Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/proposed-4-20-09

This page used to link to Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). You may be looking for that instead.

this proposal desperately needs a nutshell

The truth is it's a pretty long read as is. Making something concise is hard work. ("I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.") For this proposal to gain any traction it's going to have to do three things:

1. Be shorter overall
2. Clearly demarcate between the rule, and the rationale behind the rule, so people who really just want the rule can see it quickly.
3. Have a nutshell.

I figure the last one is the most important and relatively easy to do, so someone may as well write one up. Randomran (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Go write a nutshell then. And then I'll go for a concise intro. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Took a stab at a nutshell. It's excessively laconic, but I think it's better that way. Nifboy (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I altered it. I felt that one didn't adequately explain that plot info was necessary for a total understanding, nor did it also explain that the amount needed varies. It wasn't a complete nutshell.じんない 02:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Condensed it; three sentences is at least one-and-a-half too many for a nutshell. Nifboy (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Condensed further. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And now I'm sort of debating going back to my first attempt: "Emphasize the real over the unreal". From there the natural progression would then be simply "Real > Unreal." Nifboy (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that statement is misleading. If its a work of historical fiction than some of the elements in the story will be real. Also emphasize (as well as the current phrasing) do not properly give the context that summaries of the plot are fine in an article about a fictional work or element. Also the statements defy the basis of list articles which generally have far more plot, but still must have detailed real-world information. Just that the nature of them generally weighs them more to being plot heavy because while an individual addition might not have much plot info in it, the totality of it does.じんない 18:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) To me, the nutshell is a statement of principle. And the principle at work here is simply that real-world info is more important, full stop. Everything that follows is a matter of degree and clarification, which doesn't quite fit into a nutshell. And as Phil noted, not having plot isn't a problem in 99.99% of articles. Nifboy (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for working on this part, guys. The proposal has improved substantially because of it, IMO. Hopefully there are other ways to improve the clarity of this proposal, by making it both more concise and more organized. Randomran (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Articles may include plot summaries only inasmuch as they are necessary to understand the context of the work of fiction."

I see no reason for this; it restricts encyclopedic information, so I strongly oppose its inclusion. We may want to give advice about plot summaries, but there is no way in hell we should give this advice. Indeed, most of this proposal seems awful, I'm sorry. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it seem to you to conflict with WAF or other existing policies? It seems to me largely a restatement, though I will grant that perhaps the plot summaries bullet point is harsher than the proposal as it stands supports. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I've changed that bullet point to emphasize the point differently. Any other specific objections? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes? For instance, this one says:

• "Since we are primarily interested in fiction as a cultural artifact, the plot of the work of fiction is not our primary concern."

Whereas WP:WAF says:

• Whenever the original fiction itself is the subject of the article, all out-of-universe information needs to be set in the context of that original fiction (e.g., by including a plot summary)."

Not to mention that WP:WAF is a guideline meant to cover well-developed articles, whereas this is meant to cover all articles. Frankly, this seems to be written by someone who has no experience with writing articles on fictional works. It's all WE HATE PLOT SUMMARIES writ large, complete with deletionist screeds. Has anyone involved with writing this ever worked on fiction-related articles? (and before you ask: Creatures of Impulse - new article to FA in under a month. Trial by Jury, Agrippina (opera), both FAs. H.M.S. Pinafore, GA. Had several more on my old account. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the plot of the work of fiction isn't our primary concern - WP:NOT#PLOT gives us that, and even though this is intended in part to resolve the debate over the future home of NOT#PLOT, it is predicated on the assumption that NOT#PLOT is accurate - that plot-only articles are unacceptable. Now if you think there is language here that is excessively anti-plot, by all means, I want to fix it - I've long argued that NOT#PLOT is often excessively misread, given that part of NOT#PLOT is the clear declaration that plot summary should be a part of fiction articles. And my intention is that this proposal maintain that view - that plot summary is an essential part of fiction articles, but is not the main point of them.

As for my involvement (this is mostly a solo effort at present) in fiction articles, yes, I have worked on them frequently, thank you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles on fiction should contain discussion of external aspects for the purpose of complementing the discussion of the plot, which is the principal aspect

Fiction is notable as fiction, which is why people read it & write about it and come to encyclopedias to look for information about it. What about fiction are people primarily interested in? For what reason do they read it? In the classic statement by EM Forster in Aspects of the Novel , "We shall all agree that the fundamental aspect of the novel is its story-telling aspect" (heading, chapter 2). There are other aspects.As a librarian & bibliographer, I'm concerned about the physical aspects, such as the publication history. As a fan, I might be interested in the authorship. As a critic, in the reception. All these are important, and secondary to what really matters. The plot is an intellectual construct in the real world, expressed in physical symbols, about imaginary people. It exists in the world in the same way as any other idea does. We include these in our view of reality. The encyclopedia deals with the real world, not just the physical world. It deals with those fictions that exist. It emphasizes their most important aspects. The basis for an article about a fiction is an appropriate summary of the plot. The rest is also important, and our encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction is not complete without the treatment of the external aspects also. Also. DGG (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We can also quote the famous line from Gayatri Spivak - novels are not gossip about imaginary people. Forster's approach to the novel is based most fundamentally on describing its artistic effects on readers. An interesting topic, to be sure - but clearly not Wikipedia's - we are not in the business of recreating the experiences of novels for readers. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Novels are not gossip about imaginary people. Okay. And? Novels are not a lot of things. It's impossible to recreate the experience of reading a novel with a Wikipedia article anyway. Just like it's impossible to give a reader the taste of an orange from the Orange (fruit) article. The map is not the territory. Wikipedia is in the "business" of providing descriptions of a wide array of subjects; it's in the business of teaching, education, answering questions. Who is Gayatri Spivak? What is a novel? What is this story? What is that story? "One describes a tale best by telling the tale. You see? The way one describes a story, to oneself or the world, is by telling the story."

