Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)

advice on "list of xxxx characters" page

Can someone provide guidance on what information should be included (or excluded) for an individual character's entry on a "list of xxxxx characters" page? Many that I have run across seem to merely reiterate the plot from that character's point of view. Where is the line drawn between "characters from a film/book" and "characters in the story's universe" that may have been introduced in other medium outside of the primary story? What should the articles really contain? (I see from above that this may be an extension of earlier discussions, so feel free to repoint me to those as necessary) Thx! SpikeJones (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A list of characters is going to contain plot summaries. There's no avoiding that because they're fictional characters. What the list should contain is a matter for the article talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not deciding on that now. We're trying to get some other things ironed out first. For some of the best character lists, look at Characters of Carnivàle or List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow, which are both featured. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thx for the prompt replies. SpikeJones (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You can get some ideas on how to make a list "featurable" by looking at those. But keep in mind that not all lists will make it to the Main Page, and it's perfectly fine if they don't. --Pixelface (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The guideline is pretty silent on lists as of yet. But all the other content policies apply to lists, including WP:NOT. Randomran (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The basic question is how much information there should be--I see two different sorts of lists. First, the type which is a combined article for less than fully notable characters, or for notable characters where it was decided as a matter of style and convenience to combine a number of otherwise very short articles. in which there would typically be the asme mount of material as in a short article, with similar guidelines, with the added proviso that some effort should be made to avoid duplication of material between adjacent sections. The other type is one that lists all the characters, including those with separate articles--or which lists only the truly minor characters for whom one could never justify separate articles. This should give a sentence or two of identifying information. DGG (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Per above, we're not going to dwell on lists yet to not add another controversial item to this guideline. IMO, a character list is generally warranted so long as the character cast is large enough and the plot character-intensive/large/deep/whatever enough that understanding of the series is impaired without an explanation of the characters. To use a video game analogy, the majority of first-person shooters probably don't warrant character lists while a good chunk of role-playing games probably do. The more involved the characters are in the game, the more likely they are to be mentioned in third party sourcing in any case, although most AfDs has a relative consensus that most character lists are appropriate when necessary for understanding of the plot. Any other list of fictional elements is generally inappropriate; the necessity of independent coverage rises with more tertiary plot items, as they stretch what WP:NOT#PLOT allows and the whole list becomes a form of undue weight. A list of fictional locations is generally not acceptable for instance. Anyhow, this is a discussion for another time and place. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you all for your insights. I agree that it may be premature or unnecessary to have a formal guideline on this particular question. I was hoping to trim a ton of fat from the List of Cars characters article (and then move from there to other articles using similar philosophies). The Cars universe has dozens of cars, some caught briefly on film but not named until toy/game products came out. The primary question, in this case, is whether the article should be limited to those characters identified in the film's credits, or would any/all characters in the entire universe qualify for inclusion? SpikeJones (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting you bring up List of Cars characters SpikeJones. That was the list that brought TTN to comment here in the first place — back in April 2007.[1][2] --Pixelface (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting, thank you for pointing out that history. I read GoodRaise's policy proposal, and I think that most of the fancruft can be addressed as failing "Notable via appearances in Non-promotional sources", that is - deleting all those that are only named in toy packaging or one-off video games as opposed to appearing as a plot-advancing character in the film itself. SpikeJones (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Next step

Next Step: Hi folks. Pardon the intrusion, but I want to join in too. I haven't contributed anything yet (other than that vote thing several screens up). The reason I haven't added my thoughts is: 1.) I didn't want to step into a big pile of crap as a new guy. And, 2.) I'm not really up to speed on all the diffs yet, and hate when I say fooling things. My question now is, where does this "proposal" go from here, and how can I contribute? Ched (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, you can just join in the conversation; that's what I did a few days ago, and it wasn't that hard. Don't worry about knowing everything, just look at each section at a time.

As to where the proposal goes, I think that their will be a formal Request for Comment soon so that we can determine whether or not to make it into a guideline. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You can skip the archives, but get familiar with what's currently on the page, then figure out where you stand, and then get involved. ThuranX (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really know what to do for sure now. In the last 1.5 years I never thought we could reach a compromise, and haven't thought about what to do now. I'm leery of drawing in a lot of opinions that haven't gone through this with us. People who want to include way more or way less may think they can get their way by opposing. A couple of years ago, I thought I'd come in here, make a few good arguments, and get NOTE deprecated. How wrong I was. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's tricky to jump into a discussion this heated and long. The debate has lasted more than a year. Maybe since the dawn of Wikipedia. It's not uncommon for an outsider to say "I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this -- the solution is so simple!" But the solution isn't simple. Everyone who has come in with a magic bullet has been shut down by one faction or another.
• I think the key is to look at what you see, and ask two questions: (1) what would I like to change to make this guideline more effective, and (2) will that change gain this proposal more support in the long run? If you've thought those two questions through, then suggest a change. The worst thing that happens is people jump down your throat and say it's a terrible idea, or that it already was suggested before. But even from there, you can start to ask questions like "can you explain why you are opposed to my suggestion?" If we can understand each other's goals (roughly, more quantity of coverage versus more quality of coverage), then we can find compromises that speak to both sides of the fence. Randomran (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, for better or for worse, I'll jump in (maybe not at the deep end of the pool yet though). First, I'll assume that nothing done here changes or supersedes the main stuff at WP:N or WP:V and so forth. Second, I'm a sci-fi and fiction in general fan, and I'll assume most folks here are in one way or another. My personal views on include/delete are that I'd rather see articles improved as opposed to deleted - that's not to say I want an article on what Worf's favorite foods are. Since I came in about the time of the page delete thing, ... I'll only say that all people get mad and frustrated, and all people make mistakes - and I'll leave it at that.

Now, my first thoughts on the first things about white lists and black lists: I'd be afraid that people would make use of those types of things to look for loopholes, or battle over minor points. I know that policy has to be specific in many cases, but some times the more "points" you add, the more it mucks up the spirit and intent of a policy. Well, hope I didn't step on anyone's toes too bad for a first shot, and I'll be back as I read more through this talk page. Carry on, (but don't throw anything at the new guy yet - he still has his back turned.. lol) Ched (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this doesn't supersede WP:V. Verifiability is policy. As for WP:N, it may depend upon who you ask. There may be an effort undertaken to clarify WP:V and/or adapt it to community practice (as policy/guidelines follow practice), but that is likely a long-term project because any change, and sometimes even minor, change to WP:V can be contentious and something like this is bound to be.

I think though it needs to be as all this guideline is doing is addressing base essentialls of notability for fiction and in a compomise fashion that does not really get at the real issue.じんない 04:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this guideline as written will help improve articles alot more than no guideline. AfDs are going to remain the crapshoot they've always been, but at least people will have a better idea of how to improve articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, either way enacting this as a guideline will be like changing Monetary policy--there is a big time lag between changing the regime and the results. It will take a while for people to realize that this is a guideline, that it speaks to fiction well and that it can help guide debate on some marginal articles. Protonk (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I noted that we should address the problem with lack of clarification with WP:V above with regard to fiction and the way most fiction articles are written and base notability on. The effects of that would be more quick, but it's like getting a bill passed through U.S. Congress.じんない 06:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely one of the primary things that's encouraged me to edit movies and such. I appreciate all the work you guys have put into this. Even if everyone doesn't always agree on the finer points, I see it as a definite "plus" to Wikipedia. Ched (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, if you haven't looked at any of the talk page archives, you really should.

Since the dawn of Wikipedia? No. Since Radiant! began writing at Wikipedia:Fiction in March 2005, so he could cite himself in VFDs. Radiant! has had his thumb in over 59 policies and guidelines.

Since Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes began in October 2005. Since Wikipedia:Fiction was renamed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) in December 2005. This talk page was first archived on June 25, 2006.

The discussion on this talk page really increased in July 2006 — that's clear back in Archive 2 (it's at 43 now). It went from 39 edits in June 2006 to 109 edits in July 2006.

On April 4, 2007, TTN made his first comment at WT:FICT. This thread on TTN's talkpage is related to that.

The activity jumped again in June 2007. It went from 25 edits in May 2007 to 113 edits in June 2007.

In June 2007, Deckiller created User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction). On August 10, 2007, Deckiller moved it over. That's clear back in Archive 4. Then things really started moving. --Pixelface (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The debate about inclusion/exclusion of fictional things is older than WP:FICT. The implications of malfeasance on Radiant's part are not only ridiculous, as common practice was to call something a guideline and if nobody shot it down it would become one, but also a hell of an ancient grudge to still be carrying around. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Things seem to have died down, so why don't we take whatever the next step (RfC?) is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure an RfC is needed. I see a straw poll a large number of comments, the majority of which came from outside the bubble, as it were. They are overwhelmingly in favor of the guideline. There is still some caution about independence. I think we should work out the final version of the "independence" compromise that we were working on a few sections above, put it in, tag it as a guideline, and get on with our lives. I don't think another round of polling and comments is going to get us anything that the last few rounds didn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, up to the "tag as a guideline and move on" part. I stick by my initial point, I started that straw poll to be informal and it was never intended to supercede any official requirements for getting a new guideline promoted. There have been changes to the guideline since then, and we're still looking to make some more. When we are "done" (i.e. no major changes, unless otherwise specified in some official capacity), then I think we need to reissue the page for critique by the community as a whole (i.e. re-notify all of the relevant projects, etc). They need to know what the "settled, compromised" version of the guideline looks like before we assume that just because they agreed before they still agree now. Secondly, it does nothing but prove certain editors right if we say "let's just tag it and bag it, the straw poll proved this is golden by the community", when we were arguing initially that the straw poll was to help us figure out if people liked the general idea the guideline was promoting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. This has been too arduous a task to then have people bitching in three months that it was decided by a dozen editors that formed a super-secret cabal, pretended to bicker amongst each other, and ramrodded it through. Process is a pain in the ass, but I think it's necessary here.—Kww(talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would much rather over do it, than not do enough. If you don't do enough then you are inevitably going to have editors show up and say, "this didn't have real consensus, because only a few people knew about it". I'd rather have enough evidence to suggest that we went far beyond the call of duty when getting this thing publicized and receiving feedback for it (feedback beyond "Wikipedia shouldn't have guidelines, because everything is notable").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The straw poll was informal. On the other hand, guideline tagging does not require a vote. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and all. We've bugged the projects and pages, what, two times already in the past two months? What is a third time going to actually get us? I mean, if I saw a likelihood of new comments, that would be one thing. But we've kept this open for a really long time, and solicited a lot of comments. This is not an under the radar proposal by any measure. I think excessive process invites rules-lawyering. We have a proposal that seems to enjoy wide support. We can point to the depth and breadth of the consensus via the straw poll and via the fact that editors on radically different sides of the debate are OK with this. At this point, I feel like the burden of proof is on people who think this doesn't enjoy consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ Kww. There isn't a rush and whatever process we need to go through in order to demonstrably show that this wasn't a parochial discussion we should undertake. I'm not worried that rules lawyering will sink the process. My vote is that we should let the straw poll sit for a while (say, a few more days), then start an RfC. At the end of that RfC (doesn't have to be a vote necessarily), we can mark this as a guideline. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a rush, honestly, because frankly, we needed this guideline a year ago. But more to the point, if we're going to solicit yet another round of comments (after the previous final round of comments), I want to have a clear idea of what, exactly, we're looking for that we don't already have. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts; this reply may seem a little out of place...) Speaking as a participant in the Wikipedia:Attribution development process, I'd suggest caution in claiming a consensus until everything you can do to verify it has been done. I still feel the general consensus (i.e., the one that includes the thoughts of those who don't regularly involve themselves in policy discussions) is probably a little more to the inclusionist side than this proposal represent (although maybe that's just my own bias showing through -- I really still don't understand why, if something is important to understanding a notable work of fiction it should not be included because we lack 'real world' information about it). But it does represent a better balance point to start from than the current status quo, AFAICT. JulesH (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• There has to be an RFC to see if this proposed guideline can stand up to external criticisim. Without it, the credentials of WP:FICT will always be in doubt. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• It appears to me that there has already been significant comment from people uninvolved in the guideline's formation. What sort of external comment are we seeking beyond that? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, for one, telling people that a straw poll outcome won't result in ratification then ratifying the guideline immediately afterwards doesn't look Kosher. We aren't hurt by waiting a bit, making an RfC and just saying: "Can you live with this as a guideline? Are there reasons it should not be enacted? Will this help the encyclopedia?" then moving forward. If we don't do that, we run the risk of some inclusionists or deletionists (pick whichever side is your personal villain) delegitimizing this guideline from the very start. We want to be able to say "Here is the RfC. Here is the discussion. Here are the points we advertized and the people who participated". It is bureaucratic but I don't want to get in a fight 2 months from now over whether or not this had consensus in the first place. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• The straw poll was presented as an effort to figure out the outstanding issues. One was identified - a need to nail down the matter of independent sources. Since then, an agreement seems to have been basically reached on that point. Which brings us to the point where we're looking at what makes a guideline a guideline. An RfC after two rounds of comments and a straw poll is an extraordinary step, far outside what past guidelines and notability guidelines have entailed. I still don't see why it's needed, or what we gain that we do not already have. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a rush. We needed this guideline a year ago, but the horse is out the gate, as it were. There is nothing to be gained from claiming consensus early and everything to be lost. Protonk (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is, however, considerable risk, to my mind, of a death by a thousand papercuts approach. This is something I've seen in past policy discussions - ideas with broad support fail because suddenly twenty narrowly different competing ideas are presented, often by people who are quick to offer one line comments proclaiming viewpoints, but slow to spend a lot of time on an issue. Decisions are made by those who show up. Lots of people have shown up already, and that speaks for a lot. Given the fact that the straw poll shows lots of comments from people from outside the discussion, what, exactly, are we looking for in an RfC? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could wait a few days, if people think that would help. I think we're ready for an RfC and notification of the relevant projects now, though. I don't think we're going to get more than a couple more supports or opposes, and a question or two, in the next few days. We didn't get much yesterday. I do agree we should dot our i's and cross our t's, though. This page is guaranteed to attract very strong opinions in the future, like it always has. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So we format the RfC just like the straw poll. It isn't hard to enter in to that discussion saying that the form and function of the guideline will probably change little and that many minor details have been disputed over dozens of times. Just like the straw poll we want to establish a broad base of support for this guideline. Again, there is nothing magical about an RfC. No one is likely to come in to the discussion and add something hitherto unknown to all of us. What it will do is give some good claim to legitimacy. Protonk (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Our policy on policy doesn't say we need an RFC. It just says we need input from people who didn't write the proposal, and we need to address their concerns as best we can. We got some conflicting feedback: some wanted a stricter guideline, some wanted something more permissive. But we did get input from outsiders, and we did tweak the proposal in ways that both sides could live with. We do have a consensus by most measures, and there are guidelines and policies that have been FAR less rigorous than what we've already done here.
• That said, I agree with most people that there isn't much value to a guideline if people are just going to deny it. I'm sick and tired of people saying that *policy* like WP:V or WP:OR doesn't have consensus, let alone our guidelines on fiction. I'd rather try to remove all doubt than to try to just squeak this by, because I don't want people to have any excuse to outright ignore the guideline.
• However, if we're going to go with a wide RFC, we need to get more than people who have an opinion on fiction -- we need people who have opinions on Wikipedia wide policies, because this guideline does tow the line in contradicting WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. (Or at least, a few people have a reasonable belief that it does, which is reason enough to get their comment.) Randomran (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not sure as to what should be done; technically an RFC is the way to go, but that could result in, as Phil put it, "death by a thousand papercuts." When I first saw the straw poll saying that it wouldn't "make or break" the guideline, I was assuming that most if not all of the input would be from people already involved in the discussion... I hadn't been expecting the amount of outside input that there was. I'm not sure if that additional input should be made "official" and this turned into a guideline or not. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Think it's safe to BE BOLD and turn this into a full guideline with the changes presented above regarding independent sources? -Drilnoth (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I actually agree with Phil that it would be safe to tag this as a guideline, because we have a lot of outside input in the strawpoll, and we really did respond to most of the criticisms as best we could, without taking a hard position on anything. But if we did, a lot of people would still ignore it. I don't think they could detag it, but I think the WP:BATTLEGROUND would largely continue. The only way to avoid the battleground would be to do a wide RFC and remove all doubt. Randomran (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

CENT then? or village pump policy? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we drop a note on VPP that we're about to tag it as a guideline, and see if anyone goes nuts. If they don't, we can probably assume that we've basically gotten to the point where we're at the minimum level of outrage possible. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the minimum we should do. If we go that route, we should explain where the initial proposal came from, and the steps that were undertaken to get feedback/criticism and improve it. Randomran (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)#Reviving_Wikipedia talk:Notability_.28fiction.29 Adjust as needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing to consider knowing how the previous FICT (my version) failed. We are likely going to get people thinking this too strong, and a number of people thinking this is too weak. We need to be ready to accept the fact that if those numbers and arguments are relatively equal (as it was in the case of the previous FICT) but a strong majority/case can be made for acceptance of this, then we need to be ready to assert that this has consensus given the fact that there will be irreconcilable differences between those other two extremes. I'd be hesitant to say that on the RFC for my FICT as it was 50% supporting, and 25% against for being too strong, 25% against for being too weak, but any more in favor and we'd have to go with it as the best solution to move forward. --MASEM 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I specifically didn't point them to the poll because of this. I think your 50/25/25 is probably close to reality, so we'll need to discuss it with them so they can (hopefully) understand the compromise. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If we do go with an RFC, we should probably allow people to oppose in two categories: too weak and too strong. That will tell us if we have a consensus -- if we have the most balanced approach we can expect to achieve. And to reduce the impact of strategic voting, we should also let supporters chime in as too weak versus too strong too. Someone shouldn't get more voice just because they opposed -- people who support should also be permitted to state their preference and be counted, in the event of failure. Randomran (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If we do a vote, that's how we should do it. Votes don't require that much thought on the part of the participant, though. I think I would prefer just directing people here for discussion. Discussion requires (or quickly bestows) a large amount of background information. I think that's what we need so that this isn't derailed, and derailed by people who might have supported if they knew more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• I posted a note on the watchlist notice discussion board. Please go tweak my proposed language or comment there so we can get a notice for a lot of editors to see this. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Also added to CENT, removed the old notice. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, just as a side note we received just short of 50 comments for the previous RFC. We already have 34 supporters, with only 7 people in opposition in the straw poll above. We've made people into administrators with less support. Randomran (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The straw poll above wasn't about tagging this a guideline. How about you contact everyone who commented at that RFC Randomran? --Pixelface (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I think it shows wide support from independent editors. No need. But the RFC is underway anyway. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent sourcing language

Uh, guys, before bringing this to RfC, wasn't there a relative consensus to add the language concerning independent sourcing (see Phil's edit)? We can fix the language a bit, but seeing the discussion above, I think everyone was pretty amenable to it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, good call. I'm ok with that. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• I already did it right before I noticed this discussion. I included the link to WP:PRESERVE that Phil and another editor seem to have agreed on and no one objected to.—Kww(talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the amendment is adds anything substantial, and is sure to be edited out eventually, since the wording is vague and verbose, and offers no guidance per se[3], and this whole section could easily be boiled down to one sentence: "Effort should be made to find appropriate reliable, independent sources, as an article with no independent sources is unlikely to be a very good one." I think this is the core compromise that we have established so far (although I could be mistaken). --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that sentence doesn't cover it. The point is, that if an article still has no independent sources after a long term effort to find them, it will be merged and then deleted (they usually survive one AfD - down to 'we might find sources' - but rarely survive another, unless the topic is popular, in which case there will be sources, and those are usually added thanks to the long term effort). Ale_Jrb^talk 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That is true sometimes...most of the time the result of the AfDs has a lot more to do with the centrality of the element to the fictional work than independence (though plenty of AfDs do follow the path you describe). As a bare minimum for inclusion we are looking for non-PLOT information. I think the balance we strike in the guideline (read both the prong and the "independence" section) is a good one. Protonk (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for stability

Until the RFC is over, I would request that editors refrain from making amendments, both big and small, so that other editors can comment on the current version which was last edited by Phil Sandifer at 17:34, 24 January 2009[4]. I propose this on the ground that any amendments will tend to invalidate the comments made by contributors to the RFC, even if the amendments are well intended.
I realise that it is difficult enough to agree on the current version on the basis it can always be improved, but I feel we should hold back until all comments are in and then address the issues raised. If there is an administrator capable of freezing this version until the RFC has ended, I feel this would be of benefit. The last thing I would like to see is an edit war break out simply because everyone thinks that the gates are about to close, whereas the reality is that lots of amendments will be made after the RFC in any case. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back. That particular set of material had consensus to be added before the RfC was brought forth, as I noted here. That said, I agree that no other changes (aside from non-controversial prose/grammar fixes) should be made in the meantime. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 12:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your approach. Since the amendments don't make any substantial change to the guideline, I can't see the benefit, as it never going to be final version in any case. My proposal still has merit, because all I am asking is to hold back for a short while as a matter of courtesy, as it is difficult for the participants to comment on a moving target. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the ammendments show how this porposal is not ready to be a guideline, and there is alot of different views which oppose the current verision as it stands. After all there is no deadline, this passionate discussion has been going on for 4 years now, it doesn't have to be resolved today. Ikip (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how you came to this conclusion, as it seems to me there is a lot of support as well, which has the upper-hand in my view because it is supported by arguements from new contributors to this page that fit in with the discussions that have taken place over the last few weeks. I have reverted back to the version at 17:34, 24 January 2009 in order to facilitate comparison. Please feel free to revert back.
It seems to me that the changes to date are more or less cosmetic, which indicates to me that we are still on the right track, at least in principal. Clearly the "nutshell" needs to be amended, and this needs to be hammered out in a new section WT:FICT#In a nutshell.
Another issue seems to have arisen regarding the scope of this guideline regarding the difference between "works of fiction" and "elements of fiction" and I suggest we discuss this in a new section (WT:FICT#Works & Elements.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, I'm concerned about changing the guideline while it's under vote, but on the other hand, when people are clearly misunderstanding parts of it, clarifying those parts does not seem to me to be a problematic change at all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is understandable, given that the discussion over the past few weeks has been so drawn out, and would take an age to read, let alone understand. However, it has been constructive, and if new contributors to this page ask for clarification, then we can always refer them to the appropriate section in the archive, whilst hoepfully at the same time giving a balanced view of what has been agreed/contested before.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on reverting. The changes were made in response to opposes and comments that the nutshell was unclear, wording was poor, et al; reverting back only hinders the development of the guideline. As none of the changes in the duration have changed the meaning of the guideline, but hopefully its clarity, I suggest we revert back to the last revision before Gavin; if we were seriously about not being a "moving target" we would have protected the guideline, but that's obviously not the intent of this exercise. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with David here. When I was watching the changes, they appeared to be about making sure the guideline was consistent from top to bottom (as we had failed to adjust the wording of other sections after WE altered the guideline). I don't recall any change to the guideline that altered any aspect of its meaning, merely a copyedit was performed (though, I could have slept through some major change that did...if so, please show us what that was). Other than that, I believe it needs to be reverted back as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are both coming from and you are perfectly justified to hold this view. However, whether the changes have made improvements is debateable, and whether any of these amendments will 'stick' is not a foregone conclusion. My own view is that change is unhelpful whilst the RFC is in progress, because it makes sense (in my mind at least) if the last contributor were to be commenting on the same version as the first contributor (as well as those in between). Comparing one version with another is like trying to compare apples, oranges and carrots. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) as the author of one of these copyediting changes, I admit that we are running a fine line. However, look at it this way. Lets say this guideline passes. Are we going to call for another RfC if we make some reasonable copyediting changes? No. We are going to discuss it on the talk page (assuming it isn't soem huge change) and implement it. The same procedure should be followed here. Lets make sure that changes don't disrupt the scope of the guideline and work to ensure that it is more clear. Protonk (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How is this a change in fundamental meaning? Please explain. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to be rude, but your proposed change is quite contraversial. Although WP:FICT places a lot of emphasis on the test, the statement that "An element of a fictional work is presumed to be notable if it meets a three pronged test" is not true, because the test is silent on the need for independent sourcing. In fact a topic that passes the three pronged test does not even pass WP:V, which states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". That is not to say I am against the test, but we have to be honest, we can't create an editorial walled garden for fictional topics. Sorry if I did not make my views clear before I reverted your edit. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Final adoption as a guideline

Template:RFCpolicy This is a Request for comments on the final adoption of WP:FICT as a guideline. A straw poll showing broad, informal support is above. This proposed guideline represent months of compromise between editors across the inclusion spectrum. As a compromise, it will not mirror your exact feelings about fictional subject notability. If you support this guideline, please tell us why. If you oppose this guideline, please tell us why. If you are ambivalent, well, tell us why if you can be bothered. :) If you have already told us why in the dozens and dozens of threads above, you can probably just tell us you support the adoption of this as a guideline. Protonk (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I might add... you are allowed to support this even if it's not your ideal choice. If you do decide to swallow your pride and support this, feel free to let us know what you would prefer. Randomran (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The strawpoll above polled editors who watched this page, and were involved with its creation. This is true with the first 10 or 15 posts below, but as this RfC has been advertised the wider community, it is clear that the "broad" support is only within a walled garden.
I caution editors to support this if you have problems with this page. Once a proposal becomes a guideline, it is usually difficult to change because the larger incentive to comprimise is gone. Ikip (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, though it is far from my ideal choice. In a perfect world, I would see a much stronger emphasis on third-party sources. In this world, I think that stronger emphasis would alienate too much of the inclusionist camp for this guideline to achieve consensus.—Kww(talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Not enough support of independent sources, and unlike Kww, I find that makes it unacceptable. We can certainly leave WP:N to solve it, as well as improving awareness of sourcing requirements and helping to support closing admins who ignore fan runs with no idea of where independent sources will be found. Sources need to be independent. That means not from the creator or those involved with the fictional work. This runs directly counter to that. If there were more an emphasis on merging inappropriate content, this might work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• support because we have to finish this process sometime. I suppose the neutrality is shown bey the fact that, like Kww, i support though I actually find it basically unacceptable also, for of course exactly the opposite reason of Kww and Seraphimblade. Fiction is fiction, and its importance within fiction is sufficient to justify an article if there is sufficient material. I think the only real solution is a total rewrite of the general concept of Notability, which I think a self-imposed straightjacket, which ought to be replaced by the two distinct concepts of 1. Important enough for coverage in a separate Wikipedia article. and 2. suitable for a separate rather than a combined Wikipedia article. However, i don;t think we can afford to wait for that. Seraphimblade and I have some common ground in preferring merged content, but it would not be "inappropriate" content but content that while appropriate is not suitable for a separate article for some practical reason. What will need continued defense is the suitability of full and detailed content on these subjects, whether merged or separate. DGG (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I personally don't see a reason for need for independent sourcing of the second prong and development commentary imo should be enough in almost every case since the policies and guidlines of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS were never really written with fiction in mind (those exceptions being so few they'd likely not be good articles anyway). However, I'm willing to say that it's a starting point that is a compromise as close as we can get. We also need a functioning WP:FICT as well.

