Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)

Fictional elements as part of a larger topic (FEAPOALT)

In order to bring WP:FICT in line with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, we should move to strike this section on the basis that it is unworkable and inconsistent with the rest Wikipedia:

1. The underlying problem with FEAPOALT is that it contains several assumptions which conflict with the overarching consensus at policy level, which has resulted in WP:FICT becoming an editorial walled garden that suggest that fictional topics should be treated differently from subject areas, such as people. For instance, if there is consensus that a living person is of unproven notability, then there is no evidence that the topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in accordance with WP:BIO, then why should a fictional character be given a different treatment? Even if such a fictional element were to be included, there is a secondary issue that must be addressed: a topic that fails WP:N is also likely to fail other Wikipedia content policies as well, which leaves such a topic open to becoming potential deletion candidate at some point in the future.
2. The section Creating fictional element lists is also out of step with policy consensus. Firstly there is a mistaken assumption in this section that fictional elements which fail WP:N provide some sort of "encyclopedic coverage". However this goes against the principle that an article is encyclopedic if it notable and its content meets Wikipedia content policies as well. Secondly there is also a mistaken assumption that of individually non-notable elements can merit bing grouped together as a list, but this goes against WP:NOT which states that Wikipedia not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
   
3. My estimate that 95% of all articles and lists about fictional elements (characters, locations, episodes, event and articifacts) fail WP:N, and that the content of those articles fail one or more content polices as well as WP:WAF. If the coverage of fiction is to be improved, then WP:FICT needs to give useful (as opposed to misleading) guidance.

To make WP:FICT as useful guideline once again, we need to jettison these sections, as they are not workable in practise, and do not fit into the framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but also because they are inclusion criteria for topics of unproven notabality that are less discriminating than other subject areas, and giving such a diverse and well sourced subject area such as fiction special treatment when it is not need is an error in judgement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the well-meaning behind the section, the issue is here: "If consensus on a fictional element is that it is of unproven notability, editors should seek to retain the information where it can improve the encyclopedia." I understand that people don't want to sacrifice information, and in certain cases WP:IAR might allow such non-notable info to stay in the purpose of bettering the encyclopedia, but this line basically says that even if it's non-notable, people can stick it somewhere else, such as in a list. I think a more appropriate step is to try to find a way to work without the non-notable content; often, it takes some reorganization, but it's better than forced accommodation of topics. Each and every article 'saved' from the fire in this way should have a proper defense on why the info is being retained, even when non-notable. So, in short, frag the section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists of episodes and characters are common practice of articles at AFD, and in line with the general consensus (though still waiting for an absolute neutral review) WP:N RFC that certain expections to the GNG exist for lists of this nature. And again, we come back to the question: if a list of characters or episodes that is part of an article (ignoring size issues) is ok, then what sudden magic distinction does spliting off that list to a separate article make it not ok? There's a reason notability refers to topics, and not to articles; articles are arbitary bounds to make information easier to read on screen. This is not to make articles on single characters or the like without notability ok - those are problematic and should still be trimmed and merged. --MASEM 14:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists of characters are okay in the sense that it is expected that there's a certain amount of plot necessary for readers to understand the fiction. Same thing with setting; these aid introduction and (ideally) should help keep the actual plot less confusing and jargon-filled (ex. in Halo the setting explains the events leading up to the game, the important things you have to know: "THESE ARE HALOS. HALOS BAD" et al.) Spinning off lists of characters from single games is a 99.99% bad idea, as there is no real reason the characters cannot be discussed in the work. The trickiness comes in when you're trying to track characters over multiple works, such as multiple games, novels, et al. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course - We don't have lists of characters from a non-series movie, from a single video game, or other singular works - unless, as in the case of the various Final Fantasy lists, the characters or the grouping of characters has notability on its own. These are the exceptions. Again, I am pretty confident that we can write a set of bright-line rules on when lists of episodes and characters are appropriate and when they are not. --MASEM 19:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think we'd need two criteria to be filled: 1) The characters must be demonstrated notable as a whole via reliable secondary sources, and 2) the list significantly benefits navigation and style of multiple articles. Not exactly the most black and white criteria, but if we have #1 we eliminate barely notable articles which will never get to a high level of quality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Masem, the problem with grouping lists of characters from different stories or episodes is that it risks giving rise to synthesis of differing (or even disparate) sources being created, whilst those that don't have any sources at all are likely to be original research.
  To avoid falling into this trap, the jumping off point for the creation of an article or a list should be notability, which is a good indicator of whether or not a topic is "suitable" for inclusion in Wikipedia. A "suitable" topic in this context means that there is sufficient real-world content, context, analysis or criticism from reliable secondary sources to write an article whose content meets Wikipedia content polices. If a topic fails WP:N, then it is highly likely that it will also fail one or more content policies, such as WP:NOT.
  Without trying to belittle the efforts of Phil and Masem at User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal, they face an uphill struggle: a topic that fails WP:N does not have a lot going for it, and faces a difficult task of proving that it is not listcruft, or that it does not fail one of the content policies. A recent disussion about a fictional foxes illustrates this point: if a list is not supported by reliable secondary sources, how can you be sure that the list contents are categorised correctly? I would argue that it is very easy to find faults with lists that are synthesised or based on original research. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't be silly. You know as well as I do that the practical consensus on AfD for the sorts of deletions that you're suggesting simply does not exist. There's little uphill struggle in what I'm trying to do. Or at least, there shouldn't be - can you point to anything in my proposal that would support keeping an article that would be deleted via an AfD discussion? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this proposal fails both to find support in the recent RFC and with existing practise on Wikipedia. I readily agree that a revised and improved guideline is needed, and I've made a proposal to this effect a few sections up. But this amounts to another in a long list of attempts to ram through a view of notability that justifies controversial deletions that lack consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• If I should be so bold, but I think the consensus at the RFC that the concept of notability should not be disgarded, or that any exemption should be given to a particular subject area. My view is that if we have good rather than misleading guidelines, then contraversial deletions are less likely to occur. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  Personally, I think the consensus at the RFC is that I was right, that policy should be changed to reflect my views, and that AFD practice should and will follow my lead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• What view are they? (I am not familiar with them). --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I noticed a majority support in the #AMIB is right section, and a plurality (albeit not a majority) of support in the #Do the thing AMIB said section. ¬_¬ (Psssssst. Argue about what the RFC means on its talk page, don't let it leak out all over every related page.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the consensus was that a middle path between applying the GNG strictly to every fiction article and treating fiction articles as sub-articles needs to be forged. Certainly, given the divisiveness of the RFC, I think it has to be taken as a call for a more moderate path than either extreme in some form. So I confess, I'm disheartened to see what amounts to another hard-line deletionist proposal, particularly from someone who did not see fit to offer any comment on my more moderate proposal above. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

the idea that we somehow are creating a special case for fictional elements is ridiculous. Take a look at how many non-notable animals, plants, math theorems, buildings, and roads we have articles about - to compare the stringent requirements of BIO (which only exist because of legal responsibilities against libel) to the requirements practiced by the whole of wikipedia is a flawed argument. This isn't an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, this is a wake-up call that the whole of wikipedia does NOT operate on these boxed-in rules and that every single genera handles their notability requirements differently, so we should stop pretending that Fiction articles cannot. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it still is an OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, because your using crappy rules and articles in other areas to provide a justification for our crappy articles and rules. Just because it doesn't work out like it's supposed to doesn't mean the stuff shouldnt exist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced, of course, that OTHERCRAPEXISTS is prima facia a bad argument. Clearly we apply standards beyond WP:N in some cases. The question is what the appropriate standards for a given area are. Strict adherence to WP:N is a position that has marginal consensus at best in the practical matter of AfD - there are clearly other forces at work. Which makes sense, as WP:N was a guideline that staggered into existence as a triangulation among two diametrically opposed camps.

My end point being that notability disputes are notoriously thorny, and that they do not readily resolve themselves in principled ways. We ought remember that we have a non-trivial contingent of editors who are, in fact, firm inclusionists. Such editors do not hold a majority, little yet a consensus position, but we ought remember that, unlike NPOV and V, this is not an area where the underlying principles enjoy universal assent. To my mind, OTHERCRAPEXISTS is, in the end, a wrongly dismissed line of argument that points out the underlying fact that our inclusion decisions do not operate along strict rules.

And if nothing else, I point out that OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay with no policy weight, and that writing an essay dismissing arguments you don't like and getting it widely cited does not in fact invalidate any of the arguments. I would go so far as to say that one of the worst arguments in deletion debates is any citation to WP:ATA. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that of the articles you listed, several may in fact be notable, but proper sources have not been added. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That argument, of course, is easily extended to a lot of fiction articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In which case supporters of keeping the article at AfD should add the sources, so even if its a crap article it meets WP:N. As to the OCE argument, I consider it generally bad because due to the open nature of the wiki, something existing doesn't prove or invalidate a policy, guideline, or position. If I argue that Sir Bad Argument doesn't exist, but there's an article on him, that doesn't prove he exists or doesnt. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources are by far the best way to show notability, I won't disagree. But they're not the only path. As for OCE, OCE is not prima facia valid. But it is still important - particularly when applied on a broad scale so as to show trends in inclusion as opposed to isolated incidents. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

actually, the examples don't matter, the point of the argument is that elements of fiction are held to the same notability standards as BIO articles, under the premise that all of wikipedia operates this way - but it doesn't. Wikipedia, in practice, adopts special notability requirements for each general topic. The deletion/merge side has consistently said the inclusionary side is wanting "special consideration," creating a "walled garden" from notability for fictional elements - it's a silly argument because the inclusionary side is only asking equal consideration.

as to my examples, there are literally hundreds of more organisms i could have cited which have no more than a passing mention in any text, and i know for certain there's nothing really notable about Rt. 173, i live near it - but if i was being pointy and AFD'd it, i'm sure someone would put in a history section and what locals are planning for the future, which is really just equivocal of me saying, "Mareep was created in XXXX year with the releas of Pokemon Gold." Same kind of content, doesn't increase notability, but it takes more words so it looks nicer as an article :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 06:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Zappernapper, I think you may be mistaken that "Wikipedia adopts special notability requirements for each general topic in practice", when in fact I think what you are actually suggesting is that different notability guidelines interpret the presumption of notability in different ways. GNG can be applied consistently across all subject areas because it is an evidence based guideline, but the subject specific guidelines make different presumptions about when or how GNG is met which are based only on opinion.
  The example which you give, which suggest that non-notable organisms are treated differently is not relevant, as such topics fail WP:NOT#DIR, which is why Wikispecies was created to accomodate them. Furthermore, the Lists of Pokémon like Mareep fail WP:NOT#GUIDE or WP:NOT#PLOT, and will probably be deleted over time unless real-world content can be added to them.
  The idea that notability can be presumed is a controversial area, because it goes against the principle that notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged. It is also impossible to write an article in the absence of non-trivial real-world content cited from reliable secondary sources, because such an article is likely to fail the content guidelines.
  FEAPOALT is just another way of saying that notability can be inherited, but all the evidence is going the other way, which is why we need to jettison this section. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am baffled how presumed notability, which is in WP:N and thus a guideline, would be controversial because an ill-conceived essay talks about inheriting notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I was refering to presuming that a topic is notable without providing any evidence (i.e. reliable secondary sources are absent). --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• As was I. And I quote from WP:N: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." That would be the establishment of a concept of presumption of notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

But the only way to prove that notability can be established is pony up some sources. Saying "it's probable that there's going to be information about Foo" is a worthless addition to a discussion and doesn't prove anything; if a hundred or a thousand people say it's probable, that still shouldn't make a difference. We should be operating on what can be determined; if someone says "based on its mentions in X and Y, I think it's likely there's more sources out there and will be," that's a different puppy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bull. It is often very straightforward to anticipate the existence of sources. Demanding that sources be produced in a five day window only increases presentism and online bias. Faster and worse is not a model for improving articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• It is not straightforward at all. For instance, 95% of all articles on elements of fiction (characters, events, locations etc.) are of unproven notability and it is getting to the point where a presumption of notability for fictional elements is worthless. There is no evidence of notability until such point as reliable secondary sources are cited. However what is more important is it is just not possible to write encyclopedic article without reliable secondary sources. Saying that a topic is notable is no good if you have nothing suitable to write about it, and that is what the section FEAPOALT fails to take into account. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• And yet AFD continues to be able to handle the articles and generally come to sane conclusions. The declaration that "there is no evidence of notability until such point as reliable secondary sources are cited" is untrue and ludicrous, and is small-minded and dogmatic thinking at its worst. I am incapable of believing that you are actually foolish enough to think it, and that it is not a case of simply setting the bar at such a height as to achieve a desired result. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Get over yourself Phil, just because the world doesn't happen to agree with you doesn't mean we are dolts. Explain how it is "untrue and ludicrous" for us to ask that articles prove their notability with sources? It's perfectly in line with WP:N's nutshell "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It's objective, which is good. Saying "it's notable 'cause I say it is" is subjective. Not good for the purposes of applying a standard. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've no clue if you're dolts. You could be being willfully disingenuous. I'm open to either possibility. It remains the case, however, that the proposition that there is no way to gauge whether reliable sources can be found for a topic short of actually finding them is completely and utterly stupid. You will find nobody outside of the bizarre bubble that is the Wikipedia editing community who would actually accept the proposition that there is no way to tell whether sources are likely to exist for a topic short of actually finding them. It is a completely and utterly moronic claim. I do not know if you are making it sincerely or because it serves a pragmatic goal of yours, but in either case, it is a completely worthless argument that deserves no serious consideration, which is probably why it has never gained anything resembling traction as a methodology for deciding even remotely contentious AFDs. Do you have a serious proposal in this area? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Phil, whether or not a subject is notable is not the only issue, it is what is presented the reader that is more important. Since you can't write an encyclopedic article without real-world non-trivial coverage from reliable secondary sources, why to we have to should we presume that we can write an encyclopedic article about non-notable fictional elements any differently? Readers want to see context, analysis and criticism in articles about about fiction, so what is the point of giving special emphasis to listcruft that is not notable? You have failed to answer this question for a long time now. In most cases, topics that fail the inclusion criteria WP:N also fail content policies like WP:NOT, and really this is what this guideline should be all about, not trying to pretend the opposite is true. I think we should build Wikipedia by standing on the shoulders of giants, rather than relying on hearsay, rumour or opinion, not just for the sake of notability itself, but becuase an encyclopedic article can't be written without reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, if I look up Mercutio I want to know what Shakespeare said about Mercutio in his play, first and foremost. What a critic said about Mercutio 400 years later might be interesting, but it isn't an essential part of the article. You can certainly write an encyclopedic article about Mercutio with Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as your only source, and it's certainly fair to assume that Mercutio is a notable character before you find a book or article "proving" it to a deletionist's satisfaction. In the case of fictional characters it's usually sufficient to note only the primary source. The general Wikipedia rule about requiring secondary sources is because personal research is usually problematic to verify. In fiction, this isn't a problem because the primary source is something many people can look up and confirm. Yes, Shakespeare did have Mercutio say, "Ask me tomorrow, and you will find me a grave man." We don't need to cite Harold Bloom because we can look it up in the primary source directly. What the typical Wikipedia requirement of introducing secondary sources results in is defacing the article with unnecessary and ugly "in popular culture" lists, "critical reception" sections, and other things that the average reader did not look up the article to see. It's unaesthetic, largely perfunctory, distracting, and the furthest thing from "encyclopedic." It would be far more "encyclopedic" to require articles on fictional characters to stick to primary sources only; the result would be tidier and far more "factual" than the morass of random detritus we're so often subjected to. -- Poisonink (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• (Re: to poisonink). I feel that the statement about primary vs. secondary works is a common misconception about fiction and critical commentary. While lots of academic critics frankly have their collective heads up their asses (to be frank lol Protonk (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)), plenty of short and long for critics connect works of fiction to the world of the author or to some other element. If we source the Mercutio article from just Shakespeare we have only editor interpretation of the plot and wording to go on. That, we should agree, is at most as good as critical interpretation (As far as accuracy goes) and worse from Wikipedia's standpoint (because we can't rely on anonymous editors to provide interpretation of contentious details). To pick a better example, how should the Shylock article be written? Do we discuss how portrayals of the character have changed over the years (as our mores about anti-semitism in fiction have changed) like Ron Rosenbaum does? Or do we just make interpretation from the original text? For that matter, whose authority do we appeal to in determining which texts are apocryphal? I understand your frustration with the somewhat workmanlike layout of wikipedia fiction articles (plot, development, characters, reception, IPC). That is (IMO) a result of building thousands of articles on basically the same subject. Most good or featured articles will seek to better integrate the secondary sourcing in to the article so that it flows better. Also, I oppose on face the claim you make that we should just "know" which characters are notable (a term of art on wikipedia, not meaning "of note" as it does generally). Protonk (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. I agree with you. The issue is that failing WP:NOT#PLOT is not grounds for deletion - especially given that WP:NOT#PLOT does not say no plot, it says more than just plot. That is, plot is still something we're supposed to have. We're just also supposed to have more. Deletion is a poor mechanism for expansion by any standards. I agree with you wholeheartedly - we have a lot of crap coverage of fictional subjects that needs serious attention. But deletion isn't the attention it needs, and the notability issue is fundamentally entwined with deletion.
• You know full well that I've been an active and strong proponent of cleanup of fictional articles. I led the fight to get rid of spoiler tags, I've been a strong advocate of out-of-universe style, I've pushed hard to work better with other Wikis to off-load accurate but inappropriate content in a non-hostile way, I've written guidelines on writing better plot summaries. When it comes to fixing bad articles on fiction, you'll find no better ally than me, and you know it. But deletion is a bad way of fixing articles. The worst way. It's the thing we do when nothing else will fix the article.
• I'd like nothing more than to be able to have spent the time I've spent fighting mass deletion of fiction articles for the past, what, six months? And that's just the latest flare-up? I'd like nothing more than to have that time back so I could spend it working towards mass improvement of articles. But as long as the biggest problem facing fiction articles is the prospect of deleting tons of content on topics that could prove notability, and where significant portions of the articles we have would still exist as part of good coverage on the topic, I don't see how I can, in good conscience, devote that time towards clean-up.
• And this is what gobsmacks me, frankly. Two sections up, I've got a proposal that I think would work. It puts the bar at a meaningful place, it puts the bar at a place that is close to the practical consensus we get on AfD, and it lets us move on to other things. There's a solution to this problem two sections up, but we're ignoring it in favor of a piece of fucking dinner theater that's never going to garner consensus! You know there's not consensus for the "slash episodes and characters articles unless they fully demonstrate compliance with WP:N" view. You know it, because you've looked at AfD the same way I have, and you've seen that viewpoint fail to garner traction on tons of AfDs. But instead of making comments that move us toward a viewpoint that actually would get the nod from the various and sundry parties involved, you're pushing a doomed endeavor.
• If we pushed the ball hard on getting the notability standards I proposed two sections up in place as a guideline, we'd have the bulk of this issue settled and we could move on to better projects. Please - I am begging you here - get behind a practical effort that has a shot at working, help me get this issue to bed, and let's move on to other tasks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

←I'm disengaging from this. You have little right to accuse me of ulterior motives or stupidity, Phil, when you cried like a baby over the fact your shitty article got defeatured over sourcing issues. I have based all my arguments on guidelines and policies; you have not. Yet as you refuse to consider any alternative view besides your own, this discussion has no more purpose. I'm done feeding the trolls. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was all I was asking for. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless, I have yet to hear a reason why FEAPOALT should remain, and I will request its removal, unless anyone has any objections. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who are interested, Spoo (the article impolitely derided above) is currently at WP:GAN, after several independent sources have been added. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I object, to Gavin.collins making any changes to this article due to his current dispute over article notability in wikiproject D&D. Until that is resolved in some fashion, it is extemely difficult to assume good faith about his edits. Kairos (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I note your objections, but I don't think WP:N is in question here: I think we are all agreed that a topic can have its own article if it meets the requirements of the General notability guideline.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, yes, and since your edits seem to be making actual improvements to this article, I'll let it be.Kairos (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that the section "FEAPOLT" has now been replaced with WP:FICT#Specific_tendencies, which covers the same ground and makes the mistake that by giving undue weight to elements of a story by allowing lists of plot summaries focused on specific characters. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A plea

I made a long comment to this effect in the section above. But I'll try again here, and shorter. I have a proposal at User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal. I think it's a good proposal. I think it works. I'm sure it can be made better, and I'd love to make it better. But I think, at the core of it, it's a good proposal that puts this issue to bed. It reflects the reality of AfD, and it's a midpoint between the strong inclusionist and deletionist standards.

So far, it's gotten little attention.

Maybe I'm wrong and it won't work or can't gain consensus. I don't think I am, but if I thought I was, I'd change my mind, so that doesn't say much.

But please. Tell me why I'm wrong, tell me how the proposal could be better, or tell me you support it. Because I'm dead tired of this fight, and I want to move on to improving our coverage of fictional subjects in more productive and rewarding ways than this.

Does the proposal work? If not, why not? And when can I move it to the project namespace and replace the essay version of this with a guideline-strength version? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I'm especially glad to see the sections on "semi-reliable sources" and "bias towards commercialism". The latter, especially, is an interesting dilemma. While it's easy to write paragraphs of reception info for a Dr. Who episode, it would be close to impossible to do the same for shows like Golden Girls or even Friends. (Frankly, I think the reception section of that Dr. Who article is an example of a different kind of cruft. But that's a discussion for another page.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We are still trying to wait on the WP:N RFC to get a third-party review ( I don't know how that's going), but I'm sure there's enough agreement by all but a few that what your essay states is accurate of the status quo and how things should be considered. I doubt doing what I suggest will end the issues but it is a step moving, but here's what I suggest you do:

• Archive the current FICT somewhere ("Proposed2008" or something).
• Move your essay into FICT, but tag it as proposed or whatever to make it clear its not a guideline yet.
• Make sure to add in all the other stuff that would be part of FICT (shortcut, etc.); make sure to provide a hatnote link to the archived version of the old one.
• Announce to WP:VP, get a message in the fict notice box. Wait for feedback.

Now while I would normally say be bold on this, we're talking a major change here. I know that at least one person will completely disagree with the version, that's too bad at this point since clearly the flow is against what that person wants, but we should make sure those that are regulars to FICT or WP:N or whatever are ok with moving it into FICT as to at least restart discussion on the subject as it does linger in Essay-space but its more than an essay. You may want to msg David, DGG, Kww, Randoman, Pixelface, and a few others and ask them to thumbs up or down for just getting it in here - we don't need consensus now on it, just that we want to know do they feel we have a good starting point from that version to a working FICT. Once here and more eyes start looking at it, we can get a better handle of what tweaks are needed, and hopefully soon incorporate anything from the WP:N RFC to correct it. --MASEM 23:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

On the whole, it seems okay, however "Semi-reliable sources" is completely unacceptable to me. It attempts to supercede WP:RS which just shouldn't happen. If there are no reliable sources providing coverage, it shouldn't have an article. Allowing such sources pretty much guarantees the article will never be GA nor FA, which, again, brings into question whether it should exist at all. I also can not say I can agree with the four prong test, as far too many people would use it to claim "main character, so they can have an article" irregardless of the lack of extensive sources, either primary or secondary, and the article will always be nothing but plot. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, "main character so they can have an article" is pretty explicitly verboten, no? I mean, I can strengthen the wording about having to pass all four prongs. As for semi-reliable sources, I think the problem there is more in the name than the concept, which is really just a restatement of using self-published sources as primary sources about their own views. Perhaps if I changed it to self-published sources? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Should the issue of reliability even come into play when you just want to quote a review, like those at Television Without Pity? Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I think the problem is in "semi-reliable sources," which needlessly introduces a new concept when old concepts will suffice. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian on that. An article about fiction needs reliable sources. It's very bad to see articles having as references sites with spoilers or blogs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, though those sites can still be significant viewpoints without being reliable sources. That's an important distinction. It's also significant, I think, to distinguish between necessary to keep and necessary for GA/FA status. Certainly reliable sources are needed somewhere along the article's development. But on the other hand, I don't think anybody would dispute that TWoP (Or even Zap2It, which has both blogs and spoiler warnings, I believe) are sources that should be cited in reception sections, albeit using them as the self-published sources they are. I'll change the wording to clarify. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Per various comments, I've recast the previous "Semi-Reliable sources" section to make it follow more directly from WP:QS, which was what it was originally seeking to be compliant with. Does this address the criticisms? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The first issue that I can see is a personal preference of mine: Under "Specific tendencies - episodes", you mention list articles, however I feel that there is a risk of ending up with hideous raw 'list of episodes' articles (just the names, airing dates, and brief summary), rather than what I always felt was prefered in the ideal case - things like entire season summaries (which may include the raw list within them, as a smaller part of the whole). Indeed, when done properly I feel that combined season summaries can actually offer far greater value than individual episode articles for many shows. This potential for added value is, I believe, worth exploring. Secondly, on "primary sources" regarding plot summaries, it may be worth stating explicitly that "commentary should not be offered", and stressing the "obvious" test. Plot summaries have classically been one of the major areas of contention certain groups have had with articles about fiction, so the more work done to ensure quality, the better. Finally, on the section regarding bias, I think that the issue of recentism/presentist is perhaps given too minimal a role, what with the header for the section entirely ignoring it. The other classic wikipedia biases also will come into play, especially with respect to non-english-language works. Perhaps a more general section title and a few changes to the wording would help. To be honest, I feel much of what I've written is personal nitpicking. It is generally a very good proposal, well done! LinaMishima (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"hideous raw 'list of episodes' articles (just the names, airing dates, and brief summary)" are considered perfectly acceptable starting points for episode lists and have overall consensus. Season summaries do not, except where a series is long enough to actually warrant seasonal pages, and even then, season summaries are optional, not the most preferred. Episode lists with individual summaries are the most strongly preferred among all related projects, and changing that is not something this should be dealing with as it has nothing to do with notability but MoS, which is up to the TV and other projects that deal with episodes, including specifying length of summaries, lead length/content, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

'List of episodes' are not considered perfectly acceptable - see my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_21#Wikipedia_is_not_a_Movie.2C_Book_or_TV_Guide. I think you will find that 'list of episodes' that fail to demonstrate notability fail WP:NOT, as they don't contain encyclopedic content, such as context, analysis or criticism relating to their subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think there's consensus for that view? I've never seen it borne out on AfD, so I have trouble basing an inclusion guideline on it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Articles on fictional characters without notability get deleted all the time - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters for the ongoing discussions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Singular fictional character articles, yes, are often recommended for merging or deletion after AFD, but lists of such are much less likely, and in fact are often the recommended merge targets for the singular characters. These lists are considered to be accepter from AFD and from the RFC on WP:N. --MASEM 12:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think you will find that list of fictional characters come up for deletion as well on a regular basis: have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, but you're the only one voting delete there, and it's obviously going to be kept. So I don't think that contributes much to your claim that the list articles are problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think you will find that the arguements I put forward were the only ones not based on WP:ILIKEIT. Under existing policy and guidelines, there is no other reasonable justification for keeping original research of this type.
  There are many other examples of lists that have been deleted and here are just a few:

1. List of robots from WALL-E
2. List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters
3. List of Springfield Elementary School students
4. List of public domain characters
5. List of fictional war heroes
6. List of Young Dracula characters

I don't think that your claim that lists of such are much less likely to be deleted holds true at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

None of those appear to have been deleted on notability grounds - WALL-E was a short list merged upwards into a main article. Star Wars bounty hunters, the primary concern was verifiability. Springfield Elementary School students was merged upwards because of organization concerns, and again, because there was no pressing need to spin off. Public domain characters was infinitely large, and deleted on those grounds. Only the Young Dracula characters list dealt with notability concerns, and it was, frankly, closed incorrectly as no consensus existed on that AfD. As for your dismissal of all the other arguments in the Power Rangers debate, it is both wrong and offensively dismissive.

