLEACH episodes have significant recap in them, sometimes half the episode and the episode may only push the plot forward a bit.じんない 08:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • So long as it is verifiable in reviews and all, I would much rather err on the side of having stuff that is of value to some of our readers, editors, etc. than that a handful don't have interest in. Best, --A Nobody 08:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I disagree. If we are saying that's enough for episodes, then we should just ignore the 2nd prong for everything by that standard, because everything can perhaps be useful to someone, somewhere.じんない 08:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
            • We should cover everything that can be covered in reliable sources. Best, --A Nobody 08:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
              • No, we should not, as that's a violation of WP:NOT. — sephiroth bcr 09:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Which has been disputed for as long as I can remember, but we're saying any ones that can be referenced with reviews, i.e. any one that can have reception sections and thus wouldn't violate the disputed plot are worth keeping. Best, --A Nobody 09:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • (to Jinnai) I still think your question is too subjective, but I guess something is better rather than nothing. As for the Bleach and Naruto episodes, the lack of any production information is the key bar there. None of them are going to hit GA anytime in the near future, so that's the barrier there. I could drag out a pair of reviews for some episodes (although the quality of several of the IGN reviews leave much to be desired in terms of actual reception). — sephiroth bcr 09:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Replying to Sepiroth: I tend to agree that it's primarily a sourcing question, which to my mind means that it should normally be handled by the GNG. The only reason we would be here is if the sources for the episode are essentially missing ... there's DVD commentary, but no independent reviews, no substantial third-party material. If people want to build an article about a TV episode that didn't get reviewed or noticed by third parties, they had better be able to justify that it was a particularly important episode.—Kww(talk) 10:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at the problem, the more I realize that the problem is a lack of precision. We've thrown in language that's vague or contradictory, and now editors are arguing about what they mean. For some people, "central to understanding the work" would make 99.9% of episodes delete-worthy. For others, it's a puff phrase, and we would keep most episodes. This is a recurring issue in the guideline, and a legitimate reason why people oppose it. The guideline is supposed to shrink down arguments and build a consensus. If all it does is create several keyphrases for people to Wikilawyer over, then its purpose has failed. And that can't be fixed with a nice diagram. Randomran (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this takes it the way of the previous FICT, but this might be necessary if the lack of precision here is a problem. First, of course, remember that if an episode can meet the GNG by itself, its not an issue here, so we're talking about episodes that may have potential. This is why I think we almost need to spell out ones that clearly surpass "important to the work", specifically those limited to prime time dramatic series ala "Lost" or "24". Other shows would need strong evidence that a specific episode is notable. I don't like this approach but it does apply precision that we are looking for.

The other way is to recognize no special meaning for any type of episode, and instead make sure that over in WAF, directions are given that for more dramatic shows where plot is developed every turn (which can include "Lost" but may also include things like "Naruto") that season-long descriptions are more appropriate, with episode lists preferred over individual episode articles since it's not the singular episode that is important to the work but the overall plot that is. This doesn't mean individual episodes may still quality (even if it didn't meet the GNG, the Lost episode "The Constant" was highly regarded and noted to well establish a specific character, and thus would quality). --MASEM 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're onto something. In fact, we might be able to deal with it in a few words. We should say "episode from a serialized storyline", or something to that effect. It would let shows like 24 and Lost pass the second prong, while avoiding stand-alone articles for every episode of Saturday Night Live or a simplistic cartoon. In fact, I'm going to make a bold edit and see if it sticks. Randomran (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, for an epoisode to be "central to understanding the work", this prong must be "verified in commentary from reliable sources". I think it is already clear that we can include as many articles about episodes as we like under this criteria, but that does not provide carte blanche to create an article about every single one, nor does it make it necessary to list them either. I have argued elsewhere that Misplaced Pages is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide that plot summary on its own is not encyclopedic, and I don't want to start an allowing every episode of series like 24 and Lost being listed just because WP:ILIKEIT. The bottom line is the inclusion criteria cannot be stretched or exemptions given to prime-time television on the basis that it is popular; there has to evidence that each episode passes WP:FICT on its own merits in order to justify its own article. As regards the issue of listing non-notable characters and episodes, that issue should be dealth with else where (if it has not already). --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• No free passes for any class of episode.