Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)

Am I reading this right?

“ A spinout article on a single non-notable character or element may be appropriate when... ”

So... spinout articles don't have to have notability on their own merit? Isn't that an open invitation to create articles on non-notable topics? Isn't it therefore a really bad idea? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be clear that spinning out an article should not be done if the only information you have is what that charcter does in the fictional story they are a part of (i.e. not even spin-out articles can ignore our PLOT policy)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Masem made this change quite a few weeks ago.[1] I already expressed the same concerns as Percy Snoodle (see #List vs. sub-article in discussion of WP:SS, and related paragraph in WP:FICT), but no-one replied, so I guessed no-one else saw the issue. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be more how guidelines should be approached - we don't want to come across "no,, you can't do that", so the reason this line exists and the following lines is to say that once in a while a singular element is given an article without notability, but you better be ready to defend it to other editors. I don't see this as being a free pass for inherited notability, even though it opens the door. The previous version (that said that such articles shouldn't exist) was too negative for other editors here, but we can still fix it if it's too loose this way. --MASEM 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that minor topic lists are an important part of wikipedia, helping to include topics that are notable as a whole but which fail individually. They don't take their notability from the parent topic, but rather from the notability of their own topic on aggregate. So, there might be a list of characters none of whom met WP:N on their own, but who between them do so. What I'd propose instead is:

• "For fictional works, these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that are notable collectively but not individually. A spinout article on a single character or element may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article, as described by summary style." ... "Editors are cautioned that articles on singular, non-notable fictional elements..."

This removes the presumption of inherited notability, and clarifies the purpose and notability of minor topic lists, without expressly forbidding anything. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I really like this new wording, and I think it adheres more to the spirit of the guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Eusebeus (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly fine here, please feel free to modify the guideline for it. --MASEM 14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Just caught something in rereading this. We have still come to a previous conclusion that a spinout list of characters that neither individually or overall have notability but is written as a spinout of a parent notable topic is acceptable. That's a position that is readily accepted, and the slight change in the first sentence suggests that people may wikilaywer over such lists. We need to be careful that is not being implied (that spinout lists require notability). --MASEM 15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I agree that it should be acceptable. It should be reasonably easy for them to attain notability, certainly, but I still think they should have to do so. As it stands, it's already slighty easier for a minor topics list to meet the guidelines than for most articles, because the multiple necessary sources can be spread over the many topics. If it was clarified that a small amount of coverage of each entry in one source can be counted as a significant amount of coverage in that source for the list as a whole, then I think that most of the existing such lists would meet the guidelines. I'd rather see a system where valid articles met the guidelines than one in which some articles were exempt from them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If a list has a proper lead (which is usually what appears in the main article per summary style), notability (or at least encyclopedic relevancy) is usually satisfied, at least for my part. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a goal of having articles having notability, but right now, with the inclusionist/deletionist conflict, we need a position of compromise. Thus, we still require topics to be notable, but we allow for flexibility for elements underneath that topic that help to balance between "WP is not paper" and "WP is not indiscriminate collection of info". Mind you, such lists have had the potential to become notable in the past, compared to individual characters or other elements, and thus that is why it is better to encourage non-notable lists and discourage non-notable elements. --MASEM 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What notability is and isn't is up to us to define. I'd rather we worked out what we want the list articles to be like, and call that notable, than to say that they're exempt from the notability criteria. That would be a better way to form guidelines; the inclusionists are pleased because the good articles stay, and the deletionists are pleased because the guidelines are upheld. The topic/article distinction is just a way of saying that notability is inherited, and consensus is firmly against that position. What I'd like is to establish some loose notability criteria for the lists which would give them notability of their own, rather than having them have to inherit it from their parent. Now, if there's enough sourced information to expand a section into a spinoff article, then it's likely that we can use those sources to show that the spinoff article is notable in and of itself, and reach compromise that way without having to make an exemption. With that in mind, I'd delete the part that reads "viewed as an spinout of the parent article, judged as if it were still a section of that article, and" and add to the end of the same paragraph, "Real-world sources can provide significant coverage for a spinoff article by covering a small part of the topic in depth, or by covering many elements of the topic to a smaller depth." Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me review the problem here: We have no problem when real-world sources can be used to support any type of fictional element article (list or singular); this is covered by the first case about notable topics meriting their own articles. That part is not in question. However, the problem is that from the inclusionist side is that people want to include descriptions of characters and other elements that will likely never be able to demonstrate notability (due to age, obscurenss, and genre of the material); these can be sourced to the primary work to remain verifiable, but otherwise are included for sake of completeness in discussing the work. If WP:SIZE wasn't a problem, they'd be included as part of the main article, but we do allow for spinouts when SIZE is a problem, and cutting this section out and putting it as a spinout is completely appropriate, as long as editors don't see the spinout as a new glass they can fill with excess information. Again, this spinout likely cannot ever hope to demonstrate notability, but written properly, it fails no other aspect of our core policies. Requiring these to have notability is a very very dangerous step to disrupting WP too much; it's a goal for these to have notability and thus should be broken out with the possibility of notability eventually being demonstrated, but for the present, it is a spinoff section from the main article. Notability is generally not inherited, and again, in this case, notability applies to a topic, so as long as these spinoffs are written to avoid coming across as their own topic, I think we can safely give them the pass. --MASEM 18:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think you've missed my meaning. I don't think we can safely give any article any pass - that way lies madness. What we can do is change what we say notability means and by doing that we can keep the worthwhile articles without opening ourselves up to the bad ones. Saying "spinoff articles don't need notability" opens the floodgates to a world of fancruft. Saying "spinoff articles need to meet a lighter set of guidelines, here they are" doesn't. Please can we discuss what those lighter guidelines might be? A "compromise" that gives a blanket exemption to spinoff articles is no such thing - it's inclusionism all the way. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But its arguable that the floodgates have already been breeched with the amount of fancruft, as most of the actions that users like TTN have done is to prune it off. The goal of this guideline is to not only describe how to build out a good series of articles on a new series and to deal with the existing mass of articles on other series. If we only had to worry about future article creation, we'd likely be able to set a different tone and approach, but we have to deal with a lot of pages that, if we took a very heavy hand and required notability, will cause several worse problems than what TTN created.

I complete agree that notability is generally not inherited, and that we should not be creating exceptions for notability. However, again, as I read both WP:N (particulary WP:NNC that states that notability does not regulate the content of an article) and WP:SS, that under breaking out a list of non-notable characters or other fictional elements from the work of fiction's article is an acceptable approach that is still valid under both WP:N and meets our MOS. Mind you, there is an approach these articles should take (outlined more in WP:WAF) that if they go too far off this path, they need to be put back into shape. For example, compare what List of characters in Bully is now to what it was about a month ago. Yes, notability is still not demonstrated in the article, and there's a few other points of cleanup, but as a spinoff from the video game article to describe the characters, it would be an acceptable spinoff under the suggested policy, and there's a possibility that if the designers talked about the characters in interviews or the like, more notability could be demonstrated. --MASEM 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure you have understood me. Are you saying that you would prefer an exemption to a guideline, even if it meant the same articles are kept? I cannot agree to an exemption. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But it is not an exemption, again when you consider that notability is at the topic level and not at the article level, and that this is a guideline, which meant to be advisory, not hard policy. This was previously discussed at WP:N as well with the consensus that spinouts as part of a larger notable topic do not have to show this (relevant discussion). --MASEM 12:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Phrased the way it is, it absolutely is an exemption. So, I'm asking for it to be phrased differently. Remember, all notability is, is the criterion for acceptance. So if the articles are acceptable, they're notable. Saying that articles are allowed to cover non-notable topics, it that article is a spinout of an article on a notable topic, exempts them from notability by making notability inheritable. Saying that articles are notable under certain additional conditions does not. Please,, try to understand: I am not asking for these articles to be deleted - as you point out, consensus says they should stay. I'm asking for the guidelines to reflect consensus, rather than having them say that they don't apply. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: The only change is from "these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that usually rely on the notability of the work instead of their own" to "these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that are notable collectively but not individually". So the sentence at the beginning of this thread would stay.(?) – sgeureka ^t•c 15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the bold part would be deleted. We wouldn't explicitly say that the article is exempt from WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Had missed that word. So yes, I would be much more comfortable with this rewrite than what we currently have. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• you're reading it wrong. You seem to have completely missed Editors are cautioned that articles on singular, non-notable fictional elements may be contested by other editors; more often, the contents of such an articles can be included into some grouping ("Characters", "Setting", or the like) within a spinout article list of the notable parent topic. This completely addresses your concerns. Hiding T 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't address them at all - in one breath, the guidelines say "notability is not required" and in another they say "some editors may complain". That makes the guidelines empty and permanently disputed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There are two types of articles we consider in that section: list-style articles on non-notable elements which generally are not contested at all, and a singular non-notable element article: this latter type is regularly not as well accepted and so the caution note that such articles will likely be contested. It is not a conflict between the statements. --MASEM 12:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not a conflict, only because the exemption trumps the right to complain. Saying "articles don't have to be notable" completely neuters the AFD process. Going on to say that the process can still happen isn't a compromise, it's taunting. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• The solution is a 'major characters from major fiction' criteria. It would certainly be better than the current system, which is essentially whim-based notability. Masem claims that no concievable definition could work, but this is based on subjective impressions.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's only a solution if you happen to subscribe to a particular view of what Wikipedia is. Notice that arb-com are pointing out the contradictions that exist between policies and guidance. A better solution and one which fits better with the wiki practose and the principles upon which Wikipedia is based would be to ignore notability full stop and try and make each article the best encyclopedic article it can be through consensus. Hiding T 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hiding. I don't think it is nessisary or wise to tie issues of PLOT with inclusion criteria for spinout articles. If plot content does not belong, then editors can remove it, this is obvious. If this results in a blank spinout article, then the spinout article can be merged/deleted. This second concept (when last I checked) is appropriately addressed in this guideline. -Verdatum (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In practise, that's unworkable. If an editor, in good faith and with the full justification of all policy and guidelines, blanks a page they will be reverted by a bot; if the bot is disabled, they will be reverted by another editor. What should be an AFD becomes an edit war. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The part I particularly object to in the current guidelines is the use of 'non-notable' in "A spinout article on a single non-notable character..." and "Editors are cautioned that articles on singular, non-notable fictional elements...". I'd be far happier if that were phrased in terms of coverage, because it wouldn't explicitly exempt articles from WP:N, it would just explain that there are other considerations. Would anyone object to that? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggesting being to change "A spinout article on a single non-notable character" to "A spinout article on a single character lacking real-world coverage..." and a similar change? --MASEM 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right. I'd probably say "sources of real-world coverage" just for the sake of precision. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion of rewording would also take care of the many cases where an article currently lacks (demonstration of) real-world coverage. When these articles are "contested by other editors" then, it is time to demonstrate notability or make a merge proposal (or go to AfD) after a while. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and may this phrasing change in given section. --MASEM 12:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but now the section basically says, "it's ok to violate WP:PLOT (a fundamental policy BTW) if you just have to write up all that fictional information about a character". I don't agree with this. We shouldn't be creating articles (not even spinning them out) just because we have some overzealous editors that want to include all this fictional information about a character. If they need that much fictional information to be able to understand who they are, then there must be real world information about them somewhere. People are going to abuse that section by spinning out every character under the guise that it would require too much space to list everything that happens to them in their respective fiction. I think if you have to have that there, then you need to make it clear that though WP:SS may be the basis for splitting that information out, it still violates Wiki policy and that will be the reason other editors contest its existence. I think it needs to be clear that the contesting of the article split is most likely going to come from adherence to policy and not simply editors that don't believe it should be split because they don't believe the character is that notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Added points about UNDUE and PLOT in the "editors are cautioned..." line. The first line of the para mentions "concise" within the construct of PLOT, and between there and WAF, it should be obvious that spinouts are not free passes to expand to 32k of text on the topic. --MASEM 12:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, would you say Meta_Knight (appeared in a dozen video games) may be appropriate as a spinout per PLOT and WAF, or is List_of_Kirby_characters#Meta_Knight a better presentation (got merged by TTN)? May Samantha Carter (appeared in 11 seasons as main character of two shows) be appropriate as a (temporary) spinout article? There don't seem to be any substantial sources for real-world content for Meta Knight, but the Carter character seems to have enormous potential per the article of another character from the same fictional universe. Yet the current articles of Meta Knight and Carter are IMO in the same inappropriate bad shape, with the Carter article potentially even being worse. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Meta Knight doesn't have enough coverage shown, and if you tackle the text of the article (there's a lot of game-guide type content in that) you're left with something that fits nicely into a list of other Kirby characters. Carter's article does need work, but it has some coverage (awards Amanda Tapping's won for the character), and thus the likelihood of showing more is there - though if more beyond the awards can't be found, ultimately it should be merged. The bio needs to be less structured around the order of the series, however, to get the rest in shape. --MASEM 14:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break - request for clarification

I'm not trying to call out Percy or the like here, nor trying to escalate this, I want to make sure I understand what he is saying with respect to the current guideline, as such because there may be some language or confusing issues here. So, just to reset the base from where we're starting the discussion, if Percy could respond to the following:

• Do you agree or disagree that an article, describing in list fashion a series of fictional elements from a work without demonstration of notability, is appropriate?
• Do you agree or disagree that an article, describing a singular fictional element from a work without demonstration of notability, is appropriate?

(The other two questions, in which notability is demonstrated for both cases, I think Percy would agree to by his previous answers, but please correct me if I'm wrong). The issue becomes if Percy disagrees with both statements, and in which case we need to discuss further. --MASEM 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with both statements. Here's my chain of thought:

• To comply with WP:IINFO, we need a criterion for deciding what is and is not appropriate. We call that criterion notability.
• To comply with WP:PAPER, the notability criteria should become more inclusive as time goes on.
• Current consensus is that spinout articles should be allowed; there is dispute that the notability criteria do so.
• Therefore, we should alter the notability criteria to include spinout articles.

The manner in which the current wording includes spinout articles is by granting them an exemption from notability. What I want to see is a version of WP:FICT that does not say "non-notable articles are OK", but rather says "spinout articles are notable if [conditions]", where the conditions are chosen to include the spinout articles that we all agree, I think, are beneficial. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a point where we should be treating policy and guidelines as not simply words, but as a thought and principle. [break]

Always.

I don't disagree with what you are trying to end up with (preventing such articles from being deleted at AfD), but the method you're asking for this seems to be introduce more rules to a system that we should be trying to avoid adding more. [break]

I'm just asking to clarify the existing ones, in a more inclusive fashion. Adding an exemption to the existing rules is a new rule.