Is Wikipedia in the business of getting a critic's name out there, promoting their name, furthering their career? (and I ask that as an editor who has written the bulk of several "reception" sections[1][2][3]). Neutrality when it comes to reception, analysis, "real-world perspectives", is a myth. You cannot include "real-world perspectives" in an article without introducing bias. You cannot describe it neutrally, it is only possible to show a sampling of perspectives. There is nothing ever "fair" or "neutral" about it. While a recounting of a critic's perspective is required to understand their perspective, their perspective is not required to understand a fictional work. The meaning of a fictional work comes from the person reading/watching/experiencing the work. But what happens in a fictional work is often useful to understanding a critic's perspective. --Pixelface (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You claim: "The basis for an article about a fiction is an appropriate summary of the plot." No, no it's not. The basis is who wrote it and when, who published it and when, what real world impact it had, an so forth and so on. The actual fictional details are mere trivia unless there are reliable academic sources with essays on why it's important. Shakespeare is not Snakes on a Plane or Yogi Bear. If you want plot summaries, by all means avail yourself of the multitudes of wikis, blogs and other resources on the web where such things are more appropriate. DreamGuy (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

However, where disagreement lies, policy should only cover the common ground, or maybe a little bit towards one side. Presenting, as a compromise no less, an extreme form of one view is not going to move things forwards, or ever get accepted as policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The common ground has long been that plot-only articles are unacceptable. And there is a long-standing policy tradition supporting it. The problem is that we have been lax in enforcing that policy. But the suggestion that plot-only articles are acceptable, or that a work of fiction need not be covered primarily from a real-world perspective has a lengthy tradition of policy against it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Um.. see poll? I think there's consensus that a reasonably-developed article should include other things than plot summaries. I don't see "introduction plus plot summary = delete" - a step further than WP:NOT#PLOT - and the other parts of this screed against plot summaries ever flying. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The poll showed consensus support for NOT#PLOT as a matter of principle, and no consensus for putting it in WP:NOT. And this is far from an anti-plot summary screed. Give me a break - you're trying to pin me as a deletionist, which is an absurd charge. You cannot possibly successfully defend the maintenance of plot-only articles with no real-world content, since such articles will, without fail, violate WP:N and WP:WAF, on top of the still-policy NOT#PLOT, which there is not consensus to remove outright. That's a losing horse. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay, it may be fixable, but every single paragraph seems to have an anti-plot summary phrase or sentence in it. It's way too much, and it seriously needs dialed back a lot before I could consider this as a good statement of best practice. We can agree that we usually want plot summaries to be included, I presume. This policy says things that may be accurate, but it beats the reader so hard over the head that it has the effect of giving a strong impression that plot summaries should be deleted, as they're more trouble than they're worth. Furthermore, an introductory sentence can establish notability, thus putting articles with a plot summary and introduction well into a perfectly acceptable category. Wouldn't it be better to just say something like "All articles must establish their notability - articles that do not claim notability may be deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion. As a work of fiction cannot establish its own notability this requires at least some discussion of the work's real-life impact." - I doubt even the staunchest inclusionist would disagree if that was what we said. However, what if the article began, say "Hamlet is one of the most famous plays[cite] by William Shakespeare, considered one of the greatest writers in the English language.[cite]" or "Film is a 1957 work by Cecil de Mille, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture,[cite] and won its star, [Star], an academy award for Best Actress.[cite]" in both cases followed by a plot summary. Clearly, in both cases, notability is established in the introductory sentence, and, while by no means a good article, they should not be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The poll did not show "consensus support for NOT#PLOT as a matter of principle." And regarding your claim "You cannot possibly successfully defend the maintenance of plot-only articles with no real-world content...", it's clearly false.[4] Take Fictional history of Spider-Man, which survived two AFDs[5] [6]. Take Storylines of EastEnders (2000s), which also survived two AFDs[7] [8]. Take Ego the Living Planet, which was SNOW kept. You don't seem to understand WP:N either. An article that does not cite coverage is not necessarily about a non-notable topic. And if Wikipedia already has WP:WAF (which I question), isn't this proposal redundant to that? And WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy, not when it was proposed[9] and not now[10]. Wikipedia has over 1,000,000 articles under Category:Fiction. If you're not describing common practice, this proposal will fail, just like your previous bold move of a userspace essay to mainspace. --Pixelface (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. You're telling readers what the fictional work is about. The date of publication is, the publisher, even the author's name if you accept The Death of the Author — that is the "mere trivia." The play Hamlet is not Snakes on a Plane, and the character Hamlet is not Yogi Bear, but they are all fictional. If someone asks what is any of those, you must give a summary of a story at some point. How many featured articles related to fiction have you edited? How many have you seen? Ever see a plot summary in any of them? Plot summaries are in all of them. If you think encyclopedias don't contain plot summaries, I suggest you read one for once in your life. Your militant ignorance is not admirable. --Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore:

• "Elements of a work of fiction that lack substantial real-world perspectives but are important to understanding the work can be merged into list articles." - nonsensical; would seperate off key information for understanding a topic into another article.
• "All aspects of an article on fiction must work to establish real-world importance, or to provide appropriate context for understanding real-world importance. Those that do not should be removed." is contrary to most guidelines. For instance, musical theatre articles generally contain a list of musical numbers. Under this incredibly misguided policy, these and other types of useful information would be deleted.
• "Since we are primarily interested in fiction as a cultural artifact, the plot of the work of fiction is not our primary concern." - WP:WAF says that we should cover both aspects.
• "This summary should be as brief as possible while still providing the necessary context to understand the cultural impact of the work." - Nonsense. No featured article was ever written with a plot summary that didn't attempt to accurately describe the plot, not just those elements important to real world impact.
• "Indeed, within literary studies, it is a mainstream view that the author's intent does not matter at all." - Cherry picking: It's a view, but I believe a minority one.
• "Remarks on things such as allusions to other texts, clear commentaries on real-world situations... can be based on the primary source..." - even given the half-arsed qualification, an allusion, by definition, is an indirect reference. This is an encouragement to original research.