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• It sounds to me that both of you disagree with the exception for recurring characters too. You're both saying that "central to understanding the work" is really just "significance verified in reliable sources". I'm going to try a bold edit in the opposite direction, and see if it sticks. Randomran (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The language when this argument started was The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work. This was then later followed with the statement that "notability must be verified". There was no exception to the second prong. I would have opposed any such exceptions from the beginning. We've discussed that recurring characters will have an easier time passing it, but never giving them a free pass.—Kww(talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Again, if that's the case, then we should make this part of the guideline 100% clear. I'm not trying to make a substantive change here. I'm trying to remove ambiguity, so there's no more room for confusion or wikilawyering. If all elements require their significance to be verified, then let's say that flat out, with no bull. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I made a pass at that after Gavin made a change that I thought oversimplified.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Gavin went back to the ambiguous wishy washy wording. I've tried simplifying it both ways now: saying explicitly that certain episodes and characters pass the prong without reliable sources, and now the current version where we say that everything needs reliable sources. If people disagree with both wordings, then we have a problem here, and the critics of this guideline who said that "even the authors don't actually know what this means" would be right. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the latest version: "The significance of the element must be verified in commentary from reliable sources. Notability requires evidence, and bald assertions of significance are insufficient." --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not surprised. Let's see if everyone else agrees. Several editors (including me) have been under the impression that the second prong can be passed without sources, and I'm pretty sure that many have supported this proposal on that basis. But let's see if they can live with this. Randomran (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The requirement for verification has been there for some time. It doesn't require any independent sourcing, however: a DVD commentary or creator blog that says the episode or character is important is more than adequate.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that what this might do is make the second prong extremely strong to the point very few episodes and characters can pass it; "essential"ness is a topic not discussed much by reliable sources, even the creator (though they can be), and even with the presence of real world information, an element that readily meets the third prong may be shot down by a strict interpretation of the second. There needs to be the "obvious" essentialness, which I know begs for many many games to be played, but I think is going to make this at least more appealing than if people have to meet both the real world requirement from the third prong and this new "essentialness" from the second. Unfortunately, I do see problems if we define bright lines for essentialness (akin to my "prime time network drama series") or let editors state this for themselves, but either way, we need to edge on allowing more of these articles as to assume good faith that they can get better. I'm not saying that we can't use the stronger second prong, but I think that significantly alters how this guideline will be perceived. --MASEM 18:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between the original "central" and the current "essential", but I'm not sure "essential" is actually stronger. I'm pretty flexible on the exact word chosen to describe importance. "Crucial" seems stronger yet, and "pivotal" seems synonymous with "central". Any other choices?—Kww(talk) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this version of the second prong works - I think it makes the guideline significantly stricter, which is a poor decision given that the guideline seems more viewed as over-strict than over-lenient.

Whether or not there is a sensible ideological reason for doing so, there is a free pass that is rightly given to episodes and major characters. They form the bulk of the articles in question, and they are accepted. I think there are ideological reasons for this, based on what is generally viewed as central to understanding of fiction in Western culture, but that's neither here nor there. The stricter second prong, which does not give an easy clear to episodes and characters, does not seem to me to reflect community practice, and I think that there are many people who supported the guideline who would balk at it, myself included.