• EDIT: I also don't like that it gives character articles less need for justification than other elements because of AfD, yet also critizies other practices done in AfD. Sounds to me like a double-standard is being applied with reguard to character articles, but it's not enough to hold up an entire guideline over on minor point.じんない 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is a good compromise. I think that we have balances two elements (independence and importance within the work) in a way that doesn't strangle editors attempting to expand coverage of fictional subjects but doesn't turn our fictional articles into walled gardens or linkfarms. The guideline that has come out of the process is reasonable, short and direct. One reason why I resist suggestions like seraphim's is because the old fict was basically similar in content to this (in some respects) but attempted to do to much. This is just a notability guideline. As such, I support its adoption. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I respect your efforts to comprimise. But I believe that this guideline also does too much. This guideline destroys the unofficial exception that television episodes and characters had shared with schools. If passed, this article will create a three prong test that all fiction articles are judge upon. If these articles don't pass, they are deleted or merged. Hundreds of articles will then be deleted and merged. 12:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No such "unofficial exception" existed. Episodes and characters are rarely deleted based on the presumption that they can be merged to lists or series articles. Nothing about that changes.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, User:Starblind/DeletionWars#Inclusionism and two AfD's which entire premise was based on the disruption caused when an editor merged articles.Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters 2 disagree with this assessment. An editor was topic banned for 6 months for merging articles. Ikip (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay? I can make User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon but it doesn't much affect anything, no matter how many stamps I buy. The fact of the matter is, most of the articles this guideline will affect are obvious merge candidates, save the exceptionally bad or the exceptionally good. They'll be merge candidates before this and they'll be merge candidates after this and when all is said and done this won't do much of anything save take out some of the trash and give some people some hopeless AFDs to rage about. All heat, no light.

Raging against this as some sort of deletionist catspaw would be hilarious if it didn't marginalize opposition that has something to do with reality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• This doesn't solve the problems. It compromises along the wrong lines, making it simultaneously too inclusionist and too deletionist. It doesn't protect articles that need protecting and protects articles of little value. A notability guideline to solve this problem is essentially wrongheaded. Simulating AFD is similarly wrongheaded; AFD as a whole is too heterogenous to be consistent or logical. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Although, I don't like this bit about "good or featured articles". Notability has no place in determining what the "quality" of an article. Notability is for determining whether the topic should have an article. Although I like the idea of independent sources, I see people throwing this sentence back in the face of editors that go through GAC or FAC with articles that primarily use information sourced from the people responsible for making the fiction (i.e. IMO, Characters of Smallville is two shakes away from a potential featured article, but you won't find but less than a handful (maybe 3) independent sources in a list of 170+ sources). I think that whole paragraph, with regard to the "quality" of the article, is creeping a bit too far into MOS territory. I also believe that maybe a statement to the inverse of "and a subject can still be notable based on the reasonable belief that adequate evidence of notability exists." should be made. To clarify, here we say, "If you can show that the sources might exist then the article can stay", but I also believe in the philosophy of, "if it isn't notable now (i.e. you cannot provide the sources immediately) that information can be moved into a user space and developed until the point comes that the sources are provided". It seems unfair to say, "you can keep it if you can argue that there could be some sources", and not say, "if there are no sources immediately available, you can move it into a user space for the time being until said sources can be acquired". This is clearly something for the particular discussion group to decide for that topic, but I think the option needs to be made clear that sometimes we cannot just "let it be for now".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• The point of that paragraph is that articles entirely without independent sources (but pass the current guideline due to having developer commentary) don't pass GAN/FAC and thus should be merged in the long run if no independent sources are found, as the articles can't move up the assessment chart. I absolutely agree that only a handful of independent sources (for conception/development/reception/etc.) are needed, and that they don't need to constitute a majority of the sources in the article, but this points to the editorial decision of merging to better present material that has no hope of passing GAN/FAC. It also implies that "a subject is notable on the reasonable belief that adequate evidence of notability exists" because we keep stuff based on its potential to reach GA/FA (i.e. obviously notable stuff like Luke Skywalker), and it's easy to argue that independent sourcing likely exists in that case. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Somewhat on the fence, i.e. not sure how it would be implemented, but if everything I argued to keep that is listed at User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions would at worst be merged or redirected with edit history intact, I can support. If anything that I argued to keep on that list would be redlinked or have the edit history deleted, then I can't support. I'd like to support as a compromise, although I still think "notability" is an anti-wikipedic concept (verifiability is sufficient for a paperless encyclopedia; notability strikes me too much as subjective, elitist, and such). So, it depends how it is used in practice, which I guess I would have to see in actual discussions. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Spot checking some of the cases and ignoring the ones that are lists (as we aren't attempting to address that here), and those that fall outside of fiction, I would believe this all to be true (they would all be retained, though editorial decisions to merge are still an option), but if you have a concern about a specific case, please list it. --MASEM 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, my primary concern is the information is preserved per WP:PRESERVE. I frequently read a magazine that has a new article on some fictional character for say an article that may currently be redirected, but with the new sources might justify a standalone article and in these instances it's far easier to have the basis article in the edit history to improve rather than having to start all over. So, even in the instances above where I argued to keep, but the close was a merge and redirect, I think in the above cases, they were acceptable compromises. I can't think of any above where a redlink would make any sense, particularly because since my rename I have been far more selective of which discussions to comment in, i.e. I tend to avoid AfDs for articles that I can't rescue, which means I am only commenting in the handful that I strongly believe has some potential. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • We need to work PRESERVE better into the AFD process as well as making sure histories are retained when they should be, but I believe there is a larger need to work out how fiction is organized better to preserve even more. For example, the next step if this is accept is to go and define how to use lists and other supporting articles for preservation of topics. --MASEM 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I just don't understand how several editors here can continue to say that this article will preserve fictional articles. When a cursory look at the page shows that this will create 3 hurdles that every editor must jump over before their article is accepted. "A subject that meets all three prongs may qualify for a standalone article." In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters 2, an editor was topic banned for the same behavior which this article will permit: the merging of hundreds of editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • The three prongs, combined, are much less of a hurdle for most fictional elements to meet than the single requirement of WP:N, being "significant coverage in secondary sources". Also, be aware that TTN was not blocked 6 months for just the act of merging, he was blocked 6 months for his methods of fait accompli mergings - using processes to overwhelm those that were trying to keep the articles without discussion and the like. Merging is not evil, but as A Nobody notes, there are certain things that need to be done to keep merges appropriate for the GFDL, as well as to retain redirects to help searching; fixings those is outside this scope. --MASEM 16:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
              • According to his[block log] it that doesn't appear to be the case.
• On the fence as well. I feel that too easily this could lean either way, and as it stands is too loose for both sides but I'm unsure if until put into practice just how the policy is used. I do believe however that for a lot of editors this may come back to bite folks in the posterior.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Generally support: This guideline was built primarily on the premise of what was actually going on at AfD, rather than being the sort of idealistic fluff that generally gets lobbied for at WP:N et al. Making sense of AfD and giving it a frame of reference is more valuable than trying to affect it on a wide scale. Nifboy (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per Kww and DGG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I'd like to throw notability out the window when it comes to fictional topics, but this is the best compromise. It's taken over a year of heated debate to get here, and we should seize this chance and get back to writing the encyclopedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel uneasy when a guideline uses phrases like "well beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline", because I see no reason to have fictional topics follow any stricter criteria than other subjects. Also, I don't like the "three-pronged test". Rather than requiring an article to fulfill all three criteria, it would be better to make it similar to WP:BAND, i.e. fulfilling at least one of them should be sufficent. SoWhy 07:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But BAND and FICT cover two different things. The only thing to talk about with articles under BAND is real world information because you aren't talking about fictionalized bands. With fictional articles, by your logic, if they meet the criteria of "being something important to the fictional element" (like say, the pilot episode), they might still not have anything beyond a plot to say about the episode itself (depending on the series). In such a case, we don't need a separate article just to rehash a plot summary, as we generally have other pages that already discuss the plot of the pilot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You think that any article with a real-world perspective should satisfy notability? This seems to me a very silly argument.
• Oppose The 'This page in a nutshell:' section doesn't appear to reflect the guideline's actual content:
  • The link to WP:PLOT seems out of place given that this doesn't clearly support the linked text (which I find confusingly worded) - this could be changed to 'For an element of a fictional work to qualify for a stand-alone article, reliable sources must be available to demonstrate that it is an important aspect of an important fictional work and provide information about the element's development or reception. Plot summaries alone are not sufficient.'
  • the 'Three-pronged test for notability' calls for third-party sourcing "well beyond the basic threshold" of WP:N but the second dot-point states that "self-published sources such as author commentary" are suitable sources for establishing notability, when these are explicitly ruled out by WP:N and not mentioned in the three-pronged test as being suitable. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You have a valid point: 'This page in a nutshell' has to be amended, and has been overlooked. However, I don't think this is a valid reason to oppose on its own, as the nutshell section will be brought up to date soon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It does not conform to our core principles and policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand this oppose, as you've mentioned it before and I believe that it isn't anywhere close to accurate. How does it not conform to V and NOR? I don't believe anywhere on this page does it suggest that editors write their own commentary (thus WP:NOR is not an issue). It clearly states that it requires reliable sources (which satisfies WP:V). As for this neutrality thing, again, not really seeing where it states we should be one-sided and only publish what we like. As a matter of fact, I think in the "Independent sources" section it clearly states that the article must adhere to WP:NPOV. So...what are your real reasons for opposing this potential guideline, because you've stated these before I have a hard time believing that you really believe that these are problems with this guideline (at least, I haven't see statements in the guideline that back up those issues).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your insinuation that my comment is dishonest is uncivil. Should I suggest that your lack of understanding or hectoring is improper and so disqualify your comments? I shall perhaps say more on this in the new section about this process below but my general aim is to be brief since these interminable discussions are tiresome. You may be sure that I could expand on my comments at great length and consider them both cogent and accurate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Fictional elements should only get articles when they are beyond notable or when there is a good (WP:NOT and WP:WAF) reason to spinout. The current FICT version represents a good rule of thumb for this. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support. While having this guideline is better than having no guideline, I have concerns about its exact implementation.Current policy is too vague, imprecise or subjective.</ref> It seems to me that any fictional topic that is essential to the understanding of a work of notable fictional work should be covered. That's a basic part of the process of writing an article on that notable work. This guideline disallows this information, even if it is accepted as important to understanding the work as a whole, if no "real world" information is available. This requirement makes no sense to me. But it is still better than not having a guideline to work from, so I will support it. JulesH (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  Isn't any fictional topic that is essential to the understanding of a fictional work already covered in the article on the fictional work? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support, but for the opposite reason to JulesH. I think that the guideline may not be strict enough, but if the "real-world notability" section is properly applied, it'll do. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support on the basis that it's worth a try. We can always come back to the drawing board if need be. Hiding T 10:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support – per Kww. Much better to have this rather than not have it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support as I see this version of WP:FICT as a huge improvement on earlier versions, because one of the inclusion criteria for a standalone article about an element of fiction is the requirement that it must include significant, real-world information about the topic. This means that elements of fiction must be covered in an encyclopedic fashion (which has a real-world focus), rather than treating them purely as elements of plot (which has a fantasy-world focus). Therefore this guideline binds together the existing consensus at policy and guideline level (e.g. WP:NOT#PLOT,WP:WAF), but still leaves editors free to cover an element's role from a plot perspective if it can be demonstrated that the element of fiction is central to understanding the fictional work. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Machiavellian principles. Like many I would rather screw FICT altogether and make GNG the policy here, but until pigs fly (or all the inclusionists get lives and leave us to toil in geekdom :P) this is a sensible compromise that should reduce the amount of crap on-wiki. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, albeit reluctantly (I do prefer WP:N as well), and per User:Hiding above. The interpretation of guidelines in actual discussions differs sometimes widely from the intention of the guideline and the participants in the creation of it (as I witnessed with earlier versions of WP:ATHLETE). Fram (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support IMO - It does not contradict WP:N, but it does elaborate and expand the ability to document non-real items. Example: while a movie may be fiction, the fact that it was made and distributed is a real life event - this (if it were a guideline or policy) would explain the proper procedures for writing about that event. Ched (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Flawed, but workable, and certainly better than having nothing at all. We see a dozen articles at AfD each day that have to deal with the issues presented here, and a consistent framework will make for improved articles. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, just as I did in the straw poll above. Certainly it isn't perfect, now will it ever be. I think that it is a good compromise between both inclusionists and deletionists, and I don't really see how it violates any core policies. WP:RS might be the only one, but FICT still says that reliable sources are needed to produce a quality article and that without them articles are likely to be merged. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I like the reduced requirement for independent sources. In my experience with fiction articles it is possible to create a comprehensive write-up from an out of universe perspective with reliable secondary sources from the developers while having few independent sources. This is usually true in the case of character lists (and often main characters). There may be an official website confirming basic character information and DVD commentaries or companion material that provides detailed background info on production, sales, etc.. The result is a solid article which may not have the substantial independent coverage of the GNG, but has the potential to be well written article. What's more is that I think this is good middle-ground between people who think notability must be completely proven and people who think notability is completely inherited. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• STRONG OPPOSE This guideline is a continuation of a 4 year edit war,[5] and two AfD's[6][7] it will not solve this edit war, it will only inflamme it with new rules. This is more Bureaucracy and Rule Creep.Ikip (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  Further information: User talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive 38 § .22Notability.22

  ... way back in the day before I really understood the limitations of the medium, I said something like "We should have an article on every episode of The Simpson's, why not?" Whereas now, if I were voting, I would vote to delete. (That's not a decree or anything, I am just saying that my own views have changed substantially.)

  It appears Jimbo has changed his opinion. Not that this will convince anyone who liked the earlier one better. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The full quote: "I actually think that "notability" is problematic. It's a shorthand way of speaking, but it leads people to think about the issue in an invalid way. The real work can mostly be done by "verifiability", and "verifiability" is much more amenable to consensus. The Simpson's anomaly is probably my own personal fault, because [quote above] My increased "deletionism" is very mild when it comes to things like Simpson's episodes - not much harm done. But it is quite strong when it comes to biographies of living persons, where serious damage can be done." Not much harm done, pretty mild. Is this guideline pretty mild? Ikip (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the full quote Jimbo is emphasizing verifiability over notability. If you believe this guideline should be rewritten to strongly emphasize third-party sources— for which Jimbo's emphasis is not "pretty mild"— while de-emphasizing WP:NOTE per the quote above, then we can agree this guideline should be more strict. Otherwise you are just quote-mining Jimbo in support of generic inclusion, which is not his position. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind WP:JIMBOSEZ. Protonk (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I refactored out the Jim wales quote. I didn't misquote or quote mine Jimbo (look up the definition), Jimbo changed his mind. I am disappointed in Jimbo's change of heart but not surprised. An increase in so much Bureaucracy could not happened without Jimbo's consent. I guess the WP:JIMBOSEZ essay was meant for both the old quote and the new one? The bottom line is that this article is poorly written, and is Bureaucracy and Rule Creep. That is why over twenty people have concerns about this policy. Ikip (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Although I'm not crazy about assuming that every recurring character or episode is important. But hopefully the other two prongs can reign us in from becoming an WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:DIRECTORY of every trivial fictional subject. I also see no way to make this prong consistent without losing support of either inclusionists or deletionists. It's being pulled in two different directions, with some people insisting on reliable third-party sources for every article, and others wishing that we could drop write all fictional articles without them. We're in the middle now, so we've found the best compromise. I agree with User:DGG and User:A Man In Black that the next step, if we have consensus on this basic guideline, is to discuss the appropriate organization of combined articles (such as series and list articles). Randomran (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot support this in it's current form, as one of the chief drivers behind it notes it's about "relaxing inclusion standards for fiction" - well I can't get behind that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This seems like a personal attack to me, actually - you seem to be opposing the contributor, not the content. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose For several reasons. First, "important" is often in the eye of the beholder (as one contributor noted above, "whether the Fourth Doctor is more 'important' than Vicky Pollard or Ali G is the actual 'fanwank'"; indeed, when I search Wikipedia about a television show, it's not because it's "important", it's because it is ON, and I wish to receive information about it from a neutral POV; don't tell me if it's important, tell me who is in it, when it was first aired, etc., i.e., encyclopedic details. Second, I think the category (fiction) is way too broad for such a guideline as it seems to include both written works of fiction as well as broadcast works (e.g., television episodes), when the guidelines for the two should be different. Third, in the context of television episodes, it makes no distinction between a serialized story arc vs. an anthology type series. Lastly, having corresponded with several contributors, I am worried that this discussion is now more about who is right than about what makes Wikipedia better, and until that is resolved, I don't think it's a good idea to introduce a guideline that encourages people to remove information. vttoth (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as a compromise that does not improve Wikipedia. to support simply to "end the process sometime" does not address the proposal's inherent flaws, which will become more difficult to change or modify if the flawed guideline is accepted as editors will say "it was accepted, no need to change it now". There is absolutley no reason to institute a flawed guideline that could itself cause dissention and disruption across the peoject. Throwing a handfull of sand in the engine is a whole lot different than throwing sand on an icey road. While one gives traction and allows safer driving, the other grinds the engine into uselessness. The three-prong test will become a straightjacket and not a tool. Requiring notability "well beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline", will become a straightjacket to creativity. The GNG is strong enough to have referred to rather than an arbitrary "well beyond". Though this proposd guideline might be "flawed but workable", that is absolutely no reason to include it intil the flaws areremoved. Being impatient to "end the process" does not improve wiki, as there is no WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This guideline is based on what currently occurs at AFD, and tries to codify that, thus there should be minimal disruption. Also note that the "well beyond GNG" line only applies to the work of fiction, not the element itself, which only needs to meet the third prong, some type of real-world information, for retention. And while there is no deadline, the long-term editing war continues to build in pressure on both sides and something needs to be done, as per the ArbCom decision from Ep&Char 2 and their expectations in declining Ep&Char 3. --MASEM 16:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • As has been pointed out above, there are too many types of fiction so as to try to piant them all with the same brush. Wiki must remain flexible if it is to remain viable. Gone with the Wind cannot be looked at the same was as Star Wars or Cheers. The differences menas that they have be be judged on different merits. To institutre a flawed guideline will cause continued and greater friction not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

By "This guideline is based on what currently occurs at AFD":

1 So you mean, new editors contributions are deleted? (The majority of articles for deletion are by new editors)

2 Do you mean that with this policy, editors will delete articles, as they do in AfDs now, ignoring: WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia:Notability "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself.", Wikipedia:Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" WP:INTROTODELETE and Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. where editors expect other editors to add content and make no effort themselves? If the answer to these two questions is "yes" than I can see where this policy would be a contiutation of AfDs. Ikip (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your complaint with this guideline? This guideline doesn't take a moral stance on what is occurring at AfD. It doesn't dictate that deletion should occur. It is based on the assumption that subjects have sources, not necessarily articles. WP:PRESERVE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:MERGE are all linked to in this guideline. If you don't like it that people don't follow WP:BEFORE, take it up at WT:AFD or that editor's talk page. The existence of WP:PROF does not force people to follow or ignore policies and norms with regard to deletion. Neither does this guideline. We are making a compromise in order to expand what can be considered notable in the fictional world. That's it. Protonk (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to Masem, and the end result of this page. This guidleline will be used by editors to delete hundreds of episode and character pages. That is the bottom line. Again, your premise is that their should be a guideline, I say there is enough, rule creep and Bureaucracy imposed on editors trying to contribute to articles on wikipedia already. Ikip (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I know who you were replying to. If your bottom line position is that WP:N shouldn't exist, I'm afraid that your opposition to this particular guideline won't be given much credence. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we really have anything to gain by continuing to argue with Ikip. He's clearly assumed a borderline-delusional level of bad faith such that nothing we say has any chance of changing his mind. Best not give the misimpression that we are taking him at all seriously. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish you would remove this personal attack phil. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't support the personal attack. If I were Phil I wouldn't have made it, because it lends you more credence in this discussion. What Phil was saying (where I agree with him) was that your intransigence on the subject of notability makes it impossible to work with you to form a compromise--the very heart of WP:CON. You don't support this guideline. Noted. We will move on without you. Protonk (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(refactored) In this RfC, we now know how established editors feel, many who wrote this page, but you are going to have to roll over a lot of editors who are actively working on these fiction pages, and you can't as easily ignore them.

Having a respect for other editors contributions, and a concern for the future of the project, based on the universal negativity of the media and dropping edits, is not an impossible position to comprimise with. The only disruption and personal attacks has come from those who support this page, not me.

The three prongs are three more hurdles which we are forcing on editors. Ikip (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find some method to poll every editor working everywhere, I'm all ears. All we are trying to do is make the best possible attempt to determine consensus. We can't assume that all editors of fiction care about the layout of fictional subjects or care specifically about this RfC. I understand the argument that the best solution is to not mess with those authors. I largely agree. A policy should be relatively hands off--allowing people to make the articles they want to make. But we have to stick to V/NOT/NOR. Those are fundamental goals for the project. WP:N (specifically the GNG) is a shortcut to those goals. IT says "here are the kinds of subjects likely to have sufficient source material available so that articles will meet our core content policies". The GNG does an ok job of this but it has limitations. It creates arbitrary (to the work of fiction) rules about article creation and it limits the organizational flexibility available to editors (not all characters should be mashed into "...of series XYZ" lists. Because we have to have some shortcut means to V/NOT/NOR and because the GNG is too broad a brush, we tried to come up with this compromise. It's the best we've got. A lot of good faith effort went into this. So, yeah, it's probably distressing for Phil (and for me) to see people come by and just say "no any limit/expansion of fictional content is worthless. It will create/destroy millions of articles that I love/hate" (Pick your poison). So this is my last offer. We are here in good faith. We want to work together. We want to work with you, even. But we can't work together if you refuse to accept that we are here in good faith. We can't work together if you still think that Phil's deletion was a stunt (coordinated with the rest of us) to foist this upon the community. We can't work together if the basis of your participation here is to delegitimize any work that we have done in the past. So lets find some compromise that is amenable to you. If we can't, ok. Then you will remain opposed and we will try to make a compromise that is amenable to a strong majority of the people commenting here. But lets work toward that. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments make a lot of assumptions. My concern is the future of wikipedia, as I mentioned above. Your words are warm and fuzzy, "community" "good faith" "comprimise". Thats great, when people sell their ideas like this it garners support. Part of being a good member of the "community" "good faith" "comprimise" is acknowledging the views of those who disagree with you, describing other editors comments as "bad faith" "delusional" "delegitimize" "move on without you" does not. The three prong (hurdle) will delete a lot of editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not concerned about the future of wikipedia? I'm going to ask you one last time. Please do not interpret my actions here as an attempt to sell you a bill of goods or to trick you or to gloss over serious problems. I am entering into this discussion in good faith. I am here to compromise. The other editors involved heavily with this guideline are here to compromise. If you are not here to compromise, fine. Your objection to the guideline will be noted. What I said about "legitimate" and "illegitimate" reasons for opposition remains true. If I work on a government committee that adjusts taxation rates on energy (just for an example) and I propose a relatively small change to some tax rate on Gasoline or Uranium, I would expect that opposition to that change be based on the merits of the change. It would not be reasonable for me to forgo that change based on opposition that stated that the government has no right to tax individuals at all. That opposition doesn't give me reason to support or oppose the tax change. Just like general opposition to notability gives me no reason to oppose or support this guideline. If someone opposes WP:N without exception, then that doesn't impact whether or not loosening standards is a valuable exercise. We are asking people "Should elements of fiction be covered under the GNG or should they be covered under this guideline?" Door number three: "No guideline at all" is not a policy option on the table. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, again, you make so many assumptions in your statments, and make many assumptions in mine. No one said your "not concerned about the future of wikipedia". I am here to comprimise too, and yes, no guideline at all, is an option. If enough editors explain here that we should not adapt this proposal (thats the tag on the page: a proposal) then it will not be a guideline. You and Phil brought up all of the questions about my sincerity, not me. Phil made it personal, I attempted to remove that person attack, and you stated you agreed with what Phil in part. The bottom line is the three prong (hurdle) will delete a lot of editors contributions. This is my last post in this thread...have the last word :)Ikip (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want "the last word" I want us to see eye to eye. Ok. You are correct in saying that if this proposal is rejected then there will not be a guideline for notability of fictional elements. However what will remain is the general notability guideline with its much more strict requirement for multiple independent sources which cover the subject in specific detail. So we have a few options: A. Adopt this guideline (or something like it) and loosen standards somewhat. B. Somehow convince the majority of editors that the GNG is not in force. C. Create some other compromise which is more inclusive than this guideline. Simply opposing this guideline doesn't mean no notability guideline applies to fiction, it means that no small exception to the GNG is carved out. It is a net negative for inclusion of fictional subjects. If you want to start another RfC on WP:N, you may (though I suggest you read the last one first), but I suspect that you won't find consensus to mark the guideline as "historical". If you want to propose some more inclusive compromise, please do so, but note that the "deletionist" editors here who support this guideline are basically at the edge of what they would support and further pushing may cause their support to be lost. This is a delicate balance and, like any compromise, means that those who strongly support one end or the other aren't going to like it much. As for questions of your sincerity....let's just say that we didn't start that all by ourselves. I am willing to believe that you are here to reach a compromise (or to fight for what you believe is right). I already believe that you are a passionate inclusionist. I want you to believe that Phil is as well. That I once was as well. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to comment: "Simply opposing this guideline doesn't mean no notability guideline applies to fiction, it means that no small exception to the GNG is carved out. It is a net negative for inclusion of fictional subjects."

I think it is very important that editors know this is NOT the case. This article is creating three prongs (hurdles) that all fictional articles must pass, "A subject that meets all three prongs may qualify for a standalone article." This guideline destroys the exception that episodes and characters now have. It is a net negative for fictional subjects, and it will result in the merging or deletion of hundreds of articles. Ikip (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If a fictional element (like the Cheshire Cat) is covered in enough detail that it meets the GNG, this guideline doesn't matter. From the lede of the current revision: "In all cases, if a subject 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 a stand-alone article." Any subject that is important to the overall work, has some connection to the outside world and has some non-plot information (like Horus Heresy) can be included under this guideline though would be deleted if the GNG were strictly applied. A subject that doesn't meet this guideline will also not meet the GNG. So I'm having some trouble visualizing this as "deleting hundreds of fiction articles". Remember, the important thing is not the absolute number of deletions but the relative difference. How many pages will be saved from deletion if this guideline is accepted? It will be greater than zero, at least. Protonk (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the 3 prongs (hurdles) for inclusion on wikipedia? These are new, or at least they are a codification of existing policy.

would be deleted if the GNG were strictly applied'

Your argument presupposes that GNG is strickly applied now.

The reality, is notability has not been strictly applied. Currently there is an unofficial truce, that high schools and television episodes do not have the stringent rigidity of notability. This truce is based on years and years of fighting. This guideline brings those television episodes into the strict notability guidelines, which means hundreds of episodes will be merged or deleted.