On the whole, this barely reaches the level of an appallingly bad essay, to suggest that people who actually know what they're doing should be bound by this as policy boggles the mind. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that list articles of minor characters and the like are not an appropriate solution?

If that's wha's intended, thatr's fine. But it says things unrelated to real-world impact. A list of musical numbers, and many other such things which are basic information, are arguably such. At the very least, it's incredibly unclear. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am open to proposed wording that would loosen this to deal with this sort of standard material.

• Since this is a proposed policy, Id suggest that the parts with more exceptions be placed into a guideline instead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not married to policy over guideline. I think one page is more important than whether it is policy or guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• We should cover plot, but it is not our primary concern.

• This policy gives a strong impression it's anti-plot. Does it really need to talk about real-world focus and plot syummaries being bad every single paragraph? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Are there paragraphs that it is not a relevant point to? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Based on the vast majority of fiction articles I've read, sadly, yes, it does. Keep in mind that this policy is not really designed for the use of FA-writing fiction editors - it should not get in their way, and if you see anything that would get in your way, by all means, flag it. But the policy is more a cudgel for writers of articles like Byron (Babylon 5) - a lengthy plot summary article written despite the fact that *tons* of out of universe information exists for almost every aspect of Babylon 5. And in the face of so many articles of that quality, yes - I think that reminder is, in fact, necessary. Though if there are paragraphs where it seems redundant, by all means, point them out. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• This can be rephrased.
• You are wrong. At the very least, the view is clearly mainstream - and the fully opposing view - that the author's intent is in some way sancrosanct - is at this point fairly fringe. In practice most critics will split the difference, acknowledging authorial intent as important, but not as sacrosanct. This is the view that this proposal also advocates.

• The full opposing view is fringe, but that doesn't mean that discussions of the author's intent aren't present. Like many things, actual practice is somewhere in the middle, which would also fit in better with NPOV: We could say that we should include the author's stated intent, but also discuss notable criticism, even where it conflicts. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• The current language explicitly says "In the larger cultural context, the author's viewpoint is clearly a major view, but it is not the only one nor the authoritative one." I can add another sentence stressing that the author's view must be included if you think it needed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Indirect does not necessarily mean exceedingly subtle. If you sincerely believe that a secondary source is necessary, for instance, to catch the fact that Khan alludes several times to Moby Dick in The Wrath of Khan, you are just being pedantic. If everybody familiar with X and Y looks at X and agrees "Indeed, X is an allusion to Y," we do not need a secondary source to point it out, as it falls cleanly under the heading of "descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person."

• But that doesn't mean that we should put it in policy. That sort of thing is better left unstatte, to avoid encouraging excesses. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the problem is that there are people who want to forbid even the reasonable, despite the fact that policy clearly allows it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Beyond all of this, you are being ridiculously hostile and assuming of bad faith in a way that is frankly embarrassing. In what way does, to pick one of your featured articles, Trial by Jury violate this proposal? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I've re-phrased the plot section to clarify that the summary is still expected to be complete. My assumption is that your objection to the list section was that it appeared to encourage not covering these subjects in the main article at all? I've added that they should only be spun off if there is a reason not have them in the main article. I've also taken a stab at rephrasing your second issue. In all cases, you're picking on infelicities of wording and coming to the conclusion that I am a blithering idiot or an anti-fiction psychopath based on them, instead of simply assuming that I am in fact a reasonable human being who, in trying to craft a policy that covers over a million articles, did not always hone every phrase perfectly. With all due respect, chill the fuck out and assume some good faith. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was a bit hostile - it's just that it has so many problems, and harps on the plot summary thing so much that it rather seemed like, in order to deal with WP:NOT#PLOT being criticised, the solution was to make much stronger phrasings, to the point of putting any person working on fiction in shackles. I'd find it very hard to work under this as currently written, it may be that we can fix this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to my mind these are not so much stronger phrasings as more complete phrasings. But if you think a hedge in the opposite direction is needed, I am amenable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think a lot of this is really a disagreement in principle, because in substance everyone (DGG, Phil, Shoemaker) are much closer. The current proposal says that fiction must be written about in a real-world way, and that's the main concern. The other side disagrees: the part of fiction that people are concerned with is mainly the plot the element's important within the work. This argument obscures an area where everyone more-or-less agrees: writing about fiction in a real-world way is an important and necessary part of the article, whether this is the main goal or only one of many goals.
• Perhaps if people can't agree that "the main goal is real-world coverage" and "plot summaries aren't the main goal", then people might be able to compromise that "real-world coverage is a necessary goal" and "plot summaries cannot be the only goal". Randomran (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly accept that; they complement each other, and the exact proportions will depend on the particular subject at hand. I can think of a great number of works where more than a very brief sketch of the plot would be worthless (or, in some cases, such as early TV that has not survived, even impossible). I can think of others which would merit extensive treatment with extensive available secondary sourcing. What I cannot think of is many here that do not need considerable improvement. I share the view also that Phil and I would not actually be that far apart on practical cases. DGG (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise, I just think we need to be careful, because it's perfectly reasonable, early in an article's development from start to FA, for the article to pass through a phase where a plot summary gets added to a stub, say. If we say this is an undesirable state for it to remain in, that's perfectly fine. If we say that such articles should be deleted on sight, or have the plot summary removed or shortened, then we may well be removing good work that will have to be recreated when the article gets more real-world coverage. Certainly, we should set some hard-and-fast rules about excessive plot summaries, but if the plot summary develops a little faster than other aspects of the article, I don't see that, in itself, as a problem. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday. (Surprisingly?) The principle for deleting or merging a plot element back into an article shouldn't be the article's current state, but its overall potential. We shouldn't do a merge or delete until someone has actually done the legwork and concluded that no significant real-world information is available. Let's not make this an excuse to stamp out every stub. Randomran (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems a good-faith proposal by Phil