I can't see how we can create a special considering of notability for spinout articles (not just for fiction, but for any type of spinoff) without expanding our rules. [break]

By allowing spinouts a more flexible definition of substantial coverage, as I suggested above.

Again, I feel confident that the current policies and guidelines and MOS already provide the guidance that is needed to say that appropriate non-nonable lists articles and, at select times, non-notable fictional elements articles, are appropriate, primarily because notability is a concept applied to a topic, not to an article. [break]

Again, the topic/article distinction is just a way of saying that notability is inherited. The topic of an article on a character from a series is the character, not the series, and the character does not inherit notability from the series.

This might be a better discussion on the WP:N page since this transcends just fictional works, though likely fiction is the area where such a change would have the most impact. Mind you, I'm not trying to speak for everyone, but my feeling is that the general consensus is there's no special need to extend notability to spinouts. --MASEM 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about extending notablility - I'm talking about not retracting it. You're still trying to convince me that we should include spinouts. I agree, and have done from the start. I want to include them by defining notability to include them, not by throwing away notability and its benefits. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see what you're trying to get at. You're asking for some language somewhere that states that non-notable spinout lists and in a handful of other singular coverage cases for fictional elements are protected from being deleted due to lack of secondary sources. (Which, yes, that's the intent). What I think is throwing a wrench into the works is that you're trying to group this under "notability". Notability is an inclusionary criteria for WP, but it is not the inclusionary criteria (though it is use 99.99..% of the time as the only one). Mind you, I'm unaware of any higher or other inclusionary criteria guideline that we have around that calls itself explicitly that, and maybe this concern reflects that.

Lists of non-notable elements (not singular elements) are generally easy to recognize, so when looking at such an article if it were in AfD, it should be recognized that it is not covering a topic but supporting one as a spinout should, and this implicit "spinouts satisfy inclusionary criteria" rule is invoked, thus avoiding the need to consider the notability of its content (though the main article should, of course, be notable). If it is not a list, then most likely people will then evaluate its inclusion per our topic inclusion criteria: our notability guidelines (which is why singular elements from fiction without notability should be a carefully considered case, because they usually aren't seem immediately as a spinout).

Does this make sense? I think we're having the problem here because "notability" is generally thought of our only inclusionary requirement, but it is in reality not; what you seem to be asking for is a stronger statement of that implicit "spinouts are included in WP" to help protect such articles at AFD. --MASEM 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort of; you've nearly got my position there. What I'm asking is that, given that consensus wants currently non-notable articles to be allowed, that we redefine notability, rather than dropping notability as a reason for deletion. So the currently non-notable topics would be included because they would become notable, not because they had inherited notability from the article they were spun out from. We're free to do this because there is no definition of notability as a guideline beyond that which we provide, and it's desirable to do so because it means that the articles can be kept without having to overhaul the system (which, as you point out, should be done elsewhere if at all). Rather than go on trying to clarify my position, let's look at how I'd do that:

• Replace "rely on the notability of the work instead of their own" with "are notable collectively but not individually"
• delete "non-notable" from the next sentence - we're keeping the same articles but calling them notable.
• I'd then want to go on to describe collective notability somehow. As a base, we want to look at the sentence from WP:N that the article quotes, saying "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So we'd want something like "significant coverage for a collection of topics can include a large amount of coverage for the collection as a whole, or small amounts of coverage of each topic in the collection". This should be sufficient to retain the good spinout lists; some sourcing is required already by WP:V and WP:NOR.

The first two of those changes received some support above, and I'd like to make them if that would be OK. You've convinced me that on their own, they may be too open to a restrictive interpretation, so I'd like to add the third one too. Would it be OK by you for me to make those changes, and then discuss that form of the guidelines and revert it later if necessary? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keeping what changes can be done on FICT and nowhere else, the wording for the 3rd change is a possible problem as this still marks any list of completely non-notable fictional elements (individually or as a whole) as being unacceptable, by strict reading (which people will take). These lists lack "small amounts of coverage of each topic", and thus this will become a wikilaywering point, particularly since the requirement for notability (in the current sense) is now being called out. If anything, I'd argue what you are defining is a list that by the present definition of notability is notable itself without any need for additional protection of the spinout considerations. While having lists require this is a good thing, under the present atmosphere of editors here, this can only be set as a goal, not as a requirement. --MASEM 14:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but a list of fictional elements for which there's no coverage, individually or as a whole, would probably be disallowed under concerns of OR or verifiability anyway. By keeping a weakened requirement for some coverage, we reach a compromise, rather than going 100% inclusionist by allowing each and every element to be spun out. Looking at WP:PSTS, I think it might be useful to have the collective notability sentence be "significant coverage for a collection of topics can include a large amount of coverage for the collection as a whole, or small amounts of coverage of each topic in the collection, and may be found in secondary or tertiary sources"; so that if a source has decided to collect very small amounts of coverage together then that can still be used. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But this is one of the key points why WP:FICT exists; it has been commonly accepted that certain lists of fictional elements without any notability is appropriate as a spinoff article. Consider two cases:

• An article about a notable show has a list of characters within the article; the list of characters is not sourced to anything but the primary work and there's no discussion of the real-world impact of the characters.
• An article about a notable show; due to size limitations, there is a separate article with the list of characters; the list of characters is not sourced to anything but the primary work and there's no discussion of the real-world aspect of the characters.

Assuming that the list of characters in both cases is exactly the same text, there is no distinction between these cases beyond the application of WP:SPINOUT to create that list. This is the generally accepted policy on this. Mind you, the idea is that the list is truly a "spinout" in that in may have been present in the main article but was forced out due to size; too many times, people start at the spinout and work back to the main article (a situation reflected in several older articles), and one can see the spinout being much more expansive and descriptive than it would be had it been part of the main body of text. However, regardless if it started from the main body or is a modification of existing articles to help bring them to spec, allowing for lists of non-notable fictional elements, to a degree they meet with V, OR, PLOT, and other policies, is still acceptable, and do not need to show notability, as long as they are written in a way to support the parent article. This is not necessarily an ideal case, but it is a compromise that needs to be in place in the current environment between inclusionists and deletionists. (At least, last time the issue came up, this was a necessary inclusion that had to be made). --MASEM 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It would help me if you used the word "coverage" rather than "notability"; coverage refers to stuff written in the real world, and notability refers to our guidelines. If we can change the guidelines, then articles without coverage can be notable. If consensus wants coverage-free articles included, then that's what I'm asking for. Now, assuming I've read you rightly, you say that "it has been commonly accepted that certain lists of fictional elements without any [coverage] is appropriate as a spinoff article". I'd like to take that qualification - the reason you say "certain" lists rather than "all" lists - and work out how to codify that, then call that notability. If we can do that, then we can have a set of notability criteria that meets with consensus, without opening wikipedia up to all the other articles. So: Could you say a bit about what you think the difference between an acceptable and an unacceptable spinout is, if it isn't coverage? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(←) This is where the aspect of undue weight comes into play, which, yes, is highly subjective but if approached this way, I find helps convince some that want a lot in place to be able to cut it down. The way to "quanitify" this would be to imagine that the text of the list is put back into the main article (excluding lead and footer stuff), along with all other similar spinoffs as well as truly notable topics such as individual characters or episodes. Then, one must ask two questions:

• Is this list supporting the notable, real-world aspects of the fictional work or its elements in some way? For a tv show, a list of characters can help to offset describing the character over and over again in plot descriptions, for example. This is why lists of major and minor characters is generally appropriate, but lists of one-off characters can be taken as excessive because it doesn't support the overall topic well.
• Is the content of the list in balance with the rest of the discussion of the topic - that is, the list content does not unduely weigh down the rest of the article? This means we provide concise plot information for supporting these lists but shouldn't be going into every plot detail, and that we aren't just making a list because we can make a list. (A "List of Planets in Star Trek", outlining every planet ever mentioned, would be indiscriminate, but a "List of Major Planets in Star Trek", outlining the key homeworlds of certain races or where key series-altering events occurred, would not be)

Unfortunately, as noted, these are very touchy-feely requirements that is extremely difficult to codify, which is why the guideline presently talks about and around them, but gives very little detail of their content. We can state that certain cases are appropriate, like lists of characters (major and minor, but not one-offs), lists of key locations, terms, etc, but when such are challenged, we need to evaluate each as appropriate on a case-by-case basis. --MASEM 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the "imagine it's in the main article" - that smacks of WP:NOTINHERITED. Further, how do you judge whether the list supports real-world aspects without requiring real-world coverage? If you're concerned about wikilawyering, then saying we have to judge on a case-by-case basis should concern you greatly; it turns a comparison with a set of guidelines into a shouting match. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To the first point, this is not done in considering notability, it is simply to compare the amount and type of content between spinouts and main article.

I think you're using "notability" when you mean "coverage" again. "Imagine it's the main article when determining notability" is equivalent to saying "Notability is inherited", so I can't accept it. Perhaps you could rephrase, using "coverage" where you mean coverage?

Second point: if part of the real world aspect of The Simpsons is to say how caring the family is for each other, or how Bart's antics are genius, or anything that calls out specific characters (including concisely describing a work's plot), then it makes sense that we have to mention the characters at some point to provide that basis.

If part of the real world aspect of The Simpsons is to say how caring the family is for each other, or how Bart's antics are genius, or anything that calls out specific characters, then either (1) there is coverage of that, or (2) that's opinion/OR and doesn't belong on wikipedia; so that's not a good example of a situation in which coverage isn't required.

The last point, I grant you; unfortunately, I think this is because we have a lack of experience to know how these articles fare up through AfD and other discussions. We know some types have no problem, but I have yet to see an archetype for a list that is absolutely not acceptable. The way I would consider this is that if you approach the authors of the page in a helpful manner, making suggestions for how to trim an existing list or merging it within a larger list, so that coverage is not lost but better balanced (no undue weight), you likely don't have to take the list to AfD to begin with, which may be why it's hard to draw a box around what is completely unacceptable. --MASEM 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's nice in theory, but in practise there are a lot of people who will AFD anything that happens to be fictional. We shouldn't hamstring them by taking away notability concerns entirely, but we do need to have a firm set of guidelines based on something other than opinion which can be used to tell whether they're right when they say an article should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This wishy-washyness is effectively a license for favouritism. It means blanket coverage for unpopular flops like Star Trek: Enterprise, whilst successful shows like Grey's Anatomy have to fight for every article.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Firm guidelines are necessary, and they should relate to something other than the opinions of the interested editors. I don't see a way to do that without some reliance on sourcing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we can go that way (and I'm going to start a new section for); if we outline exactly what types of lists are appropriate, people can tailor their lists to that. However, there will always be exceptions - this is a guideline, not policy. --MASEM 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. (I'm assuming you mean here, so that we can use the outline to form guidelines, rather than having a bunch of examples in the article, which wouldn't address Nydas' concern at all) Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jumping in. I've just read through all of the above and see a camel's nose inside the tent. This needs to be tightened-up. I see that this is only intended for limited cases, but others out there are already seeking to exploit this. See Talk:Paladine (Dragonlance)#Regarding notability... and Talk:Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons)#Weighing in on the use of Dungeons & Dragons Source Materials as references; primarily the posts by User:Dalamori who's argument also seeks to allow importance based on primary sources to justify articles on non-notable characters. My concern is less about lists than about allowing a loophole for non-notable characters. The standard of notability being required must be maintained or we'll see hoards of non-notable stuff being argued for endlessly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a standard of notability must be maintained for those reasons, which is why I'm against an exemption. However I do think that well-sourced minor topic lists are beneficial, so the standard that we establish should include them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Defining cases where lists are appropriate or not, in the absence of significant coverage

Per the discussion above, there is concern that if we don't provide an outline of what types of lists are appropriate or not, we'll have people getting away with a lot by this allowance. Mind you, we're a guideline, so there's no hard boundaries, but providing examples of what is and isn't appropriate should still allow for unique cases to be considered.

I've renamed this section. WP:FICT clarifies what is notable for fiction; we're discussing changing that, so once we've made a decision, these would become notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I would suggest the following lists are appropriate:

• Lists of major characters from a work
• Lists of minor and/or reoccurring characters from a work
• Lists of major fictional locations from a work
• Lists of major monsters/species/foes from a work
• Lists of major technological/mythos terms or objects from a work
• Lists of episodes/books for a serialized work

Here is what I would consider inappropriate:

• Lists of one-time characters from a work
• Lists of minor fictional locations from a work
• Lists of minor monsters/species/foes from a work
• Lists of minor technological/mythos terms or objects from a work

