Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El Sandifer (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 28 October 2008 (←Created page with '==Episodes== In general, Misplaced Pages permits articles on episodes of television series. Such articles may consist of a short plot summary, a cast and crew list, and ...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Episodes

In general, Misplaced Pages permits articles on episodes of television series. Such articles may consist of a short plot summary, a cast and crew list, and available information about production or reception. Articles must conform to WP:WAF, and must not contain speculation or interpretation unless it is sourced. Articles that are overwhelmed with speculation, or that have excessively long plot summaries are often deleted.

If it is possible, it is often preferable to cover multiple episodes via a list article instead of having individual articles for each episodes.

Characters

In general, Misplaced Pages permits articles on major characters of fictional works. Such articles may consist of a short fictional biography, and available information about the development of that character or reception of the character. Articles must conform to WP:WAF, and must not contain speculation or interpretation unless it is sourced. Articles that are overwhelmed with speculation, or that have excessively long biographies are often deleted. Articles about fictional characters who are not deemed "major characters" are generally deleted or merged.

If it is possible, it is generally preferable to cover characters either in the main article for the work of fiction or in a list of characters articles. Creating individual character articles should only be done when the alternatives are not feasible.

Other fictional objects

Beyond episodes and characters, little consensus exists to have articles on specific aspects of fictional works absent traditional demonstrations of notability.

Source text I'm culling

(Going left for sanity) Well, and this is part of why I lean towards a size-based approach - because I think this gets into tremendously hairy territory very quickly. So let me break this into two parts. First is what I think a viable sense of the overall principle is, second is what I think provides some indicators of notability.

In terms of the general principle, looking at the RFC, and looking at AfD, I think there is some sense in which we consider sub-topics and main topics as a gestalt in looking at coverage. We do not allow unrestricted growth of subtopics, but on the other hand, we implicitly recognize that there are some kinds of forking that we do (and others that we definitely don't). This is not a well-defined point of policy, and I don't think this is the time to try to define it, but I do think that our coverage of a work of fiction is taken both as a set of individual articles and as a whole. The goal, then, is to have appropriate coverage of plot, characters, and production within that whole. Now, of course, the magic word there is "appropriate," and we have some genuine disputes on what that means, but we also all (even the most inclusionist of us - and I'm not talking about me) have a sense that restraint is key here, and that less is more. WP:WAF is, I think, a good guideline, and I think we all like it and wish it were better followed.

So what necessitates more coverage? Two things, I think. The first is popularity of the show - fundamentally, we are going to cover Law & Order more than we cover Century City, and with good reason. The second is narrative complexity. Fundamentally, The Sopranos and The Wire are going to require more than Barney and Friends. (This second point, incidentally, is why I think children's shows and video games get the short end of the stick - lack of narrative complexity.) So as popularity and narrative complexity increase, so do articles. And I think that this tendency - and note, I'm marking a tendency here, not a rule - is borne out on AfD.

That said, second issue - indicators. The existence of published literature on the series is a big one, but we have to note that notability and fan devotion are not equivalent. So what else? Reviews - both in online sources and newspaper sources - are a good indicator. (I'm surprised that Television Without Pity hasn't come up, actually - their recaps/reviews are wholly valid sources - they're a notable outlet. I'm not sure they're a reliable source for factual claims, being self-published, but their views are worth reporting, and go a long way towards justifying articles on hundreds of episodes.) But the caution here is presentism - we don't want to declare that episode articles are more OK for Everwood than for I Love Lucy just by virtue of the fact that Everwood is more recent and has Internet coverage.

Another indicator should probably be DVD release. Both because it often gives us episode commentaries - which is a major source of production information - and because it's a sign of cultural significance that is less dependent on the obsessiveness of fans. I'm certainly not going to say that any TV series that is out on DVD gets episode articles (nor that a series that is not out on DVD can't have them), but it is an indicator. Length of run is also an indicator - more in the negative sense than the positive sense (a quickly cancelled show is almost always less significant - though a few (Firefly (TV series)) are not).