This is a sausage factory of a decision, but it's the right one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we need to have independant sources to claim that a protagonist whom we read/play/watch through their eyes needs independant sourcing to say they are central. At some point WP:COMMON SENSE needs to come into play here.じんない 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just footnote it, and explain that the major characters and episodes/storylines of text with serialized, multi-episode plot arcs are generally cosnidered to be OK. I mean, the issue is that I think there is a presumption of significance for a certain class of articles - basically, major characters and episodes are OK. An article on an episode of The Sopranos that satisfies the third prong isn't going to get deleted because of people saying "unimportant to the overall series." Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that there appears to be an exception for the second prong for episodes from serialized fiction, and recurring characters. But Kww and Gavin Collins are strongly against that. It seems they never believed in such an exception. We need to clarify this, rather than hiding it in footnotes or ambiguous contradictory language. Randomran (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know Gavin never liked it, but it had been a concession he was willing to make. For me, the problem, in the end, is that this guideline has more opposition for strictness than leniency. As such, I don't think we can,in good faith, make it stricter. If the episodes/characters exemption really is a no-go, I think we have to look at scrapping the second prong and accepting that esoteric elements with real-world commentary will survive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

One way to consider this is to consider (remember?) that while all three prongs need to be satisfied to some extent, strong evidence in one of the prongs (likely the third) can balance out weaker metrics for the other prongs. Case in point, for example (even though I would say it's GNG-able) is the Buffy "All Singing All Dancing" episode, which could be completely standalone from the series (there's minimal character development, and doesn't impact the overall Buffy plot) but the fact that it was a completely musical episode attracted a lot of real world attention; another example could be the Babylon 5 episode "Day of the Dead" which was written by Neil Gaiman and included Penn and Teller as notable guest stars, but otherwise the episode impacts little of the overall B5 plot. Alternatively, a "Lost" episode with only a sole review to support the third prong will likely be kept since very few episodes of the series are unimportant to the mythology (well, there was that one with the two lovers and the diamonds that was like "who the heck were they?", but that's the exception, not the rule for Lost). Note that I'm not saying that strong evidence of meeting one or two of the other prongs is sufficient to completely ignore failure to meet a third one; you have to show at least some metric to meet it. --MASEM 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Those episodes do pass the GNG. We are really talking basics, here: if an episode genuinely attracted attention, it will easily pass the GNG. What loosening this prong will do is permit articles on episodes that attracted no outside attention, even if no one can provide a cogent argument that the episode was important. That is basically saying that all television episodes that appeared on a DVD with commentary are notable. This is a fundamental change to the guideline ... we aren't talking something that changes a nuance a little, we are talking providing carte blanche to an entire class of generally bad articles that we have been successfully placing into lists, instead.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(Phil) If it has to go, I believe at least a bare-bones black/white list should replace it. By bare bones I'm saying stuff that almost everyone here has agreed is either almost always worthy (given the other 2 prongs) or never worthy (unless it can meet the GNG).じんない 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The new phrasing says there's an assumption for serialized episodes and major characters. Can that assumption be disproven? Phil/Jinnai? Gavin/Kww? Randomran (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would say it can be, if a convincing case for triviality can be made. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Not a chance. It really disturbs me that people are trying to give episodes a free pass, when they are, as a rule, some of the worst articles around, and most have been stuffed into lists, where they belong. This prong used to allow only characters and episodes, if they were deemed important. Then people lobbied to include other elements if their importance was verifiable, so that was added. Somewhere along the line, people started treating characters and episodes as no longer needing verification because the language was specifically calling out episodes and characters. I think we should go back to the language we had when this argument started, and recognize what that language said: episodes and characters can be included if they are important, and notability must be verifiable. Easy, and it was what I voted for. No free passes for anything ... this is smacking of inherent notability of episodes and fictional characters, and that is completely unacceptable. Nothing is inherently notable. Not episodes, characters, yak-herding villages, named bridges, or any of these things people try to expedite.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• If what you say is true, then the language was never clear. Because I was under the impression that we had an agreement that episodes from serialized works and recurring characters inherently pass the second prong (which is not the same thing as inherently notable, since they also have to pass two other prongs). We can't go back to unclear language. We have to clarify this now. Do all fictional elements need to have their importance verified in reliable sources, or is there some kind of exception/presumption/relaxation for certain kinds of elements? Randomran (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not quite so harsh as Kww, I do believe it is a bit too lose. Reoccurring characters and episodes in a serialized work still need to show they are signifigant to the plot.