If there are points in this proposal that give the impression that lists can be split off from other lists randomly and indiscriminately, please let me know and I will fix it. However, the issue in the deletions you listed was not notability - it was, in almost every case, "there is a more general list article that adequately handles this situation," which is a different matter. I will agree, that there is notability criterion in play for lists, and that we do not keep lists on any sort of trivial matter. But I think it is clear that we accept lists more readily than articles, and that merging non-notable articles into a list is often done. If there is clarification you want in the proposal, let me know, but for the most part I think list notability is a separate issue, and that this follows from the generally accepted premise that lists are in general more permissive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• If any of them had been notable, then they would not have been deleted; if an article or list fails WP:N, then it is likely to fail WP:NOT or some other content policy. Failing WP:NOT or WP:WAF are usually symptoms that an article or list fails WP:N. I disagree that we accept accept lists than contain non-notable material - I think you are aware that listcruft is not popular at AfD There is no "generally accepted premise" that lists are more permissive, as WP:LISTS says "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies". --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you are seriously suggesting that there is no existing consensus to merge episode and character articles into list articles, you are no longer describing anything that resembles the project as it exists. You're just being silly here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have seen lots of non-notable content being merged into lists, but there is no consensus for list articles into which this content can be dumped. There is no defence for non-notable topics against further merger or deletion just because it is in a list. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ridiculous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• The RFC on WP:N suggests otherwise, in addition to countless AFDs that recommend merges of non-notable characters/elements into lists. What magical change happens when a list of characters embedded in an larger topic is moved into its own article that causes it to suddenly be disallowed? (remembering, of course, that WP:N applies to topic-space, not article boundaries). --MASEM 16:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know where you are obtaining your information, but when I last looked there was no consensus for such ideas - see Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:compromise#Results. In Wikipedia mainspace, both lists and articles are tested for the encyclopedic value with reference to WP:N and CAT:CONTENT. As the above examples show, lists do get deleted, and I think it would be misleading for this guideline to suggest that they are a safe haven for listcruft, because they are not. If we try to build an editorial walled garden for episodes and characters of unproven notability, I would say that it is built on foundations of sand, not consensus at policy level.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• This guideline says nothing about lists beyond the observation that there is often consensus for merging to list articles, which is clearly factually the case, as the RFC shows. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• In the absense of clear guidelines on the status of these lists, it is not clear whether this assumption is sustainable. For instance, if the content of a list is duplicated such that it is a content fork], we still need to identify which list is a fork, and which is not. Hopefully the revised guideline will identify how we address this issue. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Barring objection

Barring objection, I'm going to move the proposal discussed above to the project space, archiving the current version, and start seeking consensus for it as the new guideline. I'll probably do this tonight unless someone says I shouldn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I object, on the grounds that if a topic or list of topics is not notable, then it fails Wikipedia inclusion criteria and content guidelines. I think the proposal fails to address the issue that you can't write an encyclopedic article without real-world context, analysis or criticism cited from reliable secondary sources. The proposal fails to explain why is diverges from WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The proposal isn't seeking to explain - it's seeking to follow up on the actual consensus that we have. Do you actually dispute the fact that there is no consensus for applying WP:N strictly on fiction articles? Based on AfD, on the RFC, and on everything that has come before, do you seriously claim that there is consensus for strict application of WP:N?

The proposal, incidentally, has nothing on lists beyond an acknowledgement that consensus exists to merge upwards. This seems empirically the case - have list of episodes articles been regularly deleted for lack of notability? And it acknowledges that the guidelines listed are sufficient only for inclusion, not for quality. Again, this is borne out. But unless you can present some evidence that your view has anything approaching consensus, I have trouble taking it as a meaningful objection. The fact of the matter is, there is no consensus for strict application of WP:N here, nor for requiring secondary sources as a condition of inclusion in all cases on fiction articles. Unless you can show some evidence otherwise, then I don't think that you really have much grounds to hold up an inclusion guideline because it fails to meet a bar that is obviously not actually used in inclusion decisions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

All right. I've imported it to the project namespace. I'm going to wait until morning to widely announce it to make sure that move doesn't spark an edit war, but if it's stable come morning I'm going to announce it to a few of the major participants in this debate, VP, and the Fiction noticeboard. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I guess... I stayed out of most of this debate because I can't keep up with the volume of conversation on the subject. I like the pragmatic angle that the proposal takes but I don't like that the outcome is "we should lower our standards for sourcing and provide arbitrary metrics for inclusion". I know that is a gross oversimplification, but I can't see "context within the fictional world" and "complexity of plot" being wielded appropriately as decision rules. But it's better than the current page. Protonk (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, and to be fair, I don't like deleting episode articles at all. But I think that softened standards and those metrics are what we have, so we may as well write it down. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it accurately represents common practice, and I like it. The discussion begins again. Yikes! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• It seems a bit of an empty request to ask for feedback and then ignore it. I see this latest proposal as another attempt to steam roll a proposal through without consultation. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Phil asked for comments at least a month ago, all but one were positive in support of this, and now he's seeking to get a more global commentary on this. Since it is still "proposed" I cannot see how this is "steamrolling" "without consultation". --MASEM 12:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I forgot, only positive feedback allowed. Clearly I made a mistake. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
      • No one ever said "no negative feedback". However, because there was only one person making negative feedback among all the other positive responses, clearly its appropriate to move it forward to gain wider consensus. Phil's not making it a policy or guideline by magically moving it to WP:FICT, just attempting to spur more positive discussion. --
      • OK, negative feedback is allowed, but it will be ignored. Clearly I have made two mistatakes. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Negative feedback is perfectly allowed. However, I think your criticism is off base and does not reflect practical consensus. And I am skeptical of the value of objections that are clearly outside the domain of consensus viewpoints on the project. If you scroll up through past discussions on this, you will find plenty of places where I took criticism under advisement and revised the guideline accordingly. The problem is not with negative feedback - it's just that I think you're dead wrong here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Three strikes and I am out. I have committed the third deadly sin: offering feedback that is "clearly outside the domain of consensus viewpoints on the project". Gosh if I had known that, I guess I should not have made any comment at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Evidence that your viewpoints reflect consensus as it takes place on AfD would be far more helpful than sarcasm. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
              • I forgot I had to provide evidence that my viewpoint reflects consensus, as well as the other mistakes I have made. I must appologise, as I have really misunderstood your request for comments at the start of this section. Like Oedipus Rex, I ought to pluck my eyes out for making these misakes. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
                • Eesh. You're up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Why don't you come back later and see if you can help us move to an understanding of what the practical consensus is, and how we can describe it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
                • Gavin, the process we're trying to build is a compromise. I know from Phil's past inputs that he'd love to see full articles on episodes and characters, but this proposal admits to a compromise that these episodes, in WP's current atmosphere, will never gain wide-scale acceptance. Instead, he's written something that pretty much accurately reflects a mid-point position between "keep them all" and "delete them all" that still follows policy and guidelines with the hint of common sense that WP:IAR provides. Others from either the inclusionists or deletionists side have agreed this is a middle ground. Your input, however, seems to demand that we have to move towards your POV on the way these articles work; that's not a compromise. If everyone else is compromising, and you're not, then just as the internet works around impediments that they may find, so do editors here work around just roadblocks. Your input is useful to remind everyone that notability is still a critical factor, but clearly from community consensus through AFD and RFC, notability is not an absolute as you continue to insist. (if it was, it would be policy, easy as that). There is room for your input into this discussion, but that input has to be towards the goal of compromise. --MASEM 15:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
                  • In answer to Phil, it seems to me that you complained bitterly duing the RFC on notability compromise that it did not reflect your viewpoint, even though it was very wide in the range of propositions that it presented. Now I can understand why you don't agree with my views, but if you ask for objections, and you receive one, it seems to me you are duty bound to respond to it in good faith. I think I have been open to compromise, and was one of the first to praise you for the honesty of the proposal when you first put it forward[1]. But if this is to remain a pretence in consultation, then say so now honestly, so I can drop out of the discussion knowing that other editors' views other than your own don't count.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
                    • I complained bitterly in the RFC because a proposal based on my input had been twisted to the point where it no longer resembled what I or anyone else had ever put forth, and was then used as a straw man for the actual proposal. This had little to do with the width of proposals being offered, and everything to do with the fact that one of the proposals being offered was ostensibly mine, except without the actual benefit of being thought through.
                    • I confess, I do not see the analogy to your objection, which I responded to in good faith - I think that your objection is in error, because it does not seem to me to be based on anything that seems to me to have wider consensus. I recognize that your view is that WP:N should be applied strictly to all topics. However, A), that view does not appear to me to be borne out on AfD, and B) It is abundantly clear that neither extreme position is going to garner consensus, and that some compromise is needed. I am open to evidence that I am wrong on A. If, however, your position is "no compromise," OK. But that position seems to me incompatible with a consensus driven model, and frankly, I have trouble paying it much heed. It's clear that the community's will on fiction notability is not satisfactory to either extreme camp. Frankly, a failure to appeal to those who refuse any compromise from their preferred vision does not seem to me to speak meaningfully against the notion that the proposal hits practical consensus on the head. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Just to chime in here, I support the new proposal of Phil Sandifer since it reflects the past consensus at various AFD discussions much better than the old WP:FICT guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, once I hear terms like "consensus", "wider consensus", "community consensus ", and "community's will" and now "consensus at various AFD discussions" being used to dismiss objections, alarm bells start ringing, because I think this is a personal presumption, not a universally held truth which some editors imagine, but only exists in their heads and for which there is no obvious or tangible evidence for (or at least none put forward here).
  The problem with dismissing my objections is that there is real consensus (and strong support) for the existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and this can be ignored only by pleading that fiction is a special case. Saying that topics that fail Wikipedia inclusion criteria WP:N and content guidelines are allowed if they relate only to fiction seems to me to be a 24-carat example of an "editorial walled garden". Claiming exemption from existing policies and guidelines on the basis of "consensus" (which is actually nothing of the sort other than personal opinion) just won't fly - I am sorry to burst your bubble. Whilst I still welcome Phil's proposal, I don't think ignoring objections is a good faith method of attaining compromise. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Policies and guidelines are defined by consensus, not the other way around. If a large-scale consensus runs counter to an established guideline, then the guideline gets changed, not consensus. Note that the critical part is "large-scale", emphasizing the need for RFCs and other global input to make sure it's not just a handful of editors confined to a given page. Which is the process that is starting here with the various announcements to boards to get input. --MASEM 12:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly. It is very clear that WP:N, strictly applied, does not accurately describe the decisions that the community routinely makes about fictional subjects. Given the frequency with which AfD pointedly declines to strictly follow existing guidelines even when these guidelines are pointed out, I think it's clear that though the guidelines may have consensus support in the general case (though I think even that statement presents an overly idealistic version of how they came to exist, particularly in the area of notability), they do not enjoy consensus support in this specific application, or else they would be applied in this area instead of routinely ignored by AfD. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think you have to seperate article inlusion and article deletion as being seperate issues as one does not follow from the other. There is a risk that we create a set of guidelines that work neither for inclusion nor deletion. It is clear there is a strong consensus for WP:N as inclusion criteria, but just because articles get singled out for deletion, that does not make is a bad guideline per se. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Derivative works

I would like to see the notability of derivative works explored. For example, let's say McDonald's produces and distributes toys derived from the latest Pixar movie. Is the toy independent from the movie element? Absolutely. Is McDonalds independent of Pixar? Absolutely. Does the toy have real-world existence? Absolutely.

I believe that an independent, real-world derivative of a fictional element exists should satisfy WP:N at some level. I would like to see this SNG explore how such secondary sources fit into the WP:GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The toy is, perhaps, a weak example, but I get your point. The problem is that the independence of officially licensed material is disputed. If you look at the current proposal, though, this division is less of an issue in it than it has been in the past, precisely because independence gets to be a bit of a fuzzy concept at its periphery. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The independence of licensed material should not be an issue if people are looking at the goals of notability. Luke Skywalker is permanently notable, because aside from the sun going supernova, some alien archaeologist will eventually find multiple indistructable action figures in the world's garbage dumps—even if every electronic storage device is unreadable, even if every paper record has since crumbled to dust. That is not temporary notability. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately in a world where intellectual property is becoming more "protected" every year, with new laws and court cases worldwide, all the related products about some fictional topic still covered by copyright (toys produced by indipendent company, "specialized encyclopedias" about the topic, big fan site/wiki/guide, etc.) will soon have to posses some form of "official license" to simple exist... and for very notable (="worth of note") product like blockbuster movie is already so. --Yoggysot (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a part of what I'd been trying to convey. Your wording is better than mine. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but that does not seem to me to reflect a wide consensus view. Again, my strategy on this was to shift the playing field away from trying to define independence. I think this entire issue is, frankly, a non-issue under the current proposal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• • My own position is that, unlike what I thought to be that of Jclemens, I reject the idea that anything in fiction besides the overall work must satisfy WP:N. Absolutely. He and I having now said this, where do we go from here? We will either have nothing, or a compromise. There's no point in pretending the original guideline still has consensus--if it did, we wouldn't be spending so much time at afd on individual articles. DGG (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that summary doesn't entirely do justice to my position. I believe that a fictional element broken out from a notable fiction topic in WP:SS inherits notability--not in the NOT#INHERITED sense, but in the object oriented sense. That is, if the bulk of an article can exist in a major article via WP:NNC, and it can be broken out for readability per WP:SS, then it's really a virtual part of the larger article, included by reference, and uses the main article's notability.

Still, having said that, I'm all in favor of having two good arguments supporting notability. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for misunderstanding. Your argument is also a good one--I refer to it as composite notability to avod the confusion of the overuse ofrejecting articles by not-inherited. DGG (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• IMO, the answer to the broad question is still no. Emphatically. The broad question being, "Are these derivative works a sign of notability?" A toy, or any other work produced under license, is a promotional vehicle made under contract with the content creator. The fact that Movie Company X has enough money to license derivative works (like toys or kids books) is great, but doesn't mean that anyone outside the company with something to lose has taken an interest in the content. WP:N is a crappy proxy for content inclusion, but the basic idea (that we shouldn't be the first place someone has written about element X) is important here. If the character in question has been made in to a toy--great, but that is just the same as any other promotional scheme. We wouldn't say "Luke Skywalker wouldn't be notable except for the large print ads Lucasfilm ran in Variety about him" so we shouldn't mistake other promotional devices. That said, other derivative works might give us some working idea of notability. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, arguably, derive their notability partly from the two plays written about them (after Hamlet, of course). Hamlet is very clearly the subject of extensive work, but not all characters in Hamlet should have their own article (as it is difficult to speak about them independently of the play)--for example, The Gravediggers have an article, while Reynaldo does not. Were someone to make a derivative work about Polonius' entourage, we might be able to write a suitably independent article about Reynaldo. I don't think this interpretation is iron-clad. I think that we can be reasonable in judging between derivative works and licensed works to determine independence--e.g. we seem to roughly believe that Scholastic novels/encyclopedias produced for a fictional universe are sufficiently independent from the contracting company--but we should not take the existence of derived work (Especially derived work for hire) as a sign that the subject is notable or might be notable. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So, then, if fictional work B (e.g., Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead) makes use of elements (the named characters) from work A (Hamlet), work B supports the notability of A? I like the idea, but it would have to be proportional to the reputation (be that notability, difficulty of production, or some other measure) of B, wouldn't it? Unless we want fan fiction supporting the notability of fan films... I'd like to hear more about how this might work with more contemporary fictional works? Would Splinter of the Mind's Eye support notability for Star Wars (assuming for the sake of argument that it needed it)? Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily suggesting what I wrote should be the test. I was just showing some of the hazards of substituting things that aren't notability for notability. IMO, WP:N has always been a means to the end of NPOV/NOR/V--the best way to ensure that we cover subject matter in proper proportion and without engaging in original research is to summarize third party works on a subject. There isn't a good way to substitute that with some other metric, unfortunately. That leaves us with the five finger test of death for this SNG versus leaving out swaths of content somewhat arbitrarily (if we applied WP:N strictly, we would be SOL for most fictional content and what is left would be stuff covered in coffee table books or gender studies texts). With respect to my specific note, I think that we need to speak at the character level and we need to treat "notability" as a binary state. It is easier for us to write about Rosencrantz because he has been looked at fictionally from so many angles and those works of fiction (including his place in them) have been studied so closely. It is harder, largely, to do so for a character like Token. If someone were to take token and parody South Park in another work, a reviewer of that parody work would be more likely to make some real world or analogistic claims about Token--rather than a more typical short form review of a work which would cover characters only briefly. I hope that makes sense. Protonk (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No. If N is just a combo of NPOV/NOR/V, you don't need N, you still have NPOV/NOR/V. N has always been a way to point out that "non-notable" is frequently given as a reason for deletion in deletion debates. Notability is not a binary thing, and it should never be treated as such. There are varying levels of notability. There are many different things that are evidence of notability. Person A is notable for ____? Person A is notable where? Person A is not notable where? Person A is notable among whom? Person A is not notable among whom? Person A is more notable than ____. Person A is less notable than ____. Person A was notable when? Since this guideline deals with fiction, replace "Person" with "Fictional character." Notability is a subjective opinion. It is not a bit on a hard drive. It is a perception. It varies from person to person, place to place, and time to time. You can write about Token in a neutral way, citing sources, and not including unpublished analysis because there are several episodes on record where Token appears. Token is notable for _____. Token is notable among _____. Token is notable in what part of the world? The question is what people consider evidence of notability for Token. More than that, the biggest question is whether there should be an article/list entry/redirect/or just a mention in the article about the fictional work for the character Token, and people don't even have to bring the concept of "notability" into that. If this guideline is being descriptive, it could say that Token Black is currently a redirect to List of students at South Park Elementary — because it was redirected by TTN (bad sign already) on May 6, 2007 with the edit summary "Merge per discussion on project page." If this guideline is being prescriptive, it could say do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that. --Pixelface (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

protonk, even by your argument, there is likely to be such discussion, and one should not summarily reject articles without thoroughly searching for it. Part of the problem here -- and I think we can all agree on at least this -- is the informality and scattered nature of potential sources for such works, and the difficult of finding them. At least I think them difficult, for I do not have the familiarity with sources and reference tools that I have with more traditional fiction. But considering the amount that is written about video drama, there ought to be just such sources. Now, you'll say we should expand the article when we find them, but I think we should keep the material and the article or at least the intact section in the expectation of finding them. (And I think the present proposal's discussion of these matters a considerable step forward.) I am not likely to change my general view here, and I doubt that you are either--and similarly for the other people with strong positions on these matters. So how do you suggest we resolve this? I have long suggested that if you will accept separate articles on major figures in such shows, I'll accept combined ones for the minor characters. DGG (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a larger argument. My point in this section is to say that we can't take the existence of derivative works (especially those made under contract) as a sign that independent sources exist on a subject. You are absolutely right to say that sourcing is spotty at best. Among fictional works, coverage in reliable sources is spotty and especially within works, what is covered by third parties is arbitrary with respect to the interal fictional narrative. In other words, Boba Fett is more heavily covered by third party sources than the Trade Federation, though the latter is more significant in the star wars universe. I'm not sure how to answer the big question--that's why I withdrew from the RfC discussion. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

DGG's changes

Let's discuss the merits of this one I think the proposed general principles are very sound, but that the proposal is worded a little too prescriptively, and relies in some places a little too much upon disputed guidelines and policy wording. Purely as a practical matter, we are more likely to get agreement if we leave a good deal of ambiguity. At this point I think we can tolerate that in order to make some progress. I am about to make a number of changes not as bold as what Phil has done, but in the hope of avoiding quarrels at this point. I'll explain them them here in a short while. DGG (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

first group of changes: Section 1.1, Four pronged test, #1. "concise" means whatever one wants it to mean. Many combination articles have just meaningless hooks, which are inappropriate non-encyclopedic program-guide content. : "Mary goes to the party and strange things happen" (invented extreme example to illustrate my meaning). Others are ridiculously verbose. Similarly, material on plot can be often discussed best as relates to the characters, especially in continuing series--but should still not be duplicated. We need to provide for a variety of contingencies.DGG (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree in general, though I've shortened your wording here and merged with the previous paragraph. That said, we should remember that this is not the predominant guideline in this area - we have WP:WAF, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:PLOTSUM all of which are better suited to this specific discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

next, section 1.3, "Importance" this needs to be qualified for chronological and cultural biases. (I didnt forget section 1.2 -- I think its fine as is.) DGG (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A fair point, though in the interests of avoiding creep, I think a simple reference to the biases section is preferable to a restatement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Section 1.4, availability of real world ... I broadened the language a little. I also added a phrase about sourcing, which remains the most imoprotant factor here as always. (I'm going to take a break before continuing--I leave it to you, Phil, how to integrate changes) DGG (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

These mostly look good. As I said, I've made a few tinkers, but I think you're mostly smoothing out rough edges. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My initial problem is with 1.2. There are a lot of "review sites" out there that will review every single episode of a show, but most of the stuff that they discuss is fluff. It never really analyzes the episode, and I think using that fluff to say that something must be important is rather baseless. Anyone ever read a review from BuddyTV or TVSquad, they're usually good for a laugh, but rarely provide anything valuable (yet I'm seeing them more and more as fluff for articles, "Reviewer X thought episode Y was the best of the season." - no actual context to that statement and when you read the review, you see that there wasn't anything there to use as context) I also see this as turning into "Well, there's a DVD commentary so it must mean that it deserves its own page". If anyone has ever watched/listened to a DVD commentary, you'll know that you don't always have a lot of encyclopedic information there. Granted, I know that these "4 prongs" are supposed to work together, but all of them are so subjective you could easily side-step each one. I say a plot is complex and needs the extra space, I see that there is a DVD commentary for this episode in my box set (though, there isn't anything encyclopedic discussed about the episode), the show itself has been on the air for 2 years which means that it wasn't canceled immediately and must be important, and my real world information is the fact that I can name the writers, directors, and tell you where they filmed the episode. That's not strong evidence in any of the four prongs, but, I've managed to show you how all are at least weakly satisfied. I can easily argue that since I provided and explanation, no matter how weak, for all four sections that the article MUST be kept. I've seen editors reach so far into left field to support the notion that the topic is "important" and "notable" that it's slightly scary that they actually believe what they are saying. I think this guideline does a good job of breaking down the differences among article topics (episode, character, etc) and common practice as well as common misconceptions...I just think that 4 pronged list could be tightened up a bit more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on is cast/crew information - I'll go ahead and mention that those are not adequate for establishing real-world perspective. I'm less convinced on the DVD commentaries and on websites like BuddyTV and TVSquad. I pulled something up at random from BuddTV - [2] - and while it is indeed fluffy, there's definitely stuff there that could be used in creating an article on the character. I'll try to spruce that section up a bit, however, and note that we really want more than just a thumbs up/thumbs down sort of discussion of reviews. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There - I added a paragraph to #4 that I think deals with your objections, and another to the intro of the four-pronged test. I'm sure we'll still get zealous people trying to treat this as a checklist where, when all four are addressed, the article is automatically safe, but at least now the guideline gives ammunition to be used to shoot such attempts down. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they were all bad, but I think there should be emphasis on identifying the "fluff" and discouraging its use. I rarely see any policy/guideline or even FAC (because there seems to be a serious rush to get some of these articles to FA status) articulate the need for context. Vague, non-descriptive claims about an episode, its articles, storyline, etc are a start, but without the context to know exactly why a reviewer felt this way even they will boil down to just fluff for the article. I like your additions, and I think they do just what you said, which is basically have editors provide some real substance to the article instead of passing off skim milk as whole milk.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Recommendations for the proposal

In regard to this new proposal, I think it might help the proposal achieve acceptance if more examples (of both articles which do exist and should, and don't exist and shouldn't) were provided throughout the page. It would also make the proposal easier to understand. I think we may be able to have this proposal accepted as a guideline, but I would need further interpretation of it (in the form of such examples) to be certain of my preference. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Metropolitan90 - it is too easy to get into purely abstract reasoning unless we apply the rules to obvious examples. Lets start with the example of List of minor Power Rangers characters which was the subject of a recent AfD debate. Is this a good or bad article/list under the prosed guideline? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• That's sort of an off-base question. The goal of this guideline is to construct a guideline that mirrors what AfD has been doing in the absence of a guideline - that is, to describe current consensus. So yes - the guideline would, I think, produce the same result as AfD in that case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on providing them. I want to be careful, because such examples fly closer to "OTHERCRAPEXISTS" than I am wholly comfortable with, and seem to me to suggest making such comparisons. But I'll work on trying to make it more concrete without inviting such approaches. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I did not follow your reason for voting against deletion in the AfD debate, even though this lists fails the verification requirement. Can you explain why you think List of minor Power Rangers characters should be kept in a little more detail? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• As a the reasonable compromise between individual articles on the characters and no coverage that it is. But this is rather off-topic, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• So explain how the guideline would work in this circumstance. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• The guideline supports merging individual articles upwards to list articles, much like the community. It does not attempt to answer the general question of notability and lists, which seems to be what you're asking. As it stands, however, these upward merges are routine and minimally contentious. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• And in the case of List of minor Power Rangers characters, how should WP:FICT be a applied? Should it be kept, merged with a more notable topic or deleted? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• WP:FICT does not try to deal with the question of list articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Although you are under no obligation to discuss examples, it is going to be hard to make progress on this proposal if it cannot be applied to practical examples. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A hard-line approach

Most of the current proposal has been written with the assumption that most fiction articles deserve to be in Wikipedia. I'd like to propose a position in line with the notability standards for other articles.

• Works of fiction are notable only if there is substantial third-party material about them in reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, or academic journals. This does not include simple inclusion in lists or indices. (This is Wikipedia's standard definition of notability.)
• Characters in fiction are notable only if there is substantial third-party material about them in reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, or academic journals, and the character appears in more than one work.
• Individual episodes of serial works are generally not notable.
• Minor components of fictional works (fictional places, devices, etc.) are notable only if there is substantial third-party material about them in reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, or academic journals, and if the item appears in more than one work.
• "Spinout" articles are discouraged.
• Short stories within collections are not individually notable unless there is substantial third-party material about the individual story in reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, or academic journals.

That's more in line with Wikipedia's notability standards on other subjects. There's been a drift toward inclusion of too much detail about fiction in Wikipedia, and we need to tighten up standards. There's a place for fancruft, but it's Wikia, not Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

... except that AfD consensus does not reflect these outcomes. Rather than characterizing it as assuming that most fiction articles deserve to be in Wikipedia, it's more NPOV to assert that this proposal reflects typical AfD outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How so? Unless I'm missing something, it seems pretty in-line with AfD outcomes and several project guidelines and consensus decisions (except the first, which FICT generally has nothing to do with with as there are specific guidelines for more types of fiction). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Full_House_characters is one I recently participated in. The article was kept with most !voters asserting notability of the show without reference to the presence or lack of secondary sources. They just "knew" it was notable. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably because they were one of the millions of people who watched the show in primetime on ABC when it first ran for nearly 8 years, or they were any of the people who have seen it currently in syndication on ABC Family. John Stamos is notable for playing Uncle Jesse, the Olsen twins are notable for playing Michelle, Bob Saget is notable for playing Danny Tanner, etc. Those characters are instantly recognized. Some of the actors went on to become notable for other things. Other actors, not so much. --Pixelface (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The hard-line proposal has been pushed for months now with little success, as has the alternative hardline proposal of more radical inclusion. It is clear that neither has any sort of consensus, principled or practical. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't agree with john. It is clear that jclemens has the right answer: current practice doesn't reflect a strict application of WP:N to fiction articles. But it isn't that far from it. I don't have data on this, but the AfD's that I see basically fall into two categories: either some third party material mentions the characters (even trivially) or none do. For the latter, they are almost all redirected, merged or deleted. For the former, they are usually kept (though not as universally as the latter are deleted). I also don't think it is fair to reject john's view as "radical" (and therefore ignore it). Plenty of people expressed some flavor of the view above (including myself) at the WP:N RfC and we would be remiss in rewriting FICt without acknowledging that. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's radical as such. I freely acknowledge that there's a substantial bloc that supports strict notability. There's also a substantial bloc that supports all episodes and characters. I suspect the two blocs are of roughly equal size, all told. In any case, I think the current proposal does acknowledge what you say, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the challenge with John's position is that it seems to present a more narrow view of WP:RS than WP:RS does. I don't see the need to restate RS here, nor understand the need to limit RS to "newspapers, magazines, or academic journals". Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that part of john's claim doesn't hold up. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS says "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." That usually boils down to newspapers, journals, and academic sources. Books that aren't self-published also qualify. Refereed online journals and reviews from respected review sources qualify, but most web sources do not. For major fictional works (Tolkien, Harry Potter, etc.) such sources exist. For fiction that's never had a serious review, there's not much Wikipedia can say about it. --John Nagle (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You have identified one of the vast silly portions of our sourcing policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not "silly". That's the way almost everything else on Wikipedia is edited. I've edited on some controversial subjects, where anything that doesn't have a citation to a published source will be challenged and deleted. In the early days of Wikipedia, editors weren't held to that standard, but today it's routine. In the last two years, citation standards have been raised considerably. Wikipedia articles today are cited like academic papers. Fiction articles need to come up to that standard. If you just want to write fancruft, there's Wikia. --John Nagle (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Cited like academic papers? Cited like academic papers? I promise you, as someone who has written multiple published peer-reviewed academic papers on pop culture subjects, the sourcing standards on Wikipedia bear no resemblance whatsoever to academic papers. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess, Phil, what I'm saying is that there (hopefully) is a bloc that says "WP:N helps us ensure NOR/NPOV/NOT are met better than any competing standard, but brings some significant collateral damage WRT fictional subjects". I'm in that bloc. I think that your proposal is better than others, but I'm not sure I'm onboard yet. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

An underlying statement to all this is the issue of exactly, with respect to "Wikipedia is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedia", what our cover of fiction should be. We know it is not "having each character in a separate article" (that was back about 2+ years ago and has since reverted) but it is also clear that we cannot leave out the in-universe aspects of the work. The goalposts for fiction coverage between "a lot" and "none" is condensing every iteration, and while we'd love to be exact, flexibility within the guidelines is needed. If we were to line up all the various fields and how they are covered, again with the same end points of "alot" and "none", we'd want each field to fall within the same zone - not the same line - though by necessity in some fields larger coverage may be appropriate while less for other fields. --MASEM 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with John Nagle, as it is congruent with WP:N, which Phil's proposal is trying to work around. Since notability is the starting point for topic inclusion, I think we must start by recognising this in WP:FICT. The opening statement that "No hard and fast rule regarding the notability of fictional subjects has found wide consensus" is just too contraversial a statement, when in reality there is a general consensus that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Claimed AfD consensus

When we speak about emulating current practice with this guideline, I think we should be precise. What AfD's are we mining for data on the subject? How many (to pick a sample) of TTN's AfD's were closed with the subject article being retained in a stand-alone fashion? Looking at http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php?user=TTN I can see that roughly 77% of his nominations caught by the tool have been redirected or deleted. That's not a random sample, as TTN is more discerning than people give him credit for, but we should think about that. Of those 77% which were redirected, which would have been kept under this guideline? I'm not saying that what we deleted due to TTN's noms should become the standard for inclusion. What I'm saying here is that appealing to a "consensus of practice" at AfD must present some compelling data.