There are so many problems I find with this policy, one is that the episodes obviously do exist, any person can turn on the television or rent a DVD, or read about them on TVguide.com. Yet for many people here, who have an exclusionist view of what wikipedia should be, those episodes should not be on wikipedia, and they are so certain they should not be on wikipedia, they are going to force their views on others.

The three prong (hurdle) and guideline, is not a comprimise, it is a defeat for those who feel that episodes should exist. It will result in the deletion or merging of hundreds of articles. Ikip (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe episode articles would benefit the most from this guideline. By relaxing the requirement for independent sources, episode articles will be able to exist mostly sourced from information from the developers. Even children's TV shows have DVDs with commentary, official websites, companion magazines nowadays. I've had plenty of articles I've been involved in redirected because they failed the GNG, but this guideline would allow for the resurrection of the information because there is the capability to give the articles a real-world perspective and not such a high demand of individual notability.
If the "unofficial truce" comes to an end and this guideline isn't in place, then the GNG and NOT#PLOT will be the reason behind the deletion and merging of the articles. With this guideline there is the potential for covering much more information. Development sections are currently summarised into the main topic article or season list. With this guideline in place there can also be a much more detailed section of production in each individual article too. With current guidelines we have one paragraph of plot sumamry in a list. With this new guideline there can also be articles with plot summaries of 3 or 4 paragraphs. This compromise on individual notability is opening the door to covering much more information in much more depth. I can't see how you see it as a defeat. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, there is an unwritten truce. You are incorrect if you feel that the terms of that unwritten truce resemble "anything fictional is a-ok". While agreement and application is pretty heterogeneous, the informal outcomes basically match what we are trying to do here. More important elements (as in, important to understanding the story) get kept. Less importance elements or elements where no verifiable sourcing exists on material outside of PLOT summary get merged or deleted. Protonk (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Have we as the expositors of this guideline not been clear enough that it represents an expansion of what WP:N says we should include? I see a few opposes above based on the notion that this will lead to more articles being deleted--a premise that I don't understand. Right now, under the general notability guideline, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to merit inclusion. We are relaxing that in order to allow editors to merge, retain and reorganize articles on fictional subjects without fear that their contributions lie in some sort of limbo. Without a FICT guideline, we can't say that. No one can point to a guideline and say "this is a good snapshot of community practice, make an article that meets this and you should be fine". We are certainly not in the business of having articles on fictional elements simply because they are on (As noted directly above). I can understand opposing this guideline because it is too permissive or because it is wrongheaded in some fashion, but I don't understand opposition on the presumption that it is more exclusive than the GNG. Alternately, if you an inclusionist or a delationist and you are opposing this guideline strategically (meaning that you do not wish a compromise to be accepted on the grounds that some future "better" deal may be struck or the grounds that the deletion landscape is better without some functioning SNG), please reconsider your opposition. You are looking at the product of years of argument and months of compromise. This is the best we are going to get. I don't meant that this is the most well formulated compromise out there. It isn't even the clearest. That will change over time. What I mean to say is that it is the furthest we can expect to pull from the left and the furthest we can expect to pull from the right. If you oppose this because you oppose WP:N, fine. You are welcome to do so. If you oppose this because you think that WP:N should never be deviated from, fine. You are welcome to do so. But those kinds of opposes do not move the collaborative discussion forward. Protonk (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh?? How does the phrase "requires significant external sourcing for the work itself, well beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline" act to relax the GNG? Sorry, no sale. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
    • The work (which notability is not addressed by this guideline) needs surpass the GNG, but not the element of fiction (which is addressed here). If a work is barely notable (as a webcomic), articles on the individual characters are more often merged into the work's main article than separate ones. That's the intent here. --MASEM 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you may be misunderstanding the guideline. The guideline requires significant sourcing for the overall work, but does relax the threshold for inclusion of elements of that work significantly. So all this phrase you are objecting to amounts to is a note that we generally do not maintain individual episode and character articles for more marginal works of fiction. This is not, I don't think, a very controversial claim - we're much more likely to maintain articles on episodes and characters of Grey's Anatomy than we are on the individual characters of an obscure (but still notable) comic book series. But that clause applies only to the overall work - not to the specific elements of the work that articles are being written about. And the overall work is not covered by this guideline, but by WP:BOOK, WP:FILM, etc. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your entire premise is based upon the idea that there should be a guideline in the first place. I disagree stongly. I think there is enough acronyms which editors use to delete other editors contributions already. This is WP:BURO WP:CREEP, which will disrupte a lot of editors contibutions, and alienate even more editors. Everyone who supports this proposal gives empty repeated assurances here that articles will not be deleted, but the past behavior of many of these editors here[8][9] tells a starkly different story. My concern is what is best for the project. Is it beneficial for a small group of editors to push this policy against the will of hundreds of contritibutors? This proposal, and prospals like this guideline, are the reason why journalists are universally negative about wikipedia's "draconian" deletion policy. The Economist says that deletion policies like this one are the reason why wikipedia editing has dropped. As Wales says, "All those people who are obsessively writing about Britney Spears or 'The Simpsons' or Pokémon -- it's just not true that we should try to redirect them into writing about obscure concepts in physics...Wiki is not paper, and their time is not owned by us. We can't say, 'Why do we have these employees doing stuff that's so useless?' They're not hurting anything. Let them write it..." Stop worrying about what everyone else is doing, and focus on contriubting more, instead of pushing your idea of what wikipedia should be on others. Ikip (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There already is a guideline. We are trying to work in a reasonable exception so that more articles can be created without fear of deletion. Unless you think that the current state of affairs better suits marginal articles or that some better compromise with the "deletionist" editors (who aren't going away) is forthcoming, I'm not sure why you would oppose this on the basis that more articles will be deleted. Protonk (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Phil. Message received. Probably not worth reverting again. Protonk (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah. You are the occasion of the address, not the sole target, if you will. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger. I'd say it isn't worth the bother but that's up to you. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Unless you think that the current state of affairs better suits marginal articles or that some better compromise with the "deletionist" editors (who aren't going away) is forthcoming, I'm not sure why you would oppose this on the basis that more articles will be deleted."

This is a strawman argument. There are other options.

Creating three hurdles (prongs) which every ficitional work must pass will mean more deletions of editors work.

Editors, many of these editors here, will not actually work on many of these articles (in violation of WP:PRESERVE but they will be these articles up for deletion, demanding that other editors meet these three hurdles. Ikip (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is not a straw man. A substantially more inclusive compromise is not forthcoming. Opposing this guideline on the basis that some more inclusive alternative will swell up in the vacuum is unrealistic. Further, I have to reiterate that the problems you mention have 'nothing whatsoever to do with this guideline. Nothing. At all. You are upset that things get deleted. Ok. We get that. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Michael said it best: "There is absolutley no reason to institute a flawed guideline that could itself cause dissention and disruption across the project...there is no deadline" I am explaining the inherient problems of this policy. A three prong test is a three prong hurdle for editors. Many articles will be deleted based on these three prongs. Ikip (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Aye, articles will be deleted or merged because of this, but other articles will be kept that would have been deleted or merged otherwise because of their commentary of development and such. It's called a reasonable compromise. The fact so many editors complain that it's too inclusive and so many editors also claim it's too deletionist shows this better than any comment I can make. Also, while Wikipedia does not have a deadline, not having a policy for such a broad area of Wikiepdia's articles causes more harm and disruption that passing something that has been hammered out by editors from both extremes.じんない 22:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • (ecX2)That refers to the work of fiction--covered under NB, FILM or the GNG (or others). Let's take an example. Luke Skywalker is an element of fiction. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is a work of fiction. This guideline requires that an element of fiction be important to the work, have some real world connection and some prospect of independent sourcing, should the work be covered in significant depth. A work like Star Wars is. A work like Cybernator is not. Consequently, were we to have some sub-article on an element of cybernator, we would have a harder time justifying a stand-alone article than a stand-alone article on an element of Star Wars. This guideline does not add any extra requirements for works of fiction themselves. I'm sorry if the text isn't clear. That's partially why we undertake these requests for comment. Protonk (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. We need a guideline in this area to reduce tension and redirect warring and to increase consistency at AfD. The proposal is not perfect, but is much better than nothing and should be adopted as a guideline with the ordinary common sense exceptions. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I'm a little concerned that it may not be strict enough with regards to independent sources, but as with Kww above, this is a so very much better than nothing that it really should be put through. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I'm impressed by the re-re-(re-re-re?)write. It feels more like something that attempts to be descriptive of decisions made by AFD, and not just making an arbitrary ruling merely because some ruling must exist. This concept of a three-pronged requirement appears reasonable to achieve; and merging to lists allows a reasonably weighted volume of content to remain when an exclusive article is not appropriate. I regret to see the content (largely spearheaded by Masem I believe) regarding spinout articles. But it's likely that I missed some discussion on that topic, and more importantly, I'd always felt that the topic should be addressed on a broader scope that just fiction. A strong encouragement towards merging has much of the same effect anyway. -Verdatum (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If not clear, lists and spinouts will be the next hurdle to try to clear, but that's likely a much larger discourse on how WP is organized overall, and a much larger debate that goes well beyond just fiction. --MASEM 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. the material still makes no requirement of a demonstration of notability outside the profiting motivations of the creators, nor does it explicitly require independent sources, to say nothing of reliable independent sources. This weakens it to the point of exploitation by fans of any character, book or series. ThuranX (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please show some evidence that this viewpoint (that independent sourcing is required even when the three prongs are satisfied) has some consensus on AfD, or that it is actually an in-use standard. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support This represents a good compromise between the various parties. I share Thuranx' & others reservations, but the three-pronged requirement sets out a decent standard and, more importantly, the rancour surrounding this debate needs to come to an end. Eusebeus (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed to the proposed text & Neutral on the compromise: It seems, that the opposing sides in this conflict have found a reasonable compromise. But this proposal's text is not that of a future guideline, it's the devastated battlefield of a yearlong verbal conflict on this very talk page. The text wanders off-topic. It is dragged out. Emphasizes are placed. Exceptions are made. And terms are redefined. The text is afraid to say straight out what it means, because that could reduce support. What this text needs is a central statement (not a summary!), which the rest of the text only(!) serves to explain. An example of such a statement would be: "To establish notability of an element of a work of fiction, it does not have to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, if the element's work of fiction is of particular cultural or historical significance, the element is central to understanding of that fictional work, and significant, real-world information about the element exists in reliable sources." - I have no opinion on how in- or exclusive Wikipedia should be. I leave that to everyone else. But I fear, this compromise might be an illusion created by the obscurity of the text. I fear, if this text is promoted to guideline, it will create chaos. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • • Note: I only read the minority of every post to this talk page. Please reply directly under this comment, or leave a message on my talk page, if it is likely that I would want to reply. Thank you. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Update: As requested further down, I have provided a shorter and clearer version of the proposal: here. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would welcome any proposed changes to the text that promotes clarity and doesn't transform the scope. I will say that the wording is considerably more precise and succinct than in June or in 2007 (the last two RfCs). I will also say that the nature of textual compromise is one that results in less than ringingly clear proscriptions. If we all agreed wholeheartedly on the tenets and particulars of the conflict, the text itself would betray much less division. We don't so it is difficult to write from a single voice as a result. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Masem told me the last RfC failed, did the RfC before it fail? Has anyone notified editors by posting a notice on the lists of television episodes, like Masem said happened in the last RfC? Ikip (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • We are working on getting a watchlist notice for all registered editors. This has been announced at WP:VPP and WP:CENT in addition. --MASEM 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed with Protonk that wording change suggestions are fine, though I will note that the initial version was pretty "heavy" (around 32k), then was trimmed to about half (around 16k) and through means of establishing the compromise, has grown a bit to its present state. Reducing the wording may impact the intent of statements meant to identify this compromise, so it has to be carefully handled. --MASEM 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I've done some minor cutting, mostly to improve logical flow and make some terms agree with themselves in the prong test (and to remove redundancies in syntax, Tony should be proud.) But I agree with Masem it probably can't be cut down too much beyond janitorial tightening; I took an axe to it back when it was monstrous, and even though it's bulked up again it's still much more manageable. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What is a "watchlist notice for all registered editors" sounds big...Ikip (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I found it: Watched_article#Watchlist_notice, that would be incredible, let me know if I can help in anyway (sincerely). Ikip (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the request: MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Add_notice_to_advertise_WP:FICT.27s_adoption_as_a_guideline Ikip (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• I appear to have never gotten around to saying support. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to text and neutral on compromise, like Goodraise. Honestly, the text of the proposed guideline is very confusing. In the above discussion on the subject, I saw people talking about the differences between elements of fiction and works of fiction, etc, etc. The bottom line is that the definitions of these terms used in the guideline are not clear within the guideline itself. The whole thing is entirely too convoluted for effective use within an AfD discussion. The last thing we want to be talking about there is what the intention of this guideline is or what the authors here explained it to be. We need it to be A Few Good Men crystal clear to ensure that if it is passed, it is in a condition to be implemented effectively. We don't need to be bound by a guideline that is not excessively precise in language and deliberate in meaning. SMSpivey (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A Few Good Men is the work itself; an element would be the props, actors, setting. This guideline does not cover the work itself. It says so in the first paragraph.じんない 05:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear, but I understand the difference between works and the elements of said work. I was saying that the level of misunderstanding between the people that have been a part of the creation of the proposed guideline and the people who are coming to comment demonstrate that it isn't stated clearly enough in the guideline to begin with. Compare this guideline to one that has been thoroughly clarified, such as WP:N. I just think that the text is not quite there yet. Perhaps someone with a closer relationship to the guideline could jump in and fix it up. I understand that this has been a long, frustrating road to get to this point, but as soon as this becomes a real policy, it will affect all of Wikipedia, not just the people who have been arguing over it. It needs to break out of its shell of carefully tempered tight-rope walking between the two parties here and be made into a workable policy. In my opinion, it is not yet clear enough to work effectively. SMSpivey (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be perfect prior to adoption. If you think that the wording can be improved upon, please help us. If you think that it is fatally unclear, say so. If you can live with the basic idea (that important elements of notable fictional works can be included with less sourcing than is normally required by the GNG), then please support the guideline. Protonk (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as entirely redundant to WP:N. The third prong of your "three-pronged test" is entirely redundant to the letter and spirit of WP:N. There is no need to note that an element from a work of fiction may not pass WP:N and then proceed to spell out a situation which can ONLY exist if the work already passes WP:N. If real-world coverage exists, the subject already passes WP:N tests, and thus, this guideline is entirely redundant. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Real world content is not the same as secondary sources. There are those that will argue that real world info provided by a work's creators are not secondary but is instead primary. That's a difficult nut to crack, but it's much easier to ask for assertion of something that is outside of the fiction's universe to justify retention of an article. --MASEM 04:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Real world info in the form of a self-published website, blog, or liner notes in a DVD, or real world info in the form of an interview published with the creators in a third-party unaffiliated source? The former should not go towards establishing notability; it would be like taking a self-published webpage biography of a person as evidence of their own notability. The latter is published by an unaffiliated third party, and as such, establishes independence, then it IS a secondary source. Insofar as the information is not published by the creators of the work of fiction themselves, it displays independence. If the whole point of the guideline is to sidestep the requirement for independence in sources, then I more strenuously oppose on those grounds. The basic requirement that material is independently noted somewhere is vital to establishing that neutral information can be cited in building an article. The key is, and should always be, that the material is discussed by reliable, third party, sources. I didn't orginally read this as an attempt to sidestep that requirement, but if it is, as you seem to imply, that makes it all the worse. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you're the one doing the interpretation. WP:V does not require the source to be wholly independent of the subject. Furthermore, this is only limited to the 2nd prong, ie importance within the work itself. It clearly defines what an self-publshed source. For the promotion of a fictional work, that would not fly, since an author does get more money in theory to promote his work. However, writing a data book about Sasuke Uchiha doesn't doesn't benifit by trying to promote that Sasuke is more important than another character. Fiction is not the same as real life.じんない 05:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • • It's not an attempt to sidestep the goal - it's an attempt to recognize that articles that can present significant real-world content can likely also satisfy that goal. It doesn't discard the idea that independent sources matter - it says that an article lacking independent sources but having these things is worth keeping around and improving. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • More than that, the author is the one who best knows who's the most central chracter as he came up with them. By removing the layer and having outside analysis for importance within a work you can misinterpret who are important, especially when trivial comments are made by those who do not have backgrounds in the literary analysis, or the subject matter at hand. And that's all the developers comments can be used for. They still have to meet the 3rd prong, which such sources cannot be used for.じんない 05:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, that's why we want reliable independent sources. So far, the third prong only requires offhanded comments by the author in, say, his personal blog, to support an entire article on a minor character. I having nothing wrong with using the author's own voice in describing his own characters, so long as that voice is published by third party sources! Its not the fact that the author themselves is describing the characters, its that such descriptions are published independant of the author himself. As I said above, there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an author publishing his own thoughts on his personal webpage, and a reliable publication, unaffiliated to that author, publishing the authors thoughts. In the second case, the fact that there is an independant oversight that says "this is notable enough to publish" means that it is likely notable enough for Wikipedia. The whole point is that we don't rely on the opinion of the creator himself to decide what is notable enough or not, nor do we rely on Wikipedia editors to make that decision. We find that someone else has found it notable enough at first, then we create a new article. Also, it should be noted that notability is primarily about the sorts of topics that support "stand-alone articles". I see no problem with including information about a character in a larger article on the work of fiction; however that does not mean ipso-facto that the character automatically warrents their own article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • To what point? As long as the page isn't made entirely of stuff from such sources or the primary source, it shouldn't matter who prints it. And even if it does, it may still have potential and shouldn't be shoved to an AfD just because some passerby thinks "this can't be notable..." As for the long term, yes, some real-world sourcing that isn't affiliated with the author needs to be made for the 3rd prong.
            • The problem with fiction is copyright. You can't really go and copy and republish author's databook on a character. Wikipedia's nnotability guidelines do not take into consideration that this information is guarded quite veimently from such publications, even incidental ones. Google, FE, got in a lot of heat just for trying to put fragments of books, not the entire thing, on-line. Therefore in that reguard, you can't really say that such publications by other sources are the measure because copyright will make certain such items do not get published by more indepentant sources even if the information is notable. That doesn't mean it can be used to add useless cruft, but I'm talking more about developer information and the like.じんない 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose . Such unconfirmed and misleading text, based on someone's non-constructive opinions, must not be choosed as a guideline for all, — especially if it is harmful for creation and increasing of articles, that must be interesting for other users. Krasss (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand your objection. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain While having a something is better than having nothing. I feel that the current text has much room for different interpretations resulting that future Afds of similar articles will have divergent results depending who & how this is interpreted. Bottom line it may turn into rhetoric / lawyer contest. WP:FICT being nothing but the rules of warfare instead of preventing/lessening warfare.--KrebMarkt 08:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - this should makes things easier for me, as well as many other editors. Again (as mentioned for the 1000th time), something is certainly better than nothing. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 11:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - this is a reasonable compromise, and I really doubt that pushing by any side will make it better for anyone. Even if the guideline isn't adopted, the GNG still applies. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• 'Support yet again...how many more of these will we have? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support if it will end this endless debate and edit-warring. WP:V and WP:RS still apply, and I still believe only a few fictional characters (and almost no television episodes) merit their own articles independent from the work containing them; however, this is an acceptable compromise. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Extraordinarily complex discussion of what should be a simple concept. Will not be accessible to the newer users to whom this will disproportionately apply. (I'm glad this issue is being discussed below.) Townlake (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Extraordinarily complex? Do tell, what do you consider an ordinary level of complexity? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, although I like some of the opposition points, especially Townlake's. We want to make sure the newbies don't feel that they're going to get their wrists slapped unless they take a course in guidelines first. But this process has been a model in talking things out to get people on different sides of the spectrum to come up with something we can all live with ... bravo! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
• Strongest oppose possible - per my personal opinion. Wikipedia is the place where people come for information about everything; even minor characters - these non-notale/barely notable articles is one of the ways we attract new editors, IMO. For example, I was drawn back in by the page Minor Elves in Shannara...but now I've moved on to having two FA's, a MILHIST A, and two GA's. WP is not paper, guys. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You seem opposed to the fact that we have a notability policy at all. Though understandable, I am unconvinced that denying the premise of having a notability policy on fiction really renders any comments on a proposal particularly useful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • (e/c) Also, Wikipedia is driven by people. If people want to look at the minor character they just saw in Star Trek, why not have an article? Yes, being a true encyclopedia is our goal, but one of the things that makes us more appealing than, say, Brittanica is that we have this popular culture stuff.
    • (after) I am not opposing the fact that we have WP:N; I'm not an inclusionist (or a deletionist, for that matter). On the flip side, I don't think that (for example) a "list of minor characters in ___" should get deleted just becuase none or just one RS covers it. While we can't be a fan site, we have to cater to the readers at times. (In no way am I opposing WP:N here. I agree with all or most of it) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • This policy explicitly doesn't cover list articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I wasn't naming lists in general, I was trying to give a random example. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the text and support the compromise, per Goodraise and (in part) SMSpivey. The text is confusing and vacillates frequently. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please point to one of these confusions or vacillations. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The most glaring would be the role of WP:GNG: at one point the text requires that articles exceed it, while at another it lowers the bar significantly. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment: I think the "significance" guideline (the first prong of the three-pronged test) is, or could be interpreted to be, too strict. Most works that are well-known within their subculture (for example, certain webcomics) and have a significant following, or that have won awards within their area, ought to be considered notable, but the current wording about "cultural or historical significance" almost sounds like it would only accept stuff that might appear in a museum or get a Pulitzer. If that wording is changed, my !vote will change to Support. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We are desperate to avoid the insinuation you suggest. All we mean from the first prong is that if the work of fiction that the element is part of only barely meets the GNG, we can't apply this compromise. Protonk (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I've rephrased this prong to make it clear that sources show this - i.e. that they are not merely necessary but sufficient. I also clarified that mere popularity, as demonstrated by sources, is sufficient here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I really hate that line "the work of fiction from which they present themselves must be of particular cultural or historical significance" too. I can see this being gamed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason for the "first prong" to be so vastly more strict than the general notability guideline. Whether or not it is the intention, some people will certainly interpret it to mean that the work "might appear in a museum or get a Pulitzer" (as Politizer mentioned above). I also see no reason for the "second prong" at all; if an extremely minor element of a work is taken out of context and ends up far exceeding the popularity of the work itself, it shouldn't be excluded just because it is a minor element. Anomie⚔ 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As for the first prong, I've just changed it to deal with this (to my mind ridiculous) abuse of it to refer only to highbrow critical praise. As for the second, such an article would presumably pass WP:N, right? In which case it would not be deleted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, it would be ridiculous. But some people would certainly try to claim it. I can't say the current version is any better; I think the phrase "particular cultural or historical significance" would need removal. The second case would be similarly ridiculous to be used that way, but again I believe some people would still try to claim it. In both cases, the guideline is trying to say "This element must meet WP:N on its own", but the actual wording is too broad. Anomie⚔ 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • At some point, we need to write policy to be used, not just as a hedge against wikilawyering. All we want to say is that the parent work of fiction can't just barely meet the GNG. I can admit that "cultural significance" has a negative connotation for most editors (who see "high culture" acceptance as an exclusive phenomenon and would associate the phrase with things that go in a museum). We can fix this point of contention, though. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) The first prong is to make sure that a work that just barely passes the notability guideline does not get a massive expansion of all its characters and the like; eg let's say I create a web comic, but provide all my "liner notes" on its development; the comic itself only is covered on WP because I got written up in a magazine about it, but no other sourcing exists. That does not create a situation where each character can be created in depth due to meeting the 2nd and 3rd prongs with no problem. We do want to avoid making sure that we don't exclude too many works of fiction from passing this prong, so it might be a language thing (I think Phil's recent addition of noting popularity helps). On the second point, if an element surpasses the work of fiction itself, it likely will meet the GNG by itself, and thus gets an article by that (that is, elements have to meet the GNG, or these three prongs). --MASEM 00:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • OTOH, if the work itself barely passes WP:N then the elements are certainly not going to, so we don't need the excessively-open-to-misinterpretation first prong. If the goal here is to say "The element must pass WP:N on its own, notability of the work it is part of doesn't suffice to justify an article on the element" then just say that instead of trying to get it as a side effect of some other wording. As for the second: yes, it may pass WP:N on its own, but that wouldn't necessarily stop someone from pushing for deletion because of the stricter requirement here. Anomie⚔ 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • But we aren't just reapplying the GNG. If we were, we wouldn't need this guideline. We are trying to say that there are some works of fiction that clearly meet the GNG but whose major elements do not (Warhammer 40,000 comes directly to mind). For those elements, we want to include them rather than exclude them. But we don't want this guideline to be a ticket for marginally notable works to have a proliferation of sub-articles. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Again, the example case ("my" web comic) is exactly the type of situation that can be gamed if the work itself isn't notable, thus the first prong is needed. As to your second point, the word between meeting the GNG and the three prongs is "or". If someone insists that a GNG-meeting topic fails this, that is an invalid argument. Yes, I can see it happening (Phil had a problem a few months ago with WP:ATHLETE at the same issue) but it is clearly the case that if you meet the GNG, there's no need to apply this test. --MASEM 03:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think both of the concerns mentioned in this oppose have been satisfied. An element of fiction that takes off in popularity will not be covered under this guideline. Something like Leeroy Jenkins (though more "fan/viral" than fictional) or Seven of Nine--which have outsized popularity and coverage in comparison to their importance within the work--are covered under the GNG. The other concern, about the first prong, has been noted above. All we are trying to do is say "we want editors to be able to make articles for significant elements within fictional works without fear that they will be deleted". Protonk (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not satisfied; see above. Anomie⚔ 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Why not? It seems like you think that we are just saying "elements may meet WP:N", but we are not. We are saying "if an element doesn't meet the GNG, here is a way that we can still have an article on it". We are trying to carve out some reasonable exceptions to the GNG. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There already is an exception to notability guidelines, based on 4 years of edit warring. This policy will result in the merge and deletion of hundreds of articles. Hardly a compromise for the hundreds of editors who worked so hard on this articles. Ikip (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Has the markings of yet-another-policy that is either vague or too strict and will be used to block potentially valuable content from being included. Special notability guidelines for fiction? Sounds like beginning of first they come for you... §FreeRangeFrog 01:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And we reach the apotheosis of the thread. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - seems fair and basically everything that is already in place among the current guidelines but organized into one neat form for instant use. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is senseless WP:CREEP. First, if the work is notable and the element is central to it, it's probably covered by someone critics/commentators. So I don't see a need for mandating the third element "real-world impact"; I can see it as an alternative to the element being central, e.g. some minor character or meme that catches on. Second, the sentences that come right after those three bullets flagrantly contravene WP:V: "But there must be a reasonable belief that evidence exists for all three criteria." No, either you have a source or you don't. Hunches aren't good enough. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would point out that the arbcom has all but begged for the community to come up with a notability guideline, so calling it creep when the community does so seems off somehow. I'd also point out that the presumption of sourcing comes from WP:N, and so there's a larger issue at hand in contravening WP:V. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - unfortunately, notability guidelines on Wikipedia (WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT, WP:ALBUM, etc.) have mostly been treated as binding so far (they shouldn't be), and therefore I cannot support any proposal for a guideline which excludes many informative and encyclopedic articles from Wikipedia. Especially concerning is the regard to elements within a fictional work, which often have insufficient real-world coverage but are important to understanding the particular work of fiction, and all of the information is verifiable through the work of fiction itself. Ed17 brings up another very important point, namely that people come to Wikipedia to gain knowledge about anything and everything ("the sum of all human knowledge"), and articles about seemingly trivial fictional topics actually have far higher readership than many important real-world topics. In addition, these articles attract new Wikipedians who might not necessarily write about fiction later. Therefore, as long as articles about fiction are encyclopedic and don't violate core policies like WP:V and WP:NOT, there is no reason to exclude them. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose For all the reasons above, and below, already given in opposition. And the ones not stated. As far as I'm concerned, notability is ridiculously subjective; hence, this "guideline" (which are usually followed to the exact fucking letter. In fact, how many of you had the urge to delete that word? That's what I'm talking about.) is ridiculous. Are the newspaper and publishing conglomerates going to dictate what is notable now? When I can't find a newspaper article or book on the subject, will it get deleted by some pedantic Wikipedia enforcer? (Probably) Is this going to be one more thing I'm going to have to fight about (the actual existance of the article)? Maybe someone needs to tag articles as non-notable so certain people's browsers filter them out, and maybe tag other as counter-revolutionary while we're at it... Int21h (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I am 100% an inclusionist.. that is one of the great strengths of Wikipedia: information about many, many things that simply wouldn't be in a regular encyclopedia. To me that makes Wikipedia much better than a regular encyclopedia. In that context, I think that placing a notability restriction on fiction would ensure that only "mainstream" fiction would be accepted as notable (due to a large number of reviews, commentary, recognition etc.), while excluding less well known but still artistically, culturally valuable fiction topics. It's basically a value judgement - worthy or not worthy? I don't think such judgements should be made, at least in this case. -BloodDoll (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment on the above three opposes. This isn't the forum to comment on WP:N as a whole. If you feel that guideline is illegitimate or shouldn't apply to fiction this has no bearing whatsoever on the adoption of this guideline. This is an attempt to make it easier to write and maintain fictional articles where the subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG. If this fails, all that is left is the GNG. This proposal represents a net increase in articles kept. Please keep that in mind. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a fine forum to argue rule creep and Bureaucracy. This guideline is an attempt to delete and merge hundreds of editors contributions. This proposal absolutely DOES NOT represent a net increase in articles kept, as is explained above. Ikip (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as far too complicated. The three-pronged test is far too vague, and we're much better going back to the old standby of "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources". The guidelines are far too strict (and they explicitly say that it's beyond the general notability guideline – why is that?). — Werdna • talk 03:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The guideline is less strict. The work needs to have lots of sourcing so that Joe's Comic he just made doesn't have a dozen sub-articles from this guideline. Anywhere a fictional element meets the GNG, this guideline specifically notes that it already merits inclusion. It is only cases where the element doesn't meet the GNG that we look to make some compromise. As for the "too complicated"...I'm not sure what to say. Compromise is complicated. If there is a simple solution to this that satisfies a majority of editors, I don't know it. Protonk (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This rule creep and Bearacracy creates a complex set of new rules, stricter than the status quo now. I commend Werdna for recognizing this. Ikip (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This proposed guideline exemplifies the politics and lawyering that has grown to consume Wikipedia in the last 3 years. It constructs bureaucracy and global rules, when what we need is common sense and the general principle of independant coverage, applied on a case-by-case basis. Instruction creep like this "three-pronged test" makes it all too easy for editors to zone out and mechanically apply rules, rather than giving honest consideration of the article and whether it adds to or detracts from Wikipedia on the whole. AfD hero (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I can fully support a guideline that recommends strongly there be sourced information rather than in-universe fancruft. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. A reasonable and sensible compromise that is badly needed and is a significant improvement over the status quo. Apart from other considerations, having a specialized notability guideline will allow future discussions about notability of fiction articles to be more focused and specific and also will provide a proper place for conducting such discussions and for hashing out further consensus. Right now the absence of a fiction notability guideline destabilizes WP:N and even WP:NOT. Nsk92 (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I think this is a very well done guideline. It's clear and concise. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: realistic workable guideline, consistent with underlying principles in WP:GNG & WP:V. A guideline for this is long overdue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Looks sensible. --Kleinzach 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Mixed feelings. On the one hand, this is good policy. On the other hand, a lot of articles about fictional characters exist that do not come close to meeting these requirements and I would prefer them to continue to exist. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this unnecessary rule-creep. I agree with SoWhy: it's redundant with Wikipedia core policies.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• The three pronged test is terrible. If the element is "central to understanding the fictional work" it need to be discussed on the page for that work. Why would we want another page for the element? For an element of a fictional work to have its own page it should be because of notability beyond the work. Thehalfone (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support. I would like to see something much, much more inclusionist. Wikipedia is sui generis. One of these days I'm gonna get round to rationally reconstructing my instincts about the limited usefulness of our encyclopedia metaphor. To my mind most deletionism, however well-intentioned, can't help but implicate itself with either a kinda paternalism (like users can't work out for themselves what cruft is) or a kinda optimism (like it will earn the confidence of people whose fundamental beef is with the open source nature of the project itself). Anyway, practice and guidelines are out of synch, this might bring em a lil closer, so weak weak support from the centre of my limpy limpy soul. Franciscrot (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Would it be better to change the name to something like Wikipedia:Notability (elements of fictional works) to make its coverage clearer? My earlier Oppose was based mostly on the fact that I [mis]interpreted the guideline to being something that would apply to fictional works themselves (in which case I thought it was far too strict). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed guideline should be more restrictive than what it is. Elements of a work with outsized popularity today may not have it tomorrow, despite WP:NTEMP. I personally don't think WP should become a shrine to every character or element dreamed up by content creators unless it enters the collective psyche of culture itself. Some timeless examples of these being Fonzie and Homer Simpson who have left such an indelible imprint on society that their existence transcends the body of work in which they originated. However, when their respective series' began, neither would have been notable enough to warrant their own article. It is only after such time that their influence on culture was shown not to wane that they became notable. IMHO, unlike "immediate" notability for IRL subjects and topics, there should be some criterion for "staying power" when it comes to fictional elements. The application of WP:NTEMP to these articles, if not completely revoked, should at least be severely limited. Allow these fictional subject articles to continue to be created, but they should be continually reviewed for sustained notability, and methods to ease the process of deletion of such articles which no longer meet notability guidelines should also be implemented. GreyWyvern (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If fiction was a relatively new area of WP topics, I would think we would be able to impose a slightly stricter guideline to that field, as you are right - articles on characters and episodes shouldn't really be split out from lists of such until there's enough to actually write about them. However, the fact is that there are 100,000s of fiction articles out there; to impose a stricter guideline would effectively be a fait accompli process of forcing fiction articles that have been around for years to be cleaned up. This guideline recognizes that there's a lot of fiction out there that will need cleanup, and that at the current time, the best method of going forward is baby steps - let's work on establishing real-world information that later can be expanded to more complete coverage, while simultaneously larger discussions on how fiction , notability in general, and the like should be handled. Ultimately, we do want fiction editors to break out articles only when necessary, but that's not a step we can immediately jump to. --MASEM 16:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Even I'm mainly an editor in the field of anime and would be severely impacted by this guideline, I can see the need to limit the proliferation of fictional-work articles. However, I propose a grace period to be granted for the adoption of this guideline such that people are given time to transwiki material that would fail this guideline. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support IMO, the more guidelines the better, as it helps editors interpret (and where necessary) expand on the core policies for particular situations and subject areas. Of course, there will be discussion and evolution in what each guidelines says: that's how consensus is built. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per many of the above who cited WP:CREEP. Having one notability guideline is bad enough, we don't need to make it worse. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Though I'm opposing this proposed guideline too, I disagree that WP:FICT is a bad idea on its face. Subject-specific notability guidelines have been tremendously useful in other areas, and there does need to be clearer guidance on fictional elements. I personally don't see the proposed version as a winner because regular content creators will struggle with using it, but I would cheerfully support a simplified version similar to the Goodraise proposal. Townlake (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support We need stricter rules on fiction notability inclusion. As I stroll farther into many article I start to find them reading more and more like fan-sites. These are often uneditable piles of garbage, with no way to find out if things in them are true or not. Wise dude321 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: A fiction article without secondary sources should be deleted, just like any other article, and OR is not something to be merely "avoided". shoy (reactions) 16:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This proposal requires secondary sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support. I suspect that many editors do not regularly see the extend of the articles on non-notable characters/other plot elements. Working on Tag and Assess 2008, I personally went through about 4,000 articles within the scope of WP:ANIME, and was shocked by the amount of these articles. Refer for instance to any of the articles in Category:Kinnikuman characters, which is only one example amongst many. Another series/franchise had in excess of 400(!!) articles. I will leave you with the following: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia."—Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. G.A.S (talk · contribs) 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I have an ambivalence about the inclusion of fictional topics, but what I am anxious to avoid are mammoth plot regurgitations, original research and topics splitting into a myriad of articles covering increasingly obscure in-universe topics. I would be happy to see articles about fictional topics rely exclusively on sources such as developer commentary, as long as there is some real world information (and not plot regurgitation exclusively) and that content relying on non-independent sources is NPOV and doesn't make critical assertions. Furthermore it should be a given that articles about elements of fictional topics should be of potential size (while retaining quality) to not fit into articles about the parent work. The guideline should, I think, ensure the above outcomes. However, some of the detail may need tightening up: specifically, what exactly might constitute an element 'central to understanding the fictional work?' Editors might claim a character is 'notable' because they have had X ammount of cameos.bridies (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Since wikipedia is not paper, the true and best improvement is in its continued growth...not in making it a paperless clone of Britanica. That was not why wikipedia was founded.Ikip (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose If this passes I predict that literally hundreds of interesting, useful and hard-worked articles will be mass-expunged within days. Fictional works play a key role in the entertainment of billions of human beings, and not all of these works, or even very many of them, are "notable" in terms of having other words written and published about them elsewhere. Why must something be ignored if some other, separate entity has not noticed it? Who is to say how much "notice" is sufficient? If something exists and is a part of the lives of tens, hundreds, thousands or millions of people, is that not notice enough? --Captain Infinity (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose in several particulars. (1) "Sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work" may provide significant real-world content to be included in an article, but they are wholly irrelevant to establishing notability. This is fundamental: only independent sources provide evidence of notability. (2) "Central to understanding" should not be presumed, but verified by independent reliable sources. (3) "Understanding the fictional work" misses the target anyway. Wikipedia is not a study guide for understanding the work. The objective should be "understanding the reception, impact, and significance of the work". Finally, I think the third point goes to the heart of the matter: notwithstanding that the proposal pays lip-service to WP:NOT, its principal effect would be to further encourage the already prevalent misuse of notability criteria to rationalize content that is not encyclopedic in the first place. As an aficionado of certain forms of fiction myself, I would like to see more and better encyclopedic coverage. This proposal is not the way to get there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The "Importance of the fictional work" section is too ambiguous and could result in uneven application of the guideline. The "Role within the fictional work" section could lead to "patchy" coverage of some subjects (to give an example, Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren" could be deemed to meet the requirements, whereas "Wink of an Eye" might not be). I also think the proposal as a whole is too restrictive. --GW… 19:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as per editors above. The text is confusing and too complex. There are already policies and guidelines which cover this issue adequatelyTaprobanus (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If there are policies and guidelines that are sufficient to handle the area of fiction, why are we still having edit wars over fiction? The lack of guidance is what is hurting the work right now. --MASEM 19:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding more rule creep and bureaucracy are not going to magically solve 4 years of edit warring. Ikip (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