re this version

I've given this a first read and have made a few minor tweaks. While I have a few concerns, I do feel that this is something I can largely support. Of course, if it gets hauled-off in some other direction, I'm outta here. I will give it another read and see where this all goes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As expected, this puppy was just butchered. Jack Merridew 15:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll see - I want to be cautious about those changes, and make sure nothing major gets taken out. I hope you'll stay involved in the discussion - if you, me, and Shoemaker can all agree on wording, we're probably on very solid ground. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to review the diff I cited above that you've reverted (and ya, I was tempted). I characterized it as I did because I saw it as rather more than bold given the dialogue above this section. I had not seen the section below; I opened this section for editing directly with the popup gadget. Please remember, I'm 12 hours ahead of you; I then went to bed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

While I have no doubt about the good faith here, the entire idea that somehow fiction, as fiction, is unencyclopedic and not worthy of coverage is not reasonable or acceptable. Any article on a topic which basically says "don't cover the topic any more than needed to touch on the things surrounding it" is bogus. And yes, fiction, at its core, consists of characters interacting with others and their environment. If we can meet WP:N with our coverage of plot (that is, others have covered it) we should be free to write articles on it. To set a higher bar is foolish at best. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that notable fiction is not worthy of coverage; who's saying that? It's that coverage should be out-of-universe; a bit of plot summary to give context to the unfamiliar reader is appropriate, prattling-on in an in-universe manner is not. The core problem here is that too many editors of articles concerning fictional subjects have poor notions of how they should be covered. That's the bar that's being raised. Jack Merridew 06:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Prattling-on" in an in-universe manner is exactly what fiction is. By definition pretty much. To say that we shouldn't cover that as the topic of prime importance is like saying we should cover science by talking about how it impacts our day-to-day lives rather than by what it is. "Literary type using invented or imaginative writing, instead of real facts, usually written as prose." "The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline." Hobit (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've done some rewrites: a little bit was removed, but most of it was just focus issues. I think all the basic stuff is still there, though I de-emphasised list articles, discussing them in the context of types of information they're especially suitable to, since it's very hard to talk about them in a really general way without implying that things that should be in articles shouldn't be.

Feel free to point out or challenge any of my changes, and I'll try and explain my reasoning, and we'll see if we can compromise.

One thing we should probably consider before putting this to a vote is whether any of this should be in WP:WAF instead of a new policy: Policy is meant to be those things where exceptions are very rare, a few of these might be better handled at the guideline instead. Basically, discussion of best practice should go in a guideline, policy should handle the minimum we expect of our editors, which needs to encompass both a newbie making a new article and the Babylon 5 problem.

What do you think of this?

"Spin-off articles specifically dealing with the plot of a work may be occasionally useful as a subsidiary article to the main coverage of the work. Such articles should begin with a brief discussion of the work as a whole, and should generally include some (reliably sourced) discussion of the plot, covering any notable criticism or analysis, or discussing source material or inspirations."

I added that to WP:WAF a while ago, but it was reverted by someone who didn't want any changes while the NOT debate was ongoing. Expand that a little, and I think it'd be good policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to look carefully through your changes, but as Jack immediately objected, I'd like to take it slow on them if that's all right. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so long as they all do get discussed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the whole of the rewrite but the very first changed line, "Articles should include reasonably brief plot summaries to provide context, but notability must be established", causes me concern because there's a fair number of people who start frothing at the mouth at mention of notability, and undermines the principle we're trying to achieve, which is an emphasis on real-world information. Nifboy (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that if we can do this without mentioning the word "notability", then we're better off. Talk about independent sources, or talk about verifying the topic's importance from a neutral source. But don't talk about notability. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, just so long as it doesn't say that an article with an introduction that clearly shows it is notable. (e.g. [Film] is an 1947 film by [Director] that won the Academy Award for Best Picture.) should be immediately deleted. That's just bad. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK - I think I see one of the big things that needs fixing. Would you be satisfied if the "kill with a stick" aspects of the "no pure plot summary" bits of the proposal were expressly limited to elements of a larger fictional work as opposed to works of fiction themselves? Jack - does that suit you? Are you OK with overall works of fiction that establish notability being kept even if they're plot-only? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the wording, but probably could live with this. Basically, I don't think I, or anyone else, thinks that plot-summary-only and brief introduction makes for a good article, but it is one that many articles may reasonably pass through during their development, since it's very hard to make all the real-world discussion we want our articles to have make sense without a clear description of what's being discussed. Indeed, I'd say that an article that consisted solely of reviews and discussion of the impact without explaining what the work was about would be *worse* than the plot-summary-and-brief-introduction option: Real world impact is important to understanding the work, but only if what the work is is already known. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

An inarguably notable topic of the the (film), (director), (award) form; i.e. that's the lede followed by a few pages of plot summary and nothing more should not be deleted. Appropriate actions there would be tag the page for issues, stub the plot summary to a paragraph, and appropriate expansion as a proper article. If somehow sources are lacking, a merge/redirect could be appropriate until such time as the source emerge. As said above, the core issue is the tone of coverage; i.e. from a real-world perspective, not an in-universe one. For those who want the latter, there's Wikia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - so I'll clarify that distinction - that works of fiction that establish notability should not be deleted for just being plot, but that subtopics of a work of fiction that are just plot should be deleted or merged. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

how I feel this should proceed

No radical shifts, ok? Let Phil take the lead in actually updating the page. On many of these sort of pages, the damn target moves radically everyday; there's no keeping track of what one is commenting on and prior comments make no sense since someone has edited aggressively in the meantime. This was what I referred to as 'butchering'. And Phil, nothing too abrupt from you either, please?