Likewise, I'm seeing some debate above about list articles or merger targets. I don't want us to assume that because we want to merge characters (or episodes) into list articles that we necessarily want those list articles to be kept. The deletion policy demands that we take the lowest impact route with regards to deletion of content--if we can upmerge something we usually do. That being said, there are plenty of fictional works that don't have support for a character list. Lost of books, movies, and games exist that have largely formulaic characters that no source (semi-reliable or otherwise) has spent a significant amount of time on. Imagine a List of minor characters in World of Warcraft or List of non-speaking characters in Rocky V or something like that. List of characters exist where a consensus can exist to delete the list even though consensus can exist to merge items to it.

Just two points that I saw above which I figured should be clarified. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

On lists, I do not take this proposal to make any strong claims on list articles. It's not been something that's been debated much, and with 55% on the RFC saying lists should be exempted from the GNG, it's something that I think we're at the start of a debate over, not the end. Certainly, given the 55% support for an outright exemption from the GNG (which seems too extreme for me - I think there's clear consensus for a weaker standard, but not an exemption from notability), I think there's a compromise to be forged here. But I think this is a debate that is starting, whereas the larger notability questions are something that it is long overdue that we come to some sort of consensus on. I'll look at your 77% question in a bit. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fair. I didn't want to say that claims about lists are made by the proposal but that we are basing claims about practice at AfD on our tendency to push characters to lists. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Which does seem to be the case. And I suspect that lists are going to be the next big front in the inclusionism/deletionism debate. But honestly, I don't think anyone has come up with any good proposals for lists yet. I'm certainly hard-pressed to come up with a good way to quantify "We allow lists of things we wouldn't allow full articles of, but we don't allow lists of just anything" in a good sense. But I think it's relatively non-controversial to note that our list inclusion policies are laxer, and that there is often a consensus to merge non-notable articles into a list. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've looked at a few of the TTN deletions. Now, a caveat - I did not design this proposal to allow automatic decisions on fiction notability. The proposal says to weigh factors, and any weighing is going to be subjective and debatable. That said, based on the proposal, here's what I see:

I can find articles that, to my mind, I would have voted keep on if this proposal had been the operative guideline. Ulala, which was nominated in this form: [3] springs to mind - I think the appearance over multiple games that are not even in one series, and the design controversy section there gives enough basis that I would have been inclined to keep the article and allow it a chance to develop. (Not that it was a good article - just that it seemed to me to have the potential to be a good article.)

There are also borderline cases. Meta Knight, nominated in this form: [4] is over-long, badly organized, and full of in-universe trivia. I suspect, however, that the decision on the whole is wrong - that is, I suspect the article could be sourced, and I could quickly find evidence to this effect.

On the other extreme, there are some keeps that I think are unjustifiable. Dwayne Wayne fails this guideline utterly, to my mind, and should have been deleted or merged.

But I mostly did not find anything in TTN's AFDs that seems to me to go against this guideline. A few aberrant cases, but I think they are indeed abberant, and go both ways. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Most of the noms and closes would run afoul of the "sourcing" section of the proposal. The same would be true of most of the Warhammer 40,000 deletions. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - are you saying that many of the deleted articles would, in your mind, satisfy this proposal, or that the sourcing section of the proposal would still cause most of them to be deleted? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that it appears to me that a non-trivial number (again, I can't give data because FICT isn't a bright line guideline) of TTN's nominations (to pick one subset) and the deletions of Warhammer material (to [pick another) would have been kept if we could use sources that were less than independent or less than reliable. I can give specific examples of sources for Warhammer easily (though the explanation is laborious). Protonk (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointing to an example, whether in TTN's stuff or Warhammer, might be helpful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll try to generally explain the Warhammer issue, because one example describes almost every AfD in that subject area. Warhammer 40,000 is a tabletop wargame produced by Games Workshop. Games Workshop (GW) realized early on that vertical and horizontal integration was the way to go for making these games. They bought the miniatures, the company that makes the fabs for the miniatures, the distribution sites (for a while they owned most of the big "hobby" stores in the states) and the printed material. They own (lock stock and barrel) the publishing company that produces their fictionalized spinoffs (novels and comic books) as well as the company that produces the "game guide" and "companion" literature--the game has a complex set of rules and encyclopedic knowledge of those rules is critical to play. As such, a player is better off knowing rules about the game in general and their army in particular. GW sells "codexes" (their word) for each army and so has an incentive (and excercises it) to make each codex necessary for advanced play. A look at possible canon sources is available here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/References. Those sources can provide published, verified information distinct from (strictly) PLOT and GAMEGUIDE information and were used to build a massive walled garden of articles on fictional subjects within that universe. However, those sources are examples of what the "independent" part of WP:N was written in for. Since GW makes money from the publication of texts and the sale of figurines, they have amassed a huge corpus of work on fictional elements which have received close to zero outside attention from reliable sources. To pick a few AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldar Gods (Warhammer 40,000)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomican

There are literally >60 others with much the same arguments. Those articles were deleted because WP:N allows the categorical rejection of a sourcebook like Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader as an "independent source". I'm not saying the current proposal would reverse all of those (or that such a reversal would necessarily be a bad thing), but that a move on that front runs afoul of some "consensus in practice" as well as some expressed feelings from members of the community. However, I agree that something better than WP:N is needed (broken record here). Even for 40K, most of the "main" fictional elements could be deleted if WP:N were applied strictly--that would hurt the encyclopedia. But at the same time, those AfDs would have been more confusing and nightmarish if the criteria for judgement of sources were more subjective.

One example that I can think of where current practice matched this guideline is the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horus Heresy discussion. That article needed to stay and did, mostly because people familiar with the subject matter knew when to abandon hard-line rules (guess I'm patting myself on the head there). But a lot of the deletions affirmed the position that many people felt the GNG applied to these articles. An embarrasing number appealed to the defunct FICT as well...sigh.

I guess we should be careful looking back at past AfDs to see if the current proposal would generate similar outcomes. For one, this proposed guideline is considerably more subjective than the GNG. It is easier to claim "So and So is an important part of this important work of fiction, therefore don't delete" then it is to claim "here are sources X, Y, Z." Economy of debate aside, this muddies comparisons. I guess my point is that we have generally kept character or element articles where sourcing (as WP:RS defines it) exist and not kept them where sourcing doesn't exist. Insofar as this proposal expands that, we more further from claiming that FICT supports current practice. Protonk (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're into some pretty arcane points of technicalness here, but I, at least, would feel that for a game like Warhammer, the medium is game, and thus the rulebooks are primary source texts, not secondary source texts. The situation would be, to me, analagous to using the Monster Manual as a secondary source on D&D races, and equally unacceptable. So I think that the issue there is that we're failing to clear primary source. But that might need to be clarified in the proposal. I'll have a look later tonight and see if I can tighten the language on that point. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The analogy to the monster manual is a very good one. Perhaps something more tractable is this: White Dwarf (magazine) is a publication produced by GW which has been (sort of) a supplemental sourcebook, font of creator commentary, and source of general news. I have no problem using it to source claims in articles but I would be leery of using it to establish notability. That's probably a better example of a source in the twilight between WP:N's rigorous exclusion and this guideline's more nuanced take. Is it "independent enough"? Would it exhaust or derail an AfD to focus on that discussion? Protonk (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's probably something that has to be done on AfD, as exhausting as it is. My sense of White Dwarf is that some coverage in it is useless, and other coverage in it is substantial enough to be of use to us in determining notability. So it becomes a case where careful decision making is needed, whether that is exhausting or not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem we have here is that we would be stating that a company must shoot itself in the foot to have its products featured comprehensively in wikipedia. It makes perfect business sense for GW to have done what it did, to own all aspects of the market. Originally, WD covered all wargaming (and some roleplaying) products, and was already on route (as I understand it) to be the market leading publication in this area. I know of only one smaller regular publication in the UK on wargaming, and because WD is so large, this publication avoids most of the GW product line - not because it isn't notable, but because coverage is already provided. A similar situation exists to a certain extent with D&D and the WotC Dragon and Dungeon publications. Similarly, how is owning your own publishing division that much different from an established publisher producing works within your fictional universe? We need to be careful here of 'independence bias' - when a notable-to-the-public niche is so thoroughly covering itself that third parties would not see the market value in more than just a passing mention. Similarly, when talking about sourcing, the classic systematic biases become serious issues. We have seen in the past extremely notable shows from the 1960's and the like nominated for deletion simply because there does not exist a modern buzz around the show. I've seen people happily nominate the national sporting teams of non-english, less-online speaking countries (although less so recently, thankfully). LinaMishima (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

They haven't shot themselves in the foot. To the extent that their products are covered in third party sources they should be covered here. The only way that GW coverage of 40K through company organs reduces outside coverage is that they (like most other companies in that business) jealously guard their intellectual property and would object to a printed "guide" on 40K. As far as the "publishing division" being owned by GW goes...I'm not sure how this is difficult to see. GW dictates the scope of the fictionalized and informational coverage produced by their in-house publishing company. Works made there are effectively works for hire. We cannot and should not use those works to make editorial decisions for an encyclopedia. If our job is to reflect third party sourcing, we can't let that reflection be distorted by paid works. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point regarding works for hire. However, consider the situation the other leading UK wargames magazine is in (if it is still around). Currently, a very small percentage base of their readers follow GW products, and WD is highly popular amongst GW fans who are often exclusively GW fans. As such, increasing their coverage of GW products in line with the actual following within the total market would be uneconomical for them, so they continue to provide minimal coverage. This in turn could well mean that the other third party products covered by the leading magazine would be considered more notable by wikipedia's guidelines (due to more third party coverage), despite GW owning most of the actual market. I don't think it is an issue here in this specific case, but this is a problem to keep in mind. LinaMishima (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think one thing we need to be careful of, with regard to AfD, is when a page is kept because there was a rash of fans that came in with "Keep" votes. I know that AfDs are not about "voting", but I've seen too many closed both keep and delete because there was a huge number of people that came in and simply overran the page with votes and the closing Admin didn't actually bother to read the reasoning behind the choice. To be frank, the AfD system is flawed on both sides, and I think citing it as a way to see "community practice" is extremely difficult to support. I think it's been said that, if not then I'm saying it now, you can have two articles of a different topic but with the same level of notability establish (or...in this case a lack thereof). They both go through the AfD process, but one is kept and the other is deleted. Different sets of editors think different ways, and one topic might be more popular among a group of editors than another, which is the only reason it was saved. It's like the saying in the medical field, go to 5 different psychiatrists with the same symptoms and you're likely to get 5 different diagnoses. I think we really need to be careful when we're citing AfDs, one way or there other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

True. It's more accurate to say that I based this on looking at what reasons often seemed persuasive on AfD, not trying to statistically map results. AfD does produce abberant results from time to time, but its reasoning is usually fairly consistent over time. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think the statement that this proposal is based on consensus at AfD does not stand up to reasonable scruitiny. Firstly, no evidence has been presented to suppor this case - it is a spurious claim. Secondly, the evidence at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters/archive shows that there is no hard and fast rule about AfD debates. Most of nominations end in redirects and mergers (a soft form of deletion) rather than deletion, but regardless of outcome, it is clear that many articles about ficitonal characters do get nominated for deletion for many different reasons, but mainly WP:ILIKEIT is the most obvious argument made in their defense. I think we collectively need to drop the pretense that our individual personal view reflect consensus and is somehow superior to everyone else's, when in fact they are our own (but none the worse for that). --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikia has a whole wiki just for Warhammer.[5]. That's where the detail should go. All Wikipedia needs is some introductory information and some properly sourced external commentary. There's probably no need for more than one Warhammer-related article on Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The existance or otherwise of an off-wikipedia 'home' for a subject should not effect how wikipedia judges inclusion. LinaMishima (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't meet WP:N, it's out of here. I'm pointing out that there's a place for such things, but not on Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with John. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and topics that WP:N tend to fail one or more of Wikipedia's content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Preserving via merge

Why doesn't this article discuss questions of WP:PRESERVE and WP:MERGE? Also, the current wording in "A note of caution" indicates that in an AFD, if the nominator didn't try to improve the article first, the article perhaps should be procedurally kept? --Malkinann (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should the nominator be obligated to "try to improve the article first"? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Malkinann is saying that the nominator should. I'm certainly not. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to clarify some things in my own mind... and hopefully in the text too. ;) See below response. --Malkinann (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not support procedural keeps in that circumstance, and I do not think the guideline encourages them. If there's language that suggests to you that it does, let me know and I'll have a look at it. It doesn't cite PRESERVE and MERGE because there are limits to the number of policy pages I know off the top of my head, and those fell outside it. I'll work mention of both in. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When I was saying procedural keep, I was drawing from my experience of the ArbCom. My logic went if part of the AFD procedure is to mandate improvement before nominating for deletion, then if an editor fails to do so, it's against procedure, and so the article may be procedurally kept?? --Malkinann (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I like how you've put in the preserve stuff, but I think that as lists are encouraged, and merging is often how those lists are formed, that there should be much more detail on merging under the "Caution" heading, especially on how to make sure that merging meets the GFDL requirements. --Malkinann (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel like duplicating other guidelines is really necessary here - that way lies instruction creep. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think what I'm proposing is instruction creep, but instead is instruction exposure - the part I want to include (that you must link articles that are merged in your edit summaries) is from the GFDL itself. --Malkinann (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think mandating WP:BEFORE is the nuclear option of deletion debates. The deletionist response is attempting to write in a speedy deletion criteria for unsourced articles. neither will gain consensus. Protonk (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The practical compromise in use on this issue seems to me to be to allow nominations in good faith, to chastise people for nominations that are ill-considered, and to err on the side of keeping articles that can be improved. But not to mandate improvement before deletion. For one thing, plenty of articles can't be improved. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't WP:BEFORE be mandated in some form? At the very least, I think that a "no sources" or "fails GNG" nom should not be made without at least a cursory search for sources. It's not as if Googling is particularly hard; AfD's exist to destroy content, so expecting due dilligence from the nominator doesn't seem odious in my mind. I've seen some horrendously bad nom's from some good editors that would have been caught by a search and saved both face and effort. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Because, as Phil says right above, the current practice deals with this. Mandating sourcing or searching places a burden on the vast majority of nominators (who do so in good faith) and wouldn't provide anything other than a technical "violation" for bad-faith nominators. It isn't likely to stop disruption and it isn't likely to change outcomes (in other words, bad faith/irresponsible noms are usually kept anyway, either at AfD or DRV). Protonk (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it neccessary to do "before nominating an article for deletion" - ie to follow the instructions there, or is it neccessary to "do so" (ie. improve the article) before nominating an article for deletion? --Malkinann (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not "necessary" to follow WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion, but it's a really good idea. --Pixelface (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Breaking out a subject from a list

What would I do if I wanted to go about breaking out one character or episode from a list to give it its own article? Would I have to prove all four of these criteria in a consensus or just the last one on real-world perspective? --Malkinann (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You would have to establish at least some argument for all four. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's a major character of the work with critical commentary, can it be assumed that some narrative complexity is at play? How far should WP:IMPERFECT go if I wanted to break out an article from a list? --Malkinann (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think that critical commentary by its nature provides some evidence for narrative complexity. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Malkinann, you can do whatever you want if you think it makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. If you can provide evidence of notability, it's likely that more people will be persuaded to keep the article. --Pixelface (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

notability of a character list article?

What are the "appropriate standards of notability" for a character list article? --Malkinann (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I was deliberately vague there, as that is still a contested point. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The way it's worded suggests to me that there are some "appropriate standards of notability", and that they're more or less agreed upon. --Malkinann (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to better suggestions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What about "When dealing with character articles that have been created, there is often consensus to merge them into list articles, although as much information satisfying the four pronged test above as possible should be included to help demonstrate the list's notability." ?? Bit wordy? --Malkinann (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what happens in the merge discussion and where it took place. If {{merge}} tags have been placed on character articles, the ideal place to discuss the merge is the article or list where the initiator wants to merge them. The talk page of a WikiProject? Not so much. Characters don't have to be "notable" to be included in a list. If there is a list of characters, Wikipedia probably has an article for the fictional work it appears in. If Wikipedia doesn't have an article for the fictional work, you'd have a much harder time persuading people to have a list of characters from the work. Lists are navigational aids. Lists, like any article on Wikipedia, don't have to be notable. --Pixelface (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My take on it: When a) The list of characters is from a notable work or series of works of fiction, and b) when it makes sense to break the characters out because b.1) it reduces duplication in multiple articles or b.2) it helps improve the size or readability of the article(s) from which the character list is broken out. Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah now that's a different kettle of fish - I was thinking of when lists are sewn together from character articles, but this is the opposite approach, spinning out a character list from a series article. --Malkinann (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Both occur I think, but yours more often, as that's generally what I see as well. --Izno (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Constructing it from a list of separate character articles or breaking it out from a main article is all the same, in my mind. I don't really see a difference in desired outcome, just in inertia--that is, those who like separate character articles will want them to stay and likely argue for that outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

use of primary sources for citing production staff

While this may not be directly related, I believe that for use of noting production staff that the item itself, or in the case of games or video, a manual should be able to suffice. While this doesn't show notability, the manuals, except in the rare spelling mistake, do list everyone for most works what would be WP:N], whereas such review sites or others may not list anyone. While it's not important to know every person in the process, knowing the lead musician in a game is generally considered someone of note if the music is praised (or alternatively bashed), though his name may not be mentioned in such articles.じんない 02:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone seriously questioned the use of primary sources for this? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with phil here. Also remember that this is trying to be a rough inclusion guideline, not a rule delimiting content. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

not recently, but a while back when talking on Star Ocean, it was highly discouraged to use them for listing stuff like that. Basically they said it was only good if a second independent source could be used as well to verify for more than anything other than a short-term use, such as when creating a new article.じんない 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are the best source for this, unless contradicted with explanation for the difference in a secondary source, or a secondary source offers additional commentary on this point. If one wishes to state a fact that is obvious without interpretation within a primary source, going to a secondary source for this exact same information only introduces potential errors (hence why I state that secondary sources only override primary if they explain why they do - a lot of secondary sources have contained errors!). However a secondary source might also contain more detail on a point, which could be of further use and so justify using a secondary source for the statement if you are also wishing to introduce such details. LinaMishima (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

I'm driving for 12 hours tomorrow (Tuesday) to my Thanksgiving destination, so I will not be active in this discussion until Tuesday night or, more likely, Wednesday morning. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts

It makes for a good userspace essay. It's too long to be a guideline. The text, by my count, (including the nutshell, minus the hatnotes, the table of contents, the See also section) is 3,310 words. Keep it simple. Very simple. Could it be said in 500 words? Could it be said in fewer words in multiple guidelines? Fiction is a big topic. Category:Fiction contains over 28% of the articles on Wikipedia. There are already notability guidelines for books and films. Does fiction really need to be grouped all together? How would this proposed guideline be applied to actual articles? For example, the articles Edward Cullen (Twilight), Bella Swan, Jacob Black, and List of Twilight characters.

The survey I wrote, which you said was too long Phil, was 2,382 words (2,576 if you include the instructions) — and much of that text is just a repetition of a few phrases for clarity (since the questions would be appearing on subpages). I still think we should get input from the wider community and not just the same ten or twenty names. It's no surprise by now that the same names keep nominating articles relating to fiction for deletion and the same names keep arguing to keep the article or try to improve the articles within a five-day time frame. If you don't like that survey, trim it down, edit it until it's a survey you do like, anyone, please, this is a wiki afterall.

The GNG does *not* state "that an article on a topic should have significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources." "Significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources" is evidence of notability. That's all. Evidence of notability. But that is not the only evidence of notability. Radiant! wrote WP:N because the phrase "non-notable" was commonly used in AFDs. So he figured there seemed to be a certain level of notability that topics needed to have in order for the article to avoid being deleted. Writing WP:N was a bad idea. If the phrase "lame" was commonly used in AFDs, that doesn't mean there should be a guideline saying topics should be "cool", that there seemed to be a certain threshold of "coolness" topics need to meet. After N was written, Wikipedia:Fiction was renamed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) after this proposal to rename at WT:N. Perhaps this guideline should be renamed back to Wikipedia:Fiction. Maybe it should remain named Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).

In order to write a guideline about evidence of notability for fictional topics, we can have a survey to find out what the community considers evidence of notability for fictional works, fictional characters, etc. Mickey Mouse is not notable for having "significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources." Mickey Mouse receives "significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources" because Mickey Mouse is notable. The notability comes before the coverage. People cover Mickey Mouse because they feel Mickey Mouse is worthy of notice, worthy of their attention. In that way, "significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources" is evidence of notability. But why is Mickey Mouse notable? Maybe that's the wrong question. What is Mickey Mouse notable for?

Speaking of what happens at AFD, here are all the List of*episode AFDs I could find and also all the List of*character AFDs I could find (I looked two weeks ago so it is out of date):

/List of characters AFDs

/List of episodes AFDs

Perhaps everyone could answer "What is the purpose of this guideline?" and some common ground could be found. I think this guideline is here so people can learn what other people consider evidence of notability for fictional topics. And I think a survey is an obvious way to determine what constitutes that evidence. --Pixelface (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(More of a technical note: I suggest userspacing or subpage those lists - 30k onto this talk page starts weighing it down, but please link to them back here)

This guideline only deals with elements of fiction, not works thereof, thus it doesn't attempt to group movies, books, tv shows, etc, into a unifying guideline, only the characters, episodes, and other details of them. Now, you could argue is a movie character should be treated the same way as a tv show character, and you can come up with several different variations (as your fict survey had), but that's way too CREEPy to be effective - your same complaint about this being too long would be the same if we outlined how each type of character should be treated. There are general trends, and that's captured pretty damn well by while Phil wrote. It is not perfect - it is not something you can make a checklist again and quantify - but it does provide a better talking.

Also, while Phil wrote falls pretty well in line with the recent RFC at WP:N - every individual topic should strive to show it meets the GNG. The flexibility comes in what sources are appropriate to show that, or the expectation of that. Now, your last point on Mickey, that is "What is Mickey notable for?" is probably a very good point to include somewhere. This is a differentiator between trivial references and substantial aspects. If you can explain how a fictional character or other aspect has achieved notability through sources (including both creators and reception), then that should never prevent that element from having its own article. If it can't be shown, that doesn't mean we don't cover it, just that it is covered in the larger context of the work the element appears in or with out similar elements of the work that lack that aspect. Very few fictional characters and the like have information about what they are notable for, but when that is clearly shown from sources, it should be expanded on and thus never deleted. But here, we still need to be able to use good sources to state what an element is notable for, and for the specific concern of fandom, we need to avoid any self-pub or primary sources, which is why these aspects will come from secondary sources, still emphasizing that we are following the GNG to avoid editor's personal bias. Some statement on looking for "what a character is notable for?" would be ideal to add to one of the four points. --MASEM 06:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I put those AFD lists on subpages. Why does this guidelne only deal with elements of fiction? It was Wikipedia:Fiction and then it was renamed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It's not named Wikipedia:Fictional like Category:Fictional. Ignoring the fact that any notability guideline is arguably "instruction creep", I wouldn't call evidence of notability like WP:BIO shows "instruction creep." The survey removes the question of "notability" altogether and gets to the most basic question: X is a topic. Should X have an:

A) article

B) list entry

C) redirect

D) a mention in another article

E) none of the above

People can answer however they want. The survey doesn't say the answers are how we should "treat" each character. Where's the evidence that what Phil wrote actually captures general trends? The survey I wrote asks people to identify AFD trends. The survey I wrote asks people why should X fictional character from Z fictional work have an article but not Y fictional character from the same fictional work? You are still wrong about the RFC at N. Topics don't have to "strive" to do anything. When you say "the flexibility comes in what sources are approproate to show that", you still don't understand. "Significant coverage in realiable secondary sources" is evidence of notability. But it is not the only evidence of notability. Win a Nobel prize? Evidence of notability. Win an Academy Award for Best Actor? Evidence of notability. Be the richest man on Earth? Evidence of notability. Be the first man to climb Mount Everest? Evidence of notability. Be the first man to set foot on the Moon? Evidence of notability. Naturally that evidence would not apply to fictional characters. So we ask people what evidence does qualify as evidence of notability for fictional characters. Mickey Mouse is not notable for having "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independend of the subject." Mickey Mouse is notable for something else. You said "we still need to be able to use good sources to state what an element is notable for." Do you now see how "notability" is subjective? You can't add "Superman is notable for being the coolest superhero ever" to the Superman article. It's an unsourced opinion. But whether to keep or delete an article on Wikipedia is an opinion. The question is not "Is the Batmobile notable?" The question is "Can Wikipedia have an article about the Batmobile?" The best place to discuss that is the talk page of the article. But as long as people are trying to bypass hundreds of thousands of talk pages with a guideline, and the guideline won't go away, we can ask:

• 1) An article for a fictional vehicle is acceptable if _____
• 2) A list entry for a fictional vehicle is more appropriate than an article when _____
• 3) A redirect for a fictional vehicle is more appropriate than an article when _____

If this guideline could talk I would guess its current answers would be:

• 1) if the fictional work it appears in is important, and if the vehicle is important within the fictional work, and if some production or reception information is available.
• 2) the fictional work it appears in is important, the vehicle is important within the fictional work, but no production or reception information is available.
• 3) the vehicle appears in a list and not a article.

Now let's get the wider community's input. If there's no general agreement, we can say there's no general agreement. If many people agree that something is evidence of notability, we can say some people consider it evidence of notability. If you don't like the survey Masem, please edit it and change anything you want, as much as you want. --Pixelface (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

proposing a split of this proposal

I think we should separate episodes from in-universe elements (characters, settings, weapons, items) of the work of fiction. There are a few reasons we should do this:

• It prevents us from describing what this guideline applies to with any specificity. We talk about "the aspect of the work of fiction" or "the component". You almost might not even know what WP:FICT is about in the first place, until you get to explicit examples.
• The guideline becomes pretty long, where we talk about the principles in abstract first, and then have additional sections that apply the principles to episodes and characters. We could avoid the whole "abstract" part by having two different guidelines.
• Speaking of which, the whole "abstract" part is pretty vague. We end up talking about importance and complexity in ambiguous terms that would make sense for in-universe elements like characters and items, as well as episodes. These parts of the guideline are less helpful than the specific applications, which are more clear.
• We may be trying to draw a line of best fit through articles that may actually have two different standards: I think personally think we're a little bit more liberal on episode lists and episode articles than we are on in-universe elements like characters and settings. I think a lot of other people would basically agree with that.
• We may end up getting no consensus because there's support on episodes, but no consensus on in-universe stuff, or vice versa. And it might not be obvious that this is why there is no consensus, because a lot of people will oppose the mega-guideline for different and unclear reasons.