According to ArbCom's decision to not heard Ep&Char 3, it will help. The current situation is not acceptable to continue indefinitely. --MASEM 20:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that decision, where is it at? It comes down to respect, respect of editors and respect of other editors contributions. This guideline will not solve the problem, once and for all, it will simply inflame it. Once editors move in to merge and delete hundreds of episode and character pages, editors who contributed to those pages are not going to simply say, oh, there is this brand new approve guideline, please go ahead and delete several months work. Ikip (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support in principle. Slightly troubled by the fact that "particular cultural or historical significance ... beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline" isn't as clear as it could be, and that "fictional work" isn't defined; for example, I would not like to say that a character that only appears in one episode of "Columbo" or "Murder She Wrote" is individually notable, even if he is the main villain of that episode, so clearly central to that episode. But the basic idea is in the right place, so I'll support. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Mike Christie (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose with a view to changing to support in the spirit of encouraging compromise and consensus. My position here is similar to Goodraise, CRGreathouse and Jayron. I am generally against instruction creep and specific notability guidelines, but I accept that compromise is necessary, and that in this case, a separate guideline to articulate that compromise is necessary. The current text is poorly written. It is too long and goes beyond its remit.
  1. I would encourage editors to regard specific notability guidelines as clarifications or elaborations of WP:GNG, not as additional or contradictory notability guidelines. In this case, in a nutshell, the proposal says that for fictional elements, "independent of the subject" in WP:GNG can be taken to mean that the work is particularly significant according to reliable third party sources, and the element itself has received evaluative (non-promotional) coverage from a real world perspective in reliable secondary sources.
  2. The guideline needs to be renamed as WP:Notability (fictional elements), and should not elaborate the notability guidelines for the fictional works themselves.
  3. The guideline should not tell editors what will happen because it exists. "An article with a verifiable real-world perspective that establishes real-world notability will rarely be deleted." According to whom? Similarly, "Articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them to good article status, including the search for independent sources, are often merged into other articles."
  4. The guideline should not tell editors what they can and cannot do. "Editors may consider whether the fictional subject could be treated as a section or part of a parent article or list instead of a standalone article..." They may indeed.
  5. The guideline has no business articulating when articles on fictional elements may or may not be eligible for good article status.
  6. Moving the proposed text in the direction of Goodraise's draft, particularly the short early version, would help. Geometry guy 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • • Can I get you to hop on down to Wikipedia_talk:FICT#Third_prong_editing_question. and give that edit a thumbs up? I think we can knock out your 3rd point. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support. I'm supporting only because this is probably the best compromise we'll get (and we need something), but I'd like to see more emphasis on real world notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. older ≠ wiser 00:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, as a step toward deleting or forcing improvement to a lot of crummy articles, which is a good thing in my view. Propaniac (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. (6 edit conflicts!) While I generally agree with it, I do not think that fiction should be held to a higher standard of notability. I generally agree with SoWhy, but I might support if the higher standard part is changed. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The proposal does not hold fiction to a higher standard. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support --If only to prevent a spate of "user owned" pages. The only thoughtful thing I can add is to encourage fans of lesser-known works to create their own wikis, in the way Star Trek or Star Wars fans have. (And as the fans of many other franchises have done, judging by the banner ads on the before mentioned fan wikis.) Dahile00 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing administrator please note, this editor has only 6 edits. Ikip (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Fabrictramp. It's not perfect, but let's call it good enough for now and move on to actually writing about fiction in a good, encyclopedic manner. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, step in the right direction. --Brownsteve (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support just about as good as you can get. Let's just hope that it isn't used to justify a million obscure D&D character pages.--Protocop (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support for what it's worth, if only so that we can get this done and get to improving or culling the piles of badly written articles on fictional subjects out there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC).
• Oppose. I support the concept, but I do not think that fictional items should need to be considered "central" to the fictional work to be included; I think Wikipedia should be more comprehensive than that, so long as the other two major requirements are satisfied. The Jade Knight (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Notability is highly subjective and one of the great strengths of Wikipedia is that highly specialised articles on obscure topic areas can still be dealt with in a concise and relevant way to an uniformed reader. If a page meets quality standards, there are people willing to write it and people willing to read it, then I see no reason why it should not be included on the strength of its pop culture significance etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcamxl (talk • contribs) 11:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. While I agree with the criteria put forward, I think that adopting them would cause too much disruption. Let's be honest: More than 75% of all articles about fiction would not fulfil the proposed criteria. Hence, some articles will be proposed for deletion, causing uproar and endless discussions, making the implementation of these rules for already existing articles cumbersome or even impossible. Other articles will randomly escape the executioner's axe. In the end, it would just draw our attention and time away from the real editing work. Sijo Ripa (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Without any looser requirements on sourcing for fictional elements as outlined in this proposed language, I would estimate that somewhere between 80 and 90% of fiction articles would not meet the default notability guideline (eg they fail it now). The point here is to try to assert more allownace for fiction while we readdress how WP needs to be able to accommodate fiction better.
• Oppose -- although I agree with all three prongs in their essence, the language here is too vague and weak to actually be enforceable in a clear and consistent manner. I consistently see language here that could not hold up to the rigors of a fierce Wikipedian debate. And debate there will be, particularly since (apart from general notability and and the policy about writing from an out of world perspective) fiction articles here at Wikipedia have been pretty much an ungoverned "Lord of the Flies" environment. When this policy goes out, it will open a firestorm of AfD, since MANY fiction articles are fancruft and are disporportionately represented (eg. too many) here at wikipedia because of the site's young demographic. Improvement to the policy would include concrete examples of featured or good articles that already specifically meet each or all of the prongs. It should also give examples of fandoms that have a network of articles that already have been generally well-managed according to this policy already (the Simpsons maybe?). Also, this poliicy should use more langauge that is univeral to the project. I think "important" is a supremely subjective word that is unfit to be used in the "nutshell" box. Wikipedia runs on notability, verifiability and (in the case of fiction) real world perspective. This sort of tried and true, commonly recognized language (and other similiar veribiage taken from other policies but modified for this policy) should dominate. One more thing: first-person sources are (and should be considered) a last resort, a necessary evil. Persons involved in a project have a HIGH personal investment in the work and thus are inherently biased -- for good or bad. At the same time, they often are the sole source for very early development and behind-the-scenes details. Thus, first-person sources should always be "outted" in the actual body of the article, not just in the footnotes or references. For example, if the New York Times says an episode used 38 pints of fake blood, the article can read, "Thirty-eight pints of blood were used in this episode.^[1]" But if Michael Chriton (former executive producer) said that an episode used 38 pintso of blood, the article must read "Chriton said that 38 pints of blood were used.^[1]" Of course, discretion and attention to style should be considered, but a verifiablity norm universal to the journalistic and encyclopedic community cannot be side-stepped or even miminalized for tihs one policy. I do like the 'presumption of resources' clause, or over-zealous deletionists may have a field-day. Again, the essence of the policy is good, but not concrete or enforceable enough as it stands.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: To the persons that say a weak policy is better than no policy at all, I strongly disagree. Wikipedia is based on the presumption that having bad articles live among good ones isn't all that bad as long as the entire project is gradually improving. Whether we appove this admittedly flawed policy or not, there will always be some bad articles, becuase all articles start out bad. But if do approve a flawed policy, not only will we be stuck with the already bad articles, but we'll impose a flawed policy on the good ones. This is the equivalent to putting poorly-fitting casts on all your kids' legs just because you can't find a doctor to make a decent cast for the one child that actually has a broken leg. It would be better for that one child to try to heal on his own than to cripple a whole-bunch of healthy kids.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Language issues do need to be corrected and that's definitely a welcome help. However, as I note above to Sijo Ripa's comment, if we take FICT out of the picture, there's a larger number of fiction articles that fail the notability guidelines right now. Yet, is there a massive storm at AFD to get rid of them? Not really, though they continue to come forward. The language of this was selected to make sure that we don't have another TTN situation, as to give those that care about their articles a rather easy set of obstacles to overcome to keep articles, rather than the more difficult "significant coverage in secondary sources" (which generally tends to exclude developer commentary). As there's no bots that can be used to initiate these AFDs , and we still are warned of fait accompli mass-nominations without giving editors a chance to correct, the fear that passage of this proposed guideline will lead to a rush at AFD is rather unfounded -- though we do admit that if there is bad misapplication of this when it passes, there's a need to correct it. As for the last point, this guideline will not affect any pre-existing "good" fictional element articles - it only increases their numbers by moving some that would be considered "bad" as a "good"-in progress situation. Again, the default without FICT is WP:NOTE, which is stronger than this, and I don't believe this is what those interested in retaining fiction articles want. --MASEM 14:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed guideline appears overly vague, mangles the English language, and will generate more trouble. What is a "significant" work? What kind of "independent" source is it that can come from the source's creators and promoters? The third "prong" requiring significant coverage appears to be nothing more than a reiteration of the GNG. I don't think this proposed guideline is an improvement over current policy at this time. Ray (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with User:Sephiroth BCR: better to have than to not have it. It's not my ideal and it's very vague, though that latter issue would likely be resolved as the number of AFDs decided under this guideline increased. I'd prefer to see something a little less restrictive, but at this point almost anything is better than nothing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I would prefer it were stricter, and more specific about what sort of sources might be acceptable, and which not. But it is an improvement over the current de facto situation, and any step in the right direction is to be applauded. Hopefully, if adopted, it will become clearer as it is increasingly applied in practice. Anaxial (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I really like the idea of stipulating that the work the element is a part of must exceed notability. However, the vagueness of both this and the other prongs needs work. A tough task indeed. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: This is, due to its extremely ambiguous wording (the result of numerous concessions and agreements between users), a useless and unneeded piece of policy that is basically already covered by the general policies guarding all of the wiki. All this will lead to is another hat for the coatrack or both deletionist and inclusionist (both due to the above mentioned ambiguous meanings) in edit wars and arguments. Unnecessary, unneeded, undesirable, unable to deliver. Hooper (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 'Support, although relunctantly because I beleive the wording could lead to the possible deletion of thousands of articles which would become non-notable by the standards of this guideline. I do however think the assesment is fair, and something needs to be done to limit the many articles on ficitional topics with little or no references, and serving little or no value except as a database to be used by fans of the topics covered. Charles Edward (Talk) 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tally of recurring comments (currently incomplete)

Nature of commissioning

Sorry to split this out, but I saw this assertion a few times in the above discussion and I wasn't sure how to rebut it other than to split it out. There seems to be an assumption that dvd liner notes, commentary and website blogs by the creator of a fictive world are comparable to a self-published website. I think we need to slay that dragon here and now. Firstly, a self-published web-site is one published by the author; in comparison, how many dvd's of succesful television shows are published by the author? Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm fairly sure Dr Who is released on dvd through the BBC rather than Russell T Davies or David Tennant. Therefore, any commentary or liner notes these creators offer is not self-published. It is material commissioned by the publishing company, in much the same way a newspaper or magazine commissions articles. If an interview with a creator published in a magazine is a reliable source, even though the interviewee may have been paid, why then do we differentiate because it is being broadcast rather than printed?

Secondly, a lot of blogs by creators are not similar to mine or yours. When I die, no-one is going to auction my diaries, nor mine them for detail. The thoughts of creators have always been used to understand and shape our understanding of why they did what they did, why they created what they created. The reason we do not use blogs as reliable sources are many, but stem from the days when it wasn't that common for a creator to blog. It followed that you couldn't be sure that the blogger was who they purported to be. That's not a huge problem these days. How we use these sources is of course, strictly in line with our original research. We can't evaluate or analyse; we can't make deductive leaps. But if David Tennant states that it was his choice that The Doctor wore Converse trainers, that requires no analysis. It is what it is, a clear statement, a clear production detail, a clear creative decision. It expands an understanding of the creation of the character. I understand that the issues tend to start when these details build up to the point that an article becomes longer than our recommended size. But that's where the argument is; to what depth do we cover notable topics? I guess I've wandered far from the point. I guess maybe I am saying that actually I oppose this guidance because it doesn't really address the main point. Which facts, which we can reliably source and summarise accurately, do we leave out? Hiding T 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• here's a secondary thought. If it is the depth that is causing issue, would it be worth bringing forwards a proposal for the community to expand it's base? For the community to investigate the setting up of non-profit, advertising funded wiki's based around topics to accommodate the depth unattainable on Wikipedia? These wiki's would hopefully cover hosting costs through an advertising model and any excess could be channelled back to the Foundation. Let's at least get the idea out there. Is there a way we could set this up? Hiding T 15:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I genuinely can't tell if you're serious or being sarcastic. Aren't you describing exactly what Wikia is? --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that wikia is a for-profit corporation. I am proposing a not-for-profit charitable organisation, so I hope that clarifies the differences. Hiding T 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals like this go to meta:Proposals for new projects, where several existing proposals (such as WikiTrivia) might be what you are looking for. However, in all but the profit this would be duplicating the efforts of Wikia, which has some wonderful in-depth wikis. For example: Muppet Wiki has its own articles on David Gergen, World AIDS Day and saxophones and so forth, entirely from the perspective of Muppets, no limit to detail. I wish more of Wikipedia's disgruntled fiction editors had this sort of initiative. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether they are comparable to a self-published item is a philosophical point that I won't address. They are, however, not third-party. They are published by people that profit from promoting the work, and cannot be considered independent of the creator. Creating an article based solely on such material would violate both WP:RS and WP:V.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But that follows from anything for which we pay, from newspapers and magazines to text books. They are created to sell. Your underlying point is that because they are published for profit they are not independent; this is a flawed assumption and not a fact. People commission things which will sell because of their independence. I'd be grateful if you could expand your points because they don't stand any meaningful analysis. Firstly, are you suggesting that a company would publish something that they do not believe will sell? Hiding T 16:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the nature of the publishing industry to make a profit, and I'm not going to attempt to deny that. However, a publication that, for example, reviews movies, publishes movie reviews because they have made the editorial decision that a significant percentage of their audience will be interested in that movie. They don't make a different profit by specifically reviewing MGM movies vs. Dreamworks, and their profit doesn't change by saying that a particular movie is good, bad, or mediocre. In general, they profit by making a fair and accurate representation of the film: people will buy it to read the film reviews more often if they believe that its reviews accurately predict whether they will enjoy a movie. With such publications, the profit motive serves to increase the reliability of the text. Joss Whedon reviewing "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" has no such motivation. It's hard to envision a situation where Joss Whedon would tell you that, for example, Season 3 of "Angel" sucked so bad and so hard that every extant copy should be burnt. Independent sources happily admit that it represents the worst effort he ever made.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm now trying to fit your viewpoint around the issue of 20th Century Fox, the Fox Network, SKY TV and the News International stable of newspapers. Are these sources independent of each other? Further, I can cite quite a number of sources which aver that film reviews have actually become a lot softer, because reviewers and publishers are somewhat in thrall to the movie industry; they need a healthy industry and a healthy relationship with studios to maintain their own commercial interest. To tackle the main thrust of your point, you haven't really reached into the full stretch of my argument. We can both agree that Buffy is of note. What we need to work out is how deep to cover Buffy. Is every published statement and fact published about Buffy fair game to be summarised, or should we start using our own points of view to determine which facts should be utilised when building an argument? That's the nub of this argument; it has nothing to do with notability; Buffy is already notable. Hiding T 09:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to argue that there's some fuzz in the definitions of independent, I can't argue. In the world of international conglomerates, absolute complete independence is hard to prove. The issues that we argue about tend not to even be close calls, though. DVD commentaries are not independent: they are produced by people that profit from selling the DVD, and contain statements from the people that created the individual work. Is Fox News an independent source about "The Simpsons"? I would be very leery of any fact that someone introduced into a Simpson article that could only be sourced to Fox News ... while the relationship seems to be arm's length, there's still a strong potential for collaborative bias. The beauty of strict adherence to WP:V and WP:N, including the admonition to rely on third-party sourcing is that the weighting is pretty much taken out of our hands ... the depth of coverage will mirror the overall balance of the rest of the world, which is as it should be. Buffy gets a lot of coverage, but Amy's Mom gets a bare whimper of coverage in independent press, so she gets barely a whimper here.—Kww(talk) 15:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don;t think the argument is really about whether Amy's Mom gets an article, is it. It's more likely about whether Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) does. An intriguing question at this point is probably to ask where WP:IAR fits into your view of Wikipedia. I'm also disturbed at your decision to call on a strict adherence to WP:V and WP:N. That would indicate a stricter reading than is the norm or the consensus, which would indicate adopting a view that conflicts with WP:CONSENSUS. I would rather we adopted a view which encompassed the entirety of our policy base rather than pick and choose which policies and guidance should be adhered to with varying degrees. If we take the policy base together, we find there is actually no reason to ignore a published fact on a topic providing it can be reliable sourced, and providing an article on that topic is merited. All facts should be considered so that we maintain a neutral point of view. But we are wandering far from the initial point. What constitutes third part publishing, how far do we need to lean on it, and what did policy makers have in mind when they framed them? A lot of our policy has been written with the sciences in mind, let us not lose sight of that very important detail. The argument that is being waged here is to what depth we go; it has nothing to do with notability and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Who do we rely on for descriptions of a scientific theory? Proponents of it. But a scientific theory works in a different way to a work of fiction. A scientific theory is not (typically) subject to copyright. So many issues separate them, it seems somewhat odd to have policies which cover them both. Would we really instigate a policy which called for both apples and oranges to be the same color? Hiding T 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Amy's Mom is really the topic of this compromise (which I support pragmatically, although I detest it philosophically). The whole purpose was to write a guideline that permitted an article on Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) while not permitting one on Amy's Mom. I think it succeeds at that, and I wish people would take the time to read it before they issued an opinion. It amazes me how many people think that this is an effort to tighten notability requirements ... it loosens them so badly that I feel like I sold out, and people then are reading it as doing the exact opposite.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that primary sources pass WP:V, since they can verify information in the article. The don't pass WP:RS, however, which is why the proposal here still urges users to add reliable secondary sources. Information such as developer blogs and commentary can be used to add verifiable real-world information to an article, which helps with prong #3 here, but independent sources are still needed to produce a quality article that is unlikely to be merged or deleted. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:V is quite specific that the article needs to rely on independent sourcing. It doesn't prohibit the use of primary sourcing. Each primary source may be usable, but an article built only from primary sources still fails that guidance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)