I'm seeing this as a possible target of the WP:NOT#PLOT debate; there's no consensus to not have that as policy, just a possibility of moving it. Thus this should become policy before it is moved from NOT; booting it from there and then having a hoard gang-bang this into a llama is not going to fly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to WP:OWN the page, but yes - I'd certainly prefer to move incrementally through the issues.

Yeah, another vote for incrementalism. Regardless of how I feel about this proposal, it will be hard to build a consensus if we're making lots of bold changes. Let's pin down an issue at a time, and deal with it. Randomran (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

An example

I think this might be useful - I've chosen a couple things I've worked on, and adapted it into a short mini-article.

Creatures of Impulse (abridged form)

Creatures of Impulse is a stage play by English dramatist W. S. Gilbert, with music by composer-conductor Alberto Randegger, which Gilbert adapted from his own short story. Reviews for the play were generally favourable, but it was criticised for its loose structure and lack of a substantial plot. Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle opined: "Amusing, simple, and ingenious, 'Creatures of Impulse' is another, though a slight, addition to the successes of its author". The London Echo compared the piece to a "burletta of the stamp that was in vogue a hundred years ago, resembling Midas, perhaps, more nearly than that of any modern burlesque", and wrote that it "contains pretty music, and smart if not witty dialogue, a semi-moral and a semi-plot". The Graphic concluded that "Although it occupies only an hour in performance, the story is well told and the piece is exceedingly amusing" and praised the acting. Righton received special praise for his portrayal of Boomblehardt: "No character on stage perhaps ever made audiences laugh more in so short a time". In an 1882 assessment of the piece for amateur theatre societies, M. E. James noted that "The singing is a great addition. It is altogether an amusing bit of nonsense, and very original".

The Times review was less positive than most, saying that although the play was good, more was expected of Gilbert: {{bquote|As noblesse oblige, so does great success become liable to a certain penalty. Had the little piece we have just described been the work of some unknown hand we might have accepted it as an agreeable trifle, displaying more than common ingenuity in its invention, and, with the aid of picturesque costumes, lively setting, and a pretty decoration, gracefully concluding the evening's entertainment, although overweighted with a quantity of extremely undramatic music. But with the remembrance of The Palace of Truth fresh in our minds, we cannot help a feeling of disappointment when we find the author of that really poetical work coming forward as the writer of another "fairy tale," so immeasurably inferior."

That no one marries at the end of the play was a daring innovation for Victorian theatre, and the reviewer from Era mentioned his surprise at this.

Discussion

I think we can agree that, while this is an excellent, if somewhat quote-laden, description of the real-world impact,the lack of details about the work mean that it's hard to relate to the reviews, and, on the whole, it's eminently forgettable. We can glean some useful information from this - partially because I haven't removed all traces of plot from the reviews, but, that said, I think if this sort of article was common, we'd probably be discussing "Wikipedia is not a collection of reviews" right now, and emphasising the importance of describing the fictional work.

And that's what I think we ought to do: Strike a balance. Let's make it clear that, in general, an article should contain both information about the work, and information about its real-world reception (with, perhaps a few obvious exceptions where one is more important than the other) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a strawman to me. How's that work for something like Duke Nukem Forever, where you can't talk about the content of the work because it doesn't exist? Nifboy (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See "obvious exceptions". In any case, I hardly think it a straw man to use an actual article section from an FA to make a point. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we disagree as to the relative importance of plot and not-plot. To me, the plot is there as a foundation to make the not-plot make sense, and your example shows that rather spectacularly. I still don't think they're of equal importance, though. Nifboy (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to better stress that plot is an essential part of fiction articles. But on the other hand - and perhaps this should go in, in as many words - it is a far bigger problem to have no real-world information than it is to have no plot. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, certainly, no real world information wouldn't establish notability; but as we discussed above, I think that that's all we should say as a hard standard.

How about a compromise: Noone disagrees that an article, to be considered a decent article, needs to discuss real-world context in some depth. But not being a decent article, and being an article that should not be on wikipedia aren't the same thing: There's a grey area where the article may be a stub, may not be very good yet, but it still shouldn't be deleted.

A good solution would be to first talk about what an article absolutely must have, in order to remain an independent article. We can then have a section discussing what Wikipedia wants articles to have. This provides guidance and direction, but allows articles a little leeway in early sections of development.