Please add suggestions/concerns here. I wouldn't include these as bluntly in the actual guideline, but let's figure out the borders before we can create the language. --MASEM 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My first concern is that "major" and "minor" are opinion, except where backed up by secondary sources. However recurring/non-recurring can be established by primary sources, so we could include a definition in the guidelines. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is where it does get tricky, because you'll also have the case when you are considering characters or elements from a non-series work. We can split the two cases up then; major characters (that appear in about at least 50% of the episodes) and reoccurring characters (that appear for at least 2 or more episodes) for a serial work, and then major/minor characters for single works (since the distinction is much harder to make here without more examples). "Major" for the other aspects would be have been mentioned in the series at least two, and more than just a mention-in-passing. --MASEM 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agree, except I don't think "Lists of minor and/or reoccurring characters from a work" should be considered appropriate either. We aren't supposed to be a guide for the series, and if its a minor character, they don't need inclusion in a list of characters at all. Whatever role they play can be covered, as appropriate, in other character's sections and/or the episode/book summaries. Most minor character are one-time or two-time characters. I also think "Lists of major monsters/species/foes from a work" and "Lists of major technological/mythos terms or objects from a work" should be extremely selected. In general, we should only be giving a brief overview of such things, usually in the character lists if they are grouped by species/etc and major foes should be covered in the main characters list. Again, my concern is having fancruft and minute detail being considered acceptable if it is in list format, when it should/could be covered with the necessary detail in either the main or other related lists. With "Lists of major fictional locations from a work", I think also this should be a rarity rather than the norm. Except for some very lengthy and epic series, like the various Star Trek series, very few fictional works will have more than one or two settings of note, which we really don't need to go into a lot of detail about. We need to make sure we're sticking to the basic, encyclopedic details, not every last bit of minute detail that could fill an entire wikia or other wiki.Collectonian (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is tough. I've spent a good deal of time thinking about this specific issue, and I can for no opinion on the matter. The appropriateness of lists of minor recurring elements/themes/whatever in a work of fiction is a point of contention. I think that if we're even going to address this issue, then it should be in a very light manner. Further, if it is looked upon as a spinout article, it is potentially a question of content and not a question of notability and thus possibly not appropriate for discussion in this article. I'm generally opposed to these sort of "rules of thumb" examples of good and bad things; yet at the same time, I completely understand the need for them in many cases. What's my point? I don't really know, just take care in deciding such edits, I guess. -Verdatum (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) Another problem to what Percy just said (what is minor, what is major) is that long-running fiction tends to order fictional elements by in-universe affiliation (e.g. Goa'uld characters in Stargate) which includes both major and extremely minor characters. So knowledgable editors (and I also do this to some extend) can prevent deletion of 3 of 6 character lists (3 major, 3 minor) by simply mixing them in a way that all 6 lists have some more-notable characters and thus are deletion-proof (but not necessarily trim&merge-proof). I have no easy answer to Masem's question, sorry, but I'd say every list than has some potential per precedent to become a Featured List one day, is appropriate. As for what's inappropriate: There is no notability guideline for lists in general, and WP:FICT should not elevate itself to make that decision. I still see some fictional lists as inappropriate. As an example, I have grown to feel that fictional timeline lists are inappropriate because of WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT (and usually redundance to other articles also), and one-time whatever lists because of WP:UNDUE. Most of this comes from gut feeling. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the problem is that I know what Percy's asking for and it makes some sense to try to codify it, but the one thing I haven't really seen is the proliferation of list articles - for a given fictional subject, one could write hundreds of singular topic articles for every character, setting, etc., but this is only around ten or so if you limit the creation to just lists, and this doesn't necessarily apply to every genre (sci-fi/fantasy lends itself better here than more down-to-earth genres like soaps or crime/forensics/hospital dramas). That's not saying every possible list should be created just because it can, and that it could potentially be a problem. There are bounds and I think if we give cases where they are generally acceptable and where they fail, we'll at least hopeful prevent list proliferation from being a problem.--MASEM 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be one of the more extreme examples, but it is a mild case of proliferation of lists nevertheless. Before I started editing Stargate articles, the wikiproject's consensus was to allow each in-universe-notable race an article. Each such race was then allowed a RACE characters in Stargate and RACE technology in Stargate. The worst I've seen was for the Aschen, a race who appeared in two popular SG episodes. They then had the sub articles Aschen characters in Stargate and Aschen technology in Stargate created for them. Mind you, all three articles are merged into "Miscellaneous" list articles now, but I am already scratching my head how to justify doing the same for another popular race who appeared in four episodes (and then died), and I can just hope for collaboration, or at least not opposition. Again, it is my gut feeling that says some of the lists are inappropriate, but the companion guides (which I don't have) and the DVD commentaries (which I haven't really listened to recently) may have some production info to justify keeping the lists after all. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• This stuff is way too creepy. But if you must give examples for people to ignore then make them real ones which demonstrate clear precedent and practise. The good examples would be featured lists. The bad ones would be pointers to AFD snow results. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea: if anyone can point to these types of articles that already exist (again, remember we're looking at ones without notability or real-world cover), please provide them, as maybe examples of what to do and not to do are better than trying to spell it out specifically. --MASEM 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to judge the snowball deletes, because they're not here any more, but here are the featured fiction lists. I'm ignoring sources from the makers and broadcasters, and keeping an eye out for Amazon links which aren't proper sources. I've noted when I think they'd fail an AFD under the current guidelines. Please, if you're reading this list, don't take this as an invite to AFD them.

• Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1) - lots of secondary sources
• Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2) - lots of secondary sources
• Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3) - lots of secondary sources
• Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4) - lots of secondary sources
• List of Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes in Bleach - a few secondary sources
• List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes - a few secondary sources
• List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes - three secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Would fail current AFD; probably should have a FL review.
• List of Carnivàle episodes - lots of secondary sources
• List of Claymore chapters - a few secondary sources; clicking through, I wouldn't call them all 'significant'.
• List of Claymore episodes - a few secondary sources
• List of Dad's Army episodes - a few secondary sources, but substantial ones.
• List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes - lots of secondary sources. Not sure how I feel about the duplication here.
• List of Desperate Housewives episodes - a few secondary sources, all but one a trivial mention. Might fail current AFD.
• List of Devil May Cry episodes - a few secondary sources, not all 'significant'
• List of Doctor Who serials - several secondary sources
• List of FLCL episodes - a few secondary sources, not all 'significant'
• List of Fate/stay night episodes - a few secondary sources
• List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes - a few secondary sources, not all 'significant'; FL removal candidate.
• List of Gunslinger Girl episodes - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
• List of Heroes episodes - several secondary sources
• List of Highlander: The Raven episodes - a few secondary sources
• List of Hitohira episodes - a few secondary sources, all but one directory/catalogue listings, the other non-English-language. Might fail current AFD.
• List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl episodes - a few secondary sources.
• List of Kaze no Stigma episodes - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
• List of Lost episodes - a few secondary sources.
• List of Meerkat Manor episodes - a few secondary sources.
• List of Myself ; Yourself episodes - a few secondary sources, not all 'significant'
• List of Naruto chapters (Part I) - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
• List of Naruto chapters (Part II) - a few secondary sources, all but two directory/catalogue listings.
• List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2) - a few secondary sources
• List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3-4) - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
• List of Naruto manga volumes - a few secondary sources, mostly directory/catalogue listings.
• List of Night Wizard episodes - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
• List of Oz books - two secondary sources. No inline refs; should have FL review.
• List of Peep Show episodes - several secondary sources. Mostly not significant, but definitely significant in quantity.
• List of Planetes episodes - no secondary sources. FL removal candidate; would fail current AFD.
• List of Shin Lupin III episodes - a few secondary sources
• List of Smallville episodes - a few secondary sources
• List of Soul Society: The Sneak Entry arc episodes in Bleach - one secondary source; a directory entry. Likely to fail current AFD.
• List of South Park episodes - several secondary sources
• List of Stargate SG-1 episodes - a few secondary sources.
• List of Teen Titans episodes - a few secondary sources.
• List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes - a few secondary sources.
• List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes - a few secondary sources.
• List of The Simpsons episodes - several secondary sources.
• List of The Sopranos episodes - a few secondary sources. No inline refs; should have FL review.
• List of The Unit episodes - a few secondary sources; all directory entries or otherwise non-significant. Might fail current AFD.
• List of Trinity Blood episodes - a few secondary sources.
• List of Tsukihime, Lunar Legend episodes - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
• [[List of X-Men episodes] - a few secondary sources, plus several directory listings.
• List of Yotsuba&! chapters - a few secondary sources, hidden among text notes and nearly all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes - a few secondary sources, mostly directory/catalogue listings.
• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1) ditto
• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2) ditto
• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3) ditto
• List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 4) ditto
• List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow - several secondary sources
• List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films - loads of secondary sources. I should know, I added them :-)
• Lost (season 1) - several secondary sources
• Lost (season 2) - ditto
• Lost (season 3) - ditto
• Narnian timeline - a few secondary sources. No inline refs; should have FL review.
• The Office (U.S. season 3) - several secondary sources
• The Simpsons (season 1) - several secondary sources
• The Simpsons (season 2) - ditto
• The Simpsons (season 4) - ditto
• The Simpsons (season 6) - ditto
• The Simpsons (season 8) - a few secondary sources
• The Simpsons (season 9) - ditto
• The Simpsons shorts - several secondary sources

So, what's the pattern? Most pass the current notability requirements, though I'm surprised by how narrow the margin is. A few just skirt under it, but are consistent with a requirement of 'collective notability'. One, List of Planetes episodes, has no sources, and it's a FL removal candidate. So if the FL candidates are taken to be indicative of consensus and good practice, then I'd say my suggestion above about collective notability is a good enough match. If anything, based on my experience with List of unmade Doctor Who serials, things seem to have tightened up since a lot of these got FL status, so a huge weakening of the guidelines doesn't seem to be in line with that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note that these are almost exclusively lists of works that make up a serialised work, rather than lists of fictional elements. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost all episode lists have subarticles (season articles or episode articles). These sub-sub-articles have the potential to have dozens of references, even if it's just "this episode exists" type of information. To pick three of your examples above (and I could demonstrate the same with more ep lists): You marked The Simpsons (season 8), The Simpsons (season 9) and List of Smallville episodes with "a few secondary sources" above and claimed a lack of notability, totally ignoring that all episodes of Simpsons season 8 and 9, and season 1 of Smallville are at least GA with dozens of sources. The notability just got moved to subarticles that actually need references. It's the moment that a list has no subarticles, or only non-notable subarticles, when we should be concerned about the list's notability. But in this case, we should get rid of the nonnotable subarticles first (through merging, redirecting or deleting) before we attack the lists. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; if an article has notable subarticles then that's strong evidence that coverage exists, although I think that that coverage should be referenced in both the article and its subarticles. However, in those cases we don't have a problem. It's not lists that collect together series of notable articles that are at issue; it's articles that have spun out of notable articles and that don't have enough coverage to support their inclusion under the current guidelines. Masem wants those included; I want them to have to demonstrate some coverage, but not necessarily as much as they currently do. What's your position on those articles?

Break 1

• Personally, I see the vast majority of the lists mentioned as pretty inappropriate, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone why they think they are. I haven't been following the whole discussion having been on a semi-wikibreak, so forgive me if this has already been gone into. Cheers, Miremare 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I came into this debate with a similar opinion - that, in the absence of secondary coverage, pretty much anything's inappropriate, but that some lists are being held to too high a standard of coverage; that's why I've tried to propose a slightly weaker standard of coverage for them. Masem has told me that consensus is that some lists should be allowed without any secondary coverage, which is why we're trying to establish which lists those are. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Part of this extends from what WP:FICT originally came from, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. Then there was the major change in WP:N about May 2006 that made the guideline more objective by adding "significant coverage in secondary sources" It has since come about that individual pages on non-notable characters (this through many AfD, not just those poised by TTN) alone are nearly never appropriate because they'll fail to meet that WP:N, but lists being treated as spinouts still are ok.
      • ...though the status of spinouts is disputed; hence the discussions above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The other aspect of this is that this needs to be seen as a compromise to reach a consensus between inclusionists and deletionists. Lists allow those that want to write more on their fictional works the space to do so, but it doesn't allow them to write off extensively about every minutae of the work. It's also an intermediate solution, as exactly which way WP will go, as outlined nicely in this recent Economist article - we may eventually decide globally that we want all details, and thus the lists can be expanded out, or we may decide that we want higher level coverage, in which cases lists can be trimmed and moved back into parent articles, or cut/transwiki entirely. This may not be the most perfect long-term solution, but it allows both sides a (hopefully) happy balance that editors can focus on overall quality instead of quibbling about specific rules. --MASEM 13:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • ...though given that the inclusionists want the spinout articles and the deletionists don't, retaining all of the spinout articles is hardly a "compromise". Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • When inclusionists want x spinout articles, and deletionists want zero, allowing (log x) spinout articles in list-form is indeed a compromise in my mind. Not ideal, but something we can build on later. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
          • That's not what the current guidelines say; there's a blanket exemption from notability concerns for all spinout articles, list or otherwise. That's why I want a guideline that includes the lists and excludes the single articles, by allowing the lists to achieve notability without having to inherit it. As I think I've demonstrated, the modifications I proposed would do so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Take a look at this section from WP:NOTINHERITED (which is an essay, not policy or guideline, though an essay I strongly agree with throughout):
              • In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (two of the notabilty guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes. However, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.
            • We are defining a case that is in the bolded section (my emphasis), and thus we are not imposing any idea of inherited notability.. This process is accepted by both sides (demonstrated by the fact that non-notable lists of fictional elements don't come up anywhere close as often as individual non-notable fictional elements), and while trying to outline what are generally acceptable cases for it, trying to define it too much may backfire because it is a carefully balanced, unstated truce, only verbalized here in WP:FICT. WP:FICT should only be a snapshot of what is presently acceptable, and not trying to create new guidelines and inflame the issue. --MASEM 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
              • There is no truce - the notability purges are in full swing as we speak; take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game-related. By leaving ambiguity we turn what should be simple procedural AFDs into drawn-out flamewars. WP:FICT should be a snapshot of what is presently acceptable (by providing guidance on when articles are acceptable), not trying to create new guidelines and inflame the issue (by making blanket exemptions). Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(←)The point I'm trying to make is that since the inception of this guideline around 2005, non-notable lists as spinouts have been part of the guideline; this is not creating anything new. Yes, we want to encourage secondary sourcing as much as possible, but to make this an absolute requirement will cause a lot of problems. Plus, this is a sub-guideline of the notability guidelines - we cannot make secondary sourcing an absolute requirement for any article, otherwise we should call notability policy, which again will cause a lot of problems.

What I think we are seeing right now is the fact that because of several "recent" changes in various policies, the result of the ArbCom cases, and other similar discussions is that we are still coming to grips with how to present fictional concepts. We know some work. We know some don't work. Cases that are at AfD (like the Golden Sun characters) is a situation that could go either way and thus we need to consider how that case will close and how to reconfigure our approach based on that. I understand the desire to set specific points that these lists need to achieve, but I don't think we have enough experience to say what those points are.