I also think that a softening of "independent" will help a lot. I think that DVD commentaries, interviews with cast and crew, and comments by cast and crew should probably be treated as independent sources for episode and character articles. Not for parent series articles, but remember - a fair part of the independent rule was always to stop companies from advertising. Once we've established the notability of the series as a whole, the advertising concern dissipates, and we can probably afford to relax there. I wouldn't say that commentary by cast or crew provides notability for a TV series. But for an episode within the series? I'm more OK with that (and I suspect that AfD would be as well. That is, I think that "This is one of the episodes that got commentary on the DVD release, so it's an important episode" would swing votes on AfD).

I'm harder pressed to come up with good indicators for narrative complexity. But I'm also somewhat more skeptical that they're needed - this isn't necessarily something where a bright line distinction is possible (if there were an objective measurement of narrative complexity a lot of the wars in English departments over canonical literature would have ended ages ago), and furthermore, I think it's something where, although individuals will disagree, collective consensus can be generated fairly easily. That is, while you will get occasional outliers who insist that all of The Sopranos can be covered adequately in a paragraph or two, or who insist that actually we need 1000 words per episode of Full House to truly capture the narrative, in practice I think that a discussion among multiple people is going to instinctively hone in on a viable consensus here, and that it's a workable yardstick. So I'd be content, in phrasing guidelines, to make a note that narrative complexity will often require more substantial coverage, and avoid quantification on that point.