All of us are broadly in agreement about best practice. I wouldn't consider an FA-push without discussing criticism, history, notable milestones in the author's development marked by this work, background, influences, reception, etc, in addition to the basic facts about the work. The only point upon which we differ is that I think we need to be a bit more careful, lest we kill off articles in an early stage of development. By setting reasonable minimum standards, followed by best practice, we deal with my objection, without compromising on quality in the slightly longer run. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually we have had for a while cases of the type of articles mentioned, Shoemaker's Holiday has described in WP:ANIME brought up before, ie where someone would create articles based on manga volume's verifiable info on title and chapters titles and 1-2 reliable sourced reviews and/or scores for notability without even mentioning the plot at all. Sometimes someone would later come and fill that part out, but not always unless it was pointed out. I'm not saying that starting an article like that isn't fine, but it certainly isn't what we want for a quality article. Therefore stressing that no plot is just as bad as no real-world information is the best way to do this. It should probably be added to the nutshell as well.じんない 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But no plot isn't just as bad. One is deletable, and the other isn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's move away from the unrealistic "No real-world information" - I've never seen an article that didn't have at least a couple sentences before the plot summary, so that's what we should consider. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's go with "no information discussing real-world impact." Which is far more common. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have, and sadly...i couldn't edit them because I didn't know what it was about.じんない 22:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy serialized works

The section on Lengthy serialized works says:

For example, a season of an American television show will run for almost 16.5 hours. Even considering the differences between media, this often involves a plot more complex than most novels.

and I don't see this as being the case. Maybe I just don't read enough novels with simplistic plots. Just last night I finished Divisadero (novel) — a novel with an extremely complex plot and whose article here does not do it the slightest justice. Even well written television shows have nowhere near the complexity of many written works simply because they have fewer words, even considering a show's entire season. There is simply more content in a printed work (which is likely why television is so popular;). So, it seems to me that the above excerpt from this page could be seen as setting the stage for an invalid argument that television warrants more coverage due to an assumption that there is more complexity inherent in a show's season when, in fact, that is not the case. And, of course, the same would apply to popular printed works with simplistic plots. To twist an old chestnut, popularity is not equal to complexity; simplicity being a route to popularity would be closer to the mark. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to agree with the straight aesthetic judgment there, but it's beside the point. Complex may be the wrong word - I will agree. Certainly TV rarely elevates itself to the level of some of the great novelists in terms of literary merit. But on the other hand, at least in an Aristotelean sense of a plot as a series of events, I am hard pressed to think of many books I have read that have more happen in them than happens in a season of Babylon 5. And I am equally hard pressed to think of many TV series that even come close to having the rich inner lives and characterizations of a great novel. So it becomes a trade-off.

But I think the statement retains some accuracy. The issue, to my mind, is perhaps less one of complexity and more simply the fact that more happens in a huge serialized work - with no judgment made on the artistic significance of those happenings one way or the other. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Summary of changes 5/10/09

Because there are multiple threads, and I want to make sure people do not miss changes made to the proposal, when I go and make major alterations to parts, I figure I'll post quick summary sections for people. So here's what I did today.

• Changed the lengthy serialized works section to avoid language that suggested an aesthetic comparison between literary and televisual plots in favor of the flatter observation that more stuff happens in a television series.
• Changed the plot section to distinguish between articles on works of fiction with nothing but plot, and articles on sub-topics of works with nothing but plot.
• Changed the plot section to better stress that plot sections are important.
• Explicitly noted that an article with no plot summary has less of a problem than one with no real-world information.

I think all of these changes enjoyed agreement on the talk page, but if any are problematic, by all means, say so and we can discuss further. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I think the last point is one of those obvious things that sounds harsh when you say it out loud. I think it would probably enrage a lot of fiction enthusiasts who say "what? how could you say that no plot is less of an issue? that's the most important part for me!" If you look above at DGG's latest comment, it would be easier to get people to buy into the idea that plot and real-world context are both necessary, without saying which one is a bigger problem. The absence of a plot summary is a problem, but it's almost always easy to fix. An article that only covers the reception of a character would be easily fixable by summarizing a few parts of the primary souce, so this would virtually never be a reason to get rid of the article. (I say that while channeling my inner inclusionst.) Randomran (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• • "Explicitly noted that an article with no plot summary has less of a problem than one with no real-world information." I don't think we should say this explicitly. Certainly, it's true with the hard "no"s, but if it becomes "An article with a plot summary and very little real world information, I'd say that's usually better, at least for the readers, than an article with no plot summary, since the work itself fails to be described in the latter case. (with obvious exceptions: The Happy Land, for instance, has so many interesting real world aspects that it could easily work without a plot summary. Les Miserables, where most of the criticial discussion is on the plot and the philosophical issues it raises and discusses, would suffer much more. (and, indeed, that article is a good example of a plot-dominant article. It certainly needs more discussion, but most of the discussion is likely to be based on sourced literary analysis.)) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough to both of you - I'll go remove it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Main principles

Fiction must be written about as a cultural artifact in the real world, not in terms of the fictional world.

Fairly standard. Only thing that might cause problems is if someone might mistake this as saying the fictional world should not be described. Could be improved with a minor clarification, pointing out that analysis of the work counts as real world perspective. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles should include brief plot summaries to provide context, but these should not be the main point of the article.

I think that, in some cases, the plot is the most important element. Les Miserables, when it's more developed, will surely spend a lot of time with sourced literary analysis of the themes of the work.

Likewise, "brief" is a little bit of a questionable word here: 99% of plot summaries of opera I've had to work with were too short to give the appropriate context, not too long (this may vary in other fields)

How about "Articles should include plot summaries to provide context. Articles should also provide analysis, whether from reliably sourced literary criticism of the plot, influences, or important aspects of its real-world impact."

I think emphasizing that plot summaries should be as short as possible while still getting the job done. What about "succinct," the wording used at NOT#PLOT if I recall? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would help to clarify what we mean by brief, even if we end up with a gray area. Just say "people generally agree that concise means something less than ... but still more than ..." Randomran (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It really can vary a lot by the work, though. For some, a couple sentences might be ample, while others can require a page, whether through complexity or simply because the analysis in the other sections is sufficiently in-depth to require a lot of details to be put into the plot's context. "Succinct" might work, though I tend to prefer something like "not excessively long or detailed", that puts emphasis on avoiding unnecessary length, not on trying to make it as short as possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

An example may help. This was a long-standing plot sumamry in Stiffelio.