I recognize that the abstract principles would be duplicated to some extent if we split the guideline... and thus some of the debates would be duplicated too. But I think the two different debates will lead to slightly different conclusions, if only in a nuanced way. And I think the guidelines will actually be more clear if we're talking about them with greater specificity, rather than in abstract. And keeping it shorter could only help. Randomran (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this. Episodes and fictional elements can't be lumped together. Unfortunately answering the "episode" question properly means addressing "lists" of episodes. I think that addressing characters doesn't require addressing "lists" of characters. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• I'm unconvinced of the point of this. It seems there are three thresholds - episodes are easier to justify than characters are easier to justify than other stuff. But the underlying principles are largely the same. Splitting it up seems like an invitation for a mess. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...as evidenced by the nightmare that is/was WP:EPISODE and its getting challenged even MORE than WP:FICT. We've been there, we've done that, it didn't work. Neither did FICT, unfortunately. As for addressing a "list of episodes", the relevant projects already do this to some level, particularly WP:TV in WP:MOSTV. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If we don't split, then we need to find ways to reduce the long passages of vague prose. We need to summarize the basic principles into 4 sentences, not 4 sections. That will make the principles more clear. Then we can apply the principles to episodes, characters, and "other stuff" with more detail -- which will also be more clear than anything we could talk about in abstract. Randomran (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

comments about non-wikipedia wikis to move information too

I'd like to comment on the part of the article that reads:

"Editors should also take advantage of non-Wikipedia wikis that follow the GFDL that may provide more details about a given fictional work. These can not only be used to augment brief descriptions of fictional topics, or can be used to relocate material that has been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia. Links to such wikis should be placed as an external link to the articles in question."

I've done that over at www.wikia.com for two articles, Gantz and Voltron, which were deemed too long on the wikipedia and had a large chunk of their interesting and relevant content eliminated. I was told both times that I could not provide a link from those original wikipedia articles, to these other wikis by other editors, as these are considered "fan sites." Can't we just consider things hosted there to be extensions of wikipedia articles, and link over to them?

If the information is necessary to understand the series, and a crucial part of it, can a separate wikipedia article be made for it? If the only reason someone wanted to remove it, was because of its length, would this not make sense? Example, the unique weapons, vehicles, or powers of the characters in the series. Or the rules they are forced to face, and the rewards and punishments they will receive(example: wander out of bounds, and your head will explode).

As it stands now though, even if a main character from a long running series has enough information about them to fill an entire page, some object to them having their own page, and wish it cut down to a brief mention and merged with the main article, such as the case with some popular Inuyasha characters. This includes characters that have been in the manga/comic, anime/cartoon, and video games of the series, not just one thing. Dream Focus (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources are normally to be avoided, but that said when editors agree that a off-site wiki is sufficiently maintained to be reliable and doesn't violate any other policies (eg copyright infringement) that link can be made as an EL. This means if you are moving stuff off WP to a wiki, it may take some time to make the wiki up to the quality it needs to have editor consensus support it as an EL. Once there, then you can provide supplimentary links for those characters that may have an article, albeit short, for more details. --MASEM 14:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

First, there has always been the debate among editors as to link to the Wikia page or not. Personally, I find it better to link to it then to tell people "put it there, but you better not provide a link over there". That's hypocritical. You cannot expect readers to know about the Wikia when they come to Wikipedia if you don't link to it. If you don't link to it, and they don't know about it, then you're just opening yourself up to argument about why so and so detail isn't mentioned.

Second, if those pages were suggested to be trimmed and merged, then it's because all they had was plot information. Wikipedia isn't about having a page with one giant plot summary. If they were in multiple works, then there should be some real world info on them. If there isn't, then they clearly are not that notable of a character (being in multiple works doesn't make one notable, just popular).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I don't get. We tell people to move it to a wikia. Fine, but then when they do we say, "Oh and you can't even post a external link to it" thus basically looking like we are biting the hand that feeds us. If there are copyright issues on it or spyware/viruses, that's one thing, but often it's just someone who moved stuff over to the site because it wasn't suitable for Wikipedia and we refuse to acknolwedge them. Wikipedia has become for better ot worse, the first stop for many looking up info. If we can't give them all the info here, we should be directing them to the best source for what they need and often for works of fiction, that's those wikias we refuse to acknolwedge exist here unless they meet a level worthy of being a citable source themselves.じんない 23:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just some editors, and they don't speak for everyone. Depending on who you talk to I've heard excuses ranging from "it's a conflict of interest because it's a for-profit location" to "it's a fansite and thus we shouldn't link to it". The first is hard to prove, and the second...well there isn't a policy that says don't link to fansites, you just have to be becareful that whatever you link to is going to extend the knowledge of the page (as there are tons of "fansites" out there and everyone will want their page linked to). The irony is, those Wikias link to Wikipedia just as easily.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've always thought. We had a discussion on Sakura Kinomoto to move some of the stuff to the wikia, but then no one wants to link to it as an external link section because it didn't meet WP:ELNO.じんない 23:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it clearly states in WP:ELNO: "Avoid links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map." - First, the section is clearly identified as "normally to be avoided" and not "avoided at all costs". That means that there are cases when it is appropriate. Second, they even address Wikis being used so long as they are stable and have a number of editors operating on them. I don't know of too many Wikis that only have 1 editor monitoring all the pages. As for "stable", on Wikipedia that is defined as an article not having a lot of edit wars. Again, because they have free reign over there and aren't bound by the rules we are, you don't typically see a lot of edit wars. Plus, you could argue that every page goes through edit wars from time to time, and thus becomes "unstable" at any given moment. It's a baseless criteria for exclusion that is so subject it should really be removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's also that people take "normally to be avoided" as "avoided at almost all costs" because people tend to apply normally as everything because it's easier than making legit exceptions.じんない 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Avoid links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

Why so vague? What is substantial? If its fine now, no sense waiting 6 months or however long people decide is substantial history. And how many editors do you need? There are a lot of great articles out there which don't have a lot of editors. And you won't be getting a lot of people over there to act as editors, if you can't provide a link. The official policy at www.wikia.com is surprisingly to create 50 stub pages right away, to get more hits from Google, and then people who go there will then contribute. That is their actual policy! So its set up all wrong. You need to get new editors by linking from the main wikipedia article, not trying to trick people over from Google. I suggest a new tag that can be added, saying, "parts of this wikipedia article were seen as too long, and thus moved to another wiki. Please go there for additional information." Dream Focus (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen, I'm afraid. For the same reasons the community has rejected soft redirects to wikia articles. We want to build the web here, keep people (readers and editors) looking at wikipedia. Not shunting them elsewhere. Sometimes users create content that doesn't fit out inclusion guidelines so we do a favor to wikia wikis and send the article there--this doesn't extend to pointing readers and editors there. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If they are hosted by the same people, why not just have the regular wikipedia allow side pages? Clicking on a link in the wikipedia article would bring you to another page, but its hosted elsewhere, with links back to the main wikipedia article. People will still use the wikipedia, but have any bonus information hosted on the side wiki, with it not competing for main article content at all. Or better yet, just eliminate the useless rules which makes the wikipedia too restrictive at times. The vast majority of people in this world would not care if every single minor character from a series had its own page. If you aren't interested in them, you won't find your way there to see it anyway. Server space is cheap and limitless, it just the bandwidth costing money after all. Dream Focus (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is NOT a big giant hosting service for anything anyone feels like writing/proclaiming/theorizing/making up/etc. Despite what some folks things, it IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is ENTERTAINMENT! The vast majority of people look up things because they are curious, and enjoy reading about them, not because they have to. Otherwise they'd not allow popular culture at all, just brief boring descriptions of things, with no detail. Most people can name more characters in the Simpsons than they can former presidents, or active members of congress. And there ain't nothing wrong with that. Dream Focus (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not an entertainment site. And the rest...that's just so damn sad I can't even think of a response (not to mention being not entirely accurate, yet sadly, also at least somewhat accurate). Just because Americans, in particularly, like to rejoice in and brag about their ignorance doesn't mean the rest of the English speaking world lives in a popular culture cave, nor that the "vast majority" of people are idiots who only care about popular culture and would never look up any non-fictional topics (and, FYI, non-fictional popular culture is just as popular, aka bios about famous folks, music, etc, hell, go look at the album cruft!). Whether people do it for "curiosity" is completely irrelevant. We don't learn much of anything because we "have" to, all we "have" to learn is how to walk, eat, and escape from danger like any other animal. Humans should (and do) crave knowledge because they are human. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense Protonk. We link to IMDb, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, and a vast many other websites that are merely extensions of the same information we already provide, yet I don't see any issue with linking them in the EL section. If we cannot keep thousands of words of plot description, yet someone wants to read it, there should not be an issue with pointing them in the right direction. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, and that extends to the information it provides. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and even encyclopedias will extend the courtesy of acknowledging where additional information can be attained. The entire idea behind the EL section is holding links to webpages that have extended information that we could not otherwise use in an article. Otherwise, what the hell is the point of having an EL section?

Collectonian, you need to calm down a bit, you're being a bit abrasive in your responses.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made all of two responses. How were they abrasive?? Slightly annoyed at a major problem in this country, but I don't see anything abrasive there. As for the thousands of words of plot, I seem to remember that another part fo the whole issue is that we can't say for sure how much of a plot "summary" if its word for word is copyvio. Also, most of the Wikias for fictional articles are, unfortunately, violations of WP:COPYRIGHT because there is less policing so people freely link to fansites, fansub/dubs, YouTube links, etc. IMDB, I honestly would love to see a real discussion as to whether it really meets WP:EL at all. The film project recently dropped it from the infobox because of EL issues, and it is primarily self-published so how did it become the pervasive link. It really doesn't provide any new information, its self-published, and fails the same guidelines as Wikia, IMHO. BOM does provide additional reliable information, usually, in the form of breaking down the box office numbers and what not, but considering its usually used as a reference, one also wonders why it is also in the EL section (repetitive). Rotten Tomatoes...well, that's a whole other argument :-P I agree we have let some sites "get by" when they have the same things we say "don't link to wikia" because x, y, z... and one should question why, but the whole EL issue really belongs at WP:EL as this guideline can not and should not attempt to modify that guideline. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

When you follow your capitalized words with exclamation marks, it's a little much. You reach a point where it appears like you're yelling because there is so much emphasis on the word. The reason Wikipedia cannot put that much plot information in is because we are a non-profit organization, which means we have special rules that govern us keeping our non-profit license. Wikias are not bound by the GDFL license like we are, hence why they get to get away with it. The fact remains, it's hypocritical of us to tell editors to take the unencyclopedic (but still relevant to the subject) information to a Wikia, but then deny them the ability to allow the reader the chance to view that information. If they don't know about the Wikia, then moving the information there is pointless.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How so? It is still excessive plot information that doesn't belong here. If we didn't tell them to move it to Wikia, we'd just remove it and tell them to Google if they want more information. Fans can and will do web searches to find other sites with such information. Most people neither want nor need to know the minute details, fan theories, etc of a fictional work to have a basic understanding of it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If they don't know what to look for then they won't see it. Doing a search for a general fictional element doesn't put its Wikia page at the top. It's Wikipedia article is generally at the top, but it usually takes a couple of pages of sifting to find the Wikia page, and that's only if you know to look for a Wikia page. Please don't make generalize statements about what most people want or need. You have no evidence to back such a claim up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Linking under WP:EL is different from placing a template message on a page that says "Go to a competing wiki". We aren't responsible for publicizing a wikia wiki. If linking to them will increase the reader's understanding in a fundamental way that improving the page cannot--good, we link to them. But we don't otherwise. I'm not sure how this is hard-line or combatative. Furthermore, this whole discussion is not related to WP:FICT. If you want to gather consensus to change our policies on external content, you might try the village pump, WT:EL, Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki or over at [Meta:Interwiki map]]. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's always easier when people understand the point of the initial comment. Dream Focus was making reference to the contradictory nature of this page telling people to send it to Wikia, when other editors are claiming that they should not even link to Wikia. Why tell a group of editors to send information to a place that they cannot even point the reader to?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If there were no Wikia, people would be told to go find a fansite or go make their own to put such excessive plot information. They would not be allowed to link to it either. When people spam links without meaning to, we point them to various link directories as more appropriate places, even if we do not link to those directories. Excessive game guide info we point to game guide websites, without linking to them ourselves. How is Wikia special/different to allow a link to it just because we point it out as a possible other place to put content in that is not acceptable here? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the fansite, it might actually be linked on Wikipedia. Not all fansites are linked, but some actually are. What makes any link we put in the EL section special? The point of this discussion was over the fact that we tell people to put info in a place that we deny them (for the most part, as it's clear from the amount of linking in articles that this isn't even combated on a regular basis) the ability to link to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia though is about trying to build information network, not systemically dismantle because it doesn't conform to our (Wikipedia's) collective consciousness of what is "right". As I said, Wikipedia is the first stop for most people now seeking information, even for historical research it is often a first (though not last) stop. For entertainment it's only larger. Last year the most popular search term was general research...but only by 2%. The next highest was anime, which is clearly fictional (even those based on true stories). Even movies are at 4%. Therefore as wikipedia is essentially a gatekeeper, whether it intended to be or not, we should not hold people to stop finding more information on stuff deemed by us to be too trivial. If we tell someone the information is relevant, but not Wikipedia relevant, and we or they move it, then we should link to it, not as a banner, but in an EL section. That kind of use does not go against using Wikipedia as a main source for finding basic info because it's not intrusive. It's at the end of an article, which if you know anything about general article structures the most relevent information is first, the least relevent is last.じんない 07:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That pie charge of the most popular things searched for is quite revealing. They even mention Naruto being something people access, and it does link to Naruto.wikia.com and the massive amount of information there. So this other wiki isn't stealing all your viewers, people still coming here. And fearing loss of regular users isn't a valid reason to not link to another area. General research means anything that doesn't fit into another category perhaps? I was surprised to see how many people use the wikipedia to look up information about sex. There are articles explaining in detail every possible position and fetish though. Wikipedia, your first stop for information about cartoons or perversion. No one seems to be trying to arguing to get all those detailed articles all be combined into one sex article, with a brief mention of what each sex position is, and no disturbing pictures that load up without warning. Is it encyclopedic to reveal that much information instead of a brief summary? Why is the more popular category of Anime held to a different standard than sex is? I don't have a problem with any amount of detail for the sex things, just the inconsistency of the rules. They divide popular culture, anime, movies, etc. into different categories, instead of sticking it all together as entertainment? Because entertainment is more popular than anything else. Dream Focus (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Popular culture could also mean recent news events like people looking up information on politics, FE.じんない 13:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Plotcruft and Narrative Complexity

Whilst I welcome the introduction of additional tests to supplement the requirements of WP:N in order to broaden the inclusion criteria for fictional topics, including a test for narrative complexity, I feel the section "Narrative complexity" is actually a coatrack proposal that would exempt articles and lists about fictional topics from WP:NOT#PLOT, and as such, I feel this part of the proposal is a trojan horse, designed to circumvent the extensive discussions at WT:NOT why plot summary on its own is not encyclopedic. What I am refering to is the statement:

"For some works - particularly extremely lengthy serialized works -providing a concise plot summary in one article can be difficult or impossible. Where works have significant narrative complexity that requires considerable length to adequately summarize the plot, we are often more tolerant of spin-out articles that are focused primarily on plot."

I don't see how this contributes to any test, in that long and rambling plot summaries are in no way indicative that there is something significant to say about a particular topic, e.g. the article Guiding Light (1980–1989). The reason for my objection is that articles based on plot summaries can be sliced and diced in any which way an editor chooses, which makes them susceptible to content forks. Plot summary articles can be written from several perpectives, firstly through the narrative flow of a story, then from the characters perspective, and then we graduate on to "story-arcs" that bring one or more slightly connected stories into a "universe of", "ficitional world of" or "timeline of" type article. This section I see as being very problematical in its current form, as it gives carte blanche to "plotcruft". --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "Providing a concise plot summary in one article can be difficult or impossible" is only so if someone doesn't wish to actually be concise. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I share these concerns. Narrative complexity is often an excuse for exhaustive coverage. Take this old article which has since been merged. "Wow, it's so complex!" --

"Big was sleeping in his hut one night, when he woke up and saw that his friend, Froggy, had swallowed his lucky charm; the yellow Chaos Emerald. As soon as he noticed that Froggy had grown a tail, Froggy ran off, causing Big to chase after him. After trying to catch him in Twinkle Park, and then in Ice Cap, Big was able to catch Froggy on Emerald Coast, but Dr. Eggman's robot, E-102 Gamma caught him and ran away. Seeing that, Big tried to convince the robot to give him Froggy back, but without any positive results."

There *is* a common sense notion of what's a healthy summary and what isn't. But then there are people who fly in the face of common sense and write out virtually exhaustive detail of every scene. Up until now, the only way to stop that kind of plotcruft has been WP:N: you're going to need to fit it into 10-20k, in the context of broader coverage. And if you want to split out a more detailed summary, you have to prove that drilling down into one episode or one character is notable enough to be justified. This guideline risks saying "if you can write 100k of plot, you're justified". Trust me when I say that people will put virtually anything in there: unreliable fan speculation, indiscriminate information about height and weight and favorite foods, a mention of a dumb joke that hints at the character secretly being gay, every level the character visits, and every character they interact with... and it can all be justified by a loose reference to the primary source itself. "Complexity" does sound a lot like carte blanche. Randomran (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to rephrasings, but I think there is a demonstrable consensus towards an understanding that, for instance, The Wire has different summary needs than Sesame Street. So I'd like to see something that gets at the understanding that different things need different sorts of summaries. But I'm perfectly happy to see some language that stresses the importance of being as brief as it is possible to be. Perhaps more explicitly referencing WAF, SUMMARY, and PLOTSUM in that section? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a rephrase is all that's necessary, because I think the principle is good -- just susceptible to abuse. I think we need to distinguish complexity from length or detail. Yeah, there's a lot of detail that goes into Sesame Street. But it's not on the level of The Wire. Examples are helpful, but if we could try to articulate a general principle, so much the better. Randomran (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Shortening

I see several comments made about the length of the guideline. I will readily confess to being wordy - by all means, if someone wants to cut my prose down, please. I am poor at it. Brief explanation of concepts is actively trained out of you in my field. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a strategy before we start getting overzealous with the scrubbing. I'd like to make the principles more concise because information in there is generally pretty vague and can be summed up succinctly... but if we do that, we can actually afford to *expand* the sections on episodes and characters. A lot of what we state in the four principles has to do with specific examples anyway. I'm just thinking out loud though, and don't want to be too aggressive or anything. Randomran (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't saying change the meaning. I'm sure I'm being too wordy in describing what's there, and that what I said could be said in fewer words. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Me either. I was hoping to accomplish the same thing with fewer words and more clarity. Do you think the layout I suggested makes sense? Much shorter principles, somewhat longer application? Randomran (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Honest introduction to the guideline

When Phil's proposal was first introduced, I thought highly of it as an honest attempt to address the need for additional inclusion criteria, rather than pleading for specific exemptions for fictional topics. However, the preamble of the proposal is makes assertions (or a lack of them) about Wikipedia inclusion guidelline WP:N that do not hold true:

"No hard and fast rule regarding the notability of fictional subjects has found wide consensus, and the issue remains deeply contentious. In lieu of such a general principle, this guideline attempts instead to address practical consensus - that is, the factors that often, in practice, go into keeping or deleting an article on a fictional subject."

I don't think this statement bears any resemblence to reality at all. Firstly, we already know that if a topic satisfies the requirements General notability guideline, then we can presume it should be allowed its own article. I don't think any harline inclusionists stupid enough to believe that articles that do meet this criteria should be excluded; on the contrary, I think the only hard and fast rules for inclusion criteria that we can agree on is the General notability guideline. The key question in this debate is what additional inclusion criteria can be agree upon.
Secondly, I think we have to recognise that this guideline has only an indirect influence on the outcome of AfD debates. What ever inclusion criteria we agree on for ficitonal topics, we have to recognise that WP:FICT is not a set of criteria for topic exclusion per se. What I mean by this is that fictonal topics will continue to be nominated for deletion, and as poor quality articles will continue to be merged, redirected or deleted on the grounds of poor content or bias. This guideline cannot be used to stop or curtail decisions being made at AFD which we do not agree with. This is why I am proposing the following preamble, which drops the first two paragraphs and replaces them with a preamble that is more honest:

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is a guideline that defines the inclusion criteria for topics about fiction, including individual and serialized works (such as television episodes or comic book series), as well the elements of fiction that appear in them. Works of fiction distributed through the media of books and film are also (but not exclusively) the subject of separate notability guidelines for books and films respectively.

In all cases, if a topic relating to a work or element of fiction meets the requirement of the General notability guideline, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for an stand-alone article, provided that the content of the article meets Wikipedia's content policies.

I think once we admit that General notability guideline is the most direct route to article inclusion, then the guideline is being honest that the 4-pronged test are additional criteria which broaden the requirements of WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about this issue. It is shorter, it seems to me accurate. I was less fond of the reducing the four-prong test to "additional criteria," as I think the prong is really one criterion, not four separate, but the intro looks fine to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the "practical consensus" thing is nonsense. You have a small number of people out there, who just happen to be around at the time, who decide something, even if they have never contributed to that article before, understand the subject matter, or care about it at all. Three people vote to eliminate a large portion of an article, or delete it entirely, and only one regular editor of the article is around to protest, then it gets deleted. We need set rules established, clear as can be, to avoid problems. List all the legitimate reasons to delete something, and the reasons which are not valid, and force people to choose from that list when they try to delete anything. Dream Focus (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DEL#REASON, while applicable moreso to article deletion rather than information deletion, looks good enough to me to delete information in an article. As do the variety of WP:Policies and guidelines. Do you really want specific policies and guidelines?... --Izno (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It will prevent arguments. Specific policies, listing examples, to avoid any confusion. There are some editors out there who are notorious for refusing to tag or discuss things, but just go rampaging about to a dozen articles a day, erasing content. And some rules are open to interpretation, which leads to problems, not everyone agreeing on their meaning. Everything should be set out as specific is possible, with any new cases that don't fall into the lines listed here, staff looking over the discussions, and then adding or editing policy as deemed fit.

Example: A writer creates several screenplays that get made into big budget films. Those films make a considerable amount of money. Is the writer therefor automatically notable? What about the director, and the voice actors? Do you have to prove that a person's involvement in a successfully and notable featured length film, could not have been just as successful without them? That's what we're debating now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Temple_Mathews and I'm thinking a set rule would help out here.

Another example of a set rule, and a reason I'm against the "practical consensus" bit, is the Gantz article. One person decided it was too long, and erased a large portion of it without discussion or explanation. I reverted it, asking them to explain themselves before removing such a large portion of the article. They refuse to until a few edit and reverts later. Since no one else was around, I asked for a third party intervention. The two people that happen to spot my request, went over, and agreed the article was too long before, and supported the erasure. I tried to engage them in a discussion, asking about the content, but got no reply. I later added in some crucial information back into the page, such as the rewards necessary to keep them participating in the alien hunting event, and a link to equipment elsewhere on a separate page I created, but still, a lot of crucial information isn't there(such as aspects of the mission). And linking to the wiki I copied it over to, was determined to not be acceptable by a two against two vote. Having set rules will prevent problems, since otherwise its just a random coin toss, you never knowing what people will be around to use their personal opinions on something. If someone believes are all articles are too long, and information should just be randomly grabbed and deleted by someone who doesn't know anything about the series, and isn't fit to judge the content, then the article gets erased. If the people there at the time are fans of the series, they'll vote to keep it. So its just a coin toss. Dream Focus (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the question of "are those that worked on a notable film notable" are answered through the various requirements at WP:BIO. On the Gantz point, the rule is WP:NOT#PLOT - Plot details should be concise, and articles on fiction should not be heavily focused on the plot but instead the real-world aspects, balancing the plot along with it. We are not writing articles for fans of a fictional work but instead for the general reader that may never have heard of the work and will likely never see it but has need to be aware of what it is. --MASEM 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(1st sorry for my bad english) Hummm... try to use the same reasoning on some other topics: "general readers" about enzymes (or the mother topic Medicine) need a page like Phospholipase C or Cholinesterase enzyme? no, they are clearly fancruft from the point of view of "the general reader that may never have heard of" enzymes "and will likely never see it but has need to be aware of what it is". Astronomy? what is the real word importance of 77P/Longmore? people had written book about it? a "general readers of astronomy" need the thousands of voice linked here List_of_asteroids/1–1000 or the hundreds here List_of_periodic_comets? no, these are voices for Amateur astronomy or professional Astronomy (but the latters have sources more reliable than wiki to take those data), so if wikipedia is for "general readers of astronomy" why not go in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and ask people to trasnwiki all these page (clearly fancruft for astronomy lovers and not for generic readers) on some specific wiki or web site ad then propose all for AFD? And for Geography? really a "generic reader" need all these page Category:Cities_and_towns_in_Italy_by_region, everyone with demographics evolution, coordinates, maybe story, etc? For the general readers interested in the geography of Italy, a table with population and coordinates for 99% of these, and pages only for the most important city (Rome, Florence, Genoa, Milan, Naples, Tourin, Venice, Pisa, Palermo), isn't enough? and also for the very big city in the world, a "generic reader" need a voice for every buildings like Singer Building or Cadillac Square Building? And "the general reader that may never have heard of" 11/9 and "has need to be aware of what it is" , need all the page linked here September 11 attacks whit all the 9/11 conspiracy theories? A general reader that need only to know what it was 11/9 need a page like Collapse of the World Trade Center?

Loking to other topics IMHO we (wikipedia) are very very far from a place where people write only for "gereric readers" of various topics; so, if we write for fan and expert of medicine, fan and expert of astronomy, fan and expert of geography, fan and expert of conspiracy theories, and so on, why we can't also write for fan and expert of fiction? --Yoggysot (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think what Gavin Collins offers makes sense. There's not really a good introduction or overview to this guideline. We should start with the general guideline, and then direct people to the guidelines on books and films... then go into "everything else". Randomran (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would take out mention of fiction media being covered, as that was an issue from the previous version and that Phil's version makes no attempt to address, as it is covered for major media types by other SNGs, otherwise by the GNG. Phil's FICT as it is only serves to outline elements of fiction, not works thereof. --MASEM 21:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What we need is a version of WP:FICT with some standards that have to be met for inclusion, not an end run around WP:N. Take a look at WP:BAND, which is a well-accepted set of criteria that defines the minimal level of notability required for a band, song, or album to get into Wikipedia. Garage bands are regularly kicked out using {{db-band}}. There are some nice, clear critera, like "two CDs on a major label". We need bright-line standards like that. Then we won't have so many long AfD discussions. --John Nagle (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I confess, I am unable to even begin to conceive of why we would prefer bright-line standards to discussions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think all of our standards need to be bright-lines, we need to avoid vague standards. There are two reasons I can think of for this. One is that participants in an AfD discussion need to be able to hash out some consensus in 5 days. This is practically impossible if WP:N is replaced with something open to simultaneous multiple interpretations. The second is that eventually a guideline like this will result in a chilling effect on content creation. If editors don't know whether or not their article will get deleted then they are liable to decide not to create it. WP:NB and WP:BAND offer clear paths to notability, allowing me to tell what kind of article will be retained. I know that an article on A Great Wall: Six Presidents and China will not be deleted but an article on Tyler's other book (Running Critical) might be. If I didn't know, I wouldn't bother attempting to create either one. Protonk (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been down the path of trying to brightline inclusion requirements for fiction, keeping in mind that the presumption of notability as other SNGs give should lead to the GNG (eg major character from long running tv series), but these are so inconsistent in both how sources do work out in the real world, and what happens in AFD and discussions here, that the only bright line that can be given is the GNG, and even then we know that some fiction articles get around that in AFD. --MASEM 14:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia usually avoids "presumption of notability". Notability has to be demonstrated through third-party references. A "major character from a long-running TV series" is probably only notable independent of the show if they won an Emmy or someone wrote a book about them. Buffy would qualify. --John Nagle (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Characters don't win Emmys. And Wikipedia does not avoid presumption of notability. Please stop being silly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You pointed to WP:BAND which has presumptions of notability . Many other SNGs have these. I just don't think we can safely apply this type of criteria to fiction. --MASEM 18:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAND says "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability." That's what I meant by "not presuming notability", and that's the kind of requirement we need in WP:FICT. --John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the first two sentences Gavin quotes are true. AS proven by all the drama related to gavin collins and the wikiProject D&D. Kairos (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Another reason to keep Fictional Elements articles...