No, WP:V doesn't even use the word independent. The key word in WP:V is reliable. There is a presumption that reliability increases as you ascend the tier of sources - primary/secondary/tertiary - but this is just a general guideline which seems to be focussed upon real-world facts such as history, science and the like. In the case of fiction, this is not the case because a work of fiction, by its nature, is definitive. Take the famous case of whether Han shot first. This is not an objective fact with one correct answer, arrived at by generations of scholarship. No, it is an arbitrary decision of the creators - the author, director or editor - and so may vary in different editions, as we see. The most reliable sources in such cases are the authoritative and official editions of the works of fiction. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It uses the word "third-party", and nothing produced by or licensed by the creators is "third-party".—Kww(talk) 15:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't it say "third-party published sources"? It is quite possible for something produced by a creator to be published by a third party. And let us not lose sight of the fact that this caveat was introduced mainly to deal with self-published pseudo science and theorising. Hiding T 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Third party" appears twice:

• If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
• Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

You could debate the second one with your reading (I don't think you are right, however). The first one would be pretty hard to get around.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the first one. There's nothing to debate on either point. It's amusing that you say up above that people are reading this guideline and believing it says the opposite. I get that a lot. Hiding T 04:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, we could have approached asserting fiction another way - by figuring out how to redefine WP:V and WP:RS. Fiction is marginalized by strict adherence to "independent third-party sources", when WP aims to be a broad coverage of human knowledge. Obviously, the goal is not to reduce the strength of V/RS to a point that one can write a complete article about a minor cameo character in a TV show and declare it encyclopedic, but there is a balance between the strict use of independent third-party sources and considering what sources are appropriate to help make a element of fiction more than just a regurgitation of plot summary. This is a much much larger problem that would likely take several months to resolve. At the present, we recognize that V/RS are still necessary to pass the quality of GA/FA articles, but in terms of seeking to end the editing wars over fiction, allowance of other sources to assert notability for the time being is a safe compromise - this will still likely reduce the number of articles on fiction though gives an easier barrier to be able to pass to allow time for articles to improve on while the larger picture of how we really should be covering fiction on WP can be discussed. --MASEM 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To address the example: yes, Doctor Who is released by the BBC's subsidaries; 2 entertain in the UK, and BBC Worldwide (itself the parent of 2 entertain) elsewhere. But really, this discussion about independence is moot in most cases, given that, if people get their fingers out and write about the production of stuff, very often they become viable spinout articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. That's why this guidance misses the point, if you ask me. The argument isn't about the notability of a topic. It is about how to summarise. If we could get better agreement, a better compromise on how to write articles, and what a good article looks like, we wouldn't need this guidance and this argument. We could sidestep this argument, engage with each other and work together to build a better encyclopedia. We have to solve the issue of whether to have either: a well written, well sourced stub; a bloated, rambling article; or nothing. Given that we serve a readership that comes to us to be informed, I would argue the first approach wins out. That's the only question that needs answering, and for me that should be the basis of a policy. I think it is enshrined in WP:IAR, but maybe we need to be clearer. Hiding T 09:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Section on "Secondary Sources"

Anyone know where this section originated from? (Can't easily figure out from the history). As per the attempts to condense and rewrite the guideline it seems this section may conflict with the three prongs (depending on if you believe developer commentary are secondary or not). If it is the intent that developer commentary, etc. are secondary (but not independent) sources, this may need to be cleared up. If this is not the case, we need to fix this section or at least address it to the points we discussed before, that it's ultimately necessary to have such types of sources to get a quality article but as article are imperfect, it is not necessary as long as some real world aspects are shown. Otherwise, this makes this guideline no different from the GNG and conflicts with the attempt the three prongs are trying to make. --MASEM 18:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think DVD commentaries are secondary sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Developer commentary, DVD commentaries, etc. are definitely secondary sources. I would hope this is obvious enough to not require explicit clarification, but if that needs to be made explicit, it should be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We seem to frown on examples, but I think the three you just mentioned should could be mentioned on the project page. I had to click on the link to primary, secondary, and tertiary myself to make sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as we are satisfied that basically what we are doing is asserting that we are bounding ourselves to the GNG but simply clarifying that for fictional elements, devs are secondary sources (which, I will note, that at the WP:N RFC, the concept that SNGs can define what sources are good for demonstrating notability was an accepted concept), that would make this section clearer, emphasizing we are trying to stick to the GNG as closely as possible. --MASEM 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of getting pedantic... anything can be both a primary and secondary source. A speech by the President can be a primary source, as we use other secondary sources in the media to make analytic or synthetic claims about what the President's speech means. Vice versa, the media can be the primary source if we're talking about a major news personality and something they said, and the speech from the President can one of several secondary sources that criticize/analyze the media screwup. To get back to fiction, DVD commentary is a secondary source when they make analytic or synthetic claims about a work. But it's a primary source if the commentary is done by someone in-character (which is rare, but sometimes happens). Randomran (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the RfC

See, this is why I was cautious about this. As I look over the RfC, I'm seeing a ton of problems - people making "oppose" !votes that amount to a willful rejection of existing standards (i.e. people who are categorically opposed to notability guidelines or restricting fictional content at all), and numerous ~votes that are opposing for reasons that are transparently not true - claims that the third prong is equivalent with WP:N, or suggestions that the first prong is setting a higher standard for elements.

We are rapidly crossing over a signal to noise ratio that is getting unhelpful - a lot of these comments are drive-by and are clearly demonstrating a misunderstanding of the guideline. Many others are in a sort of twilight realm where they do not clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding, but with such widespread misunderstanding it is hard to take them entirely seriously either. On the whole, I feel like this RfC is giving us no useful data, and is instead leading to a complete mess of drama and avoidable controversy.

As it stands, I am gravely concerned that a poorly thought out attempt to drag in comments from people uninvolved and uninformed about the proposal is tainting the proposal in exactly the way that we were seeking to avoid. And now we're apparently seeking to drag in even more people from further outside the realm of this debate via a watchlist notice?

If we do not figure out a way to draw the line and restore some semblance of sanity to this discussion, I am going to have a hard time thinking that this proposal has not been irrevocably tainted such that any attempt to claim consensus for it is doomed simply because it has gotten sucked into the idiotic battleground that has consumed this issue for years. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Without the RFC, we will have a large number of editors continually contest this as not having consensus (there are a good number of wikilaywers on either side of the argument). And we should assume good faith, as well take in consideration, those "drive by" comments. Ok, there may be some "we should not need any notability guidelines" which don't help, but the others that have read the guideline and misinterpret it thus opposing it are good as that tells us we need to likely rewrite parts to make it clearer, while those that oppose on other grounds are points to consider if we have to readdress this issue. --MASEM 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there's such widespread misunderstanding is a sign that this is not very clearly written. If it's being misunderstood now, it'll be misunderstood at AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To disagree does not automatically mean that one misunderstands, as many editors presuppose. It feels of an elitism that decries the core precepts instituted by founder Jimmy Wales. To linit any discussion denigrates all who have a stake in improving Wikipedia. It rails in the face of all that wiki was meant to be to "speak down" to anyone as if they were children. Wikipedia, as the "Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit", must always be the place where ANYONE can be made welcome. Ikip (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinly veiled accusations of bad faith do not become you, nor do they serve this discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is wiki edited only by folks with Master's Degree? Wouldn't it be prudent step back from this fiction proposal and see if it can be written in a way that even an fresh editor might understand? Ikip's stronger statement does make some valid points, in that the continued and qrowing complications being built into the laws that govern who and how people may may contribute are acting to discourage new editors and new ideas. If a newcomer runs into confusing laguage that is obviously created by and directed at editors with far greater knowledge of the system then he or she might currently have, it could only act to discourage and send them to any one of the hundreds of other databases online. If its the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't it be more important to make it as easy as possible for the greatest number of people? Its time to simplify in the extreme..... not confuse with more and thicker layers of beaucracy... and yes "Wiki is not a beaucracy"... or at least it was not meant to be. To a newcomer wishing to contribute, the layers and levels of rules and regulations that confuse and do not clarify, will appear like a huge tome of corporate tax code. I accept the extreme good faith in which these efforts are being made, but its time to simplify... not complicate. I am not a 12-year-old. I am not a rank newbie. I have a college education.... and the way it is written confuses the heck out of me. Is any small wonder that there has apparently been discussion about this for 4 years? Maybe someone should go ask Jimmy if this is what he intended? And as a point of interest, Goodraise sent a gift below that is marvelous in its simplicity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree partially w/ AMiB. I'd really appreciate it if the two editors who noted so specifically the lack of clarity in the guideline could hop over to the project page and make some changes to improve clarity (or at least propose them here). I worry that the lack of clarity comes not from a lack of elocution but from a muddied stance due to compromise. By its very nature, a guideline like this will be less clear (As in less unambiguous) than something like WP:BLP, which is pretty clear cut due to some strong consensus and obvious planks. I also want to caution people that everything on wikipedia is a work in progress. Hop on over to WP:NOR or WP:V or WP:RS and tell me those are perfect examples of clarity. Tell me that they present unambiguous direction. They don't. They may never. Or they may. We shouldn't expect this guideline to be perfect at the date of adoption. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • • I would not have noticed this comment, which seems to be in part directed at me, without the friendly notice of Ikip (talk · contribs). Here is my condensation/clarification/deobscuration/whateveryouwannacallit of the current proposal in this revision. (If I don't reply to comments directed at me within a day, I probably missed them. In those cases, please drop me a line on my talk page.) -- Goodraise (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Now THAT'S clarity. Support the Goodraise version. Absoutlely no need for an orchestra when one quick toot does it all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Except that misses the point. It considers the three prongs each as single criteria to pass the guideline (that is, meeting one prong is sufficient) which is not the intent of this guideline. It's the combination of the three prongs that this guideline outlines. Mind you, the terseness of the evaluation is fine, but we had that at one point and realized that we needed the addition explanation paragraphs to help balance concerns. --MASEM 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
          • No. My version lists 4 criteria, connected with two implicit and one explicit "and". It's not much text. Reading it slowly, in order to understand it, is not asked too much. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Ok, I missed the "and"; that absolutely needs to be bolded to imply that all criteria have to be met (see ikip's comment below that they believe that there are four unique conditions, not four combined conditions). However, I will point out there are only three criteria that we have defined here: the first one you list, about secondary sources, is not one of the ones the current proposed version gives, or more specificially, that's the part about meeting the GNG. This proposed guideline says an element of fiction is notable if (it meets the GNG) OR ((meets prong 1) AND (meets prong 2) AND (meets prong 3)). That only requires striking the first item in that list. --MASEM 18:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
              • With that comment you are proving the grounds on which I opposed. The proposed text only lists 3 prongs, but further down in the secondary sources section it says: "A topic about which there are no significant secondary sources cannot pass this guideline." - It seems not even the regular editors of the proposal understand it any longer. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Hmmm, I need to see where that came in. (The difficulty being that I think implies that we're assuming developer commentary to be secondary, but that may or may not be true). --MASEM 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If people here want me to go in and clean it up, I can go have a crack at it. I certainly wouldn't want to go do it and then have people revert it because the verbage wouldn't fit the carefully demarcated peace that has been struck here. I could always redo it and put the changes elsewhere to look at. Or I could do nothing. Anyone else want to opine? SMSpivey (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, you already know that Wiki isn't a democracy, so we aren't simply counting opposes and supports and deciding the fate of the guideline on that. The arguments have be strong on both sides. If you're getting people that oppose simply because they oppose everything of that nature, and not because of something specific with the guideline itself, then that isn't as strong of an opposition as someone who can point out valid flaws in the system.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When an guideline is going to effect 1/4 of all pages, many profoundly, and hundreds of editors contributions, I would hope to get better than a WP:IMPERFECT argument. Ikip (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? those 1/4 of pages can be IMPERFECT. My point is that the opposes based on clarity are holding the guideline to a standard that would reject the current revisions of a good proportion of policy. If you want to get down to brass tacks, NOR is a mess. V/RS are muddied. Hell, the only policy page that I'm sure is clear is IAR, though there is a huge unwritten asterisk after it. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does the idea come from that this page would affect 1/4 of all pages, i.e. some 700,000 pages? Now, I can imagine that we have 700,000 fiction related articles: however, this guideline is not about all these articles by far. All creators are excluded, just like all independent works of fiction are (books, TV series, comlic strips, ...). The actual figure of affected articles is in myopinion much lower, but a link to some actual calculations would be nice. Fram (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe if you do a page count of Category:Fiction, you can get that number (I believe Pixelface calculated it to be 23 or 26% of all pages). --MASEM 14:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Category:Fictional would be a better starting point, it's a better assumption that most things in that category are at least fictional. Category:Fiction includes authors and books, neither of which tend to be fictional. Anyone up to a page count there. Hiding T 14:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Category:Fiction is much, much broader than the scope of this proposed guideline. It contains authors, forms, magazines, concepts, images, ... To claim that this guideline would affect 25% of the pages is obviously incorrect, but I would like to know as well if it is about 1%, 5%, 10%, ... ? Fram (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• The truth is if people are opposing for uninformed reasons, we're partially to blame for doing a poor job of summing it up in the nutshell, and can make the guideline more clear in general. I think you've done a good job trying to tighten up the lead. But I think the nutshell has made a lateral move, and needs to sum up the three prongs succinctly. Randomran (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To Phil... with respects, I feel compelled to address several of your remarks above...

1. "...willful rejection of existing standards..." "...who are categorically opposed to notability guidelines..." I suggest you cannot know what goes through the mind of those who opine. The existing standards are confusing enough to newcomers. Its time to simplify, not obscurfate in the name of clarity, even with the most honorable of intentions. Yes, the old guard has been around long enough so some may be able to sort through the verbage... probably. But Wiki proudly boasts that it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Newcomers are encouraged to take part. Its gotta be simpler. Painfully simpler. We can't chase off the new blood.
2. "...crossing over a signal to noise ratio that is getting unhelpful..." Which would seem to indicate that the new guideline, even if intended to simplify and clarify, is acting in exactly the opposite manner... and this to editors who have been aboard for years. Newcomers see only a foreign tongue. That just ain't what ol' Jimmy Wales has in mind.
3. "...comments from people uninvolved... " Guidelines and proposed guidelines involve everyone, not only a few who believe their inate understanding or view is the only correct one, pro or con. Just as Wikipedia is intended to be the encyclopdia anyone can edit, it is intended that anyone can opine.

Maybe its time to pull this one off the table and see how it can be streamilined and made user-friendly to ANYONE who might wish to edit wiki. There's a saying... the more you complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the sink. You may not see the proposal as complicated... but this entire discussion indicates that many others do. Perhaps time to pull it off the table and see how well it can be streamlined... or even if it is required at all when a few tweaks to current guideline might be the easier route. Hmmm? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

I don't see a need to table this discussion if all we need to do is tweak the wording (without changing the scope). If the problems in clarity are within our capacity to solve quickly we should do it. Part of the purpose of the RfC is the fact that editors who aren't steeped in this guideline can look at it. For someone like me, the section on independence may make a good deal of sense--I see where a sentence was added or removed and connect it to the discussion on the talk page. for someone who isn't so shuttered up, the connections aren't so clear. IF we are failing to make the motivation, limits and execution of this guideline clear to a reader, then we want that feedback. We don't need to shut down this RfC and start it up again in a month to fix the problems noted. Protonk (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows with Rule creep and Bureaucracythat once a proposal becomes a guideline, it is very difficult to change. There have been 43 pages of archived discussion on this proposal, and still there is a proposal which everyone agrees has problems. Changing this page to a guideline is not going to magically change that. Ikip (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We aren't looking to magically change that. We are just looking to hammer out a compromise that works for a sufficient number of editors. I'm not sure who "everyone" is that knows that guidelines become fixed in form once accepted by the community, but I'd love to meet them. "Everyone" doesn't "know" that this guideline is set to be applied in its current form instantly and forever once accepted. I find it much more reasonable to assume that changes will occur just as they do for every other guideline and policy. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this was once a guideline, and look at it now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Eh. six in one hand, half dozen in the other. this is a random old revision. It was marked as a "criteria" then (not sure what that was). It basically said major characters may get an article if the section gets too long and minor characters get a list. That may be preferable for some people. Me, I think it is piss poor. A more recent revision is (if you can believe it) even less clear than the current incarnation. It is also more restrictive. It's been approximately 12 months since it was marked as "under discussion". I think consensus can change. Protonk (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment- the recent changes to the lead of the guideline make it much easier to understand. Kudos to you guys who are working on fixing things that have been causing misunderstandings here. SMSpivey (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Phil, I think the way Randomran has drawn up this RFC is not only positive, but necessary. We are getting lots of feedback (always a good thing) about the proposal, but so far no one has suggested an alternative draft, let alone sought support for an alternative, so we are definitely following the right track. I agree with Masem that we need this RFC to avoid the WP:FICT being contested by those who say it does not represent consensus.
  In my view, the debate about this guideline has traditionally been viewed as a battle between inclusionists and deletionists, but I think this new version of WP:FICT has brought about a paradigm shift; supporters of this version want to see encyclopedic coverage of fictional topics, whilst many opponents of the guideline might be characterised as opponents of WP:NOT#PLOT who think that fictional topics need only to be covered by plot summary. The old inclusionist/deletionist disagreements have not been resolved as yet, as evidenced by disagreements over independent sourcing, but a new battle has now begun between those who think fictional elements should be viewed from a real-world perspective, and those that still cling to a fantasy-world perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  While I wouldn't phrase it that way, certainly the emphasis on a real-world perspective over extensive plot summaries and character guides is something we do that nobody else really does. A year ago I would have sooner cited WP:WAF in AfD rather than any N-related page because WAF best answered the question, "What are we looking for in an article?" Nifboy (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'm pretty sure that WAF is next on the hit list for fixing should this pass. Tackling lists of fictional elements for instance is one of the items that needs to be addressed, but having a stable version of FICT is paramount first. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 13:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Really? I've always been pretty pleased with WAF. Damn. And here I was hoping I could get away from fiction policy for a bit. But if you're all going after WAF, I'll have to join you. /sigh. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Now THIS VERSION is elegant and eloquent in its simplicity. I applaud the author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, editor goodraise deserves a raise. I love how simple yet direct it is. Instead of three hurdles to inclusion, there are four different ways fiction can be included. Ikip (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have to read it again. There is an "and" at the end of the 3rd criteria. All 4 have to be met. I'll create a revised version in a second. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. Doesn't sound as good anymore, but the lack of "and"s seems to have confused too many editors. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job! I think there is a lot to be said for conciseness. That said, your proposal isn't particularly different from what we have now. Part of the motivation for having a longer guideline was so that people could read it and understand the rationale behind each requirement. In the longer run, once the guideline is approved, I don't think we'll need the justification so much, and we'll be able to shift towards a guideline more like what you've drafted. Randomran (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What I drafted is not a proposal. It is not supposed to be different from the current proposal. It is supposed to mirror the current proposal, just in fewer words. You may have intended the proposal to be longer, so it could be better understood, but what that length did was only to confuse. And I, for one, can't support a confusing guideline. Especially, if it will influence AfD results. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Great job Goodraise, i could not approve or oppose the proposed version but i will back yours as there is much less room for homebrew interpretations and is much more useful for editors needing straight answers. --KrebMarkt 18:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a real value in explanation over bright line tests. I considerably prefer the current version to the excessively stripped down version Goodraise offers, which I, at least, would oppose. To my mind, those who are concerned about discussions that do not lead to straight answers are badly misguided in their goals for what can happen usefully on-wiki. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I stripped down the proposal to what it means. I'm in no way saying that everthing else needs to be removed. But, it should be placed in a separate section from the actual guideline text. And it should be made clear, that the text outside the "Notability guideline for fiction" section is purely explanatory and does not change the meaning of the guideline. We can have both, a concise guideline AND explanatory text. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please not another European Constitution Treaty ;)

I really don't want Afd turning into Wiki-theocracy discussion with WP:FICTION exegesis contest. The more text there is and the more interpretations can be found between the lines. --KrebMarkt 20:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodraise, if you can believe it... the original proposal was even longer. Me and a few other editors pushed to trim it down, but there is always a push back. Believe me that compromise is harder in practice than it is in theory. While your proposal would have my enthusiastic support, it would lose the support of people who appreciate the added explanation. I have an idea, though. Seeing as most people agree that you've managed to distill the guideline down to a few sentences without changing the core meaning, how would you feel about rewriting the nutshell to include your 1-2-3-4? I think yours is the best summary yet. (And in the long run, we can go through further copy-edits once the guideline is approved and official.) Randomran (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have another idea. How about incorporating the "helpful" proposal into my draft, as a non-binding "Further explanations" section? - Sorry, but my draft is not just a "summary". Everything said in the proposal, that isn't purely explanatory, redundant to another guideline/policy, or plain excessive wording, is also part of my draft. - As I said before, I don't object to long explanations, as long as they are in a separate section. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what that means, or what that would look like. But you definitely have my attention. Randomran (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll get back to drafting... BTW, could someone archive a few threads? The loading time is starting to get painful. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. In the long run, I'd like the guideline to look more like what you've put together. But I think there's been a lot of support for the explanatory stuff, at least in the interim as we try to explain how/why this is a compromise. Once we know we have a compromise that everyone can live with, the explanatory stuff is no longer necessary. But I'm not sure we can lose it right now. ... worst case, we can try something more like your approach if this guideline should fail. Randomran (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be cautious about this - the community is impermanent. People come and go. Documenting our reasoning instead of just having rules is an important part of having what takes place be consensus-forming and not rules-lawyering. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Goodraise's argument is that documenting our reasoning can lead to rules-lawyering, with people leveraging small details instead of the broadly agreed upon principles. I know this is a copout, but I think we're gonna need between your approach and his approach in the long run. Randomran (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We're at it, given that my approach was the original version. Let's not forget the extreme amount of cutting - far more than I think wise - that has already happened. This proposal is 12.5k. It's the fourth shortest notability guideline we have. It's an extremely short policy page. At this point, complaints about its length are bordering on the ridiculous. Goodraise's version guts major portions of this policy. I oppose it, I oppose moving towards it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to say that I strongly support the guideline as written by Goodraise. It is clear, easily applied, and still leaves room for explanatory text at the end. If this were to go forward as the version to be implemented, I would certainly support it. SMSpivey (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like Goodraise's version looks a lot like the GNG, just worded differently. The slightly relaxed need for secondary sources is one of the only real differences between the current FICT and the GNG, which is needed since there isn't the same kind of coverage about elements of fiction as for most real-world things. The current FICT does say that reliable sources are needed, and that articles are likely to be merged or deleted without them, it just isn't given as much weight as the three-prong test. Also, the current FICT tells you to look at all of the prongs together but, at the same time, separately; an article may pass prongs 2 and 3 amazingly, but the work that it is a part of might be hardly notable. For such an article, this FICT would let it be kept as notable, but Goodraise's version would call for deletion/merging because it doesn't meet all of the criteria. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right in that the current proposal (as well as my rewording of that proposal) essentially differs from the GNG only in that the proposal does not demand independent sources. That is the deletionists side's concession in this compromise. The remaining criteria are the consessions of the inclusionists. But that meeting prongs 2 and 3 is enough for notability is yet another missunderstanding of the proposal's excessively obscure text. The proposal states that "there must be a reasonable belief that evidence exists for all three criteria." -- Goodraise (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A subsection on Goodraises's proposal