“ Stiffelio, a protestant minister, is the head of a sect and renowned for his goodness, faith and religious speaking. He is married to Lina, daughter of Count Stankar. During a long absence, Rafaello di Leuthold cynically pays court to her and there is an adulterous union. Stankar, hearing of the circumstances, tries to hide the fact from Stiffelio. He also sets out to avenge the dishonour to his family by forcing a violent confrontation with the adulterer. Lina, with all her weakness, loves her husband still, but he, a man of blameless life, is intensely jealous and cannot forgive her. A sense of guilt and terror is developed in the graveyard scene and in the third act. There is a bloody duel, and in the final church scene Stiffelio forgives his repentant wife in front of the assembled congregation. ”

This has now, thankfully, been expanded into a reasonably detailed, one-page summary, which is a standard length for the major operas: As they're usually performed in a foreign language, plot summaries are considered very important information, and something which most readers of said articles are looking for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable saying "a concise plot summary should be more than a TV Guide teaser and an explanation of the ending." But I'd be just as concerned about plot summaries getting too crufty. Let me offer a counter-example from an old version of this merged article:

“ Big was sleeping in his hut one night, when he woke up and saw that his friend, Froggy, had swallowed his lucky charm; the yellow Chaos Emerald. As soon as he noticed that Froggy had grown a tail, Froggy ran off, causing Big to chase after him. After trying to catch him in Twinkle Park, and then in Ice Cap, Big was able to catch Froggy on Emerald Coast, but Dr. Eggman's robot, E-102 Gamma caught him and ran away. Seeing that, Big tried to convince the robot to give him Froggy back, but without any positive results. Big chased Gamma to Eggman's Final Egg base, where he boarded the Egg Carrier. After finding Froggy on the flying fortress, he fished him in one of the many water tanks on the Hot Shelter. He was then teleported by Tikal into the past for a while, so she could pass him a message, just like she did to the other characters, about Chaos 4. When he got back to the present, he tried to get out of the Egg Carrier, but was caught by Dr. Eggman and Chaos 4, which then evolved to Chaos 6 when he absorbed Froggy (whose tail and Chaos Emerald had disappeared). Just then, Sonic appeared to the rescue. After defeating the God of Destruction, Big found the Tornado 2 biplane and decided to fly home with it, crash landing the plane right next to his house. Later, when Perfect Chaos destroyed the city of Station Square Big gave one of the seven Chaos Emeralds to Sonic in order to let him transform into Super Sonic. ”

We're talking about a simple video game, with a detailed scene-by-scene description of a cartoon character's fetch quest. I'm not saying that as someone who hates cartoons, quite the contrary. Just that their plots are generally quite simple, and this is needlessly detailed for a summary. And at the risk of sounding elitist, I'm actually a little irked that an entire Verdi opera had a shorter plot summary than one appearance by a video game cartoon. Again, that's not because I think one has more merit, but because I think one just requires more detail to cover it properly. I think it might be helpful to focus on the kinds of details that are (in)appropriate, rather than trying to give an absolute number of sentences. The video game example I gave obviously goes into too much detail, while the example you gave is much too cautious with the detail it avoids. Randomran (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not "Plot summaries should not be a blow-by-blow account, but should inform the reader of all major and necessary elements fundamental to the work. This should be made as succinct as possible, but not to the point that it leaves important information out."じんない 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems excellent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel pretty good about that too. My favorite part is when we rule out blow-by-blow accounts, which I think would deal with the bad article I pointed out above. But to deal with Shoemaker's Holiday's example, it might help to specifically rule out what he pointed to. I'm just not sure how to phrase that. "Not merely a two sentence teaser, with a spoiler for the ending?" Randomran (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel obliged to point out WP:PLOTSUM, which I got to guideline status a while ago, and which contains the explicated version of all of this. Touting it would probably be good. I'll go work out some language on the proposal though. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh you did did you? It appears that you marked it a guideline immediately after "rolling it out", that was opposed, then you tagged it again. You certainly got away with something, but I would not say you got it to guideline status. With people marking their own proposals as "guidelines" and with over 250 guidelines on Wikipedia, the term is beginning to lose all meaning. --Pixelface (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles on sub-topics of a larger work of fiction that do not present a substantial real-world perspective on their topic should be merged or deleted.

I'd suggest that this is problematic: The intent is to say that if an article exists that cannot be discussed using sources outside the work itself, then the article should be merged or deleted.

What it actually does is forbid such things as, say, an article on literary criticism of the work, since the analysis is on fictional-world aspects. I'd suggest "Articles on sub-topics of a larger work of fiction that lack sufficient independent sources to give any in-depth discussion should be merged or deleted." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That is, I think, a poor move, because it turns this into a fiction notability guideline, and imports all of the difficulties therein. I said that one point of this was to replace NOT#PLOT. Another point is to try to find an alternate way of cleaning up bad fiction articles beyond the never-ending notability wars. I don't think the current wording precludes literary criticism as a basis for a spin-off article, because the "types of real-world impact" section is there to carefully spell out that artistic impact is a real-world impact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Phil that there are merits to dodging the whole notability issue and just focusing on the kind of coverage. IMO, some amount of literary criticism and analysis would be a form of real-world impact. If someone were to talk about Spock and Kirk's relationship as some sort of symbol of creativity versus logic, I think that would make stand-alone articles on their characters appropriate, even in the absence of praise. Randomran (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point: Maybe we just need to clarify "real-world perspective" would replacing it with something like ...that do not include analysis, discussion, criticism, history, or other such discussion of the impact of the work..." be acceptable? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how analysis is not real-world perspective, although the wording is a bit misleading. It should be more that articles that have no commentary from or importance to the real-world. Commentary would be analysis and reviews. Importance would be impact on society, use in other media through cameos, homages, parodies, etc. Probably a lot more i'm missing. But possibly defining perspective might be another route.じんない 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say "wait until it's abused" here. Nobody, I don't think, has seriously suggested that analysis and criticism is not a real-world perspective, and the proposal, taken as a whole, clearly indicates that it is a real-world perspective at other points. I think clarifying it here bogs down the flow. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you know I love flow, and conciseness. But if it comes at the expense of clarity -- especially the kind of clarity that would ease people's worries about an inclusionist or deletionist conspiracy -- then it's bad. There's gotta be a short way to put it that will ease Shoemaker's concerns. How about:

• "An article on a sub-topic within a work of fiction should contain a substantial explanation or analysis of its real-world value, or else it should be merged or deleted."