  1. For characters the easy test is: Is it a titular character? if so, it probably is. Is it the primary protagonist(s) from whom we either see the story narrated or whom all the action swirls around? Ifso, then yes. Is it a primary antagonist of the story or major arc in a long-running series? then yes. Can others be major characters? Yes, but those aren't so clear cut and need to be handled indivisually.
  2. For episodes it's a bit tricker. First the series should be seralized and then second question to ask. Is it a pilot, season/series finale or season starter? If so, then yes. If not, i'd say it would have to go through a test of "would the average person's knowledge be seriously impared if they missed this episode?". If the answer is yes then it probably is. If the answer is maybe or on certain items, that really depends more on the series. I do not know how we would caudify such a test though.じんない 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm having a hard time seeing what was vague about The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work. That says the element should be an episode or a recurring character, and that the element has be be central to the understanding of the fictional work. It then further says Notability requires evidence, and bald assertions of significance are insufficient. "Notability" was wikilinked to WP:NOBJ. If you ignore the wikilink, it didn't quite require reliable sources stating it was important, but it never gave an inherent pass to anything. How could you read it as claiming anything inherently passed?—Kww(talk) 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Because you can verify that a character is recurring, and you can verify that an episode has an impact on the storyline of the work as a whole. The standard there was intended to be low. At least, that's what was intended when people were working on this section. Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed that you've pushed to add the requirement for independent sourcing, pushed to remove these exceptions, and still won't so much as budge on the first prong. It's like you want four prongs of WP:N. With a guideline like that, I won't be surprised if it's rejected, and we're back to the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Randomran (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't removed a thing. I'll happily put the version back that was there when this argument started. That language did not make any exceptions for episodes. It did not make any exceptions for recurring characters. I'm sorry if you thought it did, but it didn't. Please don't criticize me for agreeing to go along with what the words meant. These three prongs are a major concession, and, completely intact, this guideline is significantly looser than WP:N. There is no reason to go looser, and certainly making a change that completely changes the impact of this guideline and permits articles on all episodes and characters without regard to importance isn't reasonable.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not criticizing you, let alone for changes you made. I'm pointing out your refusal to make anything but trivial concessions to inclusionists, and that it will likely obstruct this proposal becoming an actual guideline. Call it a prediction. Randomran (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorsing this guideline as written, and leading the charge as a well-known exclusionist fighting for approval of the guideline, were far from trivial concessions. Neither eliminating the second prong for the two most common classes of sub-notable fictional articles nor undermining the first prong for all classes of articles are reasonable concessions for inclusionists to request.—Kww(talk) 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Hey now. Let's not get into sniping back and forth. Honestly, we aren't going to get most of the inclusionist on that list to switch to support unless FICT reads "We are abolishing notability". I'm glad that we got DGG to come over. I'm saddened, though not really surprised that A Nobody didn't ome over. But most of them aren't at the margin. We aren't going to win them over with "one more" concession. We might be better served by ensuring the guideline is as clear as possible, count heads, ask prior "opposers" based on clarity/mistakes/etc. to review the guideline and make some summary of this RfC. Protonk (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am keeping an open-mind; however, I can't bold face a support when the page is edited daily. Seemingly slight changes of wording can be interpreted in unfavorable manners and it's probably best to hold off any final stance if/until we have something finalized, but I oppose for now in that I don't want a support above that applies to who knows which version. The page has been edited over 100 times since the RfC started; it's hard to get behind something that is still in flux. Best, --A Nobody 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• You've opposed it above, citing the word significant, your concerns about "notability" and the fact that supporters use the word "cruft". That's what I was referring to. If you're on the fence and I have misread that then I'm sorry. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I do oppose those things, but don't believe my opinion is final and we're not really on a final version yet (look at how many discussions on this page today alone!). I thus strongly recommend us holding off or not continuing the RfC while it is still being worked on, because the list of supports and opposes above refer to many versions of the page, so who knows what people who commented initially think now. And after all, we don't have a deadline, so it's not as if we're in some kind of rush here. Sincerely, --A Nobody 03:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with A Nobody. The guideline isn't finalized, and we're probably going to need to have another kick at the can before we try to get a consensus once again. We're close enough (a majority, but not a consensus) that we shouldn't just start from scratch. But we have to make changes, and we can't rush this. Randomran (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree w/ Kww about the desired outcome, though I think I read the wording the same way Random did. Furthermore, I don't see who we are conceding to. I'm not sure there are very many opposes up there who would be switched around if we did change the wording to make all episodes and recurring characters exempt from prong 2. Protonk (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think a lot of us read it the way I did. Including a lot of people on the inclusionist side. This isn't about personal attacks and sniping. This is about building greater support. When this guideline starting to resemble WP:N more and more, how are we supposed to gain anything more than "majority, but no consensus" for this guideline? Inclusionists are being asked to surrender an exemption for recurring characters and episodes of serialized fiction -- for one prong, not even complete notability. What are deletionists giving up in exchange? I don't see a heck of a lot. Randomran (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• If it's true that your misapprehension was widespread, then we have a problem. The real issue is that no one is asking inclusionists to give up anything they ever actually had, but if enough of them believed they had it, that could cause problems. I'm still surprised that you can read The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work and believe that either episodes or recurring characters bypassed the importance test. For even episodes to get the exemption, it would have had to read 'The element should be an episode, or a recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work, which is a different sentence. My belief is that you got the impression from discussion that there was an exemption, and then never noticed that the words didn't say that. The people that commented during the RFC weren't a part of those discussions, and thus didn't get the same wrong impression.—Kww(talk) 03:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• We are (if I may call myself one) ceding ground in policy. Right now, the only possible guidance in guidelines or policy is the GNG. We can talk about outcomes in AfD and reasonableness, but if I am appealing to the only "rules" that have community consensus, I would only be able to appeal to the GNG. the GNG effectively comprises the deletionist position (with the exception of people who have some sort of problem with content types, they can be ignored as inconsequential). This guideline represents a textual expansion of that position beyond what we have now. We don't have to support it. If this fails we don't go to "there is no notability rule for fiction" we go to "multiple independent sources with significant coverage or it gets nuked". If I wanted to, I could go through the fiction category and nominate stuff for deletion on the basis of it failing the GNG. If I was thorough enough to not nominate something that actually has sources and convincing enough in my nomination language, most of them would probably end up deleted. In supporting this policy, I am saying that I believe such a crusade would be harmful to the encyclopedia and that some more nuanced guideline must exist. but I'm not giving up nothing. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Kww, I'm glad we're clearing this up, because I strongly feel that the only way to build greater support for this guideline is to clarify issues like this. But then I also feel strongly that as we strive for clarity, we have to maintain the inclusion/deletion balance we currently have, or else we're going to *lose* support. In clarifying this prong, we've made it more deletionist -- I know that's not your interpretation, but that's how a lot of people are going to interpret it. (Unless we keep the part about the assumption, even a rebuttable assumption.) We're going to attract *less* support. This guideline is going to fail. Randomran (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Gah. I leave for a few hours, and look at the thread you all make.

I will say, I think it misleading to suggest that we are giving a pass to episode articles outright. We're giving a pass to the second prong, sure. The first and in particular the third prongs are still going to clobber plenty of episode articles, and especially the bad ones. The only issue here is whether we should be discussing importance to the work for episodes of a serialized narrative. And the answer, honestly, is no - most of those are going to pass that prong, if not via clear evidence than by clear mass assent. An article on an episode of The Sopranos or Heroes or some other series with a clear, serialized narrative is not going to be deleted for the unimportance of the episode.