• I want to split the difference from the current revision of Goodraise's draft and the project space draft. There is a loss made in being too verbose but there is also a loss in being parsimonious. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to too. But a worry of mine is that we've already started the RFC, and gotten a certain amount of support. Are we going to have to start the RFC over, since the new draft will gain/lose support? After having a straw poll and another request for comment on several project spaces, with numerous revisions, I imagine people will get frustrated. Many people already are. That could even destroy any further revisions, as people just say "WP:FUCK it". Randomran (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • So long as the scope doesn't change, I'm ok improving the clarity. We do need to make it more clear what the guideline covers and what it doesn't cover. We've got some known feedback above, and I don't think it is outside the purview of this RfC to tinker with the guideline. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Goodraise's draft is a significant enough alteration that we cannot begin integrating it without effectively restarting the process. I would switch to opposing the guideline if that kind of late-stage swap occurred. The guideline is what it is. We're at the "approve or disapprove" stage, not at the "let's rewrite the whole thing again" stage. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Really? I'm not saying that Goodraise's draft is naturally superior. I think that we have some misguided sense that less is more--that if we just present the guideline in staccato sentences rather than some more expository fashion it is "better". It isn't. But it is obvious from the above discussion that there are problems in the elocution of this guideline and that some of them can be clarified. I would rather make it abundantly clear that we: Don't over-ride the GNG and prong 1 doesn't demand all works have more sources than the GNG requires (I can go on). The possibility if we refuse to do so is that people will drop by, read the guideline and "vote" based on a misapprehension of the guideline or vote based solely on the confusion. I don't want that. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I see no significant or new problems. Frankly, anybody who looked at the guideline and viewed the first prong as requiring a higher standard of notability, or who thought that it applied to fictional works as a whole, or who think it overrides the GNG didn't read it. The guideline does not need to carefully protect against people who clearly didn't bother to read it, nor do I think such an outcome is possible. This is the problem I pointed out above - people who obviously gave the guideline the most cursory of glances are weighing in. The fact of the matter is, comments that clearly egregiously misread the guideline should be discarded, not pandered to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • If that is really what people here think, that the proposal is set in stone as it is because we are at such a late stage, then I will have to seriously oppose it. As written, it is going to cause a helluva lot of problems down at AfD. It leaves itself open to too much interpretation. SMSpivey (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Enjoy your opposition. I oppose the idea that interpretation, nuance, and debate are a bad thing far more vigorously. Unless you think that this guideline is a cancer that's choking Wikipedia. Then we're on about the same level of opposition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't say the current draft is set in stone. Just that the RFC is already underway. I'm 100% positive that we can propose a rewording, and ask "does anyone object on the basis that this changes the meaning of the current draft?" But not now, while the RFC is underway. Randomran (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • And to be clear, I'm fine with wording changes, clarifications, etc. However Goodraise's idea is far, far more than wording changes, and I think it marks a major shift in purpose and goal of the guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • I can't follow you. What is it you see as a "major shift"? Could you be more specific? -- Goodraise (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Sure. You're prioritizing the literal wording of the three prong test over its explanation. That's a large change. The proposal is not a test and exegesis of the test. The explanation is part of the decision-making on notability. Notability is not a series of checkboxes with a justification for their existence. It actually is a complex issue. Are aspects of it debatable for some articles? Will there be disagreement? Yes and yes. So be it. The idea of a guideline where all explanation is explicitly secondary to the guideline is a radical shift away from how we have ever done things before. It does change things. Because this isn't just about setting up a test - it's about setting up a clear understanding of what fiction articles are. The test follows from the explanations, not the other way around. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • That is not correct. I replaced a long text with short one that essentially says the same (including what is said in the explanations). I NEVER intended that shorter version to be interpreted literally. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • I disagree (with some specifics noted below) that your revision is essentially the same. It's roughly the same, but we lose too much in shrinking the guideline that much. I still think that the guideline can be streamlined , but I'm pretty sure that replacing the current text for your draft would result in too much change. I do want to thank you, though, for stepping up to the bat and actually drumming up a streamlined version. I'm glad you did. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What was lost? Please, name an example. "Your claim requires evidence. Bald assertions of differance are insufficient." :) -- Goodraise (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Just drop down to the bottom of the next section and you'll see some. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And I believe it is: "In God we trust, all others bring data" :) Protonk (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's because it's getting late in my timezone, but what I don't see down there is an example of where the two texts differ in meaning. I only see you pointing out, that my version does not point certain things out. (For example, my version does not point out (at least not in the non-explanatory part), that independent sources are not a requirement. But why should it? It lists a complete set of requirements. Independent sources are not among them.) -- Goodraise (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It should because a half dozen editors above have supported (or unofficially supported the straw poll) based largely on language added about independence that has been marked "explanatory" in your revision. Also, the two paragraphs that follow the three prongs in the current revision of the projectspace draft (the first about "subject, not article" and the second about NNC) are missing in the userpsace draft. They represent current practice and allow users to point (in AfDs or on talk pages) to the guideline as a means to protect new articles from deletion. We need to say that notability doesn't delimit content and that notability refers to the subject, not the article. Again, I'm not opposed to shortening the guideline somewhat or removing points where it meanders or comments about practice generally (here I diverge from Phil's position). I just don't think that the guideline as written is as bad as it is being made out to be. Can we come to some compromise that results from piecemeal edits to the existing guideline? Protonk (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • We're closing in on the fundamental reason for my opposition. The proposal's text consists to 95% of words which do not change the meaning. They are placed there to convince various splinter groups, that their position has been considered. At the same time, they block sight onto what the proposal effectively means. If an editor reads the "Notability guideline for fiction" section of my version and opposes it because of what articles it would in-/exclude, then that editor should also oppose the current proposal, because they in-/exclude the same articles. I think, that the proposal is garnering support that may or may not really exist. To directly answer your question: We cannot "come to some compromise that results from piecemeal edits to the existing guideline" because the only difference between my version and the proposal is already "piecemeal". In fact, it's less than that. It's non-existent. - I fear, that this "lets get the guideline status back, no matter the cost"-attitude is causing the community to decieve itself. If I'm right about that, and I do hope that I'm not, then we'll be back here pretty quickly. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't know what to tell you. We're making sausage. the proposal contains text that convinces various groups (hardly "splinter", because there is not an orthodox view on WP:N) that their concerns are being met as well as text that meets their concerns and changes the guideline. Again, I'm closer to agreeing with you than others that less exposition is better. I don't think the community needs an explanation of why this guideline has been written. But some people do. I'm also not convinced (anymore) that your version is necessarily preferable. I think you are conflating clarity with parsimony. In some very obvious sense, our proposal (the projectspace draft) is/was unclear. A number of opposes above point to that. But we are (to be cliche) throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Let's take the "independence" section. That contains three paragraphs. The first explains why we can justify this relatively narrow exception to WP:V that we have carved out. the second points out exactly what we mean by an appropriate secondary source. The third notes that articles with no independent sources may not remain standalones indefinetly. Those three paragraphs indicate some background, nuance and limitation, because that is what this guideline needed. Marking it as "explanatory" eliminates its ability to function as a guideline and for no good reason. The "Secondary sources" section has two paragraphs which serve two important purposes. First, it points out what a secondary source is for the purpose of this guideline. We can say this is redundant to PSTS, but frankly it is clearer (PSTS is pretty muddy). Second, it makes clear that claims of centrality to the work (prong 2) cannot come from OR--we can't make an article on The color brown in Firefly simply using editor observation that Brown appears in the work multiple times. Some of the text is superfluous, I'll agree. Some of it is purely the product of compromise. But I will continue to dispute that there is no functional difference between the much shorter version and this one. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Also, Phil's main point is sound. This guideline is more than a series of check-boxes. The GNG can be that series because it is a bright line standard. This compromise can't be a bright line. We have to create a Balancing test. We are weighing elements against each other. How significant is the work? How central is the element? How much real-world connection is there? The nature of the debate on fictional subjects demands we augment the GNG with something that has more give. "Boiling down" the text itself so that it appears to be the GNG misses the intent of the guideline and will be "more honoured in the breach than in the observance". Protonk (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • "I will continue to dispute that there is no functional difference between the much shorter version and this one" you say. You could start by giving an example. Because, no, you have not done that. Nobody has. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Please work with me here. I thought I gave examples of where the current text of the guideline would be changed if it were transformed to your version. In the paragraph immediately preceding your claim I thought I gave an argument for how the fundamental purpose of the guideline would be changed if were turned it into your revision. I don't want to keep giving examples only to be told that I'm not giving examples. Protonk (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • You gave examples of how "the current text of the guideline would be changed". But you have not given examples of such changes which would actually create a "functional difference". I'm not asking for the world. One single, tiny little "functional difference" is all I ever wanted. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • Ok. I'll start with the last example. Your proposal is a bright line test, like the GNG. The current proposal is a balancing test. No strict rule will apply under all cases. That's a non-trivial transformative change. Second, your proposal specifically relegates the "independent" and "secondary sources" sections to "explanatory notes" and disavows any force they will have as a guideline. Part of this guideline's function is meant to be a tool for discussion at AfD. We want to be able to say "this guideline says that I can use these sources for supporting notability of this fictional element". Saying explicitly that they have no force changes that function. Third, the two paragraphs now appended to the three prong test are removed in your draft. The first, noting explicitly that the guideline applies to subjects rather than articles is important to retain. The second, noting that this guideline doesn't force a particular organization is also important. Both provide appropriate description of best practices and belong in the guideline. So that's three examples. There are more, but we'll start from there. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                      • About your first example: You say, that the project space version is a "balancing test". I suppose with that you mean, that it is a "test [...] which [...] weigh[s] the importance of multiple factors". The project space proposal names four criteria:
                        1. "[T]he work of fiction [...] must be of particular cultural or historical significance".
                        2. "The element should be [...] central to understanding the fictional work".
                        3. "Significant, real-world information must exist on the element".
                        4. "A topic about which there are no significant secondary sources cannot pass this guideline."

                        Where does it say, that these criteria are factors to be weighed? With all good faith that I can muster, I can't see a balancing test.

                      • About your second example: With the project space proposal it is as follows: People don't know when elements of fiction are notable. -> People create WP:FICT to solve that problem. -> WP:FICT is so unclear that they don't understand it. -> At AfD they need tools for discussion. -> WP:FICT is expanded to include these tools. -> WP:FICT becomes even longer, more obscure, and even less understandable. -> [...]
                        My proposal doesn't have that problem to begin with. You yourself called it a "bright line test": A "clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation." (It works differently, but the result is the same: No "functional difference".)
                      • About your third example: The first paragraph is redundant to Wikipedia:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. The second paragraph is redundant to Wikipedia:N#Notability of article content. Both already have guideline status. That means, whether the proposal contains them or not, it creates no "functional difference". They only obscure the view onto what is actually new in this proposal. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                        • You realize that you are quoting your distillation of the projectspace proposal in order to tell me that there isn't a distinction between the projectspace proposal and your draft, right? I accept that there will be some confusion in the application of this guideline. I submit that there will be less than exists right now. I also submit that the guideline is liable to improve over time. People will become less wedded to particular formulations over time and redundancies can be ironed out. I noted some of the same issues in an earlier discussion--since that posting, the guideline has improved tremendously. I don't know if we can agree, but I think we are talking at cross purposes. I think the guideline as written is meant to be a balancing test--prongs are deliberately fuzzy rather than razor sharp. That is a reason to support it, not a reason to change it. As such, the application will be more organic.
                        • As for elements redundant to other guidelines, I disagree that they serve no function. The elements linked there are important to discussions about notability for fictional elements. They get discussed a lot and should be included. We are building the web. Elements of this guideline point editors to other guidelines, letting people know that these come from somewhere and aren't just a dictum. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                          • I didn't notice, that I was quoting my draft. Please name the quote that came from my draft that isn't also in the project space version. You say "the guideline as written is meant to be a balancing test". If that is so, then I say my version "is meant to be a balancing test" as well. You said further up, that you "will continue to dispute that there is no functional difference between the much shorter version and this one." Is that still your position or is it not? That is the only reason I'm keeping this thread alive. You are claiming, that my attempt at producing a less verbose functional equivalent to the project space proposal has failed. I want you to prove that claim. It seems to me, that you can't. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                            • Then don't. I don't want to get into a discussion over who "wins". Protonk (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodraise's alternative proposal

Goodraise's idea is fine, except point #3...i believe it removes the idea that the primary protagonist(s), whom the story is told around, when there is only one or a small group, do not need such independent verification --though it certainly should still be sought. FE: Anyone who argues that the player character you control in an action-rpg is not central to the storyline needs to have their head examined. Beyond that, I think it's okay if it'll get WP:FICT to pass.じんない 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• • If you read my wording carefully, you'll see, that verification of importance in commentary from reliable sources isn't even required for a recurring character. Why would it be for a main character? -- Goodraise (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Ahh...now I see...well I won't accept it until it goes through a good copy edit. I mean that line itself using 2 ors and no comma... Also, that point makes it sound like just being "an episode" automatically qualifies you.じんない 00:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • "[T]hat point makes it sound like just being "an episode" automatically qualifies you." That's what it might mean, if there were commas before the "or"s. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Well in that case it sounds like your then still requiring major characters to be noted by others as being major, even if they are the primary protagonist who's story is told from the character's or characters' POV. I think that's a case of something that does not need to be verified by a WP:RS, but just the primary source itself. If a story is told from a character's POV, that character, by definition, must be central to the plot.じんない 00:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
          • If that's what it sounds like to you, then you're simply reading it wrong. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Obviously if I can read it wrong, so can someone else. Therefore, you've proven my point that it's not clear enough.じんない 06:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • If you have an idea, how to change the wording in a way that reduces ambiguity without increasing verbosity, then be my guest, edit my user space version. But I don't agree with the point you're trying to make here. There's a talk page, where the two of us are the top contributers. On that talk page, I explained to dozens of editors, one after another, the meaning of the WP:GNG. There will always be those, unwilling or incapable of applying basic grammar or common sense to what they read. If we attempt to write a guideline, that is impossible to misread by even the most bad-faithed and brainless editor imagineable, then we'll get something that looks like the current proposal... Still, I'll be adding a more detailed explanation. -- Goodraise (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Here, how is that? -- Goodraise (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • Okay, that's fine. I'm still not convinced we should adopt it since no other guideline has bright-lined tests and they deal with items far more easy to distinguish, but at least now I won't oppose it for lack of clarify.じんない 03:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Remove "significant", and I'll support (significant is subjective and is too similar to notability, i.e. it's like saying "notable coverage" and leaves room for too much divisive discord over what constitutes "significant"; out of universe coverage in reliable secondary from which we can write sections on development and reception is substantial; we don't want to get tied down on minutiae of what defines "significant"; if we have reliable secondary source and we can use them to put together an article, it's good enough). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose it. Flat out. I will fight it tooth and nail if any attempt is made to swap it for the current proposal. I think submitting a new proposal at this stage is either staggeringly stupid or staggeringly bad faith, and if an attempt is made to change proposals I will, first of all, remove the RFC as we have started a new policy formation and have to go back to scratch, and second of all, immediately refile the episodes and characters RFAr I implored the arbcom not to consider because it is clear that the community is invested in perpetually dragging their feet on fiction notability guidelines. This is an absolute deal-breaker, and will switch me to the most vehement and vigorous opponent of this effort that you have ever seen. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks great. I would support this version if it were being proposed. FWIW, I don't agree with the 3 above comments:

• Primary protagonists should not automatically merit articles separate from the work—why not include them in the main article?
• Coverage in sources should be significant—this is a notability guideline. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia.
• Process should not get in the way of improving this guideline. If we have to reboot the discussion, then let us do so.

/ edg ☺ ☭ 23:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is essentially a collection of trivia. Significant is way too subjective of a term. Is coverage in journal articles significant or must it be books? Are chapters in books but not the whole book significant? Too much room for subjective debate in AfDs that is unnecessary for the paperless encyclopedia anybody can edit. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, because getting it done is preferable to perfecting it. There is no perfect version. There never will be. Second of all, Goodraise's version is ridiculous. I know of no other policy page at all that designates all explanation secondary and trumped by hard and fast rules. It's a complete new frontier of Wikipedia policy, and one that I think is one of the most brain-searingly bad ideas I've ever seen. My opposition is thus twofold - first of all, Goodraise's proposal is a terrible idea that panders to the worst instincts of Wikipedians. Second of all, restarting a clearly popular proposal to pursue a new approach is an absolutely awful idea. We need a decision that works at all. Waiting around for the perfect one means we never get one. I am gobsmacked and appalled that anyone would even consider pulling the proposal in favor of a new one. Complete lunacy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no WP:DEADLINE for an inclusion of a proposal that is already being seen as flawed... a rushed inclusion that would itself result in even more dissention in arguments about inherent strengths and weaknesses. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're willing to suspend deletion and creation of fiction articles indefinitely while we work on it, then you're right, there's no deadline. Otherwise, every time one or the other happens, we slipped a deadline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to suspending deletion of fiction articles indefinitely while we work on it (i.e. hoaxes being an exception of course), but no need on creation. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I like concessions! As long as it's just you making the concessions, of course. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Refusals to work together with other editors do not become you, nor do they serve this discussion. Ikip (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And that's quite enough of that, thank you everyone. Hiding T 12:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I do like the idea of having this prior to all existing text on FICT following the KISS principle, but I do recommend changes:

• The first point about secondary sources, while (based on the above section) we agree includes developer commentary, is going to be contentious. There are other editors that completely disagree that developer commentary (Gavin, I believe, would answer to this) is secondary. Now, Gavin would not necessary be one to use it to issue a huge list of edicts, but we do have to worry about other editors that will be less mindful of what "secondary" means. Also, to some, this makes this guideline possibly even more restrictive than the GNG (since we have the GNG's statement and 3 other prongs to meet). The point is correct, but presenting it as such should be removed in favor of what the fourth point (about real-world) states.
• Third point needs to be flipped around: is central to understanding the work it is part of, such as an episode or recurring character or (if its significance is verified in commentary from reliable sources) an other essential element, and... People will use the reverse wording to target non-character and non-episode articles, and that's not the intent.
• I'm not sure about "significant" but replacing it with something like "non-trivial" would also be a problem. We want something more than "Mr. Creator said that Main Character's favorite color is Blue"., but how to qualify that is difficult. We want to make sure this is different from the significance implied by the GNG, which is generally taken as two or more sources, this is just about how... usable? that information is. Maybe real-world information that is significant about the element... ?? The clarification that follows gets the intent I'm looking for correctly down.

Again, nothing against trimming to the basics, but the current trim recasts this in a very different light. It just needs a touch here and there. --MASEM 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Significant (as I see it) modifies the information, not the character. If we continue to assert that the information must be non-trivial, it is the same thing as saying "significant". Protonk (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm rereading goodraise's proposal and rereading the text of the projectspace proposal. I am beginning to think that we don't need to radically change FICT in order to satisfy the main complaints (maybe I'm misreading the complaints). The basic thrust of the test remains the same. The deference to the GNG remains the same. The sentences are just shorted. For some prongs, such as the 2nd sentence in the 2nd prong, that was a specific compromise designed to bring over some editors who felt that the guideline needed some hedge against "well I think it is significant". For other portions (such as the two paragraphs following the three prongs, the guideline spells out its own limits very clearly. I will also note that the old fict (when it was a guideline) did much the same thing as is being done in those two paragraphs. As for the "Further explanations" sections, this is where I get off the train. The "Sources and notability" section (Which has been relegated to explanatory text in the proposed userspace draft) represents a big part of the compromise. We are asserting that non-independent sources can be used to tell us information about a character that would lead to the article being included. That's a big compromise and it needs to be laid out. We took pains to be specific and it doesn't make sense to write a draft that renders that section superfluous.
• So I can understand some paring down of the guideline, but I'm beginning to feel that a significant cut (a la goodraise) would make a transformation to the guideline that we don't want to see. Protonk (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't change horses midstream. Let the watchlist notice go a few days, and then we can see how or if we should rewrite it. We don't want to say the first 10 supports supported this version, and the next ten another (same with opposes). We can probably make this more concise and clear, but now isn't the time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Goodraise's proposal. I would accept having additional explanatory text on the page, but the actual guideline itself should be short and to-the-point. cmadler (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Third prong editing question.

IT currently reads:

"Significant, real-world information must exist on the element, beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. Examples of real world content include: creative influences, design processes, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact. Sometimes this real-world perspective can be established through the use of sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work, such as developer commentary. Merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff is not sufficient. An article with a verifiable real-world perspective that establishes real-world notability will rarely be deleted."

I think it should read:

"Significant, real-world information must exist on the element, beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. Examples of real world content include: creative influences, design processes, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact. This real-world perspective can be established through the use of sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work, such as developer commentary. "

Thoughts? I don't see this as a change that would impact too much opposition/support above, except that opposition that feels we are too verbose. Protonk (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a substantial change. It's important to clarify that a list of works/release dates/authors is not really the significant real-world information we require. Randomran (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But isn't that noted in the first sentence? I realize that a list of examples isn't exclusive, but it would seem pretty descriptive. Protonk (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Authors and appearance dates aren't revealed in the work. But they're data that can be found for even the most trivial works of fiction. Randomran (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. That's my mistake. I meant the second sentence. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm worried about people substituting a list of authors for the design process, and a list of releases for commercial impact. Randomran (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We can probably laterize this specific point, but I don't think that is a big fear of mine. We certainly do have a lot of the "it happened so it needs an article" crowd, but that doesn't seem to prevail at AfD. Protonk (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should not be this overspecific at this early a date. Protonk's version is much better DGG (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(←) In cases where consensus is hard to determine, as here, it is better for a guideline to say less, at least at first. Consensus can then develop through the normal editing process. I don't have a strong view on the "Merely listing..." sentence, but the final sentence is inappropriate: guidelines should not and cannot predict what will happen as a consequence of their existence. They are meant to describe pre-existing consensus, not prescribe it, and to inform and advise editors, not tell them what they can or cannot do. Geometry guy 12:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

An observation on the RFC

There seems to be a bit of conversation in the RFC that discusses notability in general and how it should be [you pick: kept as GNG only/deleted entirely]. This really doesn't have anything to do with this specific guideline. With the amount of opposition to this guideline simply because it is a notability guideline, maybe another discussion should be started regarding notability and the deletion of content caused by it at WT:N, rather than having it here. Notability is one of Wikipedia's most controversial policies/guidelines; maybe a revaluation of the various guidelines is necessary. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I support a reevaluation of WP:N, though I suspect that those who wish it didn't exist will be surprised at the response. What I don't like is a recapitulation of that debate on every possible forum. I hope that whoever closes this RfC will take into account the strategic opposition and separate it from the opposition to the guideline itself. Protonk (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that a reevaluation would probably provoke some powerful responses from both sides, but I think that it is worth looking into. I might take a look one of these days if nobody else does. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You've seen Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, right? Although it doesn't go to the core of the question it was quite a lot of feedback. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I've looked at that, but it is really just an RFC on the interpretation of N, rather than on a redesign of N. What I'm wondering is if there is support to change the GNG or the way in which it is used, based upon the comments above. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• It's clear that notability is a guideline because, simply put, we're not going to stop excluding articles as non-notable. Notability has sufficient support that articles will be deleted as non-notable. So it's a guideline. Some people dislike this fact. Some days, I'm among them. However, I have trouble taking this opposition seriously as a grounds for opposing this guideline. To my mind, such opposition is a parallel track. Those who oppose any notability guideline whatsoever do not seem to me to meaningfully be a force against the implementation of specific notability guidelines. If they can garner consensus to whack all of them, fine. But opposition to the general case does not seem to me to be usable as opposition to specific cases. To be blunt, the first thing I'm inclined to do in gauging support for this guideline is remove from consideration all comments that are based on a fundamental opposition to the basic system of notability guidelines. Followed by comments that base their reasoning on things that the guideline doesn't say. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, every time I'm seeing someone saying that they're opposing this because they believe it will exclude articles, my reaction is *facepalm* Are these people really so blinded by their inclusion philosophy that they can't begin to fathom that without this guideline, people are merely going to delete articles with WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT? It defies explanation. Per Protonk, I hope the admin closing this takes into account all of the arguments presented and gives them appropriate weight (or lack thereof). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• It has been claimed that the draft guideline is based upon current practise. I'm not convinced of this but, if this were so, then the introduction of the guideline would not change matters much, since it represents the status quo. The threat that thousands of articles will be deleted without this guideline seems empty as attempts to delete articles en masse are not usually successful. Editors who are content with the current position are reasonably entitled to be suspicious of the guideline in that its effects may be unpredictable and so might, in fact, disturb the current balance. Those who have drafted it seem quite desperate to introduce it and this, in itself, may excite suspicion. Myself, I am quite unclear as to the likely outcome of the current draft because it has been drafted with so much subjective wording. For example, is Pokemon a work of cultural and historical significance? Would the guideline guarantee that we would have articles upon individual Pokemon characters back, as seems sensible, or would it just unleash an avalanche of wikilawyering about whether they are central to an understanding of the work or not? Gotta catch them all... Anyway, attempts to steamroller this by discounting the opinions of editors who oppose the current draft tend to destroy the building of consensus and so invalidate the RFC. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• What that indicates to me is my oppose rationale above was solid - the guideline as written is so overly complicated, the typical non-policy-wonk editor will not be able to make heads or tails of it. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Do tell, then, what is overly complicated. Everyone lining up saying this is too complicated without quantifying why exactly isn't very helpful. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Still Oppose, though respect the continued efforts. 3 prongs = more beauracracy. Prong 1 still requires notability beyond what guideline already expects or asks. Prong 3 still requires that an fictional element must have notability seperate from and then exceeding that of the fictional article in order to exist seperately. Current guideline already instructs that if a section covering an fictional element would be too large for the article, then it may have a seperate article. So I see prongs 1 and 3 acting toward the trimming and forcing of unneccessary merges to articles this guideline, if ratified, would then consider non-notable... thus affecting, hundreds, if not thousands of articles. Wiki has not run out of paper. Wiki has room for articles about elements just as guideline currently accepts and directs. There is no need to enact a surperfluous (sorry, but I feel it is) guideline that further consternates an already confusing set of guidelines. It is time for making things simpler, not more complicated. I myself hope a closing Admin recognizes that making guidelines that may be percieved to serve one factor (true or not) will cause further contention, and does not improve the project nor increase utility and accessibility to the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • While this would seem to make sense, the RFC at WP:N on non-notable spinout articles is strongly against these types of articles (non-notable fictional elements); this proposed guideline is to try to get as close as we can for allowing fiction elements to having their articles without crossing that line. I believe there's a longer route to getting a better approach to fiction coverage so that line isn't a major issue, but that's a much larger battle. --MASEM 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Will all due respect (and being mindful of the fact that communication is a two way street, it is our fault for poorly explaining the guideline in the text), I think you continue to fundamentally misread the intent and text of the guideline. I can't imagine that prong one could be clarified or explained more but you still insist that it somehow raises the standard of notability for any article under the remit of this guideline. I don't know how you have come to that conclusion. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well... here's what I read in prong 1... "The importance of the work is shown by external sourcing for the work itself beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline." If I keep reading "beyond the threshold" and see it as requiring more and not less, what do you think new editors are going to red? If it's text allows it to be misinterpreted from its intention, well... then write the intention and scrap the misleading text. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • the intent is that elements of works which are marginally notable don't get a ticket to the party. Elements of works which are well beyond marginal notability can be covered under this guideline. So Ender Wiggin from the Ender's Game series might fall into this category, but Dr. Fluke Hawkins (MDK) from MDK (video game), might not. If you would like to propose some change to prong one that makes that unambiguous, let's work it out. For completeness, "To justify articles on individual elements, the overall work of fiction must be of particular cultural or historical significance. The importance of the work is shown by external sourcing for the work itself beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline. This is not a requirement for sourcing above and beyond the norm for the subject of the article, but rather for the work that the subject is a part of." is the full text of the prong. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • It is meant to say that if the work itself isn't notable enough to get it's own article, then a related article shouldn't. If that is the only notable aspect of the work in that if you spun it out the main article would fail GNG, you would still talk about it in the context of the work itself.じんない 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A fair amount of the opposition is because notability has not for a long time been enforced on fictional subjects very rigorously. There are varying reasons why this is, and you can argue about whether it should be this way, but this is not an unreasonable or "facepalm" or whatever reason to oppose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the RfC only on the version of Fict as it was written when the RfC started or also the version(s) since the RfC started including the edits made subsequently as well as Gooraise's version? Which version do the various supports and opposes refer to? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that anyone will insist that the RfC relates to one specific revision of FICT. If we do that, we could immediately reduce it to each editor supporting the current revision at the moment they posted their support (or opposition). So long as the scope of the guideline doesn't change, I don't think there is a problem. As I said above, if this gets confirmed, we would not need an RfC to make minor changes to the guideline, so we shouldn't worry too much about it now. Also, we do have several editors acting to ensure that the guideline doesn't "walk" too far away from the intent at the moment of proposal. And...lastly...this guideline has been relatively stable over the last month (in comparison to changes across previous months). I don't think stability is a worry.
• As for the "Goodraise" version, I don't know. My assumption would be that anyone who says "support/oppose" without mentioning goodraise's draft specifically means they support/oppose the WP:FICT draft. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell

From my experience at WP:N, getting the wording right for the nutshell is difficult, because it must mean all things to all men. I propose the following to kick this process off:

Note that keeping the nutshell short is the trick - brevity is everything, although this is alway at the risk of being too vague).--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this? -- Goodraise (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Goodraise is much closer to the mark, IMO. But I'll let other people comment to see what the concerns are. Randomran (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I would say for simplicity and the most wikipedic in practice, "If a work or element of fiction has received real-world coverage in reliable sources, then it satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • That is not a summary of the proposal, far from it. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • The proposal can be rewritten accordingly, or just drop some of the "significant"s. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
          • That's not helpful. Pagrashtak 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
          • A Nobody, a nutshell is intended to summarize a page in a sentence or two. Your proposed nutshell, as Goodraise has pointed out, is not a summarization of the proposed guideline. To suggest that we harmonize the two by altering the proposed guideline instead of finding a more suitable nutshell is to undermine the hours and hours of work put in by numerous editors in the attempt to forge a compromise. As such, I see your comment as a call to start from scratch, which I do not find to be helpful. I am telling you this because I hope it will help improve the quality of this discussion. I wish I could offer a wording suggestion for your suggested nutshell, but since it does not summarize the proposal, only a complete rewrite could fix it. Pagrashtak 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, I of course agree with you that having notability guidelines are not helpful for building a paperless encyclopedia and that Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability/Essay better reflects the actual will of the community, i.e. the thousands (millions?) of article creators, writers, and readers who create, write, and come here for articles on elements of fiction but do not comment in such discussions as these; however, we are trying to come up with some kind of compromise for the time being and as such I wouldn't fault anyone in this thread for offering their ideas of wording changes. Mine is primarily that I see in the one version above the word "significant" repeated three times, which is obvious and unquestionable overkill. Cheers! --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • You know very well that isn't what I meant. Your attitude and the coy manner in which you "misinterpret" things as you just did above is what is not helpful. Pagrashtak 21:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Then make a constructive suggestive of your own, because the above does not add anything worthwhile to this discussion. I expect better from admins. If you do not have anything helpful to add of your own, then do not reply to someone else's suggestion with a terse and unhelpful response. If you do have an alternative suggestion or agree with the other proposals, then say so. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • I'll take this to your talk page, but you shouldn't expect anything special from admins because we're not special. Pagrashtak 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • I am not interested in unproductive discussions. Gavin.collins made a suggestion, Goodraise made his suggestion, I made mine. If you disagree with my wording, fine, offer an alternative, but making some kind of one liner that suggests an assumption of bad faith with my suggestion is counter productive. I hoped in my reply to you that it would steer back to the actual discussion here, i.e. the wording of the "in a nutshell section" and not a needless and unwarranted personalization of things. If you would like to cordially discuss this wording, I am happy to do so. If not, then I am not interested in having a last word or escalating things for no worthwhile reason. So, if you do have suggestions on the wording, great, if not, take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                      • Does that mean you are refusing to discuss this in the thread I started on your talk page? I apologize that my comment comes off as a one-liner. I've struck it and replaced it with a lengthier comment that better explains why I started this in the first place. If you want to delete this back-and-forth up to that and start over I won't object. I still would like to talk to you on your talk page in either case, though. Pagrashtak 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                        • Okay, thanks for clarifying. Perhaps rewriting the proposal at this stage would indeed be unconstructive, but my main suggestion is that the "in a nutshell" repeats one word "significant" too much, i.e. I think there's a less verbose way to say the same thing without seemingly like we're overdoing use of one particular word. And yes, I have replied on my talk page; however, I will be on the road for over an hour and then when I get to my destination finally have dinner. So, I will not be able to return to either thread for at least a few hours and as such lack of further replies should not be read into. So, just in case I don't log back on until Saturday, have a nice night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                          • Thanks for the reply. When you said you were "not interested in unproductive discussions" I didn't know if that was in reference to your talk page or not. Objecting to the repetition of "significant" is valid criticism if only from a readability point of view, which was partly the reason for my nutshell suggestion below. Pagrashtak 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                            • No, I meant that I did not want this exchange to devolve into you and I just criticisizing each other in either thread and am pleased that we are back on track. I will look at your suggestion below momentarily. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Goodraise's nutshell works for me. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• I like the second one. (Goodraise) ... (to be honest, I was beginning to think "Put it in a nutshell?... we couldn't put this in a barrel without a bottom"). Ched (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I was thinking No, this is me in a nutshell: "Help! I'm in a nutshell! How did I get into this bloody great big nutshell? What kind of shell has a nut like this?". :) Protonk (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't like that new proposal. It basically destroys what the intent of article itself. An element can only be notable enough to be spun out if spinning it out doesn't cause the main article to fail GNG.じんない 17:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am still concerned that the "secondary source" issue will be taken the wrong way by editors that do not believe developer comments are secondary. I'm not saying that we aren't adhering to secondary sources, because it is in this guideline, but without weighing down the nutshell about how we consider what are secondary sources, it is too tempting a target for those that have a chip on their shoulder against fiction. Mind you, that's my concern, but if others feel its fine, great, leave it there. --MASEM 17:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What about just laying it down without specifying the test itself?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You usually have a lot of good ideas for making things more concise. But with all due respect, that's a pretty lousy nutshell. You might as well say "this is the notability guideline for fiction. read the fucking guideline yourself." We should actually try to summarize the test. Randomran (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But they should read the fucking guideline :P Whatever, I'm more worried about the meat. You guys fight the nutshell battle. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

All this talk about nuts and meat make me feel it's time to step back from this thread and time to have dinner instead! Take care for now and good luck! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"this is the notability guideline for fiction. read the fucking guideline yourself" Am I wrong for desperately wanting this to be the actual nutshell? :) Protonk (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion, to have more options to throw around. I would also suggest that we consider expanding "GNG" to "general notability guideline" in the nutshell.

Pagrashtak 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, though so did goodraise's nutshell. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It still does not address my concerns. Something like:

じんない 22:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be so much better to present this proposed guideline as a clarification or expansion of the general notability guideline, rather than an exception, addition, or contradiction to it. Can anyone come up with a nutshell which does that? Geometry guy 23:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If we view the GNG as exclusive (as in, it says what can't be notable), then this is an exception. If we view the GNG as inclusive (as in, it says what can be notable), then this is an expansion. there is no wording of this nutshell that will cause both those who view it as exclusive and those who view it as inclusive to treat this as an expansion. Protonk (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• A nutty nutshell - tasty! Joking aside, please consider this: WP:FICT provides inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, so we have to mention this in the nutshell, at the very least. Also, I am not sure we have to mention WP:GNG at all, because this is dealt with in the body of the text. Here is my second attempt:

It seems to me that writing a nutshell that is going to achive consensus is going to be difficult, because the last sentence dealing with sourcing is the most contentious. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a little disheartening if we cannot even agree on a nutshell. Gavin, I think you're absolutely right that we don't need to mention the GNG. If something meets the GNG it never has to come here—but we can link to it subtly:

Pagrashtak 15:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should note, in the nutshell, that fictional elements meeting the GNG aren't excluded by the proposal. That's a big source of confusion in this guideline and I don't want the nutshell to perpetuate it. Protonk (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is better, but something about the "significant" word still seems a hang up for me, as I see some interpreting it too strictly, i.e. some can and probably will from past experience claim that "significant' means multiple books written specifically on the subject, whereas to me if even two journal articles are devoted to a topic it is significant coverage for our purposes. It should be understood that sources that only mention the character in a sentence, i.e. that verifies it only is not enough to write an article, but any reliable secondary sources, regardless of the focus of the article that we can use to actually write a paragraph on reception and a paragraph on development should count as significant as in the grand scheme of fictional characters the number who are never even referenced in reviews of the primary works let alone mentioned in a development or reception since is far greater than those that are and as such any ones for which we can make a reception and development section should be kept. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename guideline?

User:Politizer made a helpful suggestion above, and I just wanted it to get a little more attention. See here: [10].

Basically, people have had the misconception that this would affect fictional works in general, and it's led to confusion, if not opposition. We ought to rename this so it focuses on fictional elements. e.g.: Notability (fictional elements) or Notability (elements from fictional works) or Notability (plot elements) ... Randomran (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From recent edits, I can observe some conflict regarding the common understanding of what falls within the scope of this guideline - Works or Elements? I was party to a discussion some time ago regarding scope and another regarding the preamble, and my views have changed somewhat since then.
In my view, the terms "works of fiction" and "elements of fiction" are rather broad, ill-defined and so can be used inter-changeably in some instances. For example, a novel is considered to be a "work of fiction", but what if it is part of a series, such as a trilogy (e.g. The Foundation Trilogy) - is it then an "work" or is it an "element"? I think the answer is that in depends on the context in which the work or element is being addressed. Take another example: is The Monkey's Paw a work of fiction because it is a self-contained story, or is it an element because it is only one story in a anthology of short stories? My view is that the terms are interchangeable, and that we don't need to make an too much effort in this guideline distinguishing between the two. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There are also those that consider "episodes" or other individual publications of serialized works (aka manga volumes, etc.) to be the works. --MASEM 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I guess in theory anything could be an element if it's part of a greater whole. That means if it cannot be merged into anything else within reason that falls under WP:FICT, it is a work. If it can, it could be seen as an element or work. An element is clearly something that isn't published on its own though.じんない 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• An element is something which is indivisible. It may well be published on its own - the episodes of a series are published separately, for example. The components form a hierarchy which may have many levels, e.g. Seven of Nine - Scorpion part 1 - Season 3 - Voyager - Star Trek - Science Fiction. The guideline should be independent of the level of abstraction as different media and works have different structures. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Col here. I was on wikibreak when the change from "element" to "character/episode et al." happened. I would support a return to the word element, so long as we could define it clearly. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Maybe the safest way of putting it is that this discusses fictional subtopics? That is, topics that are a subset of a particular fictional work? This is just a rename, and not really a rewording of the guideline. Just that "Notability: Fiction" suggests to a lot of people that this is about the fictional works themselves. Randomran (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree with Randomran on this point. "Notability: Fiction" is a terrible name for this guideline. ANY name that clarifies that this is specifically for subtopics, elements, whatever you want to call them, would be a big improvement. cmadler (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• What about Wikipedia:Notability (fictional elements)じんない 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• LOL! Sounds too much like a guideline for Kryptonite and other Fictional elements. Notability (Elements) sounds too much like a guideline for electric kettles and toasters. Stick to the knitting in my view and keep it as Notability (fiction) on the grounds that it is a name that describes it best. Alternatively just call it Notability (knitting) if you leaning towards a random naming schema--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, some people are pretty confused about what this means for fictional works. We've even had a few people who've opposed this guideline on the basis that it affects the notability of fictional works -- which is a misunderstanding of the guideline. So the current name *doesn't* describe it best. We've been using elements throughout the guideline. So fictional elements would be an improvement. If not "fictional elements", then "fictional subtopics"? Or "plot elements"? Randomran (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Notability (fictional elements within fictional works) then?じんない 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• In answer to Randomran, I think WP:FICT can be applied to works and elements equally, but in practise it is easier to find sources whose subject matter is a film or a book because they have dual personality: they are both works of fiction and have real-world presence as well. Therefore, it is a lot easier to find sources about a book that actually exists (e.g. Lady Chatterley's Lover), whereas a work or element of fiction is purely fictional by definition, and because real-world discussions about fictional topics tend to be more abstract by nature, that makes it harder to find in reliable secondary sources for them (e.g. the character of Lady Chatterley's Lover, Oliver Mello). --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I would agree that it could be used for the main article as well, that would seriously alter the scope of this proposal and possibly invalidate any consensus reached by the RfC.じんない 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Jinnai is right. We've gone out of our way to make sure this guideline is about fictional elements. We've just done a bad job of summarizing that, and setting that tone right in the title. That's why people are confused. Randomran (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with Wikipedia:Notability (fictional elements). This is project space. It doesn't matter whether it sounds good to outside readers. We have guidelines about weasels and peacocks already. What matters is that regular Wikipedia editors understand what the guideline is about. Geometry guy 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Notability (fictional elements) seems fine. Though there probably isn't a rush on changing the name. Protonk (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please move it back, it makes no sense. These guidelines work for both works and elements of fiction, terms which are interchangeable. Please restore WP:FICT to its former location as Notability (fiction). --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Gavin. Reyk _YO! 00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted. I support the name change, but this isn't really the best time. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Seeing as people are commenting on the RFC based on confusion, I would say now is the best time. Unless someone can take a time machine back to before the RFC started. A rename helps clarify the purpose and scope of this guideline. Randomran (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Randomran. The longer we wait, the more damage we cause either by people assuming this covers main articles or people opposing it because they are confused due to the naming, fiction, and the implied directive, fictional elements within a work.じんない 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• If, at the end of this process, the closer (whoever it may be) assigns people who oppose solely on a misapprehension of the guideline as "oppose" rather than neutral, we have bigger problems. Already the proposed name has gone from (fictional elements) to (elements of fiction). I think we should move slowly, rather than quickly on this. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) What was wrong with the proposed name Wikipedia:Notability (elements of fictional works)? I liked that one, and it seemed pretty clear to me (then again, it was my idea, so of course it made sense to me). At least, I think it does a better job than the other ones of clarifying that this is not about works themselves. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That is just the point, this guideline covers works and elements of fiction, so a change is not necessary. As "works" and "elements" are terms that can be used interchangeably because they are terms are not clearly defined such we can say for sure where an element starts, a work ends, there is no point in trying to seperate them. If you read the discussions I have cited at the start of this section, you will see this issue has been discussed before, and this issue is not so clear cut. A classic example is a television episode - is it a work or an element of fiction? You can argue that individual episodes, such as a pilot episode could be classed as a standalone work of fiction. However, it is difficult to argue that subsequent episodes are standalone works, because they are both elements of a larger ficitional work whilst at the same time are part of an ongoing television production. Unless you can cite a reliable secondary source that suggests that elements of ficition are entirely seperate and are not interchangeable from works of fiction, then I propose this guideline covers both works and elements. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I did read the discussions above, and I agree with you that trying to draw a line between work and element is difficult in the case of episodes/installments of serialized works. But other than that, I think it's pretty clear-cut (with elements being part of the fictional universe, and works being part of the real world). My understanding from other comments above was that the three prongs in this proposal had to do with whether or not there should be an article about Joe Schmo character from some TV show, comic, etc....not about the works themselves. As I and many others have said above, some of the standards (specifically prong 1) are probably fine for fictional characters or other elements, but far too strict for fictional works (there are lots of notable books, movies, comics, etc., that do not have "cultural or historical significance" but have a following, have won numerous awards, have been widely reviewed, etc). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

They guideline says that this guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole. All three prongs discuss elements, and not fictional works. Most people are happy with the inclusion criteria for fictional works. The more challenging area is the elements of these fictional works, which is exactly what this guideline was designed to address. Randomran (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about intent, reach and clarity

• "The subject should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work." Central to understanding the work? What kind of criteria is that? Is Lando Calrissian central to understanding the Empire Stikes Back? Is C-3PO? Why is this criteria in the guidelines, who decides this and on what basis? Yikes. Should we only include albums that are "central to understanding" the music of a band? Hi everybody! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Right here. Though I'll note that both Lando and C3PO meet the GNG and therefore won't be impacted by this guideline. All we are doing is suggesting that if sufficient independent sourcing for an element doesn't exist, we can still have an article on that element if it meets this guideline. this is carving a small exception out from the GNG. Protonk (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This is the one area of the proposal that bothers me most—if independent sources document it, I don't see why it needs to be central to anything. The Jade Knight (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If we take video games as an example, there are independent sources that will likely list details of guns, levels, etc. which are important from the gamer's perspective but rarely central to the work (there are rare exceptions). As we are not a game guide, we don't include thus unless their notability is demonstrated more fully by the GNG. Mind you, we're talking about an article dedicated to a fictional element - topics that aren't central to a work of fiction can still be documented, but they should not likely be their own article. --MASEM 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• And actually this part is even worse :"a work of fiction must be of particular cultural or historical significance. This requires significant external sourcing for the work itself, well beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline. Those sources should present clear claims for the artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work." Sources have to say a piece character or episode has cultural importance? Seriously? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That refers to the work of fiction, not the character. so Star Wars has been covered by more than the minimum sources required for the GNG, we can apply this guideline. Joe's Barely Notable Webcomic has not--the characters in there would have to meet the GNG to have their own articles. Protonk (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lando Calrissian, as applied to the three prongs. 1) Star Wars is unambiguously of significance, pass. Lando is a recurring character who not only appears in the films, but also in many novels, including being the main character of a set of them. It's a weak pass, as it's conceivable that one might be able to discuss the films without a link to the page, but the number of appearances including as a central character suggest that it can meet this prong. Finally, there's the criteria for real-world information. The article currently fails this prong horribly, however there is good evidence that it can pass this easily. For example, in literally one search, I found information from Ebony that Billy Dee hoped that this role would be his breakout role where he could meet a mixed-race audience. Not much, but looking through other sources there's plenty of fodder to sift through. It passes. Bingo. Fears alleviated? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO Lando Calrissian seem an example of strong pass of the 2nd prong: the 3+3 movie are only a (very-very-very) little part of Star Wars narrative universe, and (as also you write) Lando is a central character of many other opera (es The Adventures of Lando Calrissian novel trilogy from Del Rey Books), and is quite obvious that the main character of a series of novels (or comics), is "central to understanding the fictional work".--Yoggysot (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Lando Calrissian, mind you, has an obvious potential to meet the third prong. It's arguably his most famous role, and whenever he cameos as himself, there's often a Star Wars reference. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks all for the replies, but I am still concerned about "central to understanding the fictional work." Lando Calrissian is not central to understanding the movies. But I think he's a character that we would want to have an article on, even if there weren't sources and these other fictional works where he's a main player. And that's only ONE of three prongs!

Secondly, the "must be of particular cultural or historical significance" is not only subjective, but good luck finding sources that actually SAY that a subject is culturally important. I've read a lot of articles and only very rarely do they assert whether a work is culturally significant, and when they do it's almost always a matter of opinion rather than objective criteria. I can't imagine applying the "cultural significance" and "central to understanding" criteria to other subjects. I think I understand what people are trying to accomplish with the criteria, but it doesn't seem to work.

And finally, and maybe this is the core of the problem, I don't see the wording of the guideline making it clear that this is an exemption and intended to allow major fiction subjects that don't meet existing guidelines to slide through. It seems very tight. If this is meant to allow major elements of notable fiction to pass maybe that should be made explicit? Fictional elements in 1984 recently passed because editors determines they are significant and from a very notable work (as I recall the sourcing was a bit thin). But how do you write that into a guideline? Does it depend on popularity? Being published or released by an established mainstream business or organization into prominent venues? What are we trying to exempt and what exactly are we trying to exclude? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect that the "of cultural signficance" part of the first prong is going the way of the dodo. My guess is that when we find a good way to say "the work must do more than meet the GNG", we will change it. As for the appearance of the guideline, it wasn't intended to be a wide door. It was intended to allow editors a better way than IAR to have articles on major elements of a work. We tried hard to ensure that the language didn't afford people the opportunity to exploit it, so we might have erred on the side of caution in the wording. where that can be cleared up, it should be. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this about fictional works that don't meet the general notability guideline? If it meets the general guideline there is no issue is there? I thought this effort is to lay out guidelines for works that have cultural significance and influence may not have secondary sources available to meet the usual standards. No? I would be interested in examples that would be affected by this guideline. It's not clear to me what exactly is being addressed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about the works themselves. The books, films, etc. are all covered at least by the GNG. And for elements within those works, you are right: if it meets the GNG this guideline doesn't matter. What we are looking for are elements of works of fiction that don't themselves meet the GNG. So (just for the sake of argument, lets assume that no third party sources existed about Lando Calrissian) we take that element (the character, lando), find that he's relatively central figure to the fictional universe (again, this is relative. He's not Luke but he's in multiple movies, at the center of a lot of exapnded universe material, etc.), that we have some non-plot info (from any of a hundred licensed books on the subject, which aren't technically independent from the content creators), and write the article. Another good example that actually meets this is Horus Heresy--a pretty central element in the Warhammer 40,000 universe, but one that has almost no discussion in independent sources. If you look at the world of fictional articles, there are hundreds of articles that we don't AfD but which violate the GNG. We are sort of ignoring the rules on those, which is fine, but means that things tend to be applied haphazardly. Sometimes the articles get kept. sometimes they get deleted. It all depends who is voting at the AfD and who closes it. We are trying to iron that out a bit. That's what we are trying to do. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(refactored) I agree with child. It's not clear to me either what exactly is being addressed.Ikip (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I refactored the title on this thread to make it less provocative. Some of my concerns about the guideline have been addressed with recent tweaks (like the cultural significance above and beyond part) and if the guideline itself is moved to an "elements of fiction" title, I think I'd be willing to see how/if it works. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes - can we have discussion on specifics

...before we go and do broad-based editing? Many of you did some edits, small at a time, but over the course of this RfC have seriously altered the original intent of this proposed guideline which while were in good faith copyediting, I believe the amount and type of editing alters the scope of the project and promotes Systemic bias for certain types of fiction above others. This is a comparison to the changes made. My major points of contention are:

• Specifically the nutshell does not make it clear that works that fail the GNG cannot have elements that would pass this guideline as this has been a founding priciple of the guideline and should be made abundantly clear to anyone reading it
• The text itself also lends to that misinterpritation with pargraphs which can be construed to mean that the work itself need not be notable, just an element.

n all cases, if a subject 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 a stand-alone article. Elements of a notable work of fiction are presumed to be notable if they meet a three-pronged test: the work should be significant, the fictional element itself should be important to an encyclopedic understanding of the work, and verifiable information must exist about the subject apart from a plot summary.

• That is specifically spells out a few types of notability guidelines (FE: books), but not others, that deal with fiction which is a directly conflicts with Wikipedia's goal of countering systemic bias

じんない 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• • That's Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, a wikiproject that has particular rules about what constitutes "bias", what effect it should or shouldn't have on editing, and what we should do about it. I am not a member of that wikiproject, nor are many editors here. their suggestions and opinions don't constitute some widespread consensus about how we present subjects or write guidelines. We've had this discussion before, and I will continue to come down on the side arguing that the guideline isn't here to sell the idea of systemic bias. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if we don't the article clearly favors that some notability guidelines for fiction by presenting them in the article's main text over others. Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral and that applies to guidelines as well as articles.じんない 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objections. Can you explain exactly what you think was changed by the copyediting? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My first one is that it isn't made clear now, by the changes, that an element within a work is not deserving of an article if it's parent work is not. For example, for there to be an article on the primary protagonist, the main work must first pass the GNG. Even if the character could pass the GNG himself, for example all of the reviews and commentary talk about the character and refer to the work only as an incidental aside which is usually not enough to be considered a reliable source for the work then, he should be merged with the article.