I'm not sure if that really improves anything though. Randomran (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the concern correctly, it's that literary analysis and critique is not clearly real-world perspective - so your phrasing probably worsens it. The issue is that the nature of "real world perspective" requires an entire section to explicate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. Analysis of the work is, in a sense, still an explanation of the value of the work to the real world. But it's one of those things that's hard to explain. I'm out of ideas on this one, except what you've already done: explain that in the main text. Randomran (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Elements of a work of fiction that lack substantial real-world perspectives but are important to understanding the work can be merged into list articles.

As above, the intent is good, but there are important things we want in our articles like lists of musical numbers and so on that shouldnt' be removed to list articles.

Suggest: "Sub-articles on a work of fiction that lack substantial real-world perspectives or analysis but are important to understanding the work (such as discussion of minor characters in a long-running series) can be merged into list articles."

I think this is covered adequately by the actual section on lists, and does not need the example in the bulletpoint list. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new principle

"In some cases, it may be useful to spin off some element of a work into its own article, to allow it to be discussed in more depth. However, some real-world perspective or analysis from independent sources should be included in all such articles: For instance, an article on the plot of a book should include reliably sources literary criticism and analysis, analysing and discussing the themes and style of the work, and other such things that scholars deem notable about the plot and writing.!

This may be over-wordy, but providing guidance like this would probably kill a lot of controversy straight off the bat. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection, in principle, to some form of that being included. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the principle can be safely rolled into point 2 and/or 3; the parts of the work (plot, characters, narrative, style, etc) that get emphasized in the article(s) are directly proportional to the independent sources' discussion of those parts. I hesitate to use the word "scholarly" because of the differences in media coverage between Shakespeare and Halo. Nifboy (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, we try to avoid the usage of scholarly because of its impact on more modern media which tends to not have that level of scrutiny for most things.じんない 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a minor point. Replace it with "commenters" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to go with the first half of this - I don't think the "for instance" is helpful in bullet points. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes for 5-12-09

Based on Shoemaker's comments above, I have made two changes.

• A brief version of his proposed new principle is included in the bullet points.
• More language based on WP:PLOTSUM is included in the plot section.

These changes largely fall on the side of pleasing those who are seeking a looser guideline, so I welcome comments from Jack or others to make sure that neither of these are excessively transformative. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Practical examples

How would this proposal apply to the articles within Category:Babylon 5 characters? How would it apply to the articles within Category:Babylon 5 episodes? How would it apply to Spoo? --Pixelface (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Spoo would survive this because of the information supporting the claim that Spoo had real-world impact as a sort of cult fan-favorite concept. Many of the other B5 articles would have a rougher time - Benjamin Kyle, Lennier, and Londo Mollari, for instance, all decisively fail the guideline, which is a real pity, since there's ample sourcing for almost any B5 topic given Straczynski's verbosity. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And Valen? --Pixelface (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me to fail due to a lack of real world impact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So what's the appropriate course of action to take with that article according to this proposal? --Pixelface (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Impact

I can accept that fictional works are cultural artifacts. But so are clay pots. Does Wikipedia go on and on about the "real world impact" or "social impact" of pottery? Some fiction certainly has an "impact." But any descriptions of "social impact" will be skewed by the individual writer of that description, and the society they originated from. And they can't speak for their society, they can only speak for themselves.

What are myths? What is folklore? What's a fairy tale? What's a nursery rhyme? What is fiction? Stories. Descriptions. Symbols. Are circles real? Are triangles real? Is the word the real? Those are all symbols too. Does writing about those subjects require "special care"? Does writing about The Treachery of Images require special care? This proposal says elements of fiction are not covered, which is totally opposite of Category:Fictional, which has over 60,000 articles under it.

How does this proposal differ from Phil's "pronged" FICT proposal from November that failed to gain consensus? Prong 1, narrative complexity appears to have been re-styled as Lengthy serialized works, Prong 2, Importance within the fictional work appears to have been re-styled as Elements of fiction, Prong 3, Importance of the fictional work appears to have been re-styled as Fiction as cultural artifact and Types of real world impact, and Prong 4, Availability of real world perspective appears to have been re-styled as Types of real world impact and Real-world information. So what's different? The current proposal uses the word "impact" 15 times (ignoring the table of contents). In January I mentioned that Phil's FICT proposal at that time mentioned coverage several times, just like the FICT proposal from June 2008 that failed to gain consensus. Isn't "impact" and "All of these impacts must be verifiable through reliable secondary sources" just a re-branding of "coverage"? Can we please stop putting fiction proposals in the microwave? --Pixelface (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I see lots of real world impact for pottery, including a history section, an explanation of its development, and several applications. Real-world impact is one of those make-or-break things for every topic. Most of us know you don't think that real-world impact is important for fiction, and repeating it over and over has not been productive or helpful to anyone, including you. Instead, why don't you try proposing a guideline where real-world impact isn't necessary, and see how far it gets? Nobody is stopping you from coming up with a proposal if you honestly believe consensus is on your side. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)