That said, we should look to consider these lists as spinouts (they should remain concise and should not overwhelm the real world aspects on the work of fiction, if no notability exists), and the other aspect to consider is that they should be presented in a style of list that is generally amenable to the application of reliable sources from past experience. A list of major characters has been shown to gain notability when the discussion of character creation and casting can be found, so a non-notable list of major characters is appropriate. However, per the Stargate example above, it is very unlikely that the "RACE characters in Stargate" can ever hope to show notability given that rarely notability for sci-fi alien races is generally about the race or diversity of the races; thus, this is probably not an appropriate list. Is there an exact answer? No, but I'd rather have a DMZ where questionable lists are discussed to determine what to do with the lists, than to overstep in either direction towards inclusionists or deletionists and result in similar problems that we have had before. --MASEM 19:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Again I agree. It seems sensible to me to consider standalone lists related to a work of fiction as spinout articles from the parent work of fiction. I fail to see why this should not be the case. I'd like to see an argument from the opposing viewpoint supporting why lists should be treated as anything different, as I'm still confused about this alternate position. -Verdatum (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I'm still seeing the exact opposite! The reason for these lists to be allowed, juding from Masem's answer to my post above, seems to be simply to appease inclusionists. Is there a real actual proper reason that I'm missing here? :P Miremare 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two reasons. The above point of appeasing the inclusionists is one aspect, but as User:Sgeureka, this is also to appease the deletions that want no articles on non-notable aspects; it is better to have log(x) than x or 0. But the other aspect that I alluded to before is that we are at a crossroads with Wikipedia: do we take the road of strongly discouraging fictional aspects by enforcing elements like notability strong, or do we become more broad in coverage, and thus allowing more details fictional coverage? This is not a question we should be asking, but as FICT has been approached, we can help support either crossroad that, if we ever decide to take one, we can help follow. --MASEM 04:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting the deletionists (as I did too; sorry). Most of them are reasonable editors who, in good faith, think that articles that don't demonstrate coverage should be deleted. That position can be accomodated by allowing spinouts to do so at a lower level, by showing collective notability. Doing so also accomodates the inclusionists because the same "log(x)" articles would stay. Having an exemption does not give the deletionists any part of what they want - it's not the log of what they want, it's zero. Masem's exemption is not a compromise, it is a 100% inclusionist policy. An exemption takes all say away from deletonists; it's not any sort of appeasement. That's why I've tried to find a compromise that includes the articles, but allows us to continue to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable articles. As long as WP:IINFO is policy, I'll believe that represents consensus. We don't need to disenfranchise half our editors to keep the lists. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on dividing editors into inclusionist and deletionist? And why do you assume that each group represents half of our editorship? [break]

I don't mean to suggest that all our editors are wholly inclusionist and deletionist; they are each inclusionist and deletionist to a degree. I can't speak to the proportions, but while the users on this talk page seem to be mostly inclusionsist, the ones I've seen make actual arguments in AFDs seem to be mostly deletionist. The way to reach a compromise is therefore not to take AFD away, but to make sure that AFDs result in a conclusion that represents consensus. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think this general discussion (where to draw the line on list of non-notable information) is appropriate, but I think your zero sum approach is the kind of stuff that brought on two ArbComs and too much wiki-drama. The exception we have seemed to come to consensus/compromise on is that articles about television series may have an episode list and a character list if the primary article becomes too long. The series article still must conform to our inclusion criteria. This does not seem like a problem, unless you are entrenched in rabid deletionism (to be included in Wikipedia the subject must be included in Britannica) or rabid inclusionism (every episode must have it's own article). Ursasapien (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you misrepresent me as trying to get rid of the spinout articles? Why do you misrepresent a 100% swing in one direction as a compromise? All articles should conform to our inclusion criteria; but those critera should include all the articles that consensus says should be included. Saying that spinout articles don't have to conform to our inclusion criteria is to say that any and all articles are acceptable, because all articles can be (mis)represented as a spinout of something. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not plausibly, though. We're better off trusting people to correctly evaluate whether something is a meaningful subtopic of another subject or if it's a non-subject. We might be able to specify a few cases where there is broad agreement over what constitutes a valid spinout article (such as the episode lists), but that's as far as we should go. It's impossible to specify or anticipate everything that might be misrepresented as a meaningful subtopic, and we should definitely not take the approach of saying "anything but these pre-approved types of spinout articles are forbidden".--Father Goose (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Plausibility doesn't stop the flamewars. I agree what we shouldn't give blanket approval to certain categories of spinout article; we shouldn't give blanket approval at all. We should come up with a criterion that identifies the good spinouts in all categories and includes them. The relaxed coverage requirements I suggest are only one example, but I haven't seen anyone suggest another; the alternative seems to be an exemption which as I've said is unsupportable because it can and would be interpreted to include everything, by the participants in AFDs if not by the people here who get involved in policy-forming. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Topics and articles

Percy, please clarify so I can understand your position. Do you agree there exists a difference between a topic and an article? Do you agree that WP:N should apply to topics, and not articles? Do you agree that spinout articles are not nessisarily standalone topics? [break]

I agree that there exists a topic and an article, and that WP:N applies to topics; however, there tends to be one topic per article. Spinout articles have spinout topics. The topic of "List of characters in Star Wars", to give an example, is not "Star Wars"; it is "characters in Star Wars". Those topics do not inherit notability, and if the spinout topic doesn't have notability then the spinout article should be a candidate for AFD. Some spinout articles are beneficial but don't currently demonstrate enough coverage to meet WP:N; I would like to see the rules on how they can demonstrate coverage altered so that they do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is a Good Thing for inclusion criteria to potentially allow all articles, provided they are properly expressed through WP:SUMMARY within a Notable topic article. [break]

I agree, but WP:SUMMARY is about dealing with sections of articles that have, for good reasons, become very long. It's my contention that the only good reason for a section to do so is when there is enough coverage to justify that length. That coverage would also justify an article, so the article would be kept under WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is not, then it certainly should be AfD'ed. If it is, and it is just plot, then combat it with WP:IINFO and WP:WAF, not this document. The result is the same, the undesireable material gets removed. I think this method has the additional benefit of keeping revision history exposed and avoiding the need for administrative intervention to perform the deletion. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, could you let me know if this position/justification is understandable to you? Thanks -Verdatum (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your position, but I don't think that the tools you describe are up to the task of removing undesirable material. Users cutting back on excess detail are quickly reverted by editors who added or have other interests in the content; the only way to remove content in a lasting fashion is through AFD. WP:IINFO states that articles 'should contain real-world context and sourced analysis'; that's all I'm asking for. An exemption from notability is an exemption from real-world context and sourced analysis; it's an exemption from WP:IINFO. It's not a compromise. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Break 2

I have to respond to that big ol dump of LOEs in this discussion. It's pretty much established that a list of episodes is at the very least, a reasonable amount of summary dictated by how long a work is, and fundamental to the parent topic. Any TV show without a list of episodes is currently seen as incomplete, with exceptions to game shows, soap operas (though they do have their own forms of summary), and others. They are the very definition of a spinout article, and do not require any form of notability to be proven, since they are so fundamentally tied to the parent article. I find it funny that any of you in this discussion even mentioned AfDing any of them. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have mistakenly indicated otherwise above, but I do I agree that episode lists are appropriate. The reason I support these and oppose the others is simply because episodes are things that exist in the real world, whereas characters etc are not. I don't believe non-notable fiction in and of itself is a good enough reason for a spinout article in an encyclopedia - especially considering the reasoning for them, which I still don't like. While I understand Masem's point that WP is at a crossroads, I think that, as with any article that isn't appropriate now for whatever reason, if it becomes the case that we need it in the future we can write it then. Personally I'd be surprised if WP ever goes all-out inclusionist or deletionist to such an extent, so I don't think preparation for such an occurance is really necessary. While I may be a "deletionist", I like to think that this is because I consider things on their merits, and I honestly don't see any with the nn fiction lists, even discounting NOT#PLOT etc. Miremare 15:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning behind episode lists, I agree with, because they are a combination of real world elements (though trivial) and plot details. The types of non-notable lists and occasional singular topics I propose are the ones that are used to support such episode lists: you provide a list and brief descriptions of major and oft-reoccurring characters so that you don't have to explain who they are in each episode, and key terms and locations so that you don't have to explain those either; in other words, they should provide the primer to understand the show's plot and any real-world aspects without repeating the details of that character or element every time they are used. Mind you, the depth of these lists work hand in hand with the conciseness of plot descriptions suggested by WP:PLOT; plot descriptions shouldn't be covering every detail, so that background and insignificant one-off characters are likely not to be mentioned, discounting the need to include within a list. And of course, for single works or smaller series, such lists can typically be incorporated in the main body of the work, otherwise, we treat them as spinoffs. --MASEM 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Could someone explain why we are discussing episode lists here? Does this not fall into the scope of WP:EPISODE? ...(time passes) OK, inspection of the current state of the page shows it is at a crossroads regarding it's purpose, but shouldn't specific discussion of episodic content be differed until the confusion is settled there? (I could be completely wrong on this, as I'm much less familiar with the history of that article.) -Verdatum (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability has become the pentultimate criteria for inclusion in this encyclopedia. We are specifically discussing whether spin-out articles need to establish independent notability or not. I would say this discussion falls under WP:SPINOUT or WP:SS more than WP:EPISODE which is currently disputed, in rather poor shape, and is neither a true notability guideline nor a true manual of style guideline. Ursasapien (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to apply WP:BEANS to this whole discussion and stop fretting over the way some future editor may interpret spin-out lists? As has been said many times already, the majority of editors of fiction-related articles never visit a policy or guideline page anyway. Ursasapien (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we may be going too far out on a limb to try to outline a generally accepted practice (non-notable spinouts) without having a strong enough background or understanding on consensus through AfD or other locations to make any additional suggestions beyond the most basic - in other words, we don't have to change any language in the current FICT unless list articles become a significant battle ground in the future. --MASEM 05:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should gather a representative list of AfDs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure we should not wait until FICT has been in place for a while. Then, if list articles become a significant battleground, we could gather a list of AfDs that clarify the situation. Ursasapien (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the point to see whether the new rules have consensus? If wait for results based on the new rules, obviously they will support the new rules; it's not a fair test. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

List examples from AfD

I have compiled a list of fiction-list-related AfDs from January before the arbcom injunction. Since most of them got deleted, it's hard to tell in hindsight if the AfD result was justified. The speedy deletion of one list as A7 (bold) was interesting, I think. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverQuest timeline (3rd nomination) - delete
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advance Wars COs - delete
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Characters in The Warriors - delete
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lonelygirl15 Episodes - delete
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Factions - delete
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Codename: Kids Next Door - delete
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of issues addressed in Degrassi: The Next Generation - delete
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Degrassi-related articles -delete
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Saints in the Harry Potter Universe -delete
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of spells and potions in Sabrina, the Teenage Witch (TV series) -delete
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire -delete
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor Harry Potter beasts -delete
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Who Films -delete
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gears of War Weapons List -delete
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Camp Lazlo -delete
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo -merge then delete
17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zatch Bell! chapters - keep
18. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional video games -delete
19. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Fairly OddParents characters - keep
20. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Over the Hedge characters - no consensus
21. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha spells - delete
22. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Missions - speedy delete per A7
23. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond video game locations -delete
24. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of promotional Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards - delete
25. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Tales of the Abyss - delete
26. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of less common dragons in Dungeons & Dragons -redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)
27. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of melee weapons in the Star Wars universe - keep
28. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products in The Simpsons - no consensus
29. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television shows featuring mental illness -delete
30. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Princess Fiona's friends -delete
31. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destroyed Star Wars planets -delete
32. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of other Happy Tree Friends characters - merge
33. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jade Empire characters -keep
34. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of That's So Raven Episodes by Production Order -delete
35. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sealab 2021 minor characters -no consensus
36. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Floyd episodes - keep
37. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series -keep
38. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars ship-mounted weapons -delete

A quick rundown of this shows:

• Lists of characters (combined major/minor) with no other distinction made save for being part of a work are kept
• Lists of minor characters with no other distinction made are questionable
• Lists of episodes and/or chapters for serial works are kept
• Lists of characters that attempt to achieve some grouping or specific criteria, aka "List of fictional Saints in the Harry Potter Universe", are deleted
• Lists of locations are deleted
• Lists of terms are deleted (the star wars melee one is an exception in that one argued that they could show notability)
• Lists of arbitrary distinctions across multiple fictional works from different franchises are delete

That's a month snapshot, but that's a pretty good and probably more limited version of what I proposed, though I'd argue that there are times where locations and terms are appropriate.

Maybe we have three "classes" of lists. Those that are nearly always acceptable, those that are nearly always unacceptable, and those that will likely merit more scrutiny. We still need to consider each case one by one (not every work of fiction needs a separate character list, for example, if the main article is short), and this can be mentioned in the guideline that certain types of lists will receive concern for being WP:NOT and WP:IINFO. --MASEM 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Other things to consider: out of 38 lists, eight were keep/no consensus and two were merges. Of the explicit keeps, only one meets WP:N as commonly interpreted, i.e. has multiple non-trivial sources of coverage. Three have no coverage at all, and two have intermediate amounts of coverage. Of the three with no coverage, two have no subarticles in which to look for coverage, though one does quote ISBNs which could be considered primary source cites. Frankly, I think the Jade Empire characters article is a mistake; it's unsourced and as such wouldn't be appropriate even as a spinout. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing is not the same as notability. [break]

No, (secondary) sourcing is the means by which articles demonstrate notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, spinout lists need to be sourced (via primary sources) per WP:V, but a lack of sources should not be any reason to outright delete a spinout, though in time, it is expected they get added before too long; [break]

You can't have it both ways. If you want spinouts to be judged as part of the parent article, then per WP:V, unsourced claims should be removed. Completely unsourced spinout articles should by that logic be blanked, and it seems that in that case they should also be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

however, sourcing a spinout is much easier and much more likely than demonstrating notability for a spinout. --MASEM 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing a spinout is demonstrating notability for a spinout, as for any article. However, I agree that it should be easier for spinout lists because we agree that they are beneficial. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Other non-notable article(?)-lists(?)

Not to pour more oil into the fire, but what about Horcrux, Patronus Charm, and Zero Point Module, which are articles about real-world-non-notable (per WP:N) yet in-universe-notable single concepts, with a list of in-universe information at the end. Almost all of the 1.5 sources (if there are any) only confirm in-universe information, not real-world content. It's possible to merge the general concepts into lists, but then you'd lose the table. The first two examples were kept in their AfDs, the third one may survive an AfD as well, but I am pretty sure that if they weren't from popular works of fiction, they would be deleted pretty quickly as non-notable in-universe cruft. I am generally very hard on articles about single fictional concepts, and I am very lenient on lists when it comes to notability. So are the examples above exactly what WP:FICT means with "A spinout article on a single non-notable character or element may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article", so that we can add one of them as an example? As I am currently attempting to make all articles I care about "deletion-proof", I don't really know how to proceed, especially since popularity (and thus deletion-protection through consensus) in most kinds of fiction is known to drop very quickly. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you quote is the one I'm not happy with, since it exempts articles on fictional topics from coverage requirements. Nonetheless, all three of the articles you mention contain sources of coverage; just not quite at the conventional standards of WP:N, because that's usually read to require the topic of the article to be the topic of the source. It seems reasonable to let spinout articles claim coverage within sources devoted whose topic is the topic that has been spun-out - so, for example, significant coverage of a Horcrux within a source whose topic was Harry Potter, rather than specifically Horcruxes, would be considered to be significant coverage for the purposes of WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Take out the list-part aspects, and each of these seems to be a non-notable element that can be fit into a list of terms that are necessary to include (as one would a list of characters) to understand plot or other aspects, so the inclusion of these topics in WP is necessary, how to present them is another issue. I would argue that this is where we can borrow a bit from WP:IINFO and WP:DIR. The Zero Point Module case is the one that strongly goes against this because it is simply a list of (possibly) an unbounded set of objects, each specific object having no significant impact on the show. Thus, the "list" here is excessive per WP:NOT, and once removed, the remainder of that article could be put into a list of Stargate Terms and/or merged to the Stargate object article. Horcrux is different in that each example is a unique object that plays an important role, and there's only a very limited number; the information is neither indiscriminate nor a directory. Thus, that's fine. Patronus Charm is iffy, though I'd tend to favor the same approach as with the ZPM: the list there, while not truly indiscriminate, feels like information that can be described in the individual character section (see Hogwarts students for example). Take the list out, you've got a decent entry for a list of terms for HP.