My second point is that by linking to specific fictional guidelines in the body of the text we are biasing the slant of those guidelines as being more authoritative than other notability guidelines for fiction.じんない 20:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What fictional guidelines are we biased to by linking? There aren't any others, that's why we're here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEB also covers content for fictional content based solely on the web.じんない 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that a situation exists in practice or even really in theory where a character of a work that does not pass the GNG passes the GNG - but in this case, we ought not override the GNG. Notable is notable. We'll lose support if we try to override the GNG. The first prong was never meant to apply even to articles that pass the GNG, so this is not a change. What else do you think has changed? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My other point was just on directing to guidelines other than the GNG without pointing to at least WP:WEB for stuff like webcomics to use. Fictional story ballads and the like could fall under WP:MUSIC as well.じんない 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Go ahead and add other guidelines you think appropriate. If the list gets overlong, we can recast as needed. I forgot about WEB covering webcomics, and didn't think about MUSIC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed MUSIC. I left WEB. If you want to re-add music, please make sure that the format of the list remains the same: music should just be "music" not "music for ballads" if the rest of the list is a single word per element. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good article status

Notability guidelines concern whether an article should be included in the encyclopedia or not. They have no business articulating what has to be done in order to raise the article to good article status. An article is listed as a good article if, in the reviewer's opinion, it meets the good article criteria. Period. I have attempted to remove the digression from the proposal, but have been reverted. Please fix this. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what is broken. there is a discussion of this exact point above, which was ongoing when the RfC started. A number of editors are trying to come to some agreement over how to best articulate the point that this guideline dictates a minimum threshold. Running roughshod over them isn't fixing it. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with GeoGuy's changes, as while for me concerns about GA or FA are important (quality over quantity), FICT is to say what can be an article, not what should. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• The guideline is not attempting to dictate any part of the GA or FA process, but instead point to the fact that the ultimate goal is to have every article at a quality defined by the GA and FA process; articles that have no chance of doing this on their own should be merged to larger topics that will likely have a better chance of reaching that. --MASEM 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Should, but it's no guarantee that they will: see my attempted merge of Myst Online: Uru Live to Uru: Ages Beyond Myst, for example. It's best left to editor discretion, and that's what the guideline should say. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  I appreciate that this was included in good faith to encourage article improvement, but it was an unnecessary digression and contained the implicit assertion that some articles on fictional elements may not be eligible for good article status even though they are entitled to exist. Note that my edit was a minimal attempt to remove reference to GA while retaining other aspects of the paragraph. It does not mean I think the paragraph is optimal, or even agree with it. Indeed I prefer Goodraise's version of the proposed guideline anyway (again with the reference to content review cut). Geometry guy 20:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree, the process of getting an article to Good Article status is altogether a seperate process, and is only remotely connect with article inclusion criteria. I think what is being articulated in a roundabout fashion is that there is a heirarchy of sources, at the top of which sit reliable secondary sources . What this guideline is trying to say (but does not), is, in the event of their being a dispute about the inclusion of a particular topic (such as a dispute about a which of two articles might be a content fork, for instance), then the topic with independent sourcing is likely to treated as being superior to the one that is not (all other things being equal). --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Though it should be noted, there is a non-trivial strand of thinking on inclusion issues that "if it can be made into a good article, it should be included." So to say that GA issues are irrelevant to inclusion is, to my mind, wrong. Potential is a huge part of inclusion issues, and an article without any potential is a hard sell for inclusion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well GA status itself changes as well. GA status now is not the same as it was 3 years ago and probably won't be the same 3 years from now.じんない 23:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If independent sourcing ever stops being needed for GA status, I'll remove the mention to it in between bits of hat. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Potential" is an issue to be sorted out within the notability guidelines. GA is a content review process. It is not about endorsing what should or should not be in the encyclopedia. If you feel this "nontrivial strand" is exerting a contrary influence, please provide diffs and I will comment there (aka whip ass :) accordingly. Geometry guy 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

GA marks that an article is, well, good. If an article cannot possibly be good, we oughtn't have it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. I can see the point. We (Gavin, Phil, Random, David, myself, and others) have spend a considerable time around this guideline. We have grown accustomed to its quirks and understand where sections stand in for principles. As such, it is very hard for us to see that the wording could be confusing or unclear for readers who haven't been working at this feverishly for months. I support the change to remove the GA bit...mildly. the point being that we don't want a situation where topics are split and split again just so that some subject can have an independent article--the language about the GA was meant to speak to that. I am willing to support small changes to the guideline to straighten out possible kinks and prevent opposes based on "it is too complicated". As such, I can support this change. Protonk (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that there is no reason to mention GA/FA quality in this guideline. The purpose of WP:FICT is to help us decide what is and isn't a suitable topic for this encyclopedia, and I don't think saying "If the article can't be done well some time in the future, consider not doing it at all" is in any way a helpful thing to say. Reyk _YO! 01:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• I continue to prefer to leave it in, especially since it was a change that brought several people on board, and the objections seem to me somewhat spurious - I'm deeply unsympathetic to people who think this guideline is too complicated. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck? All that work to get a compromise, and the closest anyone gets to it is immediately dismantled? Fine. Then if the GA/FA clause is out, I insist that Independent Reliable Sources be readded immediately. Otherwise all we've got is 'anything goes and anything stays'. Gutting that means there's never a barometer to measure against, no standards of any sort even presupposed, and we have an essay that completely fellates the inclusionist mindset of everything's notable. STRONGEST POSSIBLE OBJECTION'. ThuranX (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is still the requirement of works published for development information. Not every single item is going to have that. Also their is still the test of importance and if you think a 1 episode character from a 200+ episode show could pass as "central to the plot" you misunderstand the entire definition of importance.じんない 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He does have a fair point, underneath the rather startling incivility. The GA issue was a needed concession to a significant viewpoint. I don't really see a persuasive argument for its removal - yes, GA is a separate process from notability. But an article that cannot be improved to GA status is likely to be deleted, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's the "good article" mention that bothers people, I would be happy enough to try a phrasing that avoids it: something like

• While this guideline documents a presumption of notability, eventually, that presumption must be satisfied. Our guidelines on sourcing and our policy of verifiability all demand some level of third-party sourcing. Should it prove impossible to locate such sources after a good faith effort to provide them, the article will be subject to merging or deletion.

That's the version that avoids mention of "good article status", and I think people can see why the "good article" version was chosen as a compromise... it reads much more softly.—Kww(talk) 03:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not just sourcing...I may have to go pull up an FA discussion on notability in regards to a certain hurrican article that was really short, but I think a key factor that came out of that was also "comprehensiveness". Basically, we have no specific policy or guideline on quality; the closest is WP:IMPERFECT, though the FA/GA process represent elements of that. We need to say something along those lines. --MASEM 03:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that sourcing isn't the only issue ... that's why I didn't complain about using it as the justification even though all I had been pushing for was sourcing. That's a twin-edged sword, though. While it brings in a lot of other issues, those other issues seem to be an obstacle to acceptance. My personal judgement is that it was a sound compromise, though.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thuran...you don't really have a lot of capital to demand compromises. And also, I'd think strongly about claiming this is some sort of inclusionist blow job, as colorful a metaphor as that is. From the distribution of support vs. wikistance, we seem to get a lot more "ZOMG, no" opposes from inclusionist than deletionists. I'm as perturbed as anyone about some of the demands made midstream here, but we've got to step back and say that we don't own this and that concessions made between parties then don't necessarily bind our hands now. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• (Kww)I think that's much better since a lot of articles will never make it to GA status since they may never be nominated by a signifigant contributor to go through the arduous process. I do have to take note however with 1 part, "the article will be subject to merging or deletion." This makes it sound like it will inevitably happen, which is twisting the truth since a lot of articles that reach B-class are not merged or deleted.じんない 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, to be fair, "ignored and nobody tried to improve it for ages" clearly does not qualify as an effort to improve it to GA status. The issue is that someone tried and the topic just wouldn't support that kind of expansion and improvement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, i'm talking about someone who didn't want to go through the long (and it can be very long for some articles) process of GA status. B-class assessments and peer reviews are much quicker and a person may consider that good enough if it meets this guideline. Per WP:GAN you really aren't suppose to do "drive by nominations" either so if another editor came along and couldn't get a hold of the primary contributor, then the article may never get to GA status, even if it has potential.
• Furthermore, once an article reaches B-class through legitimate review (ie not a primary contributor) it becomes a lot harder to delete or merge it.じんない 03:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Capital to demand compromises"? I've got as much capital as you do... Unless you're pulling rank to get your way? Is that it? a subtle 'i've got a badge nudge? ah. well, if that's what this has come to, I can only continue to oppose it bluntly, in all forms short of a requirement fro independent reliable sourcing to establish notability, as I've always done. ThuranX (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I just haven't spend my time here shitting on people trying to come to a compromise. It has nothing to do with the tools. "Capital" refers to Political capital. If you are going to storm in here and say that this is some sloppy bj for inclusionists you don't get to demand content changes. People are going to ignore you. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I pressed for this clause namely just to encapsulate this: "if you improve the article and the independent coverage is so limited that you can't make it into a quality article (whether GA/FA/whatever), then the material is better merged." However you care to phrase that will float my boat. In the end, the entire point of keeping articles with FICT whose real world context is solely developer commentary is to allow for articles that can feasibly be improved to some higher level of quality to be kept. If you hit a wall and there's literally nothing more you can write about a subject to bring it to XYZ quality status, then it should be merged. I fully understand that editors with decent enough research and writing skills to bring articles to GA/FA don't grow on trees, and that articles are going to sit for a while with those couple sentences of developer commentary, but if someone can look at that article and say, "we really can't improve it past this because the coverage is so limited," then it should be merged. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not a genius. But I can't help but feel there's another way to say the exact same thing without referring to good or featured article status. Randomran (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Something like "Articles who have not shown consistent improvements and do not already have significant independent sourcing may be merged if it is felt to help both the quality of both."じんない 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly I did not make myself clear enough. The two sentences "Although an article with no independent sources may meet the minimum threshold to avoid deletion, independent sourcing is necessary to reach good article status. Articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them to good article status, including the search for independent sources, are often merged into other articles." are illogical and irrelevant nonsense. The first sentence comes pretty close to defining a new class of articles which can exist (i.e., not be deleted) but are not eligible for good article status. That's unacceptable. The second sentence makes no sense. How does an article resist good faith edits? By crashing the servers every time someone clicks the edit tabs? How it prevents editors from searching for independent sources is even more mysterious. Even other editors can't do that. Finally the sentence informs us that such misbehaving articles "are often merged". According to whom??

The logic that content review processes have anything to do with whether an article should exist or not is staggeringly weak. However, when I read through a guideline with prose so bad that if it were an article at GAN, reviewers would fail it immediately, perhaps I should not be surprised that the logic employed is just as weak as the writing.

Reading this thread, I see that the real reason that nonsense like this has been inserted is to bring on board some with an entrenched deletionist position, when an actually relevant statement might be offensive those with an entrenched inclusionist position. Sorry, if this is the best you can do, then you're forever going to be stuck with WP:GNG and AfD consensus (case law). There's simply no point in having a guideline that is malformed by infighting rather than an attempt to reflect a coherent consensus position. Geometry guy 19:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You were clearer before. Now you're just being silly. This proposal does not establish a class of articles that can neither be deleted nor attain good article status - the existence of articles that survive AfD but are not good articles does that. And your confusion over the idea of an article resisting efforts to improve it is puzzling to me. Is the trope of personification new to you? "resists efforts to improve it" is a shorter way of saying "that is still poor quality after efforts to improve it to a high quality article, and where the lack of improvement comes not because of the poor quality of the efforts but rather because the article simply cannot be improved significantly, and particularly when those efforts involve searching for independent sources." We could unpack all of that, but honestly, "resists efforts to improve it," through the mild use of figurative language, seems to me to accomplish all of that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But you can not afford to be in any way ambiguous with the wording or meaning of this proposal if it has hopes of being understood and used properly. Hooper (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's really ambiguous, though - what other meaning do you see "articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them" as possibly having? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles that survive AfD are still eligible to become GAs if (at some point in the future) they meet the criteria. If articles without independent sources are entitled to exist, they are eligible for GA status if and when they meet the criteria. The words "third party" and "independent" do not appear in the criteria.

And yes, the sentences are ambiguous. My charitable interpretation of the confusing prose before your comment was: articles which are not improved towards good article status by editors adding independent sources are likely to be merged. I imagine this is what entrenched deletionists want from this. What they want to hear is that articles without independent sources are temporary, and will eventually be merged unless such sources are found. If that is what you mean, say it. If it isn't what you mean, make that clear. If you want to fudge the issue, say nothing, and leave it to case law at AfD.

You haven't responded to my comments about the underlying reasons for this fudge. I only ask that you do not use GA as a proxy for it. Geometry guy 20:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Although you are right that "independent" does not appear in the GA criteria, it seems to me to appear indirectly - the standards for any fictional subject would include a reception section as part of comprehensive coverage. Reception sections require independent sources. So the statement remains true. And indeed, after significant searching, I could not find a single GA that did not have independent sources. And your charitable interpretation is far from what was meant. What is meant is that an article that can't be better sourced than the minimum and can't improve to GA status (as a rough pick of something that is not that hard to achieve, and also is an external judgment, which is helpful) is likely to be merged, but that on the other hand saying "Not enough sources, merge" is not sufficient - one has to actually do the work to try to find them. If you can think of a more efficient way to get this across, I'm open to suggestions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Protecting this guideline for the next couple weeks?

Given the fact there's a lot of chefs trying to play with this guideline and making it difficult to keep track of the version we're trying to get consensus on, would anyone be drastically opposed to full protection of the guideline page for at least a week, maybe two, with changes being suggested above added only after confirmation is stated? I know there's admins involved and they would technically be able to edit still, but I think too much editing right now is muddying the waters to determine if this has consensus or not. --MASEM 01:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm opposed. Seems that regular editing and discussion can tamp this down. I don't want to give people the impression there is an edit war going on and I don't want to make changing the guideline impossible. Protonk (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also opposed. When RFCs prompt changes, that's a feature of the RFC process, and not an inconvenience. We have to roll on and adapt. Randomran (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support it seems that my Request for stability is falling on deaf ears. I agree with Masem "too much editing right now is muddying the waters". It is difficult enough for participants in the RFC to read and understand WP:FICT on the first pass, let alone keep up with the amendments, and I feel that frequent changes is making it necessary to invest a lot of time to follow what is going on, and ultimately will end an edit war and accusations that WP:FICT is not stable. I would prefer to go back to the version at the start of the RFC for reasons I have stated above lest we invalidate all the earlier RFC comments, but I would support a freeze as an alternative. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as well. Part of the point of this RfC is receiving feedback from people who have not seen the guideline, and making changes accordingly. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• I also don't want to lock this. If this is a big concern, use an oldid for discussion. Pagrashtak 15:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark as WikiProject essay and withdraw proposal to become a guideline

Essays that attempt to become instant guidelines through straw polls rather than widespread usage and acceptance tend to fail and end up marked with a failed tag ({{failed}}) and are cast aside in this bin (Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals) where they lose credibility. Better to tag it for what it is - {{essay-project-note}} a WikiProject essay on notability. Then if over time it gains widespread consensus it will be accepted as an official guideline. SilkTork *^YES! 01:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark it as a failed blow job for Inclusionists. Phil Sandifer and his inclusionist army kept out any reliable sourcing, and now even the standard that articles are expected to improve, or they can be deleted is lost to his backup battalion of Inclusionist stormtroopers. ThuranX (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are the personal attacks really necessary? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lawl. Yeah. Phil marhsalled all of those inclusionists who supported the article in droves... Come on now. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the guideline is arguably in use. The goal was to write something that reflects what happens at AFD. Randomran (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It does show widespread use per AfD and compromise from the most extreme parts on both sides.じんない 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

An RFC to determine if there is consensus to promote this is very different from a straw poll. We could count votes, but instead we're using the provided feedback to try to address all major issues. --MASEM 02:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. If your deep read of WP:FICT is that it was an essay that attempted to become a guideline through an instant straw poll, you need to pay an awful lot more attention. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• User:SilkTork makes an excellent procedural point. Compare, for example, WP:ATA, which is commonly referred to at AFD but which is still an essay. Attempting to promote WP:FICT by means of a poll rather than by gradual usage and acceptance is explicitly contrary to our policies WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTLAW. The current draft should therefore be left to mature. We may then observe whether it has achieved consensus as a guideline by observing what happens in practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This proposed guideline was built by watching and evaluating what does happen in practice, namely how AFDs of fiction element articles are closed. Mind you, no prongs were mentioned but instead it was trying to qualify why, in some cases, fiction element articles that clearly failed the GNG were kept. From that, the three prongs were constructed (four initially, but one was dropped.) The rest was mainly the addition of cavaets to align the rationales with other policy and guideline to make sure that all sides of the editors heavily involved were (as best we could) satisfied with it. If this was a fresh guideline that was to introduce drastic change in WP practices, I agree with leaving it proposed, namedropping it, and seeing about adoption, but this guideline truly did follow the mantra of "consensus drives policy" and thus we are only trying to make sure the codification of that is acceptable. --MASEM 11:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I do not agree that this guideline was constructed from existing practise. My impression is that more important inputs were the personal views of the small number of editors who drafted it and top-down, prescriptive reasoning from other articles such as WP:WAF and WP:PLOT. I saw insufficient use of examples and statistics to support the view that it is based upon existing practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Phil can probably go into more detail but his initial draft with initial edits was based on his observations on AFD. Most of the core group that have edited this agree; once that was set, rewriting and addressing points from the higher policies was then made to keep it consistent with the rest of WP. No, we didn't do any actual stats collection or the like, but numerous AFD closures were tossed out as "how does this fit" or the like, and we worked those in. --MASEM 14:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• It's also not as if someone just magicked this up in their userpsace last month. Elements of this have already been various policy, guidelines and criteria. We aren't so much foisting something new on wikipedia as bringing something back. Furthermore, in the intervening months where FICT has not been a guideline, we have had a surfeit of discussion. There are dozens of full length discussions on the archived pages, many relating to the version of the guideline which is current. We aren't substituting polling for discussion (and the 'poll' above seems to have generated some helpful feedback, as well). We aren't bringing some 'new' essay into the WP world (hell, we've been having to tell people that FICT is an essay in AfDs for most of 2008, because they keep citing it). As such I'm not inclined to agree that Silk's analysis is "excellent". Protonk (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to Notability (elements of fiction)?

• Strong support Present title indicates the guideline is for fiction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Really, it should be Wikipedia:Notability (elements of fiction), lest someone think it applies only to entries at List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. --EEMIV (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Revised per your reccomendation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - no need. Reyk _YO! 02:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• I tend to think "fiction" is a fine name, so long as the text clarifies what it does and does not cover. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You and I and those who worked on it may understand that, but those passing by won't. It will be misinterpreted by the average user, especially newer Wikipedians, who don't bother to carefully read things and cause more problems. A move would cause fewer problems and without harming the scope or impact of the article.じんない 03:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think fiction is fine, but I'm not wedded to it. We seem to have hit on a raft of people who insist that the guideline is confusing. My bet is that a lot of them are just reading the "opposes" a few lines up and saying, "yeah! Me too! This is confusing as hell". But it is just as reasonable to assume that people genuinely are confused. If the name is a dealbreaker for people...my first suggestion is that they settle back and really think about it. But if we need to change the name, we can do it. However, I don't want to change the name in the middle of all of this. There are dozens of subpages to move, redirects to fix, templates to adjust and people to talk to. That doesn't need to happen in the middle of an RFC. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but it should be an accurate title. The present one seems to imply that this guideline covers works of fiction instead of parts or elements of it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'm weakly supportive of moving it toward that title (Even though I reverted the original bold move). I just don't want to do that now. I do want to note that WP:FICT has been that since it first was a policy, and it has always dealt with elements of fiction rather than works of fiction. Protonk (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but consensus changes and it appears that the winds may be blowing in the direction of a rename.じんない 04:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If that happens, fine. but it is early. As I said above, I disagree w/ random that there is some element of speed needed here. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as WP:FICT covers both works and elements of fiction - see the discussion at WT:FICT#Works & Elements above. The problem with this proposal to seperate works from elements is absurd is that you can't, you have to consider Fiction as the sum of the two. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Um. From the lead:
    • "Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is a proposed guideline that defines the inclusion criteria for elements of fiction. It covers individual components of serialized work, (such as television episodes or comic book series) and elements from within the fictionalized world (such as characters or settings). This guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole"
  • We're in really rough shape when someone this involved with the proposal doesn't know what it says. I think a lot of the "oppose: what the hell does this even mean?" comments are turning out to have a very good point. Randomran (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: People are genuinely confused about the scope of this guideline. We need some kind of rename, because the title does not summarize the text. It would be like having an article on lasagna that only talks about sauce. Randomran (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's clearer the way it is - but then again, I'm not gonna get my panties in a bunch either way. — Ched (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Halftime score

I just spent some time sorting and crunching comments, and figured I'd give a rough snapshot of where we stand.

• In raw numbers, we are running slightly but significantly more in support than opposition.
• The opposition sorts neatly into several categories:
  • Too strict/too lenient: These categories are to be expected. At the moment, they are roughly even, with "too lenient" slightly ahead, but also including some votes that are clearly opposed to notability in general.
  • Too confusing: This is a significant bloc - equal, about, to either side of the strict/lenient divide.
  • Just wrong: There are also a decent number of votes that oppose the guideline for things it simply doesn't say - people who are reading the first prong as going beyond WP:N, people who say the guideline requires no secondary sources, etc. A related category is people who simply don't want a fiction notability guideline, and don't think its necessary - which seems to me problematic given that the arbcom has all but begged.
  • Other. There are a few comments I just couldn't quite classify. Some are sane. Others aren't.

To my mind, the people who oppose the guideline for things it doesn't say are a wash - they at best are evidence that there may be a complexity problem with the guideline. Similarly, as long as the lenient/strict numbers are in rough parity and the proposal enjoys broad support, I am inclined to treat that as an expected group on each side of the debate that will never be satisfied. This is a controversial issue, and any belief that we will please everyone is mistaken.

That leads me to believe that the biggest issue is complexity. There are some who want to strip the guideline down to just bright line rules. This seems to me an unsupportable overreach - no other guideline makes a move like that, and I'm hesitant to establish that (frankly controversial) precedent on an already controversial subject. But on the other hand, cleaning up and clarifying things probably is helpful.

At the moment, if the RfC were to end right now, I would say that we have a few days work of clarifying and cleaning up the language to do, but that there is sufficient support to promote it after some effort is made to address those concerns. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And the halftime show...

I was was reading over the RfC and I got pretty much that impression as well. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please could I ask you how long I have to reply here if you're looking at ending this RfC please? I wanted to comment. :( Whitehorse1 03:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Take your time, this will last at least a few more days. Protonk (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Still mulling over the things proposed, so wanted to make sure of turning up to share any thoughts before it being too far along to contribute. :) Whitehorse1 03:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Plenty of time - I don't think we're shutting this down any time soon. I just figured that going through and tallying up where we were so far would be useful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why this section is called "Halftime score".じんない 03:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as it is half-time, don't we need a little of the boss? Protonk (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What we need is a liberal serving of popcorn. --Izno (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Halftime? ... I was kind of hoping for the 2-minute warning ;) But seriously, what does happen once the RfC closes? Providing consensus is to move forward, what is the next step? — Ched (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Naw. We let things simmer down a bit. We try and work through the feedback from the RfC, make some compromises, and see if we can satisfy enough people. At some point we can ask a neutral party to determine if we can mark this as a guideline. Don't want to pull a Jimbo just yet. :) Protonk (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator 54% support, 38% oppose. Don't measure the drapes just yet. didn't Jimbo approve flagged revisions with a 60% support to 40% oppose? "Erik Möller, the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, previously stated that "a very large majority, at least two thirds, is generally necessary" Ikip (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy, the number of votes don't matter, only the strength of the arguments. --MASEM 10:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is WP:Democracy aimed at myself, or the editors above, or both? :) Ikip (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If this were a vote, we'd have set it up to use support and oppose sections and numbered comments. But even if it were a vote, I'd have a hard time counting opposition based on things the proposal clearly doesn't say. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth setting up a list on a subpage, with a list of diff's pointing at the votes we think are based on lack of comprehension? It might help us crystallize our thoughts about what points are frequently misunderstood, as well as providing us with a list of people to contact after we've made text adjustments to try to accommodate the problem. I agree that monkey wrench votes need to eventually be discarded, but I'd rather try to get a meaningful oppose/support out of these people after their confusion has been cleared.—Kww(talk) 15:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think Phil's reading of the RFC is bang on. I'd conclude that we'd lose more support than we'd gain by loosening *or* tightening our standards. But I think we can gain a lot of support by making it more concise. Not just for those who like concision, but for those who misread and misinterpreted what we've put together. If there's anything I've learned writing documentation, it's that a longer explanation is often worse. People don't like reading "how-to"s. They want to get on with it and apply it. Randomran (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The trick, though, is that this isn't just documentation. It's a compromise forged among multiple diverse viewpoints. It is easy to come in afterwards and miss that, but it is the case, and I think it's substantive. I don't think the proposal would have met with the support it has if it didn't explain itself. The three-prong test by itself wasn't going to be a workable compromise. If the explanation is contradictory, or if it contains a vague hedge that we knew what meant, but didn't explain, that needs to be cleared up. I remain ambivalent on whether that will increase or decrease its size - but since, as inclusion guidelines go, it's a bit, though not hugely on the short side, I can see it going either way without problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd also note, at present, on strict vote counting between support and oppose due to complexity, the numbers are running at almost 7:1. Which is to say, although a significant number of people have concerns about the complexity of the guideline, we should remember that they are a substantial minority compared to those who support it as is. In rushing to please those who are unsatisfied, we should keep in mind the large number who like the current version. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: #Tally of recurring comments (currently incomplete) and comments directly above. WP:RFC "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." Ikip (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please try to not be difficult for the sake of being difficult. I'm not sure where Phil is getting the 7:1 number, but WP:CON would suggest that at the 7:1 ratio we really can take a rough consensus from numbers. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's just support vs. opposition due to complexity - support vs. oppose in general is considerably closer. My feeling is that the "too complex" and "unclear" view is one that needs to be taken seriously and looked at, but that on the other hand we should remember it is still a minority view, and that there is a difference between addressing it and rewriting the guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I appreciate your comments, but I respectfully disagree. I did not originally bring up flagged revisions as a bad example of accepting a guideline when there is no consensus. this proposal currently has even less support than flagged revisions. Ikip (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my comments related to your response to phil directly above. We are basically close (in numbers) to the flagged revisions debate. As I've noted, it would be inappropriate for someone (especially someone who favors FICT) to announce that it has consensus. But what Phil is saying is the opposite of that. He's saying that we can make changes to the guideline based on the feedback from the RfC to satisfy a number of the concerns. More importantly, he's saying that once those concerns are satisfied (That is, the people who are willing to compromise are onboard), we can move ahead because the number of people who support, are neutral or would support if the guideline were clarified far outweigh the number of people who oppose (Even if we include the people who oppose because of an apparent misunderstanding of the guideline). At that juncture we can talk about strength of arguements and moving forward to some agreement. Protonk (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The RFC reveals concerns, some which we can address, some which we can't. The substance of inclusionism/deletionism is something we can't address without destroying the balance. But I have reason to believe that we'll gain support by making this guideline shorter and less complicated, and lose very little support if we do it properly. Most folks are skimming as is. Randomran (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that needs to be noted is that there has been canvassing against this proposal, with at least one editor targeting article talk pages in a way that clearly violates WP:CANVAS. Little that can be done to close the barn door, but it should be kept in mind in reading the results. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who has been canvassing / votestacking? They need a stern warning, or worse. Randomran (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Proof and pudding

Would a straight read of this guideline, as proposed, support the deletion of List of characters from The Sopranos (or any/all of its subpages)?

How about List of Who's the Boss episodes? (I note that for the two sources given at the bottom of that article, one is a self-described "fan page" and the other is a wiki.)

If you feel this guideline would make a clear case for either the deletion or retention of the two above examples, please explain why: what language in the guideline (or prominent absence of language) would suggest one course of action or the other?--Father Goose (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

See:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• If people are satisfied with the status quo without [WP:FICT, then that's their choice. IN the meantime, they can think about how WP:N and WP:NOT have been applied, in the absence of any subject specific guideline for fiction. I'm sure they'll be happy with this list. Randomran (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First prong tinker

I just noticed that Wikipedia:Notability (books) sets itself up as a modification of WP:N, not as an alternative. Although WP:N is encapsulated in its methods of passing, this set up what was, for me, a slight problem with the first prong - it was demanding that a work significantly exceed a guideline that does not necessarily apply to it. I tinkered to have the wording reflect significant exceeding of the relevant guideline to deal with this, as well as reinserting the use of "popularity" that seemed to assuage some fears about this prong. I tried to do this while still stressing the importance of sources, but if anyone wants to clean it up further, go ahead. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the change is helpful. The other major change needed, in my opinion, is the move/ retitle so its clear this policy addresses elements in fiction and not the works themselves. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you drop by the "poll" here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Move_to_Notability_.28elements_of_fiction.29.3F and let us know what you think the title should be. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)