... If we have sub-articles on, say, fictional space ships, then we could categorize those articles, without having to worry about issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spaceships. As is, a list article is perceived as having different notability requirements than a non-list article. Frankly, I'd rather have a set of small articles spun out from their shows/books/movies and categorized appropriately, than humongous fictional lists like this. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. Non-notable elements that lack an article should have a redirect to the article that best covers that part, and the redirects themselves can then be categorized along with articles. Such "lists" can be covered to better-serving categories without significant impact. --MASEM 14:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Brainstorm: re-framing "complexity"

It seems like there's a consensus that the principle of narrative complexity needs a re-phrase. I think most people can admit that if your film/game/show is closer to "The Wire" than "Sesame Street", you're more likely to end up with an article that doesn't read like complete cruft. But then you'd also have to admit that "complexity" is a vague measuring stick, and even Sesame Street can be complicated if you go into the intricacies of what Elmo looks like, how he discovers that his pie is missing, the many characters he talks to about his missing pie, the journey to meet those characters through several locations, and how he savors the pie once it is found, including a brief analysis of the punchline and why it's funny.

I'd like to brainstorm some ideas that have the spirit of what Phil Sandifer put together (e.g.: complexity helps notability), but with much more clarity.

One idea: I think we have to talk about what kind of complexity. A summary of an episode of The Wire will involve verbs like "convincing", "negotiating", "warning", "intimidating", "trusting", "rising in rank"... this is social complexity. That's a kind of complexity that is central to a good summary. Physical complexity: what someone looks like, exact locations where they meet, things they take or consume... these are necessary, but not central.

I'm just thinking out loud here. Right now, "complexity" is too vague, and could be abused to open the floodgates. Randomran (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Subtlety, perhaps? Nuance? I'm trying to think of other nouns here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Depth is a possible candidate, but that also can lead us astray. A lot of "critical" (in terms of scholarly critiques) literature relates less to narrative complexity than to subtextual elements. Reams and reams are written about how book X undermines some patriarchal ideology but rather less is written about the textual (as in distinct from themes and subtext) complexity. I'm NOT saying wikipedia should base inclusion guidelines for fiction on what crit. lit. PhD's write, just saying that a large body of the sources are distributed according to a different set of assumptions than we are using. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the problem isn't the word. A single word can have a different meaning to different people. What we need is a principle. "Complexity" is vague. But saying something like "plot information beyond describing the physical appearance of characters and locations, and beyond describing physical action sequences." If you have a lot of plot information beyond that, the need for a stand-alone article is more justified. Just thinking out loud. Randomran (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Development, maybe?じんない 03:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

We ought to be able to describe exactly what we're looking for in a single sentence, no? Randomran (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)We may be SOL if the goal is to find a rough criteria that is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. My belief is that (and I think Phil can substantiate this) idiosyncrasies in works of fiction and coverage of those work dominate instrumental differences. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing is there's no equivalence at WP:N or any notability guideline. It's not like the ability to write a long article prevents something non-notable from being deleted. However, it might prevent something that *is* notable from being *merged*. Maybe complexity isn't an issue for what is or isn't deleted: it's just that something with a really simple plot summary could probably be merged into a list. Again, thinking out loud. Randomran (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been backing away from this discussion, but I'll comment here. The problem is that trying to relate the concepts of "complexity" and "notability" is doomed. They have nothing to do with each other. I could be writing the Great Antillean Novel, full of intricate plotting, allegory, and allusion, and all of that would not engender any notability as long as it stays on my hard drive. It's true that people tend to be more tolerant of longer explanations of complex plots than they are of detailed expositions on simple ones, but that isn't related to notability. Protonk's comment about idiosyncracies is correct. The best plot summary I ever wrote is here, and it replaced this. It's not often that one paragraph can replace twenty and do a better job.

I'm still much in favor of focusing on the concept of reliance: an article that is weighted 90% towards plot summary can't be said to be relying on third-party sources. The plot summary needs to be smaller than the material derived from third-party sources. If that weights us towards articles about things that have attracted considerable outside opinion, so be it: that's generally true throughout Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that plot summary needs to be smaller. But again, there's a difference between where an article should end up and where we are willing to tolerate it being for the time being. I would disagree, however, that complexity and notability are unrelated. You're obviously right that complexity is not sufficient to establish notability. But I do think that, when taken with other factors, it does play into the decisions we make. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But can you say the same thing about the other factors? Would an important part of an important series, with information on its development and production, be deleted because it's too simple? I'm starting to think complexity is almost entirely irrelevant. I'd really like to see the articles you're talking about. If you're right, then it will help us articulate the principle. But it's possible that complexity is irrelevant, because the articles are really about (1) importance and (2) real-world information, not complexity. Randomran (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me show you. Comic Book Guy is part of an important series, with some good real-world information on his development and reception. But not only is he a minor character, but the plot around him is VERY simple: attributes, possessions... (it could even be trimmed down because it looks a lot like original research, and excess detail, IMO.) In other words, (1) importance and (2) real-world information are the key. Complexity is irrelevant. Randomran (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, but on the other hand, I think we'd be more willing to keep articles on episodes of The Sopranos and The Wire that meet prongs 2-4 more marginally than, say, articles on episodes of The Cosby Show. I mean, the issue for me is that I think that without #1 there are articles that would get deleted inappropriately. I think complexity plays in, but it seems to me to tend to only play in in an article's favor. Hm. But that is, you're right, distinct from the other three prongs. Perhaps a "mitigating circumstances" section that notes that the guidelines are relaxed (but under no circumstances ignored) for certain categories of articles - narrative complexity, the issues of the bias section, etc? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to what you're getting at. Maybe complexity isn't valuable in itself. But I might concede that complexity is part of demonstrating importance. A stand-alone episode in a simple series with no strong running plotline will be considered non-notable, because the episode is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. But an episode in a "serialized" plot will be hugely important. The episode is a vital part of understanding a complex series, as opposed to just a cool episode. That's why an episode of The Sopranos is more important than an episode of Friends: you can watch a stand-alone episode of Friends pretty easily, but you'd have a much harder time understanding the complexities of the Sopranos if you watched/ignored random episodes. What I'm proposing is that "complexity" is one part of proving #2: Importance within the fictional work. (This would be in addition to several other ways of proving importance within the fictional work: reviews, awards, screentime, etc.) So we'd drop #1, and make it a factor in #2. Randomran (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Jinnai has gone ahead and "merged" complexity into "importance of the element". I think this does a better job of explaining why complexity is a factor. Thus, it explains what complexity can or cannot do for a subject's notability. ... this will need a copy-edit though. I'm going to give it a shot. Randomran (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A somewhat harder line, but closer to WP:N

Added a section to the article with a compromise version of the "harder line" above. I'm trying to stay as close to WP:N as possible. Comments? --John Nagle (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• It will probably be reverted because the point of this guideline is to extend the penumbra of WP:N beyond the GNG. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That is no compromise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus for weakening WP:N to accommodate fancruft. There are some people who want that, but there's no consensus for it. There are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments., but those are generally considered irrelevant in policy discussions. --John Nagle (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. There is also no consensus to apply the GNG strictly to all articles on elements of fictional works. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, you'll see that policy comes from documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them. Policy follows practice: don't let the tail wag the dog. Now, it's a thin line between documenting actual good practice and simply WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But the key word is good practice. This Little Wiggy is borderline when it comes to WP:N -- it may even violate it if we were being technical. But it's considered a good article. Why? Maybe because there's some solid real world information that comes from DVD commentary. I can live with that as a standard of what's good. Randomran (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias towards telivision?

I believe the current guidelines are biased toward fiction in reguards to television. Some of this includes all the major examples using television series (and it formerly grouped in prong 1 (now merged with prong 2) video games as a general rule having more simplistic plots, despite a lot of RPGs having far more complex plots than many telivision shows. Furthermore, the section of specific tendencies is slanted toward a TV perspective by listing a section on episodes, but not on dealing with indivisual games or novels within a series.じんない 19:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe. I don't feel it is biased to say that fictional works with simplistic plots deserve less coverage. In other words, it isn't our fault that most VG plots are rushed and tacked on. It's probably a fundamentally unworkable rule, but that is neither here nor there. Also, what is the analogue between television episodes and games? One episode of The Simpsons (for example) doesn't equal one numbered release of Final Fantasy. Protonk (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that it's biased. According to the now three-prong test, if the video game or series demonstrates huge cultural importance, and if the character (probably not an episode) is important to the game or series, and if there is some information about the character's development and reception ... then it might be notable. (Despite a lack of reliable third-party sources.) I think it's pretty fair to all kinds of fiction. In fact, it might even be biased towards games: game developers are more likely to write blogs about how something is developed. Randomran (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It may not be as much biased, but I believe the section Specific tendencies still has some, most probably in my mind because it gives a section devoted to television (and possibly original video animation, episodes division, but doesn't have anything for other forms of fictional media.じんない 20:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to talk it over w/ Phil and others, but IMO if we can strengthen the three prong test we can diminish the importance of the specific tendencies section. I'd prefer that the meat of the guideline be in the test, with examples following and an explanation of sources that fall in between the cracks at the bottom. Protonk (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Protonk might be onto something. The "prongs" are already becoming more clear. If the prongs become pretty simple to read, we won't need to go into as much detail about specific examples. Let's keep finding ways to improve conciseness and clarity. Randomran (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• The person who wrote the original draft was probably more involved with television articles, however that doesn't mean the guidelines aren't relevant for other types of fiction. Was there a particular problem that wasn't addressed? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I never said the guidelines could not be applied to fiction in general. I am merely stating there is a slight bias. The prongs it's a bit less because it's been edited so much, but the others, which just can't be ignored no matter how much we place emphasis on the others because Wikipedia is suppose to be completely neutral, which in this case deals with how to treat fictional media. This can be addressed as we continue to edit it. My point was to bring it to attention so it can be addressed. I can go ahead and slap a bias template on if you want and we can just deal with it like that over time.じんない 01:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically what is biased in this proposal? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We're now down to three factors

After the brief discussion further up... User:Jinnai boldly merged the first two factors, tying complexity into a measure of importance. I went with it and tried to copy-edit it. Don't let me strong-arm the guideline: I could use a second pair of eyes to make sure I didn't lose anything in the process, and to make sure I didn't overstep actual practice either. How does it look so far? Randomran (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• I like it. Context, content and importance. C²I.  :) Protonk (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• I also like it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions of imperfection?

The notability guideline does not address questions of imperfection in notable articles now - ie. an article's subject may be demonstrably notable, but the article does not have to be perfect or featured or even good in order to prevent its deletion or being merged. --Malkinann (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what this guideline does? It establishes a threshold for an appropriate article, and the standard is well below what's required for a featured or good article. Randomran (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall that in the ArbCom, the unlikelihood of Lum Invader getting to GA was given as a reason why it should be merged into a list, so I believe it should be clarified in WP:FICT that proving notability is less stringent than GA requirements. Also, WP:FICT does not link to the current policy WP:IMPERFECT and it links to GA and FA as examples of high quality fiction articles, so it may be a point of confusion. --Malkinann (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think getting into merging notable but low quality articles is kind of off topic. We merge low quality notable articles all the time, and that has nothing to do with WP:N but more to do with what we think is an appropriate way to organize information. Sometimes a notable article will be stuck at stub status -- save a ton of WP:OR -- and so we merge it into something else to create something better. But that's a whole separate debate that has nothing to do with WP:N. Randomran (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability is the threshold for inclusion, not quality. If you're familiar with WP:N, this shouldn't be confusing. The quality of an article at any given time is not particularly relevant to a notability discussion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

How would one go about properly asserting a topic's notability? Sometimes an article needs to have a certain level of quality in order to properly assert its notability - but I don't believe an article needs to be good in order for the subject's notability to be proved. At the moment, WP:FICT says that you can't just add one review and say that out-of-universe information is taken care of, but there's got to be a sensible middle ground beyond just lip-service to the idea of real-world notability and feeling like you have to create a good article alone in your sandbox before putting it into mainspace, because otherwise it would be put up for AFD for being "non-notable" if it's got anything less than six or so paragraphs of real-world information. I feel that such a middle ground would be determined through discussion and consensus, but I do feel that attention needs to be drawn to the fact that an article does not need to be perfect for its subject to be notable. --Malkinann (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, an article doesn't need to be good to prove notability. But I don't think you'll find anyone saying that, let alone in a guideline or policy. Randomran (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had experiences where a topic was up for deletion because of notability concerns, but it was demonstrated that the content was available, just that the article quality was so poor that this wasn't apparent from the article. So notability either needs to be demonstrated in the article or explained by an article proponent on the talkpage. While lack of that information on the page might be an indication that the topic is not notable; it's not decisive proof. The burden of proof would lie with those who are fighting to keep a given article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you decide when there's enough real-world stuff to demonstrate notability? I ask this because in the example I linked above, an I didn't hear that response occurred, with the insistence on GA quality before individual notability could be proved. --Malkinann (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of notability is a reason to delete an article, regardless of quality. That said, even if there are questions as to what is really showing notability in the sources, I'd rather keep an article - or at least not delete on grounds of being not notable and instead seek to show that merged content produces a better quality article even if there's notability of individual elements. The use of redirects and other WP features help to remove the "one topic, one article" mentality that occurs at times. --MASEM 06:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean by "Lack of notability is a reason to delete an article, regardless of quality."? --Malkinann (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You could have an article that meets every requirement for GA/FA - brilliant prose, good use of images, etc. - but if the article makes no attempt to explain why the topic is notable per WP:N or the subguidelines, it can be deleted or merged per our deletion policy through AFD. --MASEM 13:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

Ah, thanks. :) The concept still confuses me, but I guess it's a case where you can have it going both ways. --Malkinann (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what happened to the assorted Pokemon articles, two of which made FA. They were pretty well-written and generally tried to be as good an article as they could be, but the lack of WP:WAF and good sourcing told editors they were probably better off merged. Nifboy (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Bias towards commercialism" section title

Is "Bias towards commercialism" the best heading for this section? The text is mostly about bias towards subjects with a large fanbase, which isn't quite the same as "commercialism". Nor does "commercialism" cover the presentist bias mentioned in the section. A bias towards commercialism could be interpreted as meaning that Wikipedia is biased in favor of Wal-Mart and Starbucks, or that Wikipedia devalues intangibles or nonmarket systems, which isn't what's being talked about here.

Would it be better to title the section "Systemic biases" (possibly with a {{main}} link to WP:BIAS?) or "Sourcing and significance" or something else? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I'd think you'd be safe in being BOLd in this case.

Kairos (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I wasn't BOLD before was that I wasn't sure what the best replacement title would be. I guess I'll go with "Sourcing and significance", and if anyone thinks of something better they can change it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a title that is still about bias would be preferable. Systemic bias is a good title. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The (small) problem with "Systemic bias" is that the first bias (the existence of more sources on subjects that have more passionate fan bases, as opposed to subjects which are more widely popular but inspire less close examination) isn't just a Wikipedia systemic bias, it's a bias in the existing sources. I've tried "Biases to be aware of" — how's that? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think this section is largely superfluous. It doesn't state anything that isn't already at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and doesn't provide any description of common practice with regard to notability of fictional elements. Even if it did make some claim about what we include or don't include, I'm not sure that this guideline would be a good prescription: the biases noted in this section are liable to be reflected or magnified in the editing population--it is not just for a surfeit of sources that we have a well attended Doctor Who project. Further, even if there is a bias in the sourcing toward certain works of fiction (or recent works), it isn't necessarily the job of this guideline to offer a tool to fix that. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of episodes and elements

I feel that the section Notability of episodes and elements contains statements which are not supported in reality, namely:

"Elements within a notable fictional work are often split from the main article for size reasons or topical considerations. These daughter articles may not strictly meet the general notability guideline but their deletion would harm the reader's ability to understand the fictional work."

I think that these sentences need to come out. Firstly what is need is a justification for spliting articles in this way that is not based purely on readable article size as usually an overlong article is often evidece that the content of the article somehow fails WP:NOT, rather than justification that it should be split - see the article [[Guiding Light (1980–1989) for an example of excessive content (85 kilobytes). Secondly, I think the justification that "deletion would harm the reader's ability to understand the fictional work" is not justified; sometimes deletion is actually necessary (for instance if there is content fork). Thirdly, I think this last statement flies in the face of the concensus in Wikipedia about spliting articles which is expressed extremely well in WP:BK, which makes the following statement:

"It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not."

If there is a reason for providing coverage for a character or episode, I think we really have to say why we presume that element to be notable in the absence of reliable secondary sources that provides evidence of notability. If we can do this, then I think we have a basis for compromise on the balance that must be struck based on the subject's importance to the fictional work, the real world context that the spinout article retains, and the importance of the fictional work as a whole. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn. On the one hand, yes, we do not advocate endless splits, as this guideline indicates. On the other hand, a decision created for books does not inherently port well to an extremely long-form serialized work. Part of why WP:BK can conclude that is that there's an inherent upper limit on the amount of plot you can fit in one book. But there does seem to me to be some consensus for a level of splitting out on television shows that does not exist for other media. So I'm loathe to delete the section. But I'm open to a rephrasing on the language you quote above, which I agree is problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted a rephrase that I think better clarifies the issue. Thoughts? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)I think my problem is that the statement about split seems to contradict the 3 prong test. How can we say, "if you're article is large then you can split the fiction elements", and then go on to say "you can split elements if they pass this three-prong test"? Your change is somewhat better but you're still left with the problem of what is "important". The hundreds of editors at The Simpsons WikiProject will claim that some one-shot character was important, but how do any of the rest of us know that?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite easily. We know that if there is a significant amount of reliable independent source material about that given element that someone wants to split. Otherwise, it's time to trim, not split. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Bignole - did my language fix not solve this problem? I thought I had set it up so that the argument was "Sometimes this is permitted. To figure out if it is permitted, use this test." Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is where very explicit instructions - but with room for flexibility, is needed and that lists have to be addressed at this point, citing LOE/LOC as the two generally acceptable types. I know this currently dances around the issue for good reason, but in the interest of making sure this point is clear (you can't just spinout any ol' fiction element to a separate article) expressly saying what is appropriate or not is needed. --MASEM 14:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The change you made did fix the idea behind this being an every day, accepted practice, but it was what followed that now had the issue. That was, the bit about "what is deemed important" - what is defined as "important". Unfortunately, most editors who edit fiction related pages are editing things that they like, and are, as a result, automatically biased in its favor to some degree. What defines "important" to the fiction?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed undefined, but is that a problem in this case? The question of what is important is secondary to the three prong test in the current wording, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I must have been looking at a different version when I was reading it after your edit. Reading it now, it looks much better. I just feel like some editors are going to try and use the "kept dispite failed GNG" as a loophole to have everything kept.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there comes a point past which one cannot legislate stupidity. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Bignole, we will have to run some tests on a few contraversial articles to see what the outcome would be. If the tests don't work, then we have to go back to Brass tacks. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of sources

Ok. I've shortened and re-written the Semi-independent sources and Primary sources sections. Each of these needs a look and an edit from someone on the other side of the spectrum from me Re:inclusion. I am, however, uncomfortable with the Self-published sources section. I read that (as it currently stands) as a license to use non-reliable sources for claims made in wikipedia articles. Specifically "fan" sites or "pop culture" sites. Regardless of our opinion on their relevance to the material, we have to realize that this section will sink the guideline should we open it up for general comment. I don't think there is consensus to allow sources which don't meet RS (or WP:V) requirements on even fictional subjects.

I think we should basically rewrite it to say that there are sources like Kotaku, Television Without Pity, and other major sites which don't clearly meet all three parts of RS (Accountability, history of fact checking and editorial control) but may be used on fictional articles (where we wouldn't want to source them on what the Grossman-Stiglitz paradox is. However, since this would be a substantial rewrite I don't want to jump in without input. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would actually be okay with relaxing this a little bit. But I agree that letting people use totally unreliable stuff like your average run of the mill fansite or forum post would open the floodgates to a whole host of problems. I think we'd need to come up with an alternative standard that isn't "accountability, history of fact checking, and editorial control" but still leads to something pretty reliable, at least when it comes to the subject matter. (Again, we're not trusting these sources for articles about physics or politics.) Randomran (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The important standard, and the one I tried to stress in writing the guideline, is that the sources, while not reliable, are, by their importance, significant viewpoints that would need to be reported. The argument is that we're using them as self-published or questionable sources - used to report their own views. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just my two currency subunits: why not simply state outright that dependent sources are adequate as sources of facts and of internal importance? It seems obvious to me that if the authors of a work say that some character or point of plot is critical, then it is by definition; fan sites are unreliable at best, but the "official" material from the original distributor is pretty much reliable by definition, right? That umbrella wouldn't cover fansites in general (independent but unreliable), but may cover some of the most "respectable" community sources that have a history of editorial control. — Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that I don't have a problem with. It is covered in the "Semi-independent sources" and is relatively well defined. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As a general reply, I partially reverted your edit to primary sources, because I think the caveat about obvious ambiguity is important - deliberate ambiguity is a crucial part of literature, and it's a place where we have to actively and explicitly hedge against the rules on clarity and primary sources. There's just no way to write about literature in any medium without facing the fact that ambiguity can be explicit. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• (EC with your response) Phil, with regard to the "ambiguity" bit, is it really necessary? I mean, what would we expect from an editor interpreting that last scene (in a world where it wasn't covered heavily by secondary sources? Could they say anything more than "it ends ambiguously"? Also, should we think of another example that isn't covered by secondary sources (as the article itself certainly doesn't include any editor interpretation of the final scene)? Protonk (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, isn't the section about interpretation more of a content suggestion, rather than a description of inclusion practices? Protonk (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, I think the summary could validly go as far as explicitly saying that the episode leaves ambiguous whether Tony lives or dies, and whether there is a hit on him without needing secondary sources. And I'm unconvinced that view is supported by strict readings of how primary sources can be used.

• • But yes. It might be better suited to other guidelines. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • I think the catch with using things like TV Shows Without Pity, or TV Squad, is that we don't confuse "useful viewpoints" with "significant coverage for notability".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this "notability outside the show" policy is about to expand for real people as well?

What I have in mind: Can I go and add all the graduates of my University in a List of graduates of the University of Crete. Each individual may doesn't have notability for biographies but my University is notable for sure. Of course, the list can't fit in the University's article and I am sure that a list of people who have a University degree is far more important than some list of fictional characters who appear only in a single video game or from characters who appear in one or two pages of a comic book. Since a single reference that these characters is needed to include them in a list and have a redirect with their name, I think the same deserve people who have a master thesis and/or a phD. Am I wrong? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• You are welcome to write and propose such a guideline as a change to WP:BIO. Protonk (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Soundtracks

Under specific tendencies I think something should be mentioned about separating soundtracks into different pages. Because many of them often encompass multiple releases many games do this (I'm not sure about other media types).じんない 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't be part of this guideline (we're focusing only on fiction elements). Soundtracks in general would fall under WP:MUSIC. --MASEM 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I'm hoping we can shrink the "specific tendencies" section as we articulate and explain the guideline more fully. Though guidelines document current practice, we don't need to do so literally. Lets get on really clear footing re: what kind of sources are ok and what sort of article are expected to be included. Then we can flesh out an essay describing common AfD practice (though that ought to be accompanied with some actual data from afd). Protonk (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Presenting this to a larger audience

Ok. This guideline is starting to coalesce (I think). We should be ready to clean this up and present it to the community at large in a week or so as a relatively finished product. We aren't going to convince everyone that it is a step in the right direction but we should be able to swing a large number of people--hopefully that will be enough of a majority to claim some consensus. Before we do that I think we need to focus on a few key areas:

1. Ensure the guideline doesn't grant carte blanche For both sourcing and spinout articles we need to assure that a reasonable person can't read this guideline to say "any weblog can be used as a source" or "any character is notable". It isn't enough that we don't interpret it that way, we have to ensure that others will not. I'm not talking about a malicious reading. I'm talking about real questions regarding how vague or unspecified our guideline is. At this moment I think this is a problem.
2. Hash out how this can be used in an AfD Right now the GNG has a towering advantage over this guideline: simplicity. No matter how contentious or complex the deletion debate gets, I can just state "this article has/does not have sources" and know the decision. Whether or not the GNG should apply to fictional articles is contentious (though maybe not as we think), but how to apply it is crystal clear. What would a "delete" vote in less than 20 words look like? A "keep" vote? How is this "better" (in terms of an operating rule) than the GNG or any other daughter guideline? This is a serious problem, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it is unavoidable. We are replacing a bright-line rule with a balancing rule. There is almost no way to undergo that process and simplify the decision.
3. What problem does this solve? I know this is crystal clear for some people, but imagine yourself speaking from the perspective of someone who sees the GNG as a perfectly appropriate and functional tool for inclusion (I do). What article would be kept under this guideline but deleted/redirected/merged under the GNG? How is wikipedia worse off for not having that article? How is the content of that article unable to be summarized in the main article on the fictional work? Don't look at this from the standpoint that deletion of an article is prima facia bad--you will probably be unhappy to discover how many people disagree with you on that. Arguing that this guideline so well approximates current practice that AfD closures would remain unchanged is probably also a poor argument.
4. Ensure boundaries are set for the guideline Distinct from ensuring that limits are placed on article creation or source utilization is the requirement that the guideline specify boundaries. What fictional elements are not covered in this guideline? Are books in a series covered by WP:NB? What about comic books? Video games? DVDs? What about portmanteau lists like List of problems solved by MacGyver?