So my criteria based on these is that lists should be bounded and not indiscriminate, to be an appropriate list within non-notable considerations (this would be true for any list per WP:LIST, but moreso here).

I will note that the Horcrux article is rather wordy without notability, and likely while I would not fail mention each of the various Horcruxes (Horcurii?) I think that with trimming and transwikiing of the bulk of that content, that page could still be folded into a single terminology article for the HP series. --MASEM 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Rules and consensus

Reading Percy Snoodle's words above ("By leaving ambiguity..."), a chill went up my spine. I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but imagine if those words were, "By leaving ambiguity we turn what should be simple procedural executions into drawn-out trials." [break]

I didn't say or mean that, and I find it insulting that you suggest I did. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood both what you said and what you meant. But how you phrased what you said sounded plainly to me like a presumption of guilt. The consequences of such a presumption in a different context are obviously horrifying, and they should be disturbing in this context as well.

There is no such thing as a "procedural AfD", in the sense of "just a formality". Speedies serve that role. AfDs are for ascertaining consensus for the deletion of indvidual articles. Measuring consensus is not procedural in nature; it requires discussion and evaluation. It's not good when discussions degenerate into flame wars, but such disagreements are still, by definition, a lack of consensus. When there is no consensus to uphold a rule, are those who failed to uphold the rule wrong? I maintain in such circumstances that it is the rule that is wrong because it failed to match consensus.--Father Goose (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't embrace flame wars, but Wikipedia's mandate is to uphold consensus, not procedure. If there is ambiguity, it is present in the consensus (or absence thereof), and if any procedure does not reflect that there may be an absence of consensus, it is wrong.--Father Goose (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think there is an absence of consensus. Most editors want the better lists to stay. Do most editors want to completely abandon WP:IINFO? No. So we can't have an exemption, we should find a way to keep these articles within the guidelines. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can we not have an exception? Is having a guideline that interprets how we apply WP:IINFO to fiction abandoning WP:IINFO? I think not. I think your black and white, right or wrong, on/off approach is not conducive to a collaborative project that proceeds through consensus. If you would like to work on an encyclopedia with rigid rules, there is always Britannica. Ursasapien (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the "guideline interprets how we apply WP:IINFO to fiction" is an exemption then it says, "don't apply WP:IINFO". That is indeed abandoning WP:IINFO. I'm not asking for the approach you describe; I'm asking for guidance rather than the absence of guidance. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The trouble there may be that there is no clear consensus for applying IINFO to anything but the five specific types of info listed under it. People's definitions of what is "indiscriminate information" vary widely, and if you find people aren't agreeing with you, you're either applying too broad an interpretation of IINFO, or it's too broadly worded.

The one part of IINFO that does plainly apply to fiction is WP:PLOT, and if anything, I wish it were more restrictive, personally. Ten-paragraph "plot summaries" are ridiculous, even in featured articles. I don't believe WP:N(F) is undermining WP:PLOT. It is however pointing out that we do not agree that IINFO (and WP:N itself) should apply to various other types of information. And if we are undermining some other rule, that means that other rule is wrong. The rules are an expression of our views, not the other way around.--Father Goose (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with the above, except for "I don't believe WP:N(F) is undermining WP:PLOT." As long as it's worded as an exemption, it sidesteps WP:PLOT and indeed all of WP:IINFO entirely. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with the above sentiment. We have been working on the wording of WP:IINFO for a while and the prescriptive and proscriptive have always remained intact: Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. That says A LOT more than just we shouldn't have excessive plot summaries. In fact, it is fairly straightforward; the problem is that those who disagree with our policies muddy the waters in promotion of their own views. That can be disingenuous, however. Eusebeus (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That sentence is quite clear; it's asking for coverage. Notability is worded in terms of coverage, so an exemption from notability is an exemption from WP:IINFO. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge the fact that IINFO is worded very carefully. But even speaking as an article editor, as opposed to someone trying to influence policy, using IINFO alone, I'm extremely confused on how to apply it to editing decisions. terms like "excessive" are intentionally left undefined so that decisions can be made on a case-by-case basis using concensus. But it makes it difficult to use as a tool to cite as a justification for major edits. Still, I believe this is acceptable and good because I believe that interpretation of this policy is the role of WP:WAF. I do not believe it is the role of NP:N(F). I can justify this position on request, but I'm trying to remain brief. -Verdatum (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you about the terms later in WP:IINFO, such as "excessive", giving us room in which to debate. However, "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis" is unambiguous. Sources are required, both by WP:IINFO and WP:V. The role of WP:N(F) is to clarify how WP:N applies to articles on fictional topics; it is outside its remit to repeal WP:IINFO. The current wording does so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a policy or not?

This has both the {{proposed}} and {{Wikipedia subcat guideline}}tags on it. How is that possible? Is this a guideline or not? Padillah (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a guideline turned disputed guideline turned rewritten guideline turned proposed guideline hoping to turn into an accepted guideline. Attempts to get rid of the "proposed" status have so far been unsuccessful for various reasons, although the guideline in its current form enjoys as much support as it possibly can under the circumstances. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

whatever it is, it is not and will not be policy, just as the parent WP:N is not policy, but a guideline. The question, as Sguereka says, is whether this is a generally acceptable guideline. As he says, if it is , it wont be because everyone likes it, but because the general feeling is that it's the best we can do at the moment. DGG (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to include link

Please consider adding a link to Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary review in the Relocating non-notable fictional material section, as this explains the process to use if an editor wishes to transwiki a previously deleted article. G.A.S 06:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't institutionalise lists

The discussion is revolving around lists, but this will lead to a hardening of the attitude that the only quasi-notable fiction article allowed is a list. Lists inevitably lose 'basic' real world info, get their pictures removed by the fair use people and create a false sense of equality between characters.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if they did create a "false sense of equality between characters", which I doubt, why is that cause for worry?--Father Goose (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists are not NPOV - they are a Procrustean bed which distort a topic by fitting its elements into a uniform format. The proper format for a topic on Wikipedia is the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

they have their places--it is simply contrary to common sense to insist on a full article for really minor characters. On a practical basis, such insistance will forfeit sympathy. what we need to do is make certain it is plainly stated that a list can grow and spin off into articles as necessary, and that in general separate articles are appropriate for the principal characters of really major works or series. that's something we might be able to agree on. DGG (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Even "the principal characters of really major works" rarely are notable enough for their own articles. Only a relative few have more that can be said about them, with proper, reliable, third-party sourcing, beyond just the plot. Real-world info from commentary and other materials directly tied to the creators of the work can not be used to establish the notability for having their own articles, only act as supplements for expanding said article once notability is established. Collectonian (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is where a few editors of guideline pages disagree with thousands of editors of editors of article pages, although I agre with the many myself. Let's build a list of AfDs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Real-world info from commentary and other materials directly tied to the creators of the work can not be used to establish the notability for having their own articles." I think this runs directly counter to the current version of this guideline. Ursasapien (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an interpretation of Wikipedia:Independent sources, which may or may not be overly strong depending on what you interpret "directly tied to the creators of the work" to mean. This guideline should address the concerns raised at WP:IS, to some extent, but perhaps less strongly than that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Commentaries are a sticky wicket - that's why there's a cautionary note in the guideline about SELFPUB sources. An article sourced only on commentary is likely to be questioned about notability, but if the work was sufficiently popular enough to warrant the creation of commentary, there is likely other material that can be used to better demonstrate notability, such as sources to state the popularity of the work. There's also a possible argument that, particularly for works that are produced by numerous people, that individual commentary could be seen as a secondary source, since that one person is providing their interpretation and analysis of the original work particularly if the commentary was created some time (months to years) after the distribution of the work. Again, if we are going for a compromise position to get us to a point where, like non-notable list/elements, we can then all collectively take a breather and decide if we need to shift around from the tentative middle point, we should be allowing for the use of commentary as the only means for notability should be considered - it's not an absolute guarantee either way, but it's better than no demonstration at all. --MASEM 15:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re false sense of equality:

The false sense of equality is a problem because it encourages undue weight to be given to characters who are relatively unimportant to the narrative, misleading people who are unfamilar with the fiction. If there are three main characters who account for 90% of the dialogue, they're unlikely to get 50% of the list if there are many minor characters jostling for attention.

Re principal characters of really major works:

The view that 'most' principal characters of really major works aren't notable is just an opinion. My impression is that the fiction deletionists don't have any training or qualifications to make such a claim. Let's not forget that for two years, Alyosha Karamazov was cited in this very guideline as a 'good' redirect. Google is not research, and Digimon and Stargate are not 'really major works'. For century-old literature and certain kinds of film (Blade Runner or the Hitchcock films, for example) there is a superabundance of critical commentary which supports the creation of character articles.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly why individual character articles should be very limited to those that have the abundance of critical commentary; this removes any bias that the user may have towards the work.

For lists, taking the example that if 3 characters have 90% of the dialog, then obviously those three are major characters and likely will get 1 to 3 paragraphs in a list (assuming none are non-notable). Any other supporting characters should get one paragraph at most, and this assumes they are reoccurring; one-offs should rarely be discussed at all. This is more a manual of style approach that should tie in with such non-notable lists, but isn't a notability issue itself. --MASEM 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that notability is a given for principal characters from 'really major' fiction. There should not be a problem with stubs and start-classes for them, any more than there should be a problem with a town or politician stub. As for lists, even a 3:1 paragraph ratio is too much. In some cases, the correct approach is to have character articles first. Colonel Warden is absolutely right about lists being a Procrustean bed.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine to say that for "really major" fiction, stub articles for characters are acceptable because yes, they are likely notable, no one's gotten around to sourcing them that way. But we're back to how to define "really major". I'm sure there's a good subset of works that are clearly "really major" (aka, pretty much any work studied in high-school English course, for a start), but I think the only save guideline here is if the core work itself is a basis for significant academic coverage, then characters of that work are likely to be notable and stubs of such characters shouldn't be merged away with the same tenacity as modern or contemporary works. The academic coverage requirement would mean that people have likely written essays to explain the motivations of certain characters, and thus will have sourcing. But any other definition of "really major" is open to a lot of interpretation. Given enough effort, I would likely be able to argue that "Spongebob Squarepants" is "really major" (within the area of modern cartoons) to the same degree that "Romeo and Juliet" is.

Also, in the creation of new articles on a work of fiction, one should be creating the main article first with a list of characters within it, breaking out the list of characters (notable or not) to a separate list per spinout, and only breaking out individual characters if notable on their own or in rare cases where it is needed for spinout. The key is that separate pages from a work of fiction should only be created after notability is demonstrated or necessitated by spinout. Of course, what we have now is a lot of separate pages to begin with as this approach is relatively new compared to the life of WP, and that newbies don't always read policy/guideline before creating articles. We need to make sure the approach to bring together non-notable articles into lists or main bodies gets us to the same result as if the articles were all new, and parts were split off per notability and spinoff requirements. As for the ratio of what major characters to minor characters get, this is where WP:UNDUE provides the right guidance. In the hypothetical example if it is truly the case that 90% of the dialog is around 3 characters, then I'd expect that the balance of the character list would be close to 90% content of the major characters. If the other 10% of the dialog is made up of 100 characters, obviously trying to list and describe each one is undue weight; the list here I'd convert to quick lists to group the characters but spend little time explaining each in detail. --MASEM 22:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So that's one definition of 'really major'. We can just as easily come up with others.

You're wrong about lists being the only correct way to expand fictional coverage. I suspect this is down to the omnipresence of SF in fiction deletionist thinking, where the 'fictional universe' is king, driving the creation of minutae-stuffed lists. It would be ridiculous to have a List of characters in the Richard Hannay universe, but it's reasonable to have an article on Richard Hannay, the protagonist of John Buchan's thrillers.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, any other definition of "really major" has to lead to a path where sources are highly likely to exist, because just satisfying "really major" is not a free pass to not ultimately showing notability through sources.

And, not having read the work, I will assume that yes, Hannay would be a singular element, though since some of the works have been made into movies and film, there's a possibility that further notability can be provided for the character, though one could also argue that the book series itself could be made into a single article (notable, no question) and describe Hannay and other major themes within it. Regardless, yes, you'd never have lists, but if I were writing the Hannay stuff fresh, then the character description of Hannay would appear in the first book's article, using templates to reference it, and if I felt there were character changes throughout, a spinout may make sense. But still, that's shouldn't be done until I'm sure that a spinout would work better than just see-also templates to the first book or to a series article (effectively a notable wrapper around the character).

Remember, spinning out content is the justification to allow non-notable elements to have lists or their own articles - their approach and creation needs to be handled as such; lists are generally easy and acceptable, but there's often times that a singular element can be approached in a different way as to make the spinout unnecessary, though not all times, but this is why non-notable articles for singular elements are very commonly at AFD. --MASEM 13:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists are 'easy and acceptable' because they fit fiction deletionists' pre-conceived notions of what fiction is 'supposed' to look like. Fiction which doesn't fit is bashed until it does, no matter how distorting or counter-intuitive. Bodging the Richard Hannay character info into the first novel is a very poor solution. A series article is more sensible, although it's an open question as to which is more high profile, the series or the character.