Better to ditch the prong, honestly, than try to make it more stringent. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the test for importance was agreed upon a long time ago, so there is no need to drop this prong. Phil and Masem always wanted an inclusion criteria based on "importance", while Kww wanted evidence that a topic is important to be based on reliable sources from third-party sources so that the basic inclusion criteria of WP:V would be met. The compromise, as I understand it, is that reference to third-party or independent sourcing has been omitted, but we have worded this guideline to say that if a topic passes the three-pronged test then it may qualify for a standalone article, rather than does qualify as would be the case for topics that pass WP:N.
It seems to me that if we drop this prong, then we are back at the point where we have to agree how independent sourcing should be introduced into this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to reemphasise, Phil, I'm not asking it to be more stringent. There never was an exemption for episodes, and I'm opposing any effort to make it less stringent for them.—Kww(talk) 11:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, regardless of how you interpret it, there are going to be people who *do* interpret this as more stringent -- including myself, Phil, and Protonk. We're likely to lose support from inclusionists. Second of all, we already have a requirement for independent sourcing -- we say in the independent sourcing section that articles without independent sources are merged. I really don't see why we need super-notability of the work (prong 1), verification that the element is important (prong 2), *and* a requirement for independent sources. These three requirements collectively shrink the audience for this compromise: it annoys people who don't want to go through a checklist of four requirements, and it annoys inclusionists. We need to *increase* support if we're going to turn this into a guideline. Randomran (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

While I recognize that the old wording was potentially ambiguous, the intent was always that episodes and major characters are assumed to pass the second prong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Any ambiguity is wishful thinking: The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work isn't an ambiguous sentence. If you wish to argue at AFDs that every recurrent character and every episode is important, that is your right, but the guideline never stated that as an assumption. Attempting to make such a sweeping change to the guideline at this stage of the game is inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself and not listening. Your opinion is just one. There are many people who interpreted this as an exception, and now it's gone. The proposal is losing support, and will not become a guideline. The WP:BATTLEGROUND will continue, unless we make changes that *increase* support. Randomran (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I'm not listening ... you aren't replying. Please parse the sentence in a way that creates an exception. Justify your interpretation. Use logic and reasoning about the meaning of the words and the way the sentence is constructed that makes your interpretation plausible.—Kww(talk) 17:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think Kww is right that an exemption cannot be given to episodes and characters - this is an example of an editorial walled garden being built in front of our eyes, and just is not going to work. However, I can see where Phil is coming from - the wording has been ambigous from the outset at the RFC (17:34, 24 January 2009), but I for one did not understand it. Perhaps we need to understand the changes that brought this version about. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not how Misplaced Pages works. It works by consensus, not "truth". And just between Phil, Protonk, and me, you have three highly involved editors telling you that your interpretation isn't the "one true path". (For the sake of parsing, though, the guideline said "it should be an A or a B. X's are okay too, but only if Z." That sounds like A's and B's are treated differently from X's.) It's not about interpretation, it's about consensus. If you insist that the proposal has always reflected your views, that's fine. But that fact won't change that your preferred position on notability isn't supported by a broad base of Wikipedians, and so your proposal won't obtain a consensus. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Accurate parsing is always important to English comprehension. It doesn't say it should be an A or a B (emphasis added). It says The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work, which is "it should be an (A or B) that satisfies X". The absence of a second article eliminates your reading, and the absence of a separating comma reinforces it. Giving an exemption to the importance rule for episodes would read The element should be an episode, or a recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work. Eliminating the rule for episodes and characters would read The element should be an episode or recurring character. Three substantially different sentences, with substantially different meanings.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the two meanings were different. But you're wrong that this debate is about which meaning is right. It only matters what will gain consensus. Randomran (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)