These problems are solvable (maybe) if we pay close attention to them while editing this guideline. Remember that an RfC on this will probably be put on the watchlist and WP:CENT, lots of people will come by, take a perfunctory look and leave a comment. It is very hard to make a persuasive argument if the first oppose outlines how this might be an end-run around WP:V (Specifically If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.). I consider myself on the list of people who will oppose this guideline if it can't be written convincingly to assuage that concern. We can't just rely on responses about the arbitrary nature of WP:SIZE or the fundamental connection of fictional articles to the parent work. People have a general notion of the topical and length boundaries that comprise an "article" and if this guideline proposes that we write articles that don't resemble anything like those (in other words, we write an article that has no reliable or independent source covering the subject), they will react accordingly. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your solicitation; this just seems like a very verbose way of saying "get reliable sources to prove notability"; the three pronged test basically follows the GNG except notes that occasionally an element may be included in order to aid the notable parts: in other word, restating that the GNG is a guideline. Can't we just ditch this test thing and just write it out plainly? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think David Fuchs is right. The biggest thing keeping this guideline from getting support is that it's too verbose. (Something I'm guilty off far too often.) We ought to state the principles much more plainly. I rather like how the WP:GNG is done: there's a general statement, with a few more specific statements to support and define key words. Yeah, the content of this guideline matters. But we have to get closer to readability before we can fix some of the nuances. Randomran (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, David. For Random, I'm all for condensing this guideline. What do you think sums it up in 2 sentences? Protonk (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's actually more than "occasionally" and rather that "to be expected". That in no way undermines WP:V or WP:N since we should still require reliable 3rd-party sources to help make up notability, just that such less-independent and/or self-published sources can help with that respect, but never completely replace it. If all an article can use as sources are primary, semi-independent and self-published sources that do not meet WP:RS criteria, then the article might need to be merged or deleted. However, if the bulk of the sources are at least not primary sources and there are at least a couple independent sources, then it might be okay. The exact number is not something we need to worry about, just that there are some.じんない 05:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case. That is how you would interpret the guideline. I can read this to say that so long as the work of fiction is notable, I may use sources that don't meet RS or sources not independent from the subject to make articles about daughter elements. That leaves us with a clear case that an article may be created without meeting that sentence in WP:BURDEN. If there are a couple of independent sources discussing a subject then it meets the GNG (that several part isn't observed in the breech). Protonk (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But how would you go about proving Wikipedia notability without having to first go through GNG?じんない 06:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of the point here. Let's avoid the word "notability" and just say that this guideline suggests articles may be included in wikipedia which do not meet the general notability guideline. The inclusion criteria suggested by this guideline are broader than those of WP:N. An attempt is still made to logically and topically anchor articles to sources but they (meaning specifically, reliable, independent sources) would not be required. Instead we could use non-independent but "reliable" sources (such as production notes or developer blogs) and not reliable but notable sources of opinion and analysis (like Television without Pity) to illustrate the importance of a fictional element to the overall work, its context within the real world and the significance of the work in general. However, a problem arises if two equally reasonable interpretations of a guideline result in two diametrically opposed answers. Hoepfully that problem lies in the elocution of the guideline and not the guideline itself. Protonk (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to restate that, at least as I've read it, the goal of this version of FICT is not to set any precedence, but simply to outline what is currently the predictable pattern of behavior for the vast majority of articles on fiction elements when they are put up for some type of XFD. This should at least set a line when future topics come up in XFDs to refer to. Maybe in a few months time we can start to rationalize a more forward statement of how fiction should be handled w/r/t notability once we see how this impact has time to settle in, but for right now, let's end the fact that we haven't had a working FICT for 1.5yrs. --MASEM 06:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to turn the entire first section into a quick summary of the GNG, and state that "for most topics, if the article does not meet the GNG, it is likely is should not exist alone. Some topics, however, may require addition blah blah due to: (quick bullet list)". I'm more or less fine with talking about episodes, characters, yadda yadda later, it's just the first level two heading which is too long in my opinion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But this is exactly the dispute. The argument is that the GNG does not necessarily apply to elements of a fictional work. I would in fact much prefer to say that it does not apply at all to elements of fictional works, and that this is one of the exceptions provided for in that guideline, but I doubt that this would get consensus at the present time. I'd be very glad to replace all mention of it with a rewording to say "inclusion: as suggested above--except that it would probably then be argued that whatever were said was in addition to the GNG. DGG (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for fiction, if you fail to meet the GNG that may not mean deletion, but it is always the case that if you do meet the GNG, your article will not be deleted. So you want to present the case that guaranties an article will be kept, and then go through and explain that everything else is this murky area of guidelines that may or may not help retain an article. --MASEM 14:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow

I've been pretty inactive these days, even moreso in these FICT discussions, so I was really interested in seeing what this new proposal was about. Wow. I really, reaaallly, like it. It's actually helpful and provides real guidance! I'm hard pressed to find any real fault with it. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

copyedit

Looking at the above, from the last week, I'm going to do a rewrite tonight for concision. I think it will help. It does read more like an essay than a guideline,and that will be a bit of a problem. (my apologies for being away from this. ) As usual, revert what you like, but give me a few hours now. DGG (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is much appreciated. I think conciseness will help make it more readable, and also take it away from being too essay-like. That said, maybe an essay is necessary, even just until we have an RFC. To some extent, we need to persuade people that this is a realistic compromise in order for them to support it. So I might support a "why" section, or some kind of companion page that explains the rationale behind this guideline. Randomran (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Real world

Why does an article on fiction need real world information, beyond the identification that it is in fact a fiction? I'm not referring to present wording of other guideline s or policies, but what ought to be the guideline. Personally, I thik the term ought to be used only to explain why we can not have article on fictional character, for example, which do not make it pain they are fictional chracters and discuss them as if they were real, unlike many fan wiki, which use the convention that the fictional world is described as if it ere the real world. DGG (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• When I read the statement in the section Three-pronged test for notability that says "An element of fiction may qualify for a stand-alone article if there is significant verifiable information about its development and/or reception that demonstrates how the fictional element is an important aspect of an important work of fiction", it is not clear to me what the word "significant" means in this context. My understanding is that articles on fiction need to contain non-trivial real-world information about their subject matter to be encyclopedic (otherwise they may fail WP:NOT#PLOT), but also because articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. I think we have to make this explict, rather than beat around the bush by using words like "significant", which don't provide meaningful guidance. If you have alternative interpretation for "significant" other than "non-trivial real-world", do say. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • We want information about fiction elements to be discussing the element from an out-of-universe perspective; this does not necessarily mean an impact in the real world, though most often it is the element's reception that can be found. The out-of-universe perspective can be development or creation notes, or secondary/third-party sources that explain why the element was important to the work (probably something you'd find more for classical literature than for contemporary fiction). This is all to help avoid purely in-universe topic coverage, and from the purpose of being encyclopedic, to provide some more context for the causal reader to understand the element more than just reiterating plot. This part does not need to be the primary frame of reference either (the article should be written in the out-of-universe style, however), but it should not be overwhelmed by the primary source material. --MASEM 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• There is no requirement for real-world content. In the real world, we have encyclopedias such as The DC Comics Encylopedia which describe characters such as Batman. Their format is encyclopedic but tends to be in-universe and with small amounts of real-world references such as issue numbers. It seems apparent that many readers and editors are quite content with this form of presentation and I am among them. Attempts to construct contrary policies and guidelines in a deductive and prescriptive way are wikilawyering and so not wanted. What is needed to establish any such new guideline is evidence that the guideline is following established practise and that it improves our own encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The real-world perspective issue predates fiction notability by years and is well-established. I do not see any value in re-debating it here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Nifboy (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The page we are discussing says, inter alia, Note that a simple listing of the production team, release date, and a blurb about whether a given critic liked or disliked a work do not constitute adequate real-world perspective; that information is expected to be substantial and informative, providing a broader context for the subject. Depending on the subject, a good article generally has more real-world information than in-universe.. I find this statement to be quite unacceptable in that it neither describes our current practise nor serves to improve our encyclopedia. This entire section should be removed as there is no requirement for any particular amount of real world content to establish notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to argue it there, at WT:WAF, as that is the appropriate place to dispute that guideline. The guidelines located here about real-world information are more or less trickle down from there. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Articles need real world information (or context) because WP:N is a means to WP:NOT. Discussing them like they were real is a style problem, not a content problem. Unless inclusion guidelines demand that some real world context be possible, we don't have a means to keep out article that will be 100% plot/guide/trivia. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Real-world information is a requirement because it's close to actual practice. We delete entire *lists* of fictional material all the time:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miscellaneous_characters_of_Command_&_Conquer_(2nd_nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor Deus Ex characters
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Animal Crossing series
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Star Ocean: The Second Story
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Quest VIII characters
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Valkyrie Profile characters
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines (2nd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cogs
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Leaders in Panzer General II (2nd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Harvest Moon series

And in general, our standards for stand-alone articles are usually *higher* than that for lists. Now, I wouldn't support some radical deletionist notion that we delete all characters. But then, actual practice shows that "include everything" is just as much of a fringe viewpoint. I think Phil Sandifer has put together a solid compromise. It might be more loose than I personally like, but reflects actual practice, and gives us standard that's better than WP:ILIKEIT versus WP:IHATEIT. And it's consistent with the spirit of what other policies say: for example, WP:PLOT says plot information is only acceptable in the context of wider discussion of reception and impact. No, not that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy where we're bound by the policies of the past. But ignoring existing policy consensus and the results of numerous AFDs verges on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Randomran (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the first of your examples, nothing was said about real world content (and I'm not reading the rest per WP:TLDR). My recent example is Aslan's How, which was kept. My experience of AFD is that it's all about the sources. The extent to which they focus upon the real world is quite unimportant. Only a few editors like Gavin Collins keep harping on about the real world and my strong impression is that they are greatly outnumbered and that's why they come to these policy pages to try to make them prescriptive. Again, please read WP:NOTLAW. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is a legitimate area of disagreement. I think Aslan's How is more of an outlier than anything. I'm looking at literally dozens of fictional articles that have been deleted. But I freely admit I might be wrong. Still, I'm not going to let this guideline be eroded if I have anything to do with it. It will ultimately be your choice whether to embrace it, reject it, or build a consensus around an alternative. But I hope you'll consider a compromise. Randomran (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• If this aspect is discussed elsewhere then we don't need it here too. This page is about notability. Loading it up with duplication of other points made elsewhere is redundant. Talk of trickledown and such is irrelevant because, per WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO, our policies and guidelines should not be made in this way. And, as a matter of style, the more you bulk the page out, the less value it has per WP:CREEP and WP:TLDR. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• But notability has always been a means-based guideline. The reason we have it is because if gives us a tool to gauge whether or not an article will fail NOT/NPOV/NOR. IF we remove the requirement that independent sources are necessary for every article, something has to be in there to ensure, in practice, that the inclusion criteria still meets the same goal. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think the "real world" requirement derives from a poor effort to encode the need to rely on third-party sourcing. Since those third-party sources tend to focus on real-world things, encoding that need would lead to articles relying on third-party sources. I think it's unnecessary. If you could scrape up a couple of truly independent sources that evaluated, say, the Pokemon evolutionary strategy as an allegory for man's struggle for self-improvement, it would quite reasonable to devote an article to comparing and contrasting the views of those two sources, even though it wouldn't be based in the real world at all. It's the fact that independent sources have taken note of something that leads to notability, not whether they took note of a "out-of-universe" aspect or an "in-universe" aspect.

It may have also derived from the notion of in-universe notability. Editors frequently try to call a particular episode of a series notable because something happened that had a strong effect on the characters in subsequent episode. That's only true to the extent that independent sources noticed that characteristic and commented on it. The comments made by in-universe characters about the events of that episode are irrelevant when judging notability.—Kww(talk) 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • The real-world requirement predates the notability fights about fiction by years, having been first codified in early 2006. It was not a sourcing issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • So we are agreed then. The section Three-pronged test for notability needs to be amended to state:

"An element of fiction may qualify for a stand-alone article if there is significant non-trivial real-world information about its development and/or reception that demonstrates how the fictional element is an important aspect of an important work of fiction".

I have removed the word verifiable from the statement, as I think the need for verfiablity is already understood - we don't need to restate WP:V in every sentence of every guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not particularly agree with you, no. I do not think the long-established "out of universe style" rule is primarily a rule about sourcing, and I think in-universe sources have a role to play in determining importance, even though out-of-universe sources are strongly preferred. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How does Gavin's statement refute that? It's just saying that we require sources that discuss the subject in a nontrivial manner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Phil, I don't think in-universe sources have a role to play in determining importance at all by virtue of the fact that you can't provide evidence of "importance" or "significance" about an element of fiction from a primary source because it is bit like saying the King of Hearts (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) is "important" because he all kings are important, despite the fact he is not a real king. Fictional facts are by definition a fiction, and I would argue are trivial sources from the point of view of establishing importance. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I cannot disagree more thoroughly. My entire field of study is based in a large part on the use of fictional sources as sources about themselves. They are not trivial sources. It is a mistake to treat fiction, as the literary critic Gayatri Spivak put it, as gossip about imaginary people. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I realized that the above might be unclear. Fiction is not a hermetically sealed other world that has no bearing on the real world. It is true that no flesh and blood person named Frodo Baggins ever took the One Ring to Mordor. But on the other hand, when one looks at, say, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Lost Girls - two things in my own field that I've done some work with - are not merely fictional stories, but also explicit references and commentaries on other works of fiction. In another example, when Star Trek: Deep Space Nine does the episode Trials and Tribble-ations, it is an explicit reworking of The Trouble With Tribbles that references it in more than just a plot-based way. And none of these observations are original research. I'm not talking about subtle, difficult to grasp allusions. I'm talking about big, honking, transparently obvious stuff. The concept of intertextuality is an important one here that needs to underpin how we think about fiction. More broadly, works of fiction are not gossip about imaginary people, they are products of cultural production that comment on that culture. And we can use that commentary.

Now I don't think this guideline can or should be an introduction to literary studies. But I do think we need to avoid enshrining standards of research and sourcing that go against the basic standards by which works of fiction are studied and understood by the experts. My concern here is that the sort of thing you're trying to rule out - "all kings are important" - is such a flagrantly stupid argument that I cannot imagine it ever being made or gaining traction. We cannot write a guideline that will pre-emptively legislate against all possible forms of stupidity. Attempts to do so will necessarily be over-broad and legislate against perfectly reasonable, useful writing. There comes a point where the decision making mechanism needs to stop being the letter of the guideline and start being debate on AfD. There are good arguments to be marshaled for notability using fictional sources. There are also bad ones. There comes a point, then, when we need to judge the individual arguments on AfD instead of trying to pre-empt them. And that's my issue here - the proposed limitation to exclusively out of universe sources cuts off legitimate arguments along with dumb ones. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Phil about fiction not being trivial from an academic perspective, as writing about fictional characters in this way is an important field of study, and the basis of reliable secondary sources that establish notability. However, trying to establish importance through citation of primary sources would be a type of synthesis from a Wikipedia perspective, so we can't follow that route. Fore example, the King of Hearts acts as if he is very important in the context of his fictional kingdom, but it takes real-world information to establish his real-world importance as a fictional character. I think we have to seperate fact from fiction when writing encyclopedic articles. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. But Trials and Tribble-ations is not a primary source on The Trouble with Tribbles, nor is Lost Girls a primary source on Peter Pan. And there are certainly perspectives - useful ones - in which one episode of a television series is not a primary source for another episode. I think what we need to differentiate between here is the use of fiction as a sort of cultural commentary and as documentation of the lives of imaginary people. One episode of Buffy is a primary source on another inasmuch as both are documentation of the life of Buffy Summers. But inasmuch as Chosen (Buffy episode) explicitly in one scene mirrors the staging of a scene from The Harvest (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode), it is providing a commentary on the premier that is not fiction as such. And that, I think, is something we need to allow. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• In the absence of reliable secondary sources, we can't create a commentary about a ficitonal life using multiple primary sources without running foul of WP:SYNTH, even if in universe perspective is harmless. Such inferences would make interesting topics of research, but using primary sources to treat fictional characters in this way is not allowed on Wikipedia. I think the type of article you are proposing is usually described as Fancruft, which is why we need to focus on real-world information. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent). I don't think you guys are actually that far apart. The three prong test already states that you need to satisfy all three factors, and that real world information is one of the factors. There's also an in-universe factor that basically suggests that primary sources can *contribute* to importance. (Gavin appears to be against the idea of demonstrating importance through primary sources alone, but it's not clear that he's against the idea that they contribute to importance.) We know how Gavin would prefer to word it. Phil, what do you think is a more appropriate wording here? Let's see how far apart you guys are. Randomran (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I think primary sources can be acceptable to establish importance if they provide real-world content. For instance, most of the article Kender is derived from primary sources but contains annotations made by the authors about their own books, so these primary sources do provide real-world context about the characters that in universe content does not. I just think in universe content from primary or secondary sources cannot be used to infer importance as Phil suggests. However, I am open to an alternative phrasing if Phil has a counter proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For specific characters, plot elements, episodes, etc. I think it could be used. FE, Mario is the protagonist of Super Mario Bros. because the one plays him. You do not need an outside secondary source to come and state the obvious in such a case.じんない 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But that's not contentious. The statement that "in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spock represents the mythical hero's logical side, while James T. Kirk represents the hero's passion and essential humanity" is inferred by researchers from the primary sources. But it is essential and integral to Wikipedia that this content cannot be allowed on the wiki unless a reliable secondary source says it, not an editor, even if it's evident to anyone who has watched Star Trek. Phil, you write "But I do think we need to avoid enshrining standards of research and sourcing that go against the basic standards by which works of fiction are studied and understood by the experts," - I think WP:SYNTH pretty much puts a nail in that coffin already, this guideline won't be adding any more. "My concern here is that the sort of thing you're trying to rule out - "all kings are important" - is such a flagrantly stupid argument that I cannot imagine it ever being made or gaining traction." Yes, but who is to say one editor's interpretation is more important than another's? This is why we have WP:V and WP:NOR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about any kind of heavy original research from primary sources. I think that we can infer importance from the primary source in a very common sense way. We're more likely to have articles on characters that have appeared in every episode, rather than guest appearances or cameos. Of course, nobody is saying that we should have an article for every recurring character. But it's a factor to weigh, in combination with real-world coverage, and the overall importance of the fictional work. That's why there are three factors, and not just three separate tests. Randomran (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think part of this problem results from the unfortunate conflation of "primary" (meaning for us films, screenplays, games, books...) and "non-independent" (meaning non-fictional material produced by the companies). We can use the latter to support claims which would be inferred from the work in question. In other words, if the DVD commentary has Nicholas Meyer saying "we wanted khan and the genesis device to represent the folly of science taken to extremes" then that works for supporting the claim. We don't need a critic or academic to make the same point. We cannot make the same claim and source it to the primary work (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) without engaging in original research. This may be a frustrating outcome for some (as it reduces the possible copy we may write on many fictional subjects) but it is in line with the letter and spirit of OR and NOT. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We should also be able to make the claims of similarity based on primary sources, but maybe 7without drawing conclusions. FE, a scene comparison of 7 Samurai and The Magnificent Seven which have closely related scenes and plot is not WP:SYNTH as long as the in this case the primary source is linked. In that case where the evidence strong points to direct shot-by-shot, scene-by-scene copy then it is not so large of a leap to say that one influenced the other.じんない 21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an area you have to be really close with. A lot of "in pop culture" or "referenced pop culture" sections across articles try to use this but fail (see this version) of No More Heroes (video game) for a bad use of such.) I'm not saying every allusion needs source when it is very very obvious from the primary, but "very very obvious" has to be part of this. --MASEM 21:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's actually well within the range of "interpretation" that we should steer clear of. For the magnificent seven, we don't need to do that strictly from primary sources (as secondary sources have done it). But for other works we need to get away from feeling like we are historians or catalogers of these facts and implications. We should remember that building an encyclopedia may mean leaving unstated similarities like that if they haven't been stated elsewhere. However, this is a content discussion (largely), not an inclusion discussion. For the purposes of inclusion, inferring "real world context" with only a primary source available should be completely avoided. Protonk (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A scene-by-scene comparison is very sketchy justification for noting similarities; I would much prefer to see reliable sources for such content (and since the Magnificent 7 is a ripoff of 7 Samurai, such sources would not be hard to come by.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We're now talking about WP:OR. An original observation of similarity -- no matter how "obvious" -- is not really allowed by WP:SYN and WP:OR overall. Although if someone else were to note a similarity, you'd surely have a fact that helps to establish notability. We're probably drifting off topic now, so let's get back to notability. Randomran (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Can I assume that we make the change to real-world on the basis that we are agreed that neither synthesis nor an in universe perspective are suitable methods of identifying a topic as significant or important? The section Three-pronged test for notability needs to be amended to state:
  

"An element of fiction may qualify for a stand-alone article if there is significant non-trivial real-world information about its development and/or reception that demonstrates how the fictional element is an important aspect of a work of fiction".

From my experience of eliminating fancruft in the article Kender, I think this is the way forward, in the sense that we are widening the criteria, but we are not letting go of the need to maintain article quality.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a couple serious problems here. First, we're conflating primary source with fictional source in a way that is not reasonable, which is the point I made above. Lost Girls is not a primary source on Peter Pan. Even within the specific context of a single television show, it is possible for one episode to serve as a secondary source on another - not in terms of fictional events, but, for instance, the series finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer has a scene that mirrors a scene from the premiere in a way that requires no non-obvious interpretation of the sources to observe. This is not use of a primary source. And it is more straightforward than the Magnificent 7/7 Samurai issue. The cloudiness that arises in doing a scene analysis to document those similarities is that the claim that the similarities is non-accidental is mildly strained. But when we're dealing with one TV series explicitly referencing an earlier episode in a non-plot based way (i.e. not "the character shows up again," but rather "the scene is blocked in the same way, and certain lines reappear") the issue of intentionality basically goes away.

The second issue is that we're comitting in-universe and out-of-universe confusion. Counter-intuitive as it may seem at first, fictional sources can still offer out-of-universe commentary. This is exactly what happens when, for instance, Alan Moore assembles characters from various works of fiction into his own work of fiction League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. A description of Moore's depiction of, say, The Invisible Man is not an in-universe source for the article The Invisible Man. So we have to distinguish here between use of fictional sources that treats them as documentation of the lives of made-up people, and use of fictional sources that treats them as cultural artifacts. And we have to be sure that we allow the latter.

Now, on top of that, I'm not entirely convinced of the problem with using fictional sources to gauge importance in an in-universe fashion. It seems to me a problem of degree. Yes, the "kings are important" argument that Gavin suggests is silly and bad. But on the other hand, "in popular culture" sections are a poor way of establishing notabiity, and they work exactly in the allusive way I describe above. And on the other hand, I have no problem with the argument that, for instance, Scorpion (Star Trek: Voyager) is important because it introduces the major character Seven of Nine. Which is an argument that I think would gain traction on an AfD, and hence one I am reluctant to shut down. The issue to me, in terms of both fiction as cultural commentary and in terms of "important to the plot" stuff, is that there are dumb arguments to make in both cases. Cutting off all use of fictional sources eliminates both types of dumb articles, but it throws a whole lot of baby out with the bath water.

Perhaps the easiest solution is to avoid the nutshell we're trying to provide in that section, and let the test speak for itself. The problem we're having, I think, is that the nutshell is collapsing what's actually a pretty carefully constructed and subtle test into a one-sentence version, and then that one-sentence version is producing bad results. We could recast the introduction of the test in a way that does not cause these problems. I've taken a crack at it, as well as re-moderating the intro a bit, as it had fallen a bit away from how I had originally framed it as, roughly, "all three factors to some extent, at least one factor substantially." Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• But we need one sentence tests. This is never going to fly as a basis for decision on dozens of AfDs per day if it can't be summed up (accurately and honestly) in 1-2 sentences. I think that we need to get away from the philosophical stance and work on the functional problems. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If someone is incapable of dealing with six paragraphs of policy on deletion, they probably shouldn't be on AfD. It's not one-sentence simple, and we shouldn't pretend that it is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • They shouldn't be, but they will be. And we'll make decisions based on their input. Hell, how long has WP:N been about "sources" and we still have people talking about "I think so and so is notable to me" who have been here long enough to know better? How many people (evidently this changed so YMMV) think csd-a7 is an "assertion of notability"? And those are from relatively concise and straightforward policies. When our advice for a balancing test can't be summarized properly it is a failure of the advice or a failure of the summary. Not some inherent defect in the reader. Protonk (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• I think a lot of what Phil said makes sense. We don't want "in universe importance" to become an excuse for original research, with people noting cool similarities or comparisons. But Phil is also correct that there is a common sense "in universe importance" that helps contribute to notability. "This character appeared in every single episode" carries some weight, IMO. So does Phil's example of "this is the episode that debuted the notable character X" (let alone episodes that kill major characters). Now, neither of these would be enough to establish notability by themselves. But they are one factor -- one of three to be exact. So yeah, I basically agree with what Phil is saying. The only thing I disagree with is removing the summary sentence. I think we can fix it. And we need to fix it, for the sake of clarity. Randomran (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, we still have "This alternative test is a balance of three factors: the importance of the fictional work, the importance of the element within that work, and the availability of verifiable information." That remains a pretty good summary. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • My issue is that the summary doesn't fit into the three pronged test. The nutshell makes more sense than the guideline it is describing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Phil seems to think that we get a good summary by re-stating the headings: importance of the fictional work, importance of the element within the fictional work, and the availability of real-world (ed: was previously just "verifiable") information. Is there a problem with that? My worry is that it doesn't put the factors together in the context of what they're supposed to do. The purpose of a notability guideline is to establish (1) importance, and (2) the potential for the article to meet guidelines such as [[WP:PLOT] and WP:OR (which is really what verifiable real-world information is supposed to get us). Randomran (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sound-bite-ish phrases

not every idea in the world can be summed up in 1-2 sentences unfortunately and trying shove something into that length that can't be is not the way it should be done. That isn't to say we shouldn't try to be as concise as possible, but Wikiepida isn't going to be improved by using sound-bite-ish phrases to base arguments on.じんない 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

....you do visit afd, right?  :) I mean, no offense, but it isn't exactly the floor of the US Senate. People make short and (sometimes) sound-byte is comments all the time. It isn't dumbing down to say "this should be condensed to a reasonable size without loss of generality". Protonk (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying we should eliminate the detailed description. But a summary sentence is useful and necessary. Phil Sandifer has offered us a summary:

• "This alternative test is a balance of three factors: the importance of the fictional work, the importance of the element within that work, and the availability of real-world information. All three must be addressed to some extent"

Does anyone have any problem with this? If so, what? Personally, I think it's good, but I also feel like it could be better. Randomran (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have visited on occasion. However, just because a member likes to make short sound-byte comments does not mean our policies and guidelines need to be dumbed-down to the point they lose context if you just read the simplified version. I am not saying we shouldn't try to be concise; that's always a good thing. But we should not sacrifice meaning for shortness. If a significant part of the meaning is lost or misconstrued to accommodate an arbitrary 1-2 sentence limit, we shouldn't use it.じんない 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, if the meaning of a guideline can't be condensed appropriately and conveyed unambiguously, we probably shouldn't be using to to make ~100 decisions a week on contentious issues. And more importantly, it won't gain consensus to become a guideline if it appears long winded, vague or ambiguous. Regardless of how we feel about "dumbing things down", that will make all this work for naught. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, because you're both making intelligent arguments. But you're wasting time debating theory. There *is* a summary in the current version of the proposal. I've taken the liberty of highlighting it. The question is if it's as good as it can possibly be? Randomran (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw it and am thinking about a response. It is not a summary of the test (which would probably require more than 2 sentences but should be possible in less than 6) but rather a restatement of the three prongs. Protonk (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is missing? Feel free to suggest something on the talk page. I'm confident we can whittle it down to something bite-sized, without losing clarity. Randomran (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm thinkin'! My brain works slowly.  :) Let me ponder it a bit. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, a little over-eager. (Checking Wikipedia every 5 minutes is my way of procrastinating on a rather dull paper.) :) Randomran (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think overall the statement is fine, though i think a mention that some prongs may be more important than others.じんない 08:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I must agree with Protonk's statement that if the "balancing test can't be summarized properly, it is a failure of the advice or a failure of the summary". We have to break this down into a nutshell at some point, as a guideline that is "long winded, vague or ambiguous" is going to be revised until it is. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, what do you think about the remaining summary? ("This alternative test is a balance of three factors: the importance of the fictional work, the importance of the element within that work, and the availability of real-world information. All three must be addressed to some extent.") Is there something you'd like to see in a good summary that isn't in this one? Randomran (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive time

I've changed the archive time to 5 days (actually this time). As there is a little more interest in the guideline now (and some actual project page changes), threads are growing at a rate faster than the old archive timer would keep this talk page size down. Protonk (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It was set at 21 days. I've changed it to 14 days in relation to this thread (oldid) on your talk page. I think 5 days is way too short. I've also changed the archive page size from 80K to 200K. --Pixelface (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to choose 14 over 5. Though arguably were the situation reversed, there would be no reason to choose 5 over 14 (arbitrarily). I can see and have made the argument that the volume of comments on this page makes lowering the archive timing worthwhile. Perhaps someone else will chime in on that view or on the specific choice of days. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, it's all arbitrary. 30. 21. 14. 7. 1000. You went from 21 to 5. I can see a need to lower it from 21. So I chose a relative midpoint of 14. I would like more people to comment about the number of days. I can accept 10 days, but please let me reply in some threads before it's set to 10. If it's set to 10 days, the following threads will be archived in:

• About 5 hours - 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - DGG's changes
• About 7.5 hours - 06:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - Derivative works
• About 23 hours - 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - Breaking out a subject from a list
• About 23.5 hours - 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - Preserving via merge
• About 1 day 5 hours - 04:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - Just a note
• About 1 day 5 hours - 04:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - notability of a character list article?
• About 1 day 7 hours - 06:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - Some thoughts
• About 1 day 13.5 hours - 12:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - Recommendations for the proposal
• About 1 day 13.5 hours - 13:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - A hard-line approach
• About 1 day 22 hours - 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - proposing a split of this proposal
• About 2 days 7 hours - 06:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - Plotcruft and Narrative Complexity
• About 2 days 14.5 hours - 13:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - comments about non-wikipedia wikis to move information too
• About 2 days 14.5 hours - 13:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - use of primary sources for citing production staff
• About 2 days 18.5 hours - 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - Shortening
• About 3 days 15 hours - 14:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC) - Another reason to keep Fictional Elements articles...
• About 4 days 5.5 hours - 04:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC) - Honest introduction to the guideline
• About 4 days 20.5 hours - 19:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC) - A somewhat harder line, but closer to WP:N
• About 4 days 20.5 hours - 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC) - Brainstorm: re-framing "complexity"

Here's a better question: Does anyone have anything further to add to any of those threads? --Pixelface (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it is arbitrary. That's why I put the second sentence (meaning that if I had chosen 14 and you had come in and said 5, the distinction between the two would have been made arbitrarily) in. Protonk (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Split the difference? Let's try 10 for now? Randomran (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

1 of the 3 prongs and sourcing

• Prong 1: "In practice, the best method to evaluate this is through a thorough examination of the sources covering the main fictional work. These sources may be present in the main article, though their absence there is not a sign that such coverage does not exist."