As I've already explained, 'really major' is a free pass, since there is no way to prove non-existence of sources. As long as the principles are easily understood, transparent and likely to lead to sources, there is no problem.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If "really major" was easily understood and transparent, there would have been no ArbCom cases against TTN, instead of the two that resulted when TTN was trying to merge characters articles that weren't "really major"; our AFDs wouldn't be filled with highly contested disputes over fictional elements. We have to assume good faith for editors, but we also need to assume a lowest common denominator for editors' understanding of principles, and we should never assume something should be obvious to all if it's written out in a guideline or policy, because "really major" is going to mean 100 different things to 100 different editors. --MASEM 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I'm proposing a standard for 'major' be established on this guideline, like WP:MUSIC's many criteria. People may disagree, but they can contest it, and a acceptable standard can gradually be developed.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand that, and no, I'm not against establishing any "quick pass" to fictional notability; the key is that any such "quick pass" needs to be an assured criteria that will likely have real-world context. WP:MUSIC and WP:FILM have several quick passes, but ultimately each topic still needs to demonstrate that. For fiction, saying anything from "major works" or even "really major works" gets a quick pass at notability may be ok, but I argue that the word "major" in the context of "major works" is a highly subjective term, to a point that a quick pass criteria will not very likely have sources. (in comparison, "major" in the context of "major characters" is generally more objective, particularly when limited to just one work).

I have offered one idea: "Major characters from works that have received significant academic coverage", as if the works have been established in academics in that fashion, likely there has been analysis of the characters and so forth; this would make nearly any book that has Cliff Notes a likely possibility to have notable character articles. Another possible one is "Characters whose portraying actors have won a major award for portraying that character", as there are likely to be interviews with the actor and possibility the creator of the character, pre- and post-award ceremony. Any other quick passes for fictional notability need to have the likelihood that sources exist to establish them, so that's why we need to avoid "major works"; how is the work major? - what is major due to popularity, or was it major because of the influence on the arts, or .. and so forth. A more exacting definition of "major works" is necessary to consider how to take this further. --MASEM 12:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not a work is 'major' is not the issue here; the problem is identifying major elements within works, as those elements are the topic of the articles in question. "Major characters from works that have received significant academic coverage" isn't relevant unless the academic coverage is of the characters, since notability is not inherited. "Characters whose portraying actors have won a major award for portraying that character" is fine, since the award is in a sense coverage of that character. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This thread reminds me of the drive to discourage succession boxes on WP:WAF, as they also had the side effect of creating a false sense of equality. -- Ned Scott 08:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This thread raises another argument about allowing spinouts of all fictional topics based only on length, rather than notability of subtopics; it gives a false equality to top-level fictional topics. To avoid that there needs to be, at the very least, a prohibition of spinouts of spinouts. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While it's very likely that a spinout of a spinout is excessive, I feel we don't know enough of where exactly consensus/AFD handling of these cases sit to be able to say that. Also, we can't "prohibit" something, we're a guideline, not even policy can prohibit something, but only strongly discourage their creation. --MASEM 12:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We can state that this guideline doesn't make an allowance for them, which would amount (in the context of an AFD) to the same thing. It would be better, I think, to add a note to that end now and remove it later, than to allow an infinity of articles on every fictional topic. I'll make the change now and see what you think. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't state that this guideline doesn't make an allowance for them, since it amounts to the opposite, which is also true. This guideline, quite rightly in my mind, doesn't comment either way because consensus is unclear and we don't want to load the debate. My view of Wikipedia differs from yours. Fortunately, both have equal primacy. Let that situation continue, rather than attempting to enforce your own particular view. That's one of the principles Wikipedia was founded upon. All the best, Hiding T 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence. Do I take it from "My view of Wikipedia differs from yours" that you believe that every fictional topic should be allowed to produce an unlimited number articles to an unlimited degree of detail, so long as the top-level topic passes the notability requirements? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My first sentence means that if this guidance is to actually not comment on spinouts of spinouts, it should not comment on them even to the point of stating that it makes no allowances for them. Commenting on them from either side of the debate pre-loads the debate. As to what you assume about my position, my position has been stated many times here there and everywhere. You link to the essay on Independent Sources above. Before you assume anything more about my position, maybe you should review the history of that essay, and then attempt to better paint my position. I have stated that my view and yours differs, and that I have no wish to enforce my view, and that should be enough ground upon which to start a defence of your position. Do you have a desire to enforce your position? If not, what does it matter if someone wishes produce an unlimited number articles to an unlimited degree of detail, so long as the top-level topic passes the notability requirements? Is that a view you wish to eradicate or prevent? If so, then I strongly oppose you because I believe there is no current consensus by all editors of Wikipedia that that view holds no sway and should be barred, opposed, prevented or otherwise eradicated, discouraged or thought lacking, inane or treated in any way as being detrimental to producing Wikipedia. Hope that helps, and all the best. Hiding T 16:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost track of the negatives there again. You seem to be saying there's no consensus. Shouldn't we be working towards one? Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think we aren't? Hiding T 12:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused by this conversation. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about non-notable characters vs. Body of Work.

I have a question that has been cropping up in a lot of the Dragonlance articles but I have been noticing more and more (TV shows etc,). What do we do when the main subject matter is notable (Say, the M*A*S*H T.V. show which has proven itself notable) but the characters are not BUT the characters have such an enormous body of work that including sections would make the main article too large and cumbersome? The character (let's say, B. J. Hunnicutt), in and of itself, is not notable. But they deserve mention because of their part in the body of work. But any mention of them would quickly grow too cumbersome for the article. If we try and spin these characters off into articles of their own we can't support them based on their own notability as they are only really notable as a part of the show. How would we handle that situation? Padillah (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the many issues being discussed on this page. Most of the editors here will tell you to gut the page and merge it into a list of characters article or into the main article itself. Wikipedia precedent and past practice on the other hand is that an article on Hunnicut is fine as a stand alone article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But even a "List of Characters" article, if it holds all the nn characters from a series like M*A*S*H, is going to be too large and cumbersome. Hmm, let's see where the discussion goes. Padillah (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's two ways this could be taken. First, without any notability information, the article has too much detail - fictional characters should not be given a biography like one would a real person unless the biographic information of the character is notable; this tends to go against WP:PLOT. Trimming the article down to talk about his personality, family, relationships with other characters, and key events in the show that affected him, would be sufficient to put into a list, with what is presently there can be transwiki'd to a GFDL-compat wiki. The other way to go is that this is MASH, and I would expect there are actor interviews in addition to other notable information that can be used to support a lengthier character article (though some trimming is recommended), thus allowing it to meet WP:FICT. However, leaving it in its current state is going to likely cause people to consider its deletion. --MASEM 19:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not a good test case since he's going to turn out to be notable. Even without being able to search newspaper archives, google news turns up a lot articles that mention him. [2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec 2x) My view on B. J. Hunnicutt - the sections "Personality" and "Relationship with wife and family" appears to be original researched analysis, either directly or through synthesis, and should be removed or sourced. Most of the trivia is trivial and can be removed. The Quotes section should be moved to wikiquote. The plot holes section can be removed as either trivial or original research. His character arc needs to be sourced to episodes. If you do all of this properly, you will see that the article can be merged quite easily because it is so short, or the article can stay because it demonstrates notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Example section

I've been offline for about two days, so I'm not sure if I'm totally up to date on the discussion, but from what I understand is that we want some way to indicate good spinout articles and to discourage "not-so-good" spinout articles. In the older version of WP:FICT, when the section was added that articles are sometimes added for reasons of style to length, I tried to propose some form of example section that would greatly help give better guidance on when do spin them out. WP:LINKLOVE#Link assessment table and WP:CANVAS#Types of canvassing have some really interesting example sections that might be useful. Not sure if that format would work nor not, but some kind of check list like this would be nice. -- Ned Scott 08:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the PROD suggestion

Regarding the following suggestion:

If you believe the article will never have a chance of demonstrating notability or cannot be merged elsewhere, place the article up for proposed deletion. An article about a character in a TV show that only appeared on-screen for a few seconds and is never referred to otherwise is probably non-notable; however, by using the proposed deletion process, someone may be able to provide the required notability. If you are unsure if this is the correct step, then do not perform this step.

I removed this from the draft. First, I thought we had agreed that deletion should be the last resort. Second, I truly do not think this needs to be suggested. Deletion-minded editors will certainly take this course. Third, I agree with Nydas that this is biased against articles that do not get much traffic. Especially with this being the first suggestion. I think a better suggestion would be to take it to the new Fiction Noticeboard. Ursasapien (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as any editor can create new articles at will, there needs to be a way to propose the deletion of articles without much bureaucracy. Fiction-related articles already have a de-facto protection from speedy deletion, so prodding remained the only alternative for clearly nn material (merging/redirecting is not always the solution). In addition, prods can be removed by anyone, and the deleting admin makes the final decision if the deletion rationale is valid. The last two sentences of the paragraph already account for that. Even if this paragraph is removed from this guideline, I will continue prodding where I see fit, so the guideline may as well provide some guideline (pun intended) when a prod is reasonable. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you wrote. A PROD is reasonable when an editor feels that the deletion would be uncontroversial. This common editing policy and does not need to be rehashed in this guideline. An admin (in my experience) rarely questions an undisputed PROD. This could be problematic for articles that are not well-monitored. However, I would be ameanable to the inclusion of this clause, as long as the caveat that the editor that applies the PROD tag should also put a PROD warning on the creating editors talkpage (and preferably the fiction noticeboard). Ursasapien (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Standard PROD procedure does say to drop a message to the article's main editor(s), that can be added. I am unaware if PRODs are sorted like AFD's, however - I've never seen such a list; maybe there needs to be a similar one in general? However, I recommend against using the FICT/N board for PROD notices: FICT/N is part of a dispute resolution process, and I don't think we need to fill it up with incoming PROD notices. --MASEM 12:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

E.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Television#Television_Proposed_deletions and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_characters#Fictional_character_Proposed_deletions try to give a list of prods, but they are usually out-of-date (and they also seem to get ignored). Some of the more popular fiction-related wikiprojects have sections where prods/Afds can be noted. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be something that should be suggested at a higher level, to have PROD sorting like there is with deletion sorting? I know there's a few editors that keep active here (Pixelface for one) for fiction-related topics (including TV and games) for AfD's, I would think that adding PROD to that area of coverage would also help. (However, this is likely above and beyond FICT's area). --MASEM 15:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most projects del sort areas also have sections there for listing PRODs (as well as other xFds). I think people do, however, tend not to make as much effort in finding and noting those as they are with AfDs. Collectonian (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Put it back as it needs discussion. The fiction board is not for that purpose, it is for dealing with discussions where peopel can't agree on how to deal with issues. A PROD is a normal part of the process and should be mentioned, and as sgeureka notes, people will use it regardless of the guideline. Collectonian (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Given some of the above, I have added one adding phrase to the first sentence re PROD, which now reads: If you believe the article will never have a chance of demonstrating notability or cannot be merged elsewhere, and that its deletion is not contestable, place the article up for proposed deletion. This should help to prevent zealous editors from PRODing a lot, by implying that if there's going to be an issue over the PROD, it shouldn't be done in the first place. --MASEM 14:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - reply to Collectonian) Agreed. I believe that proposed deletions are in fact one of the least disruptive ways to go about this, since they are easy to contest, and can furthermore be restored by any admin upon reasonable request (Refer to Wikipedia:PROD#After deletion). If an article is not well monitored, it is likely that it is not notable either. G.A.S 14:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded your addition slightly, as technically no prod is "not contestable" and anyone could contest it for any reason, even just being bored. So changed to "unlikely to be contested." Hopefully that will work? Collectonian (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is pedantic instructioncruft and should be removed. The viewpoints being used to defend it are naive. Most fiction has no specific wikiproject to look after it, and low traffic fiction articles are the norm, not the exception. Asking an admin to restore it is not 'easy', it's a nuisance and intimidating for new editors.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Any deletion route is biased technically against any type of article that receives low traffic; the best thing we can do is rely on those that partake in deletion sorting to include both PRODs and AFDs to the approach sections, and that those interested in those areas watch and review them. Furthermore, not mentioning PROD will not make it go away, we just define a more restrictive case than without that statement because without it, people will PROD any character they feel non-notable; here, at least, we give them several considerations of thought before that tag is slapped on an article (and yes, there will still be people that PROD anyway, regardless if its mentioned in the guideline or not; all we can do is if their PRODs consistently are on contested articles, they need to be told that). And most importantly, article creation (including patently bad articles) is easy, getting rid of patently bad articles (ones that I don't believe even the inclusionists would say merit an article) on fictional elements is difficult because CSD cannot be applied: we need a process that provides a streamlined route to remove such articles which is what PROD is; the difficulty of getting article content restored via an admin is a very minor barrier to this process. --MASEM 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The instructioncruft could be condensed into a sentence or less in the deletion section after the other options. All it needs to do is to provide a link to proposed deletions. Nobody will pay any attention to these pointless rules and modifications.

There's no need for a 'streamlined' route, since the mythical flood of fancruft doesn't exist.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on how to proceed

Given the recent, er, "passionate" discussion on the matter, I'd like a second opinion on how to proceed on this.

I recently came across the article Humanx Commonwealth, and through it the articles AAnn and Ulru-Ujurrians. None of these articles are showing real-world notability in the least, so my thought would be to merge them into a spinout article on races / characters in the main book or series article. This is where I run into a brick wall -- what is the main article? It's unclear from the article if the Humanx Commonwealth is a feature of just one book series or if it is used in many books by Alan Dean Foster. Either way, the place for the spinout article isn't clear to me, unless it's from the Alan Dean Foster itself. Thoughts?--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is really not appearent what the main article should be (I have never heard of these books), but User:Paul A, who started Humanx Commonwealth, is still an active editor, and he may be able to help. – sgeureka ^t•c

Merging them into lists might work, but the ambiguity around lists essentially makes it down to whether Wikipedians have heard of/like the fiction in question. I suspect these works aren't in the 'in-crowd'.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: "Depth of coverage" section

Nydas removed the following section from the guideline and I subsequently restored it.

Articles on fiction should be structured around evaluations and critiques of the work or topic, with an appropriate balance of plot information, as outlined at Manual of Style (Writing about fiction). The size of a plot summary is often determined by building consensus for each article on a case by case basis. Editors should compare approaches taken on featured and good articles about fiction for examples of length and tone.

Depth of coverage within an article should be guided by the amount of information which can be sourced. A single movie, book, video game, or other work of fiction has most likely not generated large coverage in sources which Wikipedia can summarize. Therefore, the article will be able to summarize those sources in one article. On the other hand, a series of books, television shows, or video games could have a commonality of elements which are better covered in a spinout article, helping to provide suitable background and supplementary information for each work within the series. However, articles about individual elements (i.e. a specific character or location) or individual segments of serialized works (i.e. episodes of a television program or issues of a comic book) should establish individual notability as opposed to inherited notability. At times, better depth of coverage may be accomplished by combining notable and non-notable elements into a single topic, such as a character cast or a single season of a television show instead of individual elements. WikiProjects that deal with fiction have guidelines describing what depth of coverage should be provided for plot information relative to the length of the original work. The complexity of the work should also be taken into a consideration; uses of certain creative elements (such as time travel or flashbacks) may require more detail to clearly explain the concepts in an encyclopedic manner.