I think it is probably possible to, for episodes and characters, create a guideline that triangulates between significance and narrative complexity and would serve as an accurate predictor of whether an article will survive AfD. I am uncertain that such a guideline would meet principle-based consensus - that is, I think that inclusionists and exclusionists would both find the phrasing unsatisfying on an ideological level - but I think that such a guideline would accurately predict AfD results, which, I think, is the goal here - to find a way to extrapolate what we do in practice into a guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that really thorough and thoughtful response. I think this gives us a lot to work with. Popularity and narrative complexity are definitely issues. I think popularity kind of takes care of itself on Misplaced Pages, and is especially apparent when you compare WP's coverage of popular culture to, say, African history. Narrative complexity is definitely an issue, and we might be able to apply this principle to WP:PLOT. Three paragraphs on Tony Soprano may detail some truly insightful details, but you should see some of the deleted video game character articles: talk about clothes, height, weight, friggin blood type. Even if we can't agree on what kind of plot summary is suitable, we can probably agree about what kind of plot summary is patently unsuitable. But I think we're getting off topic. I think this would be a great issue to discuss at another time and place. (In fact, I'd implore you to start such a discussion about WP:NOT#PLOT.) So we know that popularity and complexity affect WP:SIZE, and size affects whether we merge or keep a stand alone article. But that can't be everything, or else would keep an extended entry on virtually any aspect of any topic with zero sources, and arguably zero importance. So let's talk about indicators of notability/inclusion. It sounds to me like you think it would be fair to use sources that are less than independent (fan guides, episode commentary), or sources that might be accurate without having editorial review (television review sites that are generally trusted). I think this is highly consistent with what the RFC has shown. The RFC suggests that we don't generally think every spinout episode or character or *anything* is notable (A1/A2), although we are unsure about the principled exceptions suggested thus far (A3/A4). The RFC also suggests that there *is* an objective way to assess notability that comes from relaxing our sourcing standards (B2/B5). Kind of what you were saying, perhaps SNGs can articulate sources that assert notability that are still widely considered accurate ways to verify information, but might have lower standards of editorial review or be less than independent -- without being the primary source itself. I'm thinking out loud. But I think this general principle would explain WP:N in general. Once we do that, we could actually write the SNGs that are slightly friendlier to certain types of content. Randomran (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC) I like basically all of the above, except (ideologically) the independence issue. Phil, generally speaking, pins down how AfD operates on a case-by-case basis, and yes, I really would love to see WP:WAF get more usage than it currently does. Nifboy (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Just a note that my ignoring this thread for the next few days is because I'm on the road with limited Internet access, not because I'm not interested in it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC) All right. I'm loathe to separate discussion of narrative complexity from notability at this point, because I think it's a genuine factor in inclusion/exclusion, and we have to be realistic about the fact that notability guidelines are, in the end, most primarily inclusion/exclusion guidelines. Regarding your point about how popularity and complexity are not sufficient, you are, of course, correct - a third (and obvious) issue arises. Importance. Which seems to me to be demonstrated in multiple ways - some resemble traditional notability judgments. For instance, I think that part of why a DVD commentary would fly as a grounds for inclusion on AfD is that, despite its lack of independence, it's a clear flag of importance for the episode. But there are other ways that go through more pedestrian avenues - there's a general trend to keep "main characters," for instance, without real regard to sourcing, and I suspect similar grounds could be created for series finales and premieres, and other clear landmark episodes. I think you're very much right here - there's a wide variety of acceptable sources that should be encouraged to establish notability. I'm thinking the way forward might be a two-tiered SNG - one establishes the general principles of popularity, complexity, and importance. The other establishes that the best way to establish these is via sources, and lists possible sources in a manner that is wider than what WP:N, strictly construed, would advocate. That allows for a strong focus on sourcing while still also remaining honest about the fact that certain things are likely to survive AfD without sources based on a presumption of notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC) I'd be careful with the DVD commentary example, at least to some extent. I've seen unimportant episodes get commentary because every episode on a DVD got commentary, but you still can't show any other info exists for the episode. That said, I'm fair game the the use of DVD commentaries as sufficient for notability - they fall in what I call "1.5 sources" that they are technically primary, but (99% of the time) provide analysis and evaluation from the creates from a point in time separated from the work itself, thus almost acting as secondary sources. The fact that a DVD publishing studio paid to have the DVDs made and incorporate commentary for that episode is a indirect indication that the studio thinks it to be notable as well. Mind you, this is to be taken with a grain of salt - such commentary should include post-showing reaction (I know a handful of simpsons episodes have commentary that say "Episode X is celeb's Y favorite" or somesuch, but even a "on retrospective, we were really drunk and this episode sucks" qualifies too), if there is no other reception section, otherwise, you've got just a plot and a primary source development section and it would be lacking. The RFC does suggest that SNGs can interprent what sources are appropriate for notability demonstration as long as they don't go off the beaten path (eg, forum posts are never going to be RS by an SNG), so I think the same end result can be obtained but without trying to bring in the tricky words of "importance" or the like to it. --MASEM 21:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC) I was trying to avoid focusing exclusively on fiction... but I think you might be onto something, Masem. One important thing that WP:N does is ensure that an article isn't written almost entirely from primary sources. Primary sources don't tell us what is or isn't important on that subject, let alone if the subject itself is important. You can't write a reception section from primary sources. You can't write a development section from primary sources. You only end up posting a summary, with no reliable independent voice to put it in context. But if we look at the consensus around B2 and B6, it's that SNGs can play with sources. I think this might provide our solution on fiction. I might venture to say that a fictional topic can be considered notable if it has a reliable information about development and reception. Those normally come from reliable third-party sources. But DVD commentary offers some reliable information about development that isn't necessarily from a third-party, which can highlight the significant parts of the episode or what not. And an award from a highly popular website might let you build up a reception section. The website itself might not be a reliable source,but the award itself might be verifiable, and hopefully the SNGs would have a sense of which awards are popular/prestigious enough to be significant in reception. I'm thinking outloud. Maybe I used bad examples. But I think the issue really is development/reception that is verifiable and objective, without necessarily being from a strictly reliable or strictly independent source. Randomran (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)