Should we address other methods? How about when we cannot find these sources? First, it says "the best method", which indicates there are others. Maybe the person using this guideline as a tool would like to know what others are available. What happens when they are no other sources, but the editor (who knows the fictional element well on their own terms) knows that it is "important"? Should we address the idea of an editor (or group of editors) that "know" something is important, but cannot back it up with any verifiable facts outside of their own opinion? This may seem stupid, but I'm merely trying to exhaust all possible issue that might arise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• When I wrote that sentence originally, it said "reliable sources". Meaning that the other option would be to look for sources not independent from the creator or look to sources which don't strictly meet RS. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, all sources must be reliable, regardless. All sources don't need to be independent of the subject to help gain an understanding of a fictional element's importance, but reliable is mandatory. Even self-published sources can be reliable, depending on who is doing the publishing. I just wonder if we need to be clear that some type of sourcing, that is reliable but not necessarily independent of the subject, needs to be used to assert that a fictional work is "important". It's not the best sourcing to have the director of an episode comment on his/her personal website that the episode they directed is important in the culture because of "....", but if they have examples to support their assertion (and aren't just making some bold statement to inflate their egos), then I think it's ok to say that that type of sourcing helps us say that this fictional work might just be important. I mean, if that's all you got, and you cannot satisfy prong 2 and 3 at all, then clearly you fail this guideline. On the other hand, if you have that, and you have real world content to go along with it, you got a much better shot of satisfying this guideline (not saying a perfect shot, but at least better than just having that self-published source). This is somewhat addressed in prong 2, but I feel like prong 1 is lacking in this type of clarification.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If that is your opinion, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Use_of_sources and see how your view of sources (which I largely share) diverges from the suggestions in this guideline. This guideline is specifically saying that the bar for RS may be lowered in some cases for fictional sources. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a quick edit to that, adjusting "strict standards" to "strictest standards". My reasoning for that is, the basic standards of WP:RS are not strict, but if you were to look at what they consider to be the "best of the best" sources, those are some pretty tough standards. Overall, the "semi-independent sources" section seems to address some of what I had a concern with above, except that it does it there and not up in Prong 1. The "Self-published sources" could be tweaked, IMO. For instance, "Though sites such as Television Without Pity, Kotaku, or Gamasutra may fail to meet our standards for a reliable source.", I think this would be better stated as "the most reliable of sources for <fill in a subject of fiction that they would generally be dismissed of covering>, but..." I would also remove the word "notably" from there, because who gets to say that their work (if they are deemed to be generally unreliable for specific types of coverage) is "notable"? I made that change here, but we'll see what others think. I also think that if we're going to talk about the "weakest" sources that can be used, we need a section on the "best" sources to use (instead of simply pointing them to WP:RS), as "the best" sources for fiction aren't the best sources for the general community.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You reverted the second change and said that you mean it is because they are notable by Wiki standards. I can understand that, but that isn't what that sentence says based on the wording that is being used. Having an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean that what you do is notable, it means that things you have done have made you notable. There is a semantical difference between that and what the section actually says.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

IF I messed things up, I'm sorry. I didn't see the first edit. The intent of the guideline was to say that notable voices are able to tell us what might be important in fiction. If you want to modify the sentence to say that I won't stop you. Protonk (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather get a better understanding of exactly what is being said before I do that, since clearly I interpreted what was there in a different manner than was intended. Am I right to say that the basic idea is that it's ok to use sources that have their own Wiki page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The original intent was that if a source has a wiki page and we are giving their opinion on it (examples being TWoP or Kotaku) and leaving it as opinion, that could be used to help show one of the three prongs for notability. I'd prefer it just be cut out and we stick to RS, but I don't know how everyone feels about that. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my problem with that is the idea of using a source just because it has a wiki page. The Futon Critic had a page up until Feb. 2008. I will still use them as a source for certain types of information (reviews primarily). We cannot base sources off the idea of them having a Wiki page, because there is no guarantee that the page will stay there. That doesn't mean that The Futon Critic wasn't/isn't notable, as it was deleted for not showing that through sources. There needs to be a better way of addressing these "less than stellar" sources as possible means to show importance or notability of a fictional work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I share that concern. I would like to remove the "semi-reliable" section from the guideline and replace the prong 1 summary language above with "reliable, independent" sources. What does everyone feel about that? Protonk (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that Wikipedia article is probably a poor test of usability for this. But no - moving to reliable, independent sources is not a good idea. A major point of this is that there is a significant body of sources that fall short of the strict standards of WP:N that are useful to us here. Furthermore, the semi-reliable section is a restatement of NPOV - less than reliable sources are still significant points of view, and indicators of notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • But it is an easy lightening rod for criticism. I mean, List of wikis all have blue links. Category:Video game websites all have blue links. Why add that for such a marginal gain and if it doesn't really represent practice? How many articles right now are sourced to TWoP? How many to Star Trek Gamers? Protonk (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said, I'm open to a better standard than "is it a bluelink," which is problematic both in terms of accepting things we shouldn't and rejecting things we shouldn't. That said, when I wrote that section, it was "is itself notable," not "itself has an article," which is a different standard. We could exclude wikis, as we usually do in almost all cases. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Phil, either a source is reliable or it isn't. All sources must be reliable. Now, there is a difference between citing it as a reliable source when they are reporting some scooper report, or something they got from a fansite, and another when using them to provide another opinion about a fictional topic. There aren't really degrees of reliability, but I would say more categories of reliability. As is noted on the page, there are self-published reliable sources (and there are self-published unreliable sources). I just don't like this idea of saying something is "semi-reliable", because it looks like we're trying to supercede both WP:NOTE and WP:RS, both of which have been around longer than this guideline (and it's newly proposed state).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        • First of all, no. It is not the case that all sources must be reliable. Please look at WP:RS, and particularly WP:SELFPUB and WP:QS. We have specific ways in which we use less reliable sources in more specific ways. I'm open to a better name for this than semi-reliable sources - weaker sources, perhaps. But the fact of the matter is, this proposal adds nothing to our sourcing guidelines that isn't already there. All it does is open the door to these lower tiers of sources being used for establishing notability. I do not believe that this contradicts a single line of WP:RS or WP:V. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Ok. I'll be clear. I won't support this guideline if it has the semi-reliable section in it. I don't think there is anything in practice that supports this (questionable and SPS aside) and if there were, the change should be made at RS, not here. Protonk (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I think that Phil makes an interesting point, that a source used for demonstrating notability could be completely unreliable for establishing facts. Notability is a measurement of being noticed not veracity. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Yeah...but if Memory Alpha notices something, is that a sign that it belongs in wikipedia? Where does it stop? Protonk (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
              • I think "semi-reliable" makes it seem like there is a gauge on reliability. If there was a gauge, then that would mean that determining reliability would be objective in nature, and it isn't. It's very subjective (hence why this proposal actually says "go check your WikiProject to determine what community consensus has stated is a reliable source". Maybe "Questionable Sources" is a better title, as it implies a subjective opinion on the reliable nature of said sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
                • I would be fine with that change. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
              • How the heck are you getting Memory Alpha here? I've already said you're right, wikis shouldn't be included. But for Christ's sake, our policy allows a whole swath of sources that are explicitly below the standards of reliability! If the semi-reliable sources section, at any point, says anything that contradicts WP:V or WP:RS, point it out and I'll change it. Because it shouldn't. So how do we limit it, in your view, to Questionable and SPS, which my sense is you're OK with? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
                • I'm getting it from reading the section in the guideline as written. You may have some specific sources in mind which are totally sensible. Not everyone else who interprets the guidelines will--that problem is one that crops up multiple times in this guideline. As for "RS already has several exceptions", I'm not inclined to A: use that as an excuse for further exceptions or B: take it at face value. The SPS exception is for recognized experts in a field posting in their area of expertise in s manner that doesn't have external editorial control. We presume that the information they present (since they are experts and would face some reputational cost for being wrong) is worth including. As for WP:QS the exception they are granted is as follows: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves as described below." In other words, a questionable source can be used just like a personal website of a BLP subject--only for information on the subject itself. Those are very narrow exceptions carved out very specifically. This "semi-reliable" section is a very broad exception and needs to be discussed and agreed upon at WP:RS or WP:V (where SPS and QS redirect to), not inserted in the fictional guideline. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
                  • And the point of the section (which hews closer to questionable sources than to SPS) is that significant review sites can be used as sources for claims about what those sites thought about a given work of fiction, and that such claims do establish notability, even if those sites have no reputation for fact checking whatsoever. Which I don't think is out of left field at all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
                    • It's not out of left field necessarily but it has plenty of problems. One, it broadens RS. If we include those sites as signs of "notability" we are obviously including them for the purposes of sourcing claims about subjects. Two, it is vague. You and I can hold conflicting but still good faith and reasonable interpretations of the guideline. Three, it is not necessary. It's the least necessary part of the guideline, honestly. I can't think of a case where a quote from TWoP would have saved an article from deletion or would have allowed an article to exist where before it would not (though I'm sure we can think of some if we try) How many "significant" but not reliable review sites are there?. Fourth, it doesn't represent common practice. While I've seen plenty of people try and source stuff to fansites and then claim that WP:V is met==> the article should be kept, I have not seen people cite opinions of a fictional subject using a review site (that wasn't already RS) I can see people citing episode guides, but that isn't the "opinion of the author", it is some fact about the fictional subject claimed by the author. Lastly (and I know this is a bit of a litany), it isn't really too accurate. Does TWoP have a notable viewpoint? Do sites have opinions? Don't the authors of the piece have opinions? Who writes TWoP's episode guides? Who writes posts in Kotaku? This is an easily jetissoned sub-section whose removal will greatly improve the guideline. Protonk (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
                      • Does a post on a television review site run by Bravo and thus by NBC constitute a significant contribution to notability? I think that's a clear yes. I do not see how this adds anything to WP:RS. WP:RS would fully support the description of the views of TWoP on any television article by simple virtue of the fact that WP:NPOV already demands it - they are unquestionably a significant viewpoint that needs to be covered. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
                        • That's an answer to one of the six serious problems presented there. And honestly it is more of a suggestion to ask WP:RSN if TWoP should be RS than to change RS to include other sites. Protonk (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that I completely oppose. You're basically throwing WP:NOTE out the window for fiction related works by saying that questionable sources, ones that we would otherwise not allow in any other article, are now allowable AND are enough to show notability? No no no no...I'd oppose any guideline that tried to allow shitty sources to be the determinant of notability. Anyone can write a review, and you're basically saying that because of that their view is so "important" that it proves notability of the fictional work. I'll compromise and say that it can help, but it should never be the sole factor (that includes using the same type of sourcing to cover each section of the 3 prong test) in deciding notability. If you cannot come up with legitimate, reliable sources of information for your topic, then you don't need an article on it. There are other ways to use that "questionable sourcing" info, and that's typically in a larger article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point isn't to allow "any" review. It's to allow reviews from sources that we would already have to consider as significant viewpoints under NPOV. Which there are definitely sites that qualify for that I have little sense would be treated as reliable sources in general. Television Without Pity is owned by Bravo and thus by NBC Universal. They're clearly a significant viewpoint. Our policy already allows and frankly mandates the inclusion of their views, inasmuch as we are required to include all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, and inasmuch as TWoP is, under our policy, considered a reliable source on its own views. I mean, the alternative to this formulation is nuts - it necessitates that "a reputation for fact checking" become the benchmark for which reviews become significant, despite the fact that fact checking is largely incidental to the process of reviews of television.

I mean, I confess, I'm really baffled here. This seems to me completely uncontroversial within our policy. Now I'm happy to figure out what the line to draw here is. But it seems clear to me that a site like TWoP or Zap2It is a viewpoint we should be reporting in television articles, and it seems clear to me that neither site falls straightforwardly under the description of "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Now I'm happy to debate how to draw the line here so that it excludes random fansites and wikis. But I see nothing at all in WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:NPOV that suggests anything other than that a site like TWoP is a site we need to consider and use in writing fiction articles, and that it is a site that is genuinely useful in determining notability.

I mean, surely you're not suggesting we limit our use of secondary sources to determine notability to sources that make their fact checking procedures public knowledge. It comes down to what a source is and is not appropriate for. TWoP is a perfectly appropriate source to turn to in order to provide critical perspective and reception of an episode of a television show. Gamasutra is a perfectly appropriate source to turn to in order to provide critical perspective and reception for a video game. Penny Arcade's blog has no reputation for fact checking and is self-published, but nobody involved with video games would say anything other than that Gabe and Tycho are in and of themselves notable viewpoints. None of them should be used for claims about production, or claims about living people, or things like that. But look, if a game gets non-trivial mention in both Penny Arcade and Gamastura, I guarantee you that game is notable.

The issue here is that the standards of reliability for providing a review of a work of fiction are not the same standards of reliability for other kinds of statements. A review amounts to a statement of a given person's opinion. And we have lower standards for documenting what someone's stated opinion is - as evinced by WP:SELFPUB and WP:QS. The only question becomes whether such reviews establish notability. I find it very, very hard to credibly argue that they don't. I think this follows organically from the GNG even. I quote: "Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." So what matters is that the sources are used consistently with WP:RS. I do not think that WP:RS makes any effort to exclude, or is intended to exclude reviews. In fact - and I say this as the person who agitated for the SPS and QS sections of that page and WP:V - the use of such sources is exactly what those exceptions are meant to cover - how to deal with the fact that, in pop culture areas, there is important material that does not come out through a process of strict fact checking.

I mean, I'm open to rephrasing if the section isn't saying what it's supposed to. I'll take another crack at it. But reviews from major review sites are indicators of notability even if the review sites lack a reputation for fact checking, and our policies on the matter were deliberately written to make sure that their use was not only allowed but encouraged. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You should probably not keep citing WP:QS as a sign of how similar your suggestion is to WP:V and WP:RS. As I said above, QS just says: these sources are questionable and so should only be used to report non-contentious material about themselves. for an example: the citation of Encyclopedia Dramatica on its wikipedia page. And the selfpub exception. That's correct that this is an exception to RS, but I don't see the relevance. It doesn't justify different exceptions or somehow include within its penumbra the language we are trying to insert.

Also, I'm not sure where you have determined that NPOV demands we look for "significant views" about something in non-reliable sources. From a worldwide, encyclopedic standpoint, what views are to be considered significant that aren't published in or covered by reliable sources? Have our articles on fiction been violating NPOV this whole time by excluding these views?

As for RS and reviews: RS doesn't say "no reviews", despite numerous attempts by people ignorant of what media criticism is to change that (...sigh...numerous). As I read it, it says that a review published in by an organization which is a reliable source can be considered. That's not a terribly high bar. Protonk (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm citing WP:QS because it was my arguing with people for the better part of a year over exactly this point that got WP:QS added in the first place. It was added in a large part for the needs of fiction articles - to allow sources to be used more sanely. Because previously we were in a situation where, for instance, Neil Gaiman writing about things on his blog wasn't considered a usable source, because it was a blog and blogs are unreliable. So we created a lower bar that let in stuff that was clearly relevant and important, but didn't come via top quality sources. I mean, believe me, I know what WP:QS is there for. I got it added there.

Which is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here. The fact that, within popular culture, major review sites exist that you'd be nuts to use for BLP claims, but you'd be equally nuts not to use for a reception section on a video game. This is a fairly narrow band of sources, but it's an important one to make sure we codify the role of. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is (among the six raised above) that this change doesn't belong in this guideline, it is easily subject to multiple conflicting interpretations, doesn't really solve an extant problem and exposes us to needless "opposes" come the RfC to get this codified. Really, most of the sites you have noted above could just be "made" RS on the RS noticeboard. Kotako was (kind of). Gamasutra is. Terra Nova is. TWoP seems open and shut, assuming that their reviews are written by staff and not user submitted. How many more of these narrow sources do we need to include and is it worth the trouble? Protonk (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we're likely to manage an exhaustive list on our own. But honestly, given the latitude that was deliberately brought into RS for this exact reason via QS, this should be a non-issue. My problem with sending it to the RSN is that in a five day AfD, that's a significant time sink. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

...Are you sure we are reading the same QS? You have spoken about the broad latitude granted there and the example that shows. I read an exemption--arguably a hard fought exemption--to allow sources that don't meet RS to speak only about themselves and only on non-contentious claims. That is a very narrow rule and one which has little to no bearing on how this sub-section of FICT intends to treat sources. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I'll be honest, I didn't read all of your last response to me because it frankly too long. First, please stop using "significant" and "important" as if they were pieces of candy with regard to sources. Some random joe who reviews for TV Shows Without Pity is not a "significant view", so please stop saying that. It's a view. The idea of "significance" is subject, so you cannot just attribute it to whomever you please. Should notability be solely based on the more professional reviews, or just secondary sources, if it's possible then you're damn right it should. If you can only get a couple of secondary sources, but you got a couple of these less than professional reviews, then it certainly will help. But what you were/are (you made a change to the guideline that I haven't had a chance to look at yet) proposing is that editors can side step WP:NOTE by using just these types of sources, that NOTE would eat for breakfast, to establish notability. This guideline cannot contradict, or sidestep the GNG. The GNG is our primary notability guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I didn't read this because you couldn't be bothered to sign it and were being rudely dismissive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Then don't read it; my comment wasn't to insult you, it was actually made in consideration of you, by letting you know that if I missed something you said it was because I did not have the time to read 5kb of response. But, I'll be more frank with it. If this guideline attempts to subvert GNG by saying that shitty sources (and that's what they are) can be used to prove notability all on their own, then I will oppose it. If this guideline continues to try and assert that these sources (or any source for that matter) is a "significant viewpoint" then I will oppose it. Have you ever written an actual article and used the words "significant views"? I'd doubt it, because it would be challenged as a peacock term (Hell it's even one of the examples). Thus, we shouldn't be using such terms in a guideline either, it kind of sets bad examples. Right now, I think the basic idea of the guideline is good, and I support the idea. What I do not support are some of the specifics, and the overall wording of the guideline, as I feel that it is sidestepping the GNG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Bignore, I share your views as well, but I feel a compromise is possible if an article about a fictional topic can be written as if it were sourced from reliable secondary sources. If we can cut out the fancruft and excessive plot summary and still keep broaden the inclusion criteria for fiction, then that will be a good thing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• OK. What if it clarifies that the sources along those lines can be used to satisfy the three prong test, not the GNG? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a more pragmatic approach?

My main issue with the guideline as stands is the meat of it, the first section, reads like an academic paper on the subject. Perhaps if we were blunt about what the guideline is trying to do, it would be easier to debate and refine. As I figure, this is basically the page that provides the exceptions to WP:GNG, correct? So then why not say: "Generally articles should meet the general notability guideline. For articles on fictional topics which may not meet the GNG, the subject must meet the following tests: the work it is part of must be important, it is important to the work, and supplemented by real-world information." (eloquence doesn't spring from my rough drafts, so take it with some salt.) It seems to me this is a look easier to make short and punchy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Only the first section reads like an academic paper? I'm getting better, clearly. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with David Fuchs, we must boil this guideline down to bare essentials or see it eaten away by goldfish editors who remember nothing of the long discussions that lead to long winded guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I happen to think that section 1: Three-pronged test for notability has come a long way, and probably just needs minor cleanup. The lead probably needs the most work, IMO. Randomran (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against the test per se, just the presentation; better to be succint and let the related policy/guideline pages tell the rest of the story (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS) than get bogged down here. Use footnotes, if necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So you think the first section is still poorly written? Is this a question of length and detail, or is this something that can be fixed with a few wording changes? Randomran (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll see about drafting my own copy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about this?

Per the general notability guideline, a topic is presumed notable for a standalone article if it is the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable and independent sources. Some articles on fictional subjects, however, may not meet the GNG. For these articles, three conditions should be met:

• Importance of the fictional work: fictional universes which are considered more culturally or historically significant are more likely to have coverage in reliable sources, and may go into greater depth than a short-form critical review of the work. If those sources present clear claims for the artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work, it is a good sign that the work is important enough to merit deeper coverage than a simple plot summary or character introduction.
• Importance within the fictional work: the subject should be important to critical or comprehensive coverage of the work as a whole. Assessing importance involves researching topic commentary in reliable sources.
• real world perspective: the subject must contain information aside from plot. Real-world information means that the article has content about the development of the subject, its influences, its design, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact. Sources not independent of the subject, such as developer commentary, may be used in accordance with the policy on self-published sources to provide some of the above information. Articles are expected to conform to an out-of-universe perspective, according to WP:WAF.

If a subject meets the above criteria, it may qualify for a standalone article. Note that other wikipedia guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS should be adhered to in these articles, and editors may consider whether the fictional subject could be treated as a section or part of a larger topic instead of a standalone article.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• That looks clear. I think that "importance within the fictional work" could be more prominent. I think that part of the guideline means to articulate the very real feeling among editors and afd participants that we shouldn't (necessarily) delete articles which would damage our overall coverage of the subject. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• I like it overall, but I agree with Protonk. I think we've kept most of the clarity while improving conciseness, but this draft loses some clarity on #2: "importance within the fictional work". There are some elements of the current section that clarify how we measure importance within a fictional work, without engaging in WP:OR or WP:ILIKEIT. Randomran (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well then why don't you add in the bits you think are necessary above? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Here's a try. Although it kind of depends on how the discussion below goes, and probably could be tighter:
      * Importance within the fictional work: the topic should be important to coverage of the fictional work as a whole. The importance of the topic is assessed by researching commentary in reliable sources. The work itself can indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons, and focus on indisputable facts. (e.g.: "it's the debut episode", "the character appeared in movies and games") Randomran (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorporating your changes:

Per the general notability guideline, a topic is presumed notable for a standalone article if it is the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable and independent sources. Some articles on fictional subjects, however, may not meet the GNG. For these articles, three conditions should be met:

• Importance of the fictional work: fictional universes which are considered more culturally or historically significant are more likely to have coverage in reliable sources, and may go into greater depth than a short-form critical review of the work. If those sources present clear claims for the artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work, it is a good sign that the work is important enough to merit deeper coverage than a simple plot summary or character introduction.
• Importance within the fictional work: the subject should be important to critical or comprehensive coverage of the work as a whole. The importance of the topic is assessed by researching commentary in reliable sources. The work itself can indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons, and focus on indisputable facts. (e.g.: "it's the debut episode", "the character appeared in movies and games") to prove importance, rather than personal opinion.
• real world information: the subject must contain information aside from plot. Real-world information means that the article has content about the development of the subject, its influences, its design, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact. Sources not independent of the subject, such as developer commentary, may be used in accordance with the policy on self-published sources to provide some of the above information. Articles are expected to conform to an out-of-universe perspective, according to WP:WAF.

If a subject meets the above criteria, it may qualify for a standalone article. Note that other wikipedia guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS should be adhered to in these articles, and editors may consider whether the fictional subject could be treated as a section or part of a larger topic instead of a standalone article.

I just added a bit to strengthen the prong, in an effort to appease Gavin's issues with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I basically approve, other than a few copy-edits. Let's see what other people say. Randomran (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• seems good to me. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Anyone else? Otherwise I'll just paste it in and we can work from there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Two notes. (1) The meaning of "the subject should be important to critical or comprehensive coverage of the work as a whole" is not really apparent for a first-time reader. (2) Real-world perspective (name of the point) != real-world information (third sentence). Marty goes back to the future and [insert long rambling] happens and The film tells the story of Marty, who goes back to the future where [insert long rambling] happens say the same thing with different perspectives, but neither has non-trivial real-world information nor justification for long plot rambling. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • True that. I've gone ahead and pasted it in to the guideline, fixing #2. For #1, what do you propose we phrase it as? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe something simple along the lines of "The subject should be important to understand the work as a whole". This is, I think, also the point where perceived fancruftyness begins. The DeLorean time machine is important to fully understand BTTF and therefore has a reasonable claim of importance for its own article, but the Flux capacitor (currently a redirect) is only important to understand the time machine and was merged to DeLorean time machine. (That's not to say that DLtm shouldn't be merged as well, or that FC will never be able to stand on its own, but the above sentence leaves enough freedom for editorial decisions.) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another try on reviews and sourcing

I've taken another crack at the former "Semi-reliable sources" section. I think there is something important underlying this - that reviews from significant sources are things we include as part of NPOV, and fall under the standards of WP:QS, not the standards of the most highly reliable sources. And that, secondly, such reviews do provide evidence of notability.

But I'm sympathetic to the concerns that the old phrasing was letting too much junk through the filter. I've tried to tighten this significantly, with explicit language criticizing sources like wikis, and an explicit high hurdle to clear - notability is established if reviews exist that it would violate NPOV to exclude.

I think this is an important line to maintain. It's clearly the case that A) TWoP, being an arm of a major cable channel, is a significant viewpoint, and B) That TWoP's fact-checking procedures do not weigh meaningfully into A. But this is a bar we don't want to lower too far, and it's important to figure out how to get the basic issue (that fiction articles depend more heavily on sources covered by WP:QS than other areas) dealt with without opening the floodgates. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we don't need to legislate too far in this guideline, but clearly and explicitly state that other guidelines should be followed. For example, reviews from less-than-reliable sources have long been allowed in articles such as video games—as long as it is only used for a review, and the statement is not being used for anything other than the reviewer's opinion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure - all I'm saying is that those sources do establish notability. Which is where this guideline does come in. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like:

In general fictional works tend to rely more heavily upon the use of WP:QS because of the nature of fictional works themselves rarely being the subject of more academic reviews and analysis. While in other, more academic, areas of studies the use of such sources may be held to more rigid standards, for most fictional works such information will regrettably never have a way of showing such level of academic reviews or analysis. This does not mean though that such subjects are not notable as academic or scholarly review is only one measure of notability; not everything in the world that is notable gets such treatment. Therefore in the case of defining notability the use of questionable sources are fine if they are used for reviews and analysis and are themselves notable by the community's standards and unbiased.