If there is an imbalance of fictional information in an article, consider trimming the text or moving the fictional information to an appropriate GFDL-compatible Wiki.

I would like to know his specific objections to this section, and what could be done to improve or clarify the section. I strongly hold that the guideline must contain a section detailing how editors decide "depth of coverage" issues. Ursasapien (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's redundant with writing about fiction and adds unnecessary bloat to the guideline.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WAF that talks about undue weight, beyond the pointer back to here and WP:UNDUE. Mind you, some points in WAF suggest what already is here, but it is necessary to talk about depth/undue weight and notability at the same time, because the amount of notable information is going to drive the depth of coverage. --MASEM 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in this section that can be understood or followed without first interpreting the ambiguous or meaningless language. Like the lists section, it's a license for favouritism. No doubt 'commonality of elements' and 'suitable background' will apply to fiction which is important in the Wikiverse, whilst everything else gets hosed. If that's the case, we might as well remove the section, since all it does is add flab to this bloated guideline.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, it has nothing to do with favoritism, and your continued assertion of that is not helpful. -- Ned Scott 12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a side effect of the poor state of this guideline, this section in particular. Take this sentence:

The complexity of the work should also be taken into a consideration; uses of certain creative elements (such as time travel or flashbacks) may require more detail to clearly explain the concepts in an encyclopedic manner.

Firstly, it contradicts the rest of the section. To what extent does complexity overrule the need for sources? Secondly, 'creative element' is a protologism. We are told that flashbacks and time travel 'may' count, what else?--Nydas^(Talk) 15:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of this part is that if you are describing the plot or fictional elements of the work, that you should "exactly" as much language and discussion to make sure the content is clear. Of course, "exactly" is impossible to define, but what this means is that if your plot involves several different sub-plots, time travel, flashbacks, or other creative elements that break the "A, then B, then C" mold of events (which would be impossible to fully enumerate because there's an infinite number of ways a story can be told), then the coverage should be allowed to expand to make sure it is clearly understood what is going on; in some cases, this can actually reduce the amount of text and coverage, Memento (film) is a good example of this. The entire jist of this section is that there are no exact rules for depth of coverage; the "exact" amount of depth of coverage that a work should get is a case-by-case judgment call. However despite the guidelines being vague, the point is that coverage is a function of sources of notability; a subject that is barely notable should not be given several pages of text, while those that can be sourced many ways can be given a lot, but there is no attempt to define a ratio that is required to be met or not to be exceeded. --MASEM 16:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to say that Depth of coverage should be governed by the fiction's importance and to a lesser extent by the complexity of the narrative. That's all that needs to be said. A sprawling paragraph sprinkled with neologisms is unnecessary and damaging.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If a spinout shrinks

Should we include a section advising that if a spinout article shrinks to the stage where it would no longer be excessively long in the parent, it should be merged? This might happen if a user span an article out, but another user realised that the spun-out content was unverifiable or original research. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That might be better in WP:WAF, as that's moving away from what notability has to do with spinouts. It's also implied by merging (the reverse of a spinout) and other aspects covered here. --MASEM 13:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate here; WP:WAF is about what should be in a spinout; the question of when spinouts are and are not appropriate is more of a notability than a style issue. I do note, however, that WP:WAF includes the caution "Editors are cautioned to not immediately create such sub-articles that lack real-world coverage, even if such articles exist for a similar fictional work." which I think would be and appropriate caution on this page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Identifying spinouts (Was: Partial revert)

I took out the good faith addition of "Articles which do not begin as sections of an article are not spinouts of that article." I think we can all agree that, for example, Arrakis is a spinout article of Dune universe, without having to go all the way back through the article histories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but we how should we distinguish between genuine spinouts (which exist because of size concerns) and articles which wouldn't have appeared as sections in a parent article? Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't (though at one point I offered up a "in-universe rationale" talk page template that would describe when and how the spinout was created). The idea is that barring any shifts in policy from here on out, all new spinouts and all existing non-notable lists can be brought to the same type of presentation, making it impossible to tell if the article started as a spinout or not, rendering the history of that article moot for the reader. --MASEM 15:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we need some way to do so. Far to many people attempt to claim something was a "spin-out" when in reality it never even existed in the main article and they just recreated it because they wanted to. It is fairly easy to tell if something started as a spin out or not by looking at the date it was created, then checking the main pages edits on the same date to see if it was there. Collectonian (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should require there to be a corresponding section in the parent article? It's common and beneficial to leave a {{main}} tag and sometimes a copy of the lead section behind in the main article when creating a spinout. So, for example, Companion (Doctor Who) is clearly a spinout of Doctor Who#Companions. We should probably also provide a template along the lines of User:Percy Snoodle/Spinout template which would identify spinouts and provide a link back to the parent article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See {{SubArticle}}, which barely survived TfD as recently as February. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be ideal. I do think it should appear at the head of the article (like a dab link) not on the talk page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have been fairly strongly in favor of this idea (using Template:SubArticle or another template with similar intent) from the begining of the rewrite of this guideline. It would serve to protect from AfDs that fail to make any argument beyond WP:N. Now that arbcom is completed and controversy about the cahnges here seem to be begining to decline, perhaps it's a good time to voice my opinions there. (If you read the discussion on that template, and the arbcom, it's a bit hairy, so I chose to wait.) -Verdatum (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Ok, I put forth my proposal here. It would potentially affect the content of this guidline, so it may be worth reading to interested parties. -Verdatum (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I further agree with percy's comment about the use of {{main}}. I believe this is defined within WP:SUMMARY. An article is only truely a spinout article if it is referenced by a parent article in a proper summary style. If it is not worth summarizing in the parent article, it is not worth existing as an "abandoned child" article. -Verdatum (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, identifying spinouts' sources in the lead section seems to have a fair amount of support, so how would people feel about replacing "Spinout articles should be judged as if it were still a section of the parent article, and identified in the lead section as an article covering elements within a fictional work." with "Spinout articles are an expanded version of a section of a parent article, and should be judged as if they took the place of that section. The parent section should link to the spinout, and the spinout should identify and link to the parent section in their lead section." Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Spinout of spinout

"It is usually inappropriate to spin out an element or elements from a spinout article that lacks real-world coverage." I had to read this passage a couple times before understanding it's intent. I have no strong specific arguments about the wording, but I wonder if it could be improved (IOW, I couldn't think of a better wording, but I suspect one might exist). My larger concern is, the statement begs the question "Why?" I think the idea is a reasonable compromise, because making a spinout from a spinout article (that is to say, a grandchild article) without real world coverage is a strong sign of undue weight towards plot elements. Perhaps a similar justification is sufficient and should be added to clarify/justify the statement. Thoughts? -Verdatum (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

more generally, because if the 1st level spinout doesnt have independent notability, a further level will probably be carrying the detail too far. But this is not at all true if , for example there is a spinout article on characters, and one or two of them are notable and the rest arent.DGG (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording does have to be revised, to cover the situation of breaking a List of characters in X article, to a list of minor characters in X and articles about individual notable characters. Any suggestions for wording? DGG (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If, in a list of characters, one or two have sufficient coverage to warrant an article, then those characters' articles wouldn't be spinouts; they'd be articles on a notable topic. If, on the other hand, they didn't, then it would be inappropriate to break them out of the spinout list article, In neither case is a spinout of a spinout appropriate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Guidance requested — inclusion criteria in list of ...

I and another editor are currently reworking an anime series's character articles and character list, and require an opinion as to when minor characters should be omitted from an character list:

• The applicable policies and guidelines are:

1. WP:NN, which states: "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content"; there are one exception (not applicable here).
2. The old version of WP:FICT[3], and the basis of that guideline; both of which is not active anymore, but I would argue still applicable, which states that "Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a 'List of characters.'". It also states "The difference between major and minor characters is intentionally vague; the main distinguishing criterion is how much nontrivial information is available on the character."
3. Again the deletion policy; which also states that "Trivial characters from major works should be deleted as unencyclopedic"
4. WP:WIAFL; which states that featured lists should be "Comprehensive". It does not explain the issue of trivial list items, though.
5. WP:V; which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability...", without specifying the need for secondary sources.
6. WP:FANCRUFT; which defines the term as "The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole."

• Taking the above into mind, it seems that minor characters should be included in the list, but might excluded when they are trivial.
• This leads to the question: When should a character be regarded as "trivial" and as such be omitted from the list: When they only appear in one scene? How about just in one episode? In just two episodes?

Regards, G.A.S 05:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note:If deemed necessary, please put this discussion on the fiction noticeboard

You won't find any general answers here or anywhere else in the guidelines. What you might do is mention how many episodes these characters have been in, and drum up some support for inclusion/exclusion of these particular characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What I would like to know is the current consensus in this regard – a more general guideline to work by – as opposed situation specific advice. Long ago the guideline helped in this regard, which makes this the obvious place to ask. G.A.S 08:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are getting into a realm where different philosophies clash. From my point of view, it is impossible for a general guideline to answer a question like this. Whether to include minor characters in a list needs to be determined on a situation specific basis. I could think of hypothetical instances where it would be appropriate to include a character that only appears in one episode, but I would not want a rule that one episode characters were always acceptable for inclusion. What is wrong with situation specific consensus? Ursasapien (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with situation specific consensus:) But I also figure that if I am struggling with this, that a lot of other editors are struggling as well. In any case, all guidelines include "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." — so I won't say that this is cast in stone. Which unfortunately brings me no closer to an answer. G.A.S 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for compromise: Give each major character that cannot support his own article, his own section, and bullet-point-summarize each non-major character in a section called "Minor characters". See Characters of Carnivàle (ignore the first two characters) for what I mean. Generally, only recurring characters (two-three episodes minimum) deserve mention at all, but still some one-time characters can be mentioned if they had major impact or are referenced a lot later on. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you can find a (verifiable) sentence to say about a minor character, do so; if all you have is a name, omit them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, the advice and example are greatly appreciated. G.A.S 10:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines and consensus

Over at Template talk:Subarticle#Entering the fray, User:Richard001 raises questions about the support in other guidelines for spinouts that lack real-world coverage. As I understand it, the other guidelines (including essays and policies) which are commonly stated as supporting the inclusion of such articles are WP:NNC, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SIZE,WP:SUMMARY and WP:PAPER

• WP:NNC is a section of WP:N which states "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles". If spinouts are considered as articles in their own right, this doesn't support their inclusion. If spinouts are considered as part of the parent, it doesn't apply to them at all.
• WP:SPINOUT is a section of WP:SIZE which gives guidance on how and when to split content out from an article. It doesn't say that the resulting articles should or shouldn't meet notability criteria.
• WP:SIZE doesn't speak about spinouts, except in the above-mentioned section.
• WP:SUMMARY gives guidance on how and when to split an article. Some sections of it can be read as supporting spinouts; for example, "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place" supports their creation, although its wording varies in how strongly it supports considering them to be still part of the original; for example, "their own articles" would seem to suggest they aren't, while "There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point." can be taken to mean that references in the parent article can demonstrate notability in the spinout. (It can also be taken to mean the opposite, if "a specific point" includes notability).
• WP:PAPER is a section of WP:NOT which states that "After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic", but it also states that "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars", emphasis not mine.

So, there is some support for the inclusion of spinouts, but it all depends on reading certain guidelines a certain way. Now, guidelines which are commonly stated as supporting the deletion of spinouts that lack real-world coverage are WP:N, WP:V, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTINHERITED.

• WP:N is the notability guideline, which is summarised as follows: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It doesn't state the converse, and goes on to state that "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable." However, it does go on to state that "Notability requires objective evidence" - so in the absence of real-world coverage, there has to be something. It goes on to state that the various specific notability guidelines will give guidance on what other sorts of coverage are acceptable.
• WP:V is the verifiability policy. It states that "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This unambiguously requires sources for articles, but does not require them to give real-world coverage.
• WP:IINFO is a section of WP:NOT which states that "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." If spinouts are considered to be articles, this does require them to show real-world coverage.
• WP:NOTINHERITED is a section of WP:ATA, which gives guidance for deletion debates. It states that "notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (two of the notabilty guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances)" which would seem to suggest that it's up to the relevant guideline to decide.