じんない 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's still rather vague. Television Without Pity is one of the few exceptions because it is owned and operated by a "major TV station" (Bravo). But, having a review on TWoP doesn't mean that the subject is notable. Notability is defined as "significant coverage". BuddyTV is independent. TV Squad is ultimately owned by AOL, which isn't a TV station, and really has not control over the actual website (i.e. they do not exert editorial oversight). Here is a random review from TV Squad. Read it, it reads like a fanboy wrote it. The level of professional writing is almost completely absent. The quality of our sources, whether we consider them questionable or not, should have something to do with the quality of writing. I'm not talking about general typos, as a lot of web-based articles get thrown up at the last minute (including ones at MSNBC and CNN) and often have typos because people didn't have a chance to proof them. I'm referring to sentence structure, word choice and other elements that explain "quality". I've not see a lot of editors try and use Wikis as review sources, but where exactly do we draw the line in this "questionable" bracket for sources for reviews?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's hopelessly vague, and largely inaccurate. Ask any english, film or history department out there if academic sourcing doesn't exist on fictional subjects. Sure, we don't cover what happens in gundam like we do what happens in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that sources are absent or that some sort of fault in RS/V prevents us from properly covering fiction. Further, we are setting up this strawman by saying that sources on fiction won't meet academic standards as though that is what RS demands. It clearly doesn't. RS allows reviews from newspapers, magazines, books, television shows, etc. Finally, I really, really don't understand the continuing reference to QS. QS says sources that aren't RS but aren't complete crap get an exemption: they get to talk about themselves and only about material that isn't contentious. Here we seem to be referencing QS to say that questionable sources should help determine notability--which I would argue is a contentious claim. And those questionable sources aren't talking about themselves. They are talking about something else. So this rewrites QS to read "questionable sources may determine the notability of fictional subjects". Which, I'm going to guess, doesn't have consensus and doesn't reflect practice. Protonk (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't lecture me on the sourcing available for fictional subjects. I work with it every day. If you want to implement the standards of an English or film department on fictional subjects, I'm happy to write that guideline. But believe me, it's nowhere near consensus, for better or for worse. Giant Bomb. Penny Arcade. Gamasutra. Television Without Pity. Zap2It. I can list more, but the issue here is that all of those are best used under the standards of QS in terms of actual use, and that all of them are genuinely useful for determining what we should cover. And I think that, in practice, each of those would have trouble flying as a reliable source, but would not have trouble flying on AfD. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to implement academic sourcing guidelines. I'm trying to say that placing "...fictional subjects don't receive coverage in academic sources...therefore we need to use non-RS" implies a dichotomy where none exists. It also implies that our policies on RS are somehow damaging our ability to cover fiction. If you want to make that point, then you can go see about changing RS. I won't support it as a plank in this guideline. And just so we are clear...WP:QS reads, in its entirety: "Just because a source is not self-published does not automatically make it reliable. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves as described below. Any contentious claims the source has made about third parties should not be repeated in Wikipedia, unless those claims have also been discussed by a reliable source. " What part of that says we should use these sources to make inclusion decisions about content? What part of that says it is common practice or policy to do so? And if we did use those sources under the "standards of QS", how would that allow us to cite PA on anything other than PA? Protonk (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • To be clear - do you think that the views expressed by PA in the blog section of their site are appropriate for inclusion in an article on a video game? Do you think those views establish notability? If the answer to either question is no, why? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        • To the first question: I don't know. My guess is not in every case. To the second question: absolutely not. As for the example, I reject it generally. You know and I know that PA is a big webcomic and that the authors get a lot of consistent traffic to both the blog and the comic. For me to say "No PA can't be included in articles or determine inclusion of an article" invites the argument that I am either taking such a hardline stance on this that I would reject notable opinions like theirs or that I don't quite understand how notable their opinions are. I am avoiding that part of the question. My stance is: the RS/V policy as written tells us what sources are acceptable in articles. Insofar as this guideline matches those policies, it is doing its job. Insofar as it seeks to change them (and the "semi-reliable" sources is a change), it is not doing its job. Our goal here should be on making a functional guideline for inclusion of fictional subjects. Not to change what can and can't be used as a source in an article. Protonk (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I am unable to imagine a game talked about substantively on the blog of Penny Arcade that we would not have an article on. I mean, I am just flat-out unable to imagine a single practical instance where that would fail as a yardstick. So I confess, I'm floored by the vehemence of your opposition here, and I think you are just 100% wrong in saying that this adds anything new to policy. The blog of Penny Arcade is, under our policy, a usable source for talking about the reception of a video game. It is exactly the situation that WP:SPS and WP:QS were written to deal with. Exactly. Dead on. I know, because I helped write that section, and it was my observation that writing about fiction well necessitated using sources of that sort. The section was added for fiction, and the suggestion that those sources we carefully and deliberately allowed use of for fiction might help establish notability is in no way a radical alteration of that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
            • • Well, for starters, we couldn't use it for a game, because that would have to meet the GNG. It isn't a fictional element. Let's take (for example), the "Lancer" from Gears of War as a fictional element. Penny Arcade mentions it. Twice. Yet we have no article on it. And if what you are saying is already in the policy, then we don't need this section. It's superfluous. We don't need some clause about "semi-reliable" sources because evidently SPS and QS already allow the kind of sourcing you are talking about. If that is the case, why is it in the guideline? Protonk (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry, but I'm getting this feeling that you want the guideline to basically say, "Well, since you cannot actually provide what is considered to be the normal requirement for reliable sources to assert the notability of a topic, just so you can have a page, we'll let you use any 'ol source you find...so long as it's not a Wiki source." I don't believe that we should dumb-down our requirements for notability just so they can "have a page on Wikipedia". I find that ridiculous.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
              • I am honestly at a loss for what in the proposed text or what I have said here would make you think that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your own words. You said that questionable sources should determine notability. They don't tend to determine it anywhere else, so why should we dumbdown our requirements so editors can use them to determine notability? I'm not saying dismiss them altogether, because a valid opinion is a valid opinion, but when you have sites dedicated to reviewing just about everything that comes out (whether it's game related, TV related, or film related) then you don't really have the same level of objectivity when it comes to saying something is "notable". The idea of notability is that something that is "worthy of notice". How do you objectively determine that if the sources you are providing "notice" everything in that field? That is why there needs to be more to determine notability for fiction related works than "questionable sources used as reviews".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not said that such sources should be able to provide notability for fictional subjects via the GNG - i.e. the "two sources and you're good" approach. I've said they can satisfy the real-world perspective prong of the three-pronged test. There's a difference, and I think it's a crucial one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They can all help, but the point is that when all you can find are these "questionable sources", then you need to rethink whether this topic merits its own article. These "questionable sources" are weak to start, and I don't believe that 10 weak sources makes up for 1 or 2 strong ones.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But again, there's a big gap between "all you can find" and "all that is found in the course of an AfD." AfD does not take place in an ideal world, and we often have to guess about the potential of an article. Questionable sources still give us useful information about the likelihood that an article is going to work out. When coupled with the other two prongs, they even give us good information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? This is an inclusion guideline. If you are asserting that "semi-reliable" sources can be used to meet this inclusion guideline then the basic point David is making is correct. The GNG is unrelated--if some subject meets the gng then we don't have to worry about it here. In Phil's defense, I don't think he is saying something as strong as David is asserting. I think he is saying that there are some notable significant voices writing about fiction which are not used to source claims in articles ATM. I think he (phil) has some basic idea of what these voices would be and that list is pretty short. What I am saying is that this guideline is not the vehicle to make that change. Bignole, Gavin, David, and myself have all expressed strong reservations about this portion of the guideline. It doesn't seem to be needed (name me a single AfD that would have closed differently if we could include sourcing from Penny Arcade's blog). It isn't reflected in practice (name an aricles with a substantive claim about the subject sourced to Penny Arcade's blog). And it is far, far, far to open to competing interpretations. It needs to go, Phil. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the major reason that a site like TWoP or Penny Arcade isn't used to source articles is that editors in those areas are lazy, as evidenced by the vast mounds of shitty articles they produce. Not that policy doesn't allow it. If there are actually editors who would remove reception sections sourced to PA or to TWoP, please, show them to me so I can start screaming at them. But on the other hand - do you really think an article that meets the third prong via, say, TWoP and TV Squad and also meets the other two prongs is going to be deleted? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair assessment, because I can easily argue (based on some AfD results), "Do you think an episode article on a popular TV show, whose fans congregate on Wikipedia, would actually be deleted?" It wouldn't, as I've seen them swarm AfDs, regardless of how the article fails to assert any real form of notability (i.e. no sources whatsoever), and yes, Admins do close AfDs through process of vote counting more often than they probably should. I think the real question is, "Do you think someone would propose an article for AfD if they had TWoP and TV Squad as sources?" If those are the only two, then I'd say yes (and I don't mean that as in "I would" but that I think someone else would, in good faith).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You scream at whoever you like. If you think that current policy supports the use of non-rs for claims in articles, then be my guest (BTW, you could probably go on RSN and get consensus to treat TV Squad, TWoP and Kotaku as RS. I know that is what happened w/ Gamasutra). We just don't need that particular interpretation placed in the notability guideline for fiction. I'm going to remove it. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use anything other than RSs. We just need to use all the RSs we have available. The problem is with whether or not sources that write in a fannish manner are reliable. Bignole and I have argued a bit about TV Squad before. It's part of AOL/Time Warner, it has an editorial staff, and it's writers are paid. If they commented on anything besides fiction, they'd be an RS no problem. Maybe their review says "I like when Clark and Lana kissed" and "this was the second best episode of the season". To some, this is juvenile criticism and shouldn't count towards notability. To me, a RS is a RS, and we don't get to decide based on subjective interpretations of writing style and ability. (Or if we do, maybe that should be added to FICT). Sites that review on an ep by ep basis, on individual comics, and other minor fictional subjects are being folded into giant media congonglomerates and the only reason I think people want to dissalow them is they look at the result is that a lot of fiction attaining notability, therefore the source must be dissallowed for notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC

Actually, it has nothing to do with who owns them and more to do with what they do. They're in the business of reviewing everything that comes out, which automatically makes whatever they review less "note worthy" from them, because there was not discriminating process used to say "We're going to review this fictional topic". Notice how USA Today doesn't review every TV episode, neither do the LA Times or the Pittsburgh Gazette. They pick and choose certain episodes based on what they deem to be some "important" standard worth noting in their online newspaper. TwoP and TV Squad (regardless of how poor the writing is) indiscriminately review just about everything (Not 100% of all shows, because they don't have enough staff for that), there's no rationale for explaining why this topic is "note worthy" based on JUST those sources. I didn't say they were not usable to some degree, I'm merely stating that using them as the sole indicator of notability isn't very reasonable. Also, we aren't deciding they are RSs because of their writing quality, but because of their lack of editorial oversight. Read above, and you'll see that the majority of people in this discussion have noted that TWoP and all those other sites fail WP:RS. The point of discussion was using them based on WP:QS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree they're not going to fair well when compared to the LA Times. I just did a quick search of the page for "TWoP" and it seems like Phil Sandifer and Protonk think TWoP is or would be a reliable source and you do not. I probably missed a couple of other opinions on it; it's a big page. Personally, it's part of Bravo, which is plenty for me. You kind of illustrate my point when you say they "indiscriminately review just about everything". It seems to me like your using the ends to justify the means. These sites, that in most ways would be considered reliable (not counting subjective assessments of writing style), can't be allowed as notability proving sources because that would lead to lots of episodes being notable. I think this is counter to our guidelines that say "let the sources decide." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they wouldn't be considered reliable in most cases, as they generally fail the criteria for reliable sources (typically that part of "history of . What I'm saying is that these sources that indiscriminately review everything should not be the sole determinant of notability, because they provide a skewed view of "note worthy" topics because they review all of them. Everything is not notable, but when you review everything you skew the perception of be "worthy of notice". This is why the GNG requires objective evidence to show notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion: Perhaps we're trying to shoot down too many birds out of the sky right now (ok, maybe that's a horrible analogy, but dammit I'm sticking to it.) My suggestion is to work top-down. Let's figure out what the prongs should say concisely (#Perhaps a more pragmatic approach?) and then lets drill down to sources, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 05:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. We should probably start a new section and then start dissecting the guideline from the top down, section by section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Section removed

Given the way the discussion was proceeding above, I've removed the "semi-reliable" sources section. Protonk (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That statement was rather good one because project and task force pages are more likely to have a list of what is notable for their given sections then the average joe is to know offhand what is notable.Scrap that. Must mean it's getting late when i confuse what was added from what was removed.じんない 06:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's cool. I was just going to remove the whole section and then realized that the "wikiproject" and RS/N part was really sensible, so I moved it. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a compromise or improved wording could have been come to, and that this was a shitty thing to do, and that your conduct through this debate has been deplorable. I'm not going to revert it, because I'd rather the guideline pass, but I am, frankly, disgusted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Deplorable. Lol. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You know what Phil, let's do one better. What, precisely do you deplore? Where in this conversation have I said things which "disgusted you". How, exactly was the removal of that section, followed by a post on the talk page, "shitty"? Because right now I feel like I've been pretty reasonable. I've taken time to defend your positions to Bignole, David and Gavin who felt they were unacceptable. I've tried to find common ground and I've tried to avoid inserting my voice into the guideline too much, deferring wherever possible to others. And now that we've gotten into a discussion where I'm not in agreement with you and I feel you might be misinterpreting things, I am suddenly "deplorable". I feel that is the substantive change, not any underlying incivility or inappropriate behavior. And I'm not going to stand for it. I don't like being bullied around like that. I don't like being called "shitty" (I know you are referring to my actions, but what a word to choose). I don't like having my conduct called "deplorable" or "disgusting" unless I'm actually being deplorable or disgusting. And I don't like working in a situation where I have to fear that you will throw your hands up and fulminate against me should we have some disagreements. You are an adult. I'm an adult. Why don't you treat me like one? Protonk (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's refocus on the problem and discuss. We need to write a guideline with broad support. I'm sympathetic to Protonk's idea that it's really unnecessary to restate what we already know from WP:QS/WP:SPS/WP:RS. But I'm also sympathetic to Phil Sandifer's idea that a less than 100% reliable source could still be used to assert notability. For example, Mod DB is a website that's not strictly reliable, because it doesn't have standards of editorial review. It covers literally *everything*. On the other hand, they do give out annual rewards, and you can't really give out these kinds of awards without some kind of editorial standards. I'm not saying we should consider Mod DB a reliable source. But if there's a consensus that its awards are valued by gamers, then I think the website should have some value in asserting notability. Randomran (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just think paths like that can be found through existing means and that including that set of means in this guideline would make it much harder to gain wide consensus. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My worry is the opposite: unless we provide alternative means, the guideline won't pass. But that said, what do you think are the existing means? If it helps your explanation, feel free to use my example of Mod DB... Randomran (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll use Gamasutra or Kotaku, because those are two examples mentioned here but which I feel can be used under current policy (and therefore don't need to be encapsulated here). Gamasutra is owned by United Business Media LLC, which presumably is some legitimate enterprise, with lawyers, editors and so forth--And also runs GDC and prints Game Developer magazine. They hire writers (and provide short CVs for them), check facts and are cited within the industry. We speak about broadening the sources available yet Gamasutra is already a reliable source under our policies. Kotaku is more on the edge--they are owned by Gawker, hire writers, but are basically a group blog (although the pool of possible writers is limited). They are not directly connected to an organ as reliable as GDC/Game Developer Magazine, but Gawker has a reputation. The reliable sources noticeboard seems to be mixed but positive on the idea of using it as a source. One post (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_19#Kotaku), where I was one respondent, said "no". The more recent post (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_22#IO9.3F) was mixed (where I noted my previous activity and so didn't make a strong statement) but hedged toward speaking of it as more reliable. Those kinds of determinations and community discussions are what needs to happen, not writing a guideline which allows their use carte blanche. I don't know how to handle Mod DB specifically. My guess would be that if we don't know (roughly) how the website determines who gets what award, we can treat the award as legitimate (as in, not bought and paid for). If we know how significant the website is in the genre, we can treat the award as "notable" (in the sense that we talk about notable awards in WP:BIO). Niether of those determinations can be made by this guideline and neither has an impact on this guideline. I think we wade hip-deep into the morass if we take it upon ourselves to determine whether or not there is a consensus that such awards are valued by gamers beforehand. There are notable sites which don't give notable awards. There are notable sites which don't come close to providing some legitimate measure of importance. There are dozens of dozens of permutations. If we don't intend to at least nail down a majority of those with this guideline and instead kick back that decision to RS/N and Wikiprojects, what are we doing adding the caveat at all? Protonk (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Current practice for video game articles and as per WP:VG/S is that questionable sources such as Kotaku (Gamasutra is accepted) should meet WP:SPS; in other words, posts made by Brian Crecente definitely meet SPS, while other authors will have to be defended. Not to get too far off topic, but to clarify; Joystiq is generally under the same constraint. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you're open to accepting semi-reliable sources: something like Kotaku that isn't strictly reliable, but does have a reputation for fact checking and is respected among video game enthusiasts. Your only concern was avoiding too much of a restatement of WP:RS, let alone a blanket override of WP:RS. Correct? Randomran (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is that exceptions to RS should be handled through discussion and through current policy (like David says) and that we don't need an exception written in to this guideline. Even worse, the appearance of expanding what sources can be used for fiction through this guideline would cause too many to oppose. So yeah, that's the basic idea. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great starting point for finding some common ground on this issue. I'd like to try to re-add a brief statement to WP:FICT about establishing "exceptions to RS through discussion and through current policy". But let's hear from Phil Sandifer first, because I don't want to be too presumptuous about how he sees it. Randomran (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine with me, too. Notice that I didn't remove the section entirely. The paragraph about consulting projects and RSN for sources on the fringe remains. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the proposed language for Randomran's addition, but I am cautiously optimistic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Importance within the fictional work

I strongly object to the idea of "in universe importance" suggested earlier by Phil and Randomran, as this concept masks the fact that it is based on personal and subjective speculation, and brings the section Importance within the fictional work into direct conflict with WP:NPOV. Despite Phil and Randomran arguements to the contrary, importance within the fictional work is still a real-world attribute which is not present within a work of fiction itself, and can only be established through citing real-world coverage.
For instance, the King of Hearts may act as if he is important, but it takes real-world information to establish his importance within the fictional work. Whilst I would say he is less important than, say, the Queen of Hearts, that is my opinion and not a statement of fact.
Secondly, this section brings this guideline into conflict with WP:NOT#PLOT, since the only way to identify which characters are important in the absence of real-world content is to do so by reverting to plot summary.
Thirdly, plot summary focused on a specific character also brings this section into conflict with WP:NPOV, because long plot summaries are aproxy for saying "I think this character or aspect of the story is important, so I will write a plot summary is focused on it" when there is no real-world evidence that this is the case.
My conclusion is that Plot summary focused on one character cannot establish importance of a character within a work becuase it does not provide any real-world context, analysis or criticism, whilst at the same time it risks giving undue weight to a particular character within the overall plot that may not be warranted.
I therefore propose that the section Importance within the fictional work be removed., as it is misleading and intellectually bankrupt. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the section badly, and raising a ridiculous example of an argument. The problem is that there are non-ridiculous arguments to be made using fictional sources for this - ones that would gain credence on AfD. I repeatedly cited several in response to you - the use of the series finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a direct and explicit commentary on the premier, and the fact that episodes that introduce or kill major characters of shows would be kept on AfD for those reasons.

The problem is that there are dumb arguments to be made as well. But that's a problem with any guideline. We cannot legislate away stupid arguments without losing ones that would garner wider appeal. Unless you really think that "Keep - episode introduces one of the major characters of the series" would not be a persuasive AfD vote that would swing people's opinions.

Also, may I respectfully suggest that calling any portion of a guideline that people have been working hard on discussing and improving "intellectually bankrupt" is rude and does not make you come off as someone engaged in any sort of good-faith dialogue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry if I was a bit to pointy - no insult intended, but the example of who is more important, the King or Queen of Hearts, is not so ridiculous as it might seem, as I am distinguishing between importance from an in universe perspective (always subjective as this can only be based on an editor's personal opinion) and importance from a real-world perspective (such as the expressed in a reliable secondary source).
  I admit that your example of Buffy the Vampire Slayer goes over my head, but if the first and last episode are part of the same television series, I can understand why the start and end would be connected by the over-arching plot, but I don't see that as evidence of importance, as maintaing a narrative thread is common theme in many fictional stories (e.g. good triumphs over evil...in the end) and implies no particular importance, as some fictional stories work without such literary devices.
  My primary concern (which you have not addressed) is the use of plot summary focused on one particular character in order to imply that the character is important. Articles like Xander Harris are virtually all plot. This article has many faults, but if you read between the lines, its key message is "This character is important, as it has a 1,000-word plot summary to prove it!". Plot summary does not imply or imbue importance, and this is an important issue which this guideline should address clearly, not encourage or be vague about. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I'll add a line stressing that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about this part of the guideline either, but for every bad argument about "this character is important to the work because I love reading about him!!!", there are times when people make truly common sense arguments that are hard to deny. Gavin, can you concede that a character that appears in every single episode of a multi-season series is probably more important to the work than a character who appears for 5 minutes of season 3 episode 2? If so, then we're actually not that far apart. We just need to come up with a wording that distinguishes genuine importance from WP:ILIKEIT. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What I've tried to make clear with my version (see a couple of headings above) is that it must meet all the criteria. The Master Chief is integral to the plot of several video games, so it meets the second prong and offers a compelling reason against just merging the character into the article about the games (although a list of characters is still an option.) What allows it to go beyond (disregarding the numerous reliable sources) is the discussion by the developers about the design and how they wanted characters to interact and such. In short, I think that while alone the criteria would just be a fanboy's dream excuse, in conjuction they work well to weed shit out. For example, I don't need an article on the, say, Rod of Seasons item in The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages because it's not crucial to have another article to explain its role in the plot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what David Fuchs is saying. "Importance within the fictional work" isn't carte blanche to write on any character with a few fans, but it's probably helpful... if not necessary. Real world information is still the key. Randomran (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the 3-prong test require their be some real-world connection anyway? If an article on the Rod of Seasons just talks about it in terms of in-universe perspective it would fail because it had absolutely non real-world connection?じんない 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what we're saying. In-universe importance is required. It doesn't open the floodgates, because you still need that real-world perspective. Randomran (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Then if we are focusing on real-world perspective, can we not drop this first prong ("importance" altogether? Importance is a subjective label anyway, so if we drop this part of the test, then we can focus on what is objective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• My read on this three-ponged test is that if you unequivocally meet all 3 prongs, you probably likely have an article that already meets the GNG and thus you can go forward with it. However, articles may not easily meet all 3 prongs - you may only have one source for real-world info but good demonstration of importance of the work and the element in the work itself. The idea of this test is to say that as long as all 3 prongs are addressed in some manner, the article will likely be kept; lacking any prong will likely cause the article to be deleted. Thus, while we do ask for real-world notability, if only a bare minimum can be found but the other two prongs are held up strongly (say, a main, in-every-episode character of older sitcom that ran 10 years on a major network), then we accept that article to be generally ok. The three-prong test is not a guaranty that the article can never be challenged again for deletion. --MASEM 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I can understand why you would want to keep importance, because it is a matter of personal opinion. If I create an article, I am hardly going to say that its topic is unimportant; no article on fiction will fail this test. Since it is at test based on an editors point of view, I don't think compatible with WP:NPOV. In the absence of reliable secondary sources I don't see how you can distinguish between important and unimportant at all - it is a test that no article can fail. Take for example the article Xander Harris - if you ignore the 3,000+ words of plot summary what makes this character "important"? I you have to make a personal judgement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Let's use the 3-prong test on Xander, just to show that this is not POV "importance":
  • Prong 1: Importance of Work: BtVS is a 7 year show, surviving a move across networks, written by a notable author, and has been discussed academically. The show is important (this is beyond being notable)
  • Prong 2: Importance of character: Xander appears in pretty much every episode, the actor is listed in lead credits, etc. Clearly it is a major character (mor than just reoccurring) and thus is important to the work itself. (I could cite even an episode itself, The Zeppo, as even further exploring the character specifically to show importance, but not really needed)
  • Prong 3: Real-world. This is where there's a weakness; there's nothing about the development or reception of the character, and appearances in related media are not great examples. Arguably on this point alone, Xander would fail the 3-prong test. Now, with even one or two weak real-world aspects that can be added, then this is met, even if not greatly, and all three prongs would be satisfied, thus being encouraged to keep the article.
• Now, the thing about these tests is that they need to look at the likelihood of having such sources, not just the current state of the article. I find it hard to believe there are no real-world considerations of Xander. --- and now doing a quick google search, I have at least one article that establishes some real world context (the actor had to overcome his stuttering for this role), so this is why it is important to talk the likelihood of sources, not just what is present there. Also, we have to separate plot cleanup from this test. Just because there's a zillion words of all plot does not point to anything about notability; that's a content issue. The prongs still must be met of course, and cleanup still must be done. --MASEM 17:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• This well demonstrates that this third prong is broken and should go. The stuttering of the actor is quite irrelevant to the fictional character and is a detail which only belongs in our article Nicholas Brendon. If the character himself stuttered then this would be a proper addition to the article. Note also that the Xander Harris gets about 500 hits/day which is more than articles upon notable real-world Harrises such as Frank Harris or Harris Tweed. This is a lot of readers and is orders of magnitude greater than the handful of editors pontificating here. This discussion has no legitimacy or mandate and utterly fails WP:NOTLAW. If someone can demonstrate by means of a reliable source that this huge readership is not getting what it wants then we have something to work with. Otherwise, all we have is policy OR: just personal opinions and prejudices. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• What the readership wants and what the goals of the encyclopedia are are at odds, and since this is the Foundation's playground, we need to meet their requirements. If users were footing the bill, that would be different. It doesn't matter if a page gets 500k hits/day - if it is not notable and not encyclopedic, it should be deleted or its content trimmed and merged.
• You also missed the point I was trying to make - ok, maybe the stuttering issue is more about Brendon himself instead of the character, but that was the first usable hit I found after a very quick search on news.google. That is, I'm sure there's more info for the real-world impact of Xander if I had more time to search. (I also disagree the stuttering is irrevelant - to prepare for the role, Brendon had to work around that, and this would be no different from an actor having to learn martial arts or the like for a movie). I'm arguing that Xander should stay as an article based on the likeliness of sources, it just needs trimming. --MASEM 22:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, a few people further up the talk page put together a more concise statement of "importance":

• Importance within the fictional work: the subject should be important to critical or comprehensive coverage of the work as a whole. The importance of the topic is assessed by researching commentary in reliable sources. The work itself can indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons, and focus on indisputable facts. (e.g.: "it's the debut episode", "the character appeared in movies and games") to prove importance, rather than personal opinion.

It specifically says that personal opinion is not valid, and gives examples of indisputable facts about the work that can help assert notability (e.g.: debut episode, multiple appearances). And keep in mind it would need this kind of internal importance in addition to real-world commentary. For the record, I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of relaxing WP:N. But I also see it as impossible to pass this proposal with broad support unless we allow in-universe importance to at least be a factor. If we can find a way to contain this factor so that it doesn't become WP:ILIKEIT, then it will only help us pass a fair but firm guideline. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• These "indisputable facts" are actaully matters of opinion. The fact that a character appeared in a movie, book or game makes every element of fiction important. This is not a "test" of importance at all, but a bogus "proof" that every ficitional element is important. For example, the arguement that Xander appears in pretty much every episode, the actor is listed in lead credits, is not proof that he is important to the story at all. If the character has been dropped from series, would that indicate he was not important? I see this "test" as an excuse to create an article for every fictional character under the sun just because reason is given for why WP:ILIKEIT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be a use for a "importance to the fictional work" standard, but "Appears in many parts of the fictional work" is a really weak case for it. It's an objective standard because it's an all-inclusive standard; you can include all of the good things in a set of all things, but that doesn't make a set of all things useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pasted in the more concise version as outlined about. To AMiB and Gavin: my thought was that the phrase "The work itself can indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons, and focus on indisputable facts. (e.g.: "it's the debut episode", "the character appeared in movies and games") to prove importance, rather than personal opinion." meant that the work itself can indicate importance based on appearances, but should rely on sources to prove its importance and indisputable facts about appearances, et al for indicating inportance by the work alone. Just because you can prove it's important to the work still does not necessarily mean it meets the prong. Would this phrasing help? (removing the 'prove importance', as I recognize it may cause issues.)

• Importance within the fictional work: the subject should be important to critical or comprehensive coverage of the work as a whole. The importance of the topic is assessed by researching commentary in reliable sources. The work itself can indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons, and focus on indisputable facts (e.g.: "it's the debut episode", "the character appeared in movies and games") rather than personal opinion.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Primary Sources - Gameplay

I'm wondering if, for video games, gameplay mechanics could also use primary sources in similar manner.じんない 06:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm uncomfortable putting it in this guideline. We shouldn't say "you can say mega-man is a platformer just from primary sources" because that is a content decision (This is also why I don't like the last few lines of the primary source part of FICT). The right question for us to ask is: can we support the second plank (importance to the game) for a standalone article on a gameplay mechanic based on primary sources (or based partly on primary sources)? Protonk (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about genre's. That can be to some extent a subjective judgment. I'm talking more about game-mechanics themselves, ie detailing how Mega-man game is played. The mention of what game-type it was, would have to have a reliable secondary source.

And no, an article based only on primary sources would fail by GNG or the 3-prong test.じんない 08:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, pick any example you like. I just want to make sure we are on the same page. We are talking about having a separate article for the game mechanic based on this guideline, not just mentioning it in the article for the game. Ok. In that case then my response is the same. That is a content question, not an article inclusion question. We shouldn't look to answer it here. Protonk (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. While my position on this is "absolutely yes," I do not see how it can affect inclusion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Primary sources are fine for gameplay mechanics. For example, see En passant. But what does this have to do with fiction? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I had found a few articles that only used them as sources a bit back. As plot was listed as a valid use i thought i'd ask because it should probably be listed then that for game mechanics that it's fine for WP:V for gameplay mechanics as well as plot, but do not denote WP:N

As for the articles, they were merged as a few were stubs and the other one only had primary sources.じんない 16:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is a "can I..." question, when in actuality I've never seen a video game FA that sources the game itself for mechanics (I suppose you can argue that unsourced paragraphs would be cited by default to the game, but that's more because FA standards were lax.) People do often cite the game manual for bits of gameplay that either secondary sources don't explain well or don't touch on, but are important to understanding the game, but that's different and much better than citing the game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there's two different cases here. If we are talking about the gameplay mechanics of a specific game, a combination of primary and secondary sources is completely reasonable to make. However, if we are talking about a generic gameplay mechanic (eg boss fight), this needs to be much more strongly based on secondary sources, because its highly unlikely that every game or game manual will use the exact same terms to describe a similar mechanic and thus we should turn to secondary sources to make that leap of logic as to avoid WP:OR as well as to establish that it is a notable mechanic by itself. --MASEM 16:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well for a particular boss fight it probably might also violate WP:Fancruft. Although mention of a more general way of playing a game might not be.

So basically for mechanics part it would be fine for WP:V, but not WP:N is what i'm getting. My point here was that as we are discussing here what would be an acceptable use for works of fiction, that should be mentioned since not all fiction, even beyond video games, is passive.じんない 16:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel like the whole primary sources section has gotten off topic. This is a notability guideline, not a guideline on verifiability. And everything you need to know about verifiability is in WP:V. We only need to talk about sources to the extent that fiction requires special treatment -- which itself is contentious. But we can afford to drastically cut this section back, and I disagree with adding information about how we write a section on plot or gameplay. We're here to focus on notability. Randomran (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• The video game project guidelines say "Gameplay sections should be sourced. This can be sourced using the user's manual for the game, in addition to reviews for the game and other reliable sources." WT:VG is the more appropriate venue to be discussing this in anyway. Nifboy (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but it does need some kind of mention, even if it's only a sentence that primary sources for gameplay mechanics cannot denote notability, only verifiability. I edited the first pargraph to explain that for someone reading so they can understand that for non-plot use, primary sources cannot be used at all for notability.じんない 04:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)