So, there is some support for the deletion of spinouts. In particular, it would seem that we are required to find some standard which spinouts have to meet; we cannot simply say that they are or may be acceptable and leave it at that. Now, it seems that there's agreement that we want at least some spinouts to meet our guidelines - in particular, lists of fictional works and (possibly major) fictional elements have a tangible benefit to wikipedia, and are recommended in a footnote to WP:N. Alternatives to the current proposal have been made which would incude them in different ways, but it seems clear that we'd all like to see them declared notable somehow. Unfortunately, that's about as much as I've seen agreed upon; the degree to which we should specify what is acceptable and what is not, and the specifics of those, don't seem to be widely agreed upon, and pretty much everyone involved claims that consensus is on their side. So, I've started this section to try to work out what consensus is. I'd particularly like to hear from Richard001, and any other users who are new to this debate, so I'll be posting a link to this at the village pump and the relevant wikiprojects that I'm involved in; I encourage other editors to do the same. The question is: is there consensus support for inclusion of spinouts without real-world coverage, and if so, what other criteria if any should we impose on them for inclusion? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I mean to ask whether we should drop the requirement for real-world coverage by considering spinouts them to be part of their parent article, or whether we should find a different way to include the good spinouts. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Easy enough. If enough real-world information exists to pass notability for the individual element (not the whole work!), spin away. If not, and enough is written on a given element to make the article unwieldy, time to start trimming, not time to start splitting. Simple, easy to remember, and keeps the cruft out. A subject itself is notable or not, notability is not inherited from a parent. (If we allowed notability to be inherited, the universe and Earth are clearly notable subjects, so everything on and in those would be, right down to garage bands and my dog.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • your example implies that first discussing your dog or the garage band next door in the Universe or Earth articles would have been appropriate - which is false. However, discussing fictional elements within an article on the fictional work is completely reasonable... please don't make straw men.... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Percy Snoodle knows the answer to this question already: there is no support for the inclusion of spinouts without real-world content, as this would be licence for Wikipedia to be flooded with plot summaries comprised of OR and POV which have no real world perspective. At the moment, there is a terrible problem with hundreds of Dungeons & Dragons spinout articles which contain virtually no real-world content. None of these articles fall within the scope of Wikipedia, but if they were, we may as well merge Wikipedia with Wookipedia and forget about building an encyclopedia based on real-world content.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that all articles and sub-articles should be well-written: no OR, POV, crystalballing, and there should be some mention of it's role in the real-world. I think that stating Pichu first appeared in the US in Pokemon Gold and Silver on Oct. 15, 2000 is a great supporting sentence. But some would feel it's not enough... this conflict is a problem (we could also add voice actors from shows and movies, and first appearances in other medium). Also, the five pillars state that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on being comprehensive (elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs), neutral (2nd pillar), and free (3rd pillar)... nothing saying it can't be based on real-world, and fictional content. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think the basic problem here, is that length can vary depending on the work itself, and it's not necessarily tied to the content. Here's a non-fiction example of what I mean: Paul Dukas is a clearly notable composer, but wrote such a small body of work that a works list could easily all fit in the article without bogging it down even by FA standards. On the other hand, a composer like Franz Liszt has a works list numbering into the 800s and in fact has two separate pages for the list.
  So while notability isn't inherited, I think a lot of times it's a matter of breaking up the topic into 'child' articles rather than being separate articles themselves. That seems to have been the original justification for most spin offs -- to keep things more organized. See what I'm getting at? It's NOT that some topics aren't notable in and of themselves; rather, the issue is that they are really part of the SAME article, just on a separate page for reasons of usability.
  Of course, this doesn't mean all cases, but it's something to think about. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, I could have phrased the question, "does consensus support judging spinouts as part of their parent, rather than as separate articles?" - from what I can tell of the guidelines, it amounts to the same thing. What I'm interested in is finding out whether consensus supports that view (and hence the current version of this guideline) or whether it doesn't (and hence we need to reword it) Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I will point out that WP:N has another important phrase: WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines, specifically: If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context., this is footnoted to include the example of merging minor characters into a list. --MASEM 12:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  Indeed. I'll note that above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't speak for consensus; I don't think any of us can. However, here's my take on it. It makes perfect sense for some articles to be considered effectively part of another article, where their inclusion in that parent article would make it unwieldy. However, some sense has to be kept of notability, so individual characters shouldn't have individual articles unless there's valid notability or they are so important to the "parent" topic that it warrants a larger amount of material. A "list of characters" article would probably, on the face of it, fail notability, but it is still useful in making a good encyclopaedia and providing good coverage of the "parent" topic. I hope that all made sense... SamBC(talk) 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you mean to say that you support considering lists to be part of a parent, but not individual elements; or do you just mean that you want the lists to be included and not the individual elements? I'm trying to work out whether consensus supports the part of these guidelines that states that the spinouts should be considered to be part of the parent article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists are a special case, and there are guideline pages that address lists (see WP:LISTS for a starter, but I'm sure most everyone has seen at least some of that page or related pages before). It's my understanding that lists which are content forks of notable topics are generally acceptable. As an example used in the list guidelines you have List of minor characters in Dilbert. Dilbert is a notable topic, but many of the minor characters aren't (with obvious exceptions, for example Bill Gates has "appeared" in the comic several times). The point with many lists is that they could be included in the parent article, but doing so would make that article much longer, so that content is forked to a list. This is the same reason that Franz Liszt's compositions are forked into a list (or two in this case) as putting it in the main article would make an already lengthy article even longer. It's also my general understanding that lists should be about a notable topic, but each individual item on the list need not be notable itself. I interpret this in the same fashion, i.e. such lists could (in principle) be included in the (notable) parent topic but isn't done so, partly for size reasons. As another canonical example cited, List of dog breeds could be included in the main article Dogs but isn't. The list still needs to serve some "encyclopedic" purpose (whatever that means, everyone's definition of "encyclopedic" varies, one man's "cruft" is another man's treasure, which is why I don't use the terms "cruft" nor "encyclopedic" in these conversations as I view one as derisive/dismissive/divisive and the other as nearly undefinable). --Craw-daddy | T | 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with most of this. I'd be a bit more inclusive and say that highly notable topics might have more than just a list subpage. For example, the discussions about For Better or For Worse show an example of a reasonable spin-out article that isn't plainly a list....Hobit (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point." This sentence is saying that the main article does not need to repeat all of the references used in the spinout. It doesn't support spinouts using parent articles to demonstrate their notability (although I am personally in favour of some leniency here); instead, main articles delegate some of their verifiability to the spinout. Geometry guy 18:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Counter-interpretations

• If no one objects, i'll end up merging this above, to juxtapose opposing viewpoints, but below are some counter-interpretations of the guidelines:

• • WP:NNC Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles. - If we view sub-articles as part of parent articles, we are regarding them as content broken up for style/readiblity issues. Notability guidlines do not regulate content, therefore, do not regulate sub-articles.
    • That's true, if we take the view that sub-articles are part of parent articles. As I say below, we shouldn't start by taking that view when trying to work out whether the guidelines support that view. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • i apologize, i misinterpreted your meaning, this was quite circular. the order these are put in is poor for getting to the heart of the matter, which is really all about WP:SS. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• • WP:SPINOUT If a long article includes an unwanted section, or unwanted information, it is better to simply remove that content than to create a new article for it. (emphasis added) - This information isn't unwanted, it is merely making the article otherwise difficult to read by overshadowing other sections. And, appropriately, SPINOUT and WP:SIZE in general doesn't make a recommendation either way regarding notability, because it's discussing content.
    • Whether the information is wanted or not depends on whether the spinout is subject to notability or not. Again, you are making a circular argument. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • this one, however, is not circular. I admit i did not read where you were quoting this from... but now that I have - you took it completely out of context. An "unwanted" section, in this case, is one which is attracting a lot of unhelpful contributions... the examples given are the external links and trivia sections. sections which recieve a bunch of spam, or useless info that don't contribute to the understanding of a work at all (that's why it's called trivia). it's talking about sections that editors have agreed is a bad section with poor info, and a blight on the article. the paragraph is saying that rather than spinout a new article like List of TV characters that look like Pikachu, you get rid of the content (but that's just because it was bad content in the first place). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Good point; I'll remove that from my introduction. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• • WP:SUMMARY If only for the sake of completeness, you freely admit you don't really have a way to make this support notability in sub-articles. But you mention it's a bit ambiguous - the only thing I can say is that you need to read beyond the nutshell description which is where you got "their own articles" from. The text uses the word article most often in the beginning, however it begins referring to these same "articles" as "sub-articles" midway when it starts discussing how these are different than regular articles (special naming conventions, navigational considerations, and special reference/citation guidelines). This strongly suggests your "ambiguity" is merely derived from semantics. And to further drive the point home, read the first two paragraphs on Characteristics, you can see that SS is about developing a sub-article/spinout based on the amount of text: When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article. It has nothing to do with how notable that subtopic is.
    • Although it recommends starting a new article when the amount of text reaches a certain size, it does not comment on whether the new article should be subject to other guidelines. We're trying to decide whether it should be or not. You rightly say that SS has nothing to do with how notable that subtopic is; that's left for WP:FICT. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • yes, here we have the base of the argument. and so all my arguments would fall on the premise that *I* feel content spun out from a parent article is a special case. I support this "special case" theory by pointing out that WP:SS already mentions three special guidelines for these new types of articles (naming conventions, navigation, and references). It also just seems logical to me that because the content itself never had to be notable in the first place (WP:NNC), that we shouldn't suddenly make demands on it because there is now too much of it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, this is probably where we have to agree to disagree. It's worth noting that while content doesn't have to meet notability guidelines, per WP:NNC, it *does* have to contain real-world context and sourced analysis, per WP:PLOT. It's also worth noting that there are other ways of including most of the same spinouts without phrasing it as an exemption from notability. I'll look more closely into how the other special cases deal with things; perhaps we can find some inspiration there. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• • WP:PAPER This is not technically a defense for non-notable sub-articles, but more against those people who say, "If the article is getting too long to be readable we should trim the info rather than spin it out." No one, at least not myself, has argued that anything can be written about. You use the sentence: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. So you're arguing that a subarticle on a fictional element has only just stopped being indiscriminate when you can find real-world context? That would still give free range to any character who can be linked to their actor and first appearance. Not a convincing standpoint. And throwing "notabilty" into it would be erroneous because no content policies on fiction, or the 5P, require notability.
    • "articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." is from WP:PAPER; it isn't my argument to make. I would agree that an article on a fictional element with real-world context passes WP:IINFO's requirements, but only if significant commentary or analysis is made in that context; listing which actor appeared as a character isn't significant commentary or analysis. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • i know where you got the sentence from, i was just saying you used it... damned lack of inflection in cyberspace.... well anyways, so where do you get that real-world context must contain significant commentary (what's "significant" for that matter) or analysis? IINFO says "detail on a work's development", well, the name of voice actors and when and where something was relased are all details of development. Let's say i write that Pichu was first introduced in some north american movie on a certain date and was voiced by so-and-so, and was then later a new pokemon added to the lineup with the october 15th release of pokemon gold and silver in 2000. Then i go on to talk about how it was ported to the 3D world with the release of super smash bros. melee. Aren't these all details on the development of of Pichu? [break]
        • They are, and if you have sources to back them up then that's commentary from a real-world perspective. It may help to rephrase those in the active voice: The film-makers introduced Pichu, then Nintendo added Pichu to the line-up, then HAL Labs added Pichu to a game... those are three things that happened in the real-world. If you can find sources for each of those things, you've established Pichu's notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I personally don't feel they make it any more "notable" which is why i contest the notability requirement, but i feel that any fictional element can give at least one detail on it's development, which at least satisfies what wikipedia is not. however, i still feel that we should be reasonable, and if you have only a small amount of information anyways, then we should keep it in a list for now and let it grow - like with Photon torpedoes. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • ...whereas I do think they make it more notable, which is why I think the notability requirement is a reasonable one. If a fictional element can't find information of the type you describe, then that means no-one has commented on its appearance in the fiction - which is a pretty sure sign that it shouldn't be here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You say the support for sub-articles depends on a "certain way" of reading the policies... to me, the literal interpretaions do just fine. You add subjective connotation to words like unwanted and define ambiguity of an entire guideline by citing simple semantic issues that are easily clarified when put in context. It is this perceived ambiguity that is the crux of your argument, so there is no need to delve into your supporting policies because they all apply to articles and topics, but not content. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, I'd prefer to keep your interpretations separate, though it may be possible to merge some of them. Your interpretation is no more a "literal interpretation" than mine or Gavin's or Seraphimblade's or Masem's or anyone's. It's a fine and valid interpretation, but holds no privileged position. The position that subarticles should be judged as part of the parent article - that content guidelines apply but notability guidelines don't - is found only in WP:FICT, so it's not appropriate to assume it before looking at whether the other guidelines support it. That's why I've asked whether it has consensus support. If it does, then the notability guidelines don't apply to spinouts because the notability guidelines don't limit content. However, if it doesn't, then spinout articles are subject to notability the same as any other article because their spinout topics are subject to notability the same as any other topic. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to point that personally (the amount of time I've invested in polishing FICT) is that spinouts are appropriate for two and a half fundamentally different reasons. The first reason is outlined in the discussion above - though arguably certain readings of the policy suggest otherwise, NNC, SPINOUT, SIZE, SUMMARY, and the like suggest that spinouts from a notable topic that lack notability are appropriate. The second reason is the fact that non-notable spinouts represent a middle ground between hard-nose inclusists and hard-nose deletionists. They allow for deeper coverage of material that may not be completely notable but still provide useful information for a larger topic, but they also provide a means to prevent proliferation of many smaller articles on non-notable elements. As .. crap, can't remember, someone above pointed out, inclusionists would love to have X articles, deletionists would love to have 0 articles, spinouts allow that to approach log(X) which is a happy medium between both. The half reason that is associated with that is that there is no denying there is more than log(X) non-notable articles out there, and spinouts provide a good stepping point in merging existing articles that were created way back before the more recent adaption of notability was present without losing that information. So the point I'm trying to make is that spinouts not only are supported by policy and guideline, but that they are also necessary to keep the present battlegrounds between inclusionists and deletionists at bay without trying to create a guideline that favors one side or the other; if at some later point consensus agrees to move towards the inclusion or deletion of such articles, we can easily adjust then from spinouts without too much problem. --MASEM 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think that misrepresents both the article as it stands, and either deletionists or the spinouts that are out there. Allowing spinouts to inherit notability as the current article does gives us X, not log(X), because all the fictional topics out there are spinouts of their fictional work. I believe that most of the list spinouts - the log(x) you mention - could almost certainly meet WP:N if allowed to do so through real-world coverage of the list entries, which is why I've suggested including them by allowing for a collective notability. What I'm hoping to find out is whether the current article - which allows fictional topics to inherit notability - has consensus support, but unfortunately I've asked the question badly. I shall add a note to clarify what I meant. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To allow articles to inherit notability would be a very bad move. It will invite the addition of massive amounts of non-encyclopedic content into Wikipedia, and make a mockery of WP:V. And as Wikiproject Video games has shown, we can follow the current higher standard of notability and verification of sources and create massive amounts of Featured content. Yes, for some articles it can be difficult, but it also makes the most sense for the encyclopedia as a whole to require individual notability. Further, there is nothing that suggests that any of these spinout articles that lack notability will ever be able to achieve GA or FA status, and to encourage the creation of permanent, second-class articles with our own guidelines is very scary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I will point out there is nothing in the criteria for FA or GA that requires notability; articles have to meet policy and specific attributes, but notability is a guideline, extending from WP:NOT but is not required. Furthermore, most articles of this type likely can meet featured list status, based on the number of episode lists that are presently listed there. Mind you, there is a certain degree of context that needs to be added to non-notable articles to make them more appropriate for GA/FA/FL status, including sourcing and the like, and I am not under the illusion that the bulk of our non-notable spinouts as they exist now are GA/FA/FL material, but I don't rule out the possibly that with sufficient improvement in every other area outside of notability that these can pass as a quality article. I agree that creating a second class of articles is a daunting issue, but that's why the quality of a spinout is important here; a high quality spinout that meets every other policy save for its own notability should not be seen being that much different from an article written with the same quality but that has notability, as long as the spinout's parent is also appropriately notable. --MASEM 21:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just think I do not understand why these articles should be exempted from our guidelines and quality measurements just because they are spin out articles. We have Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and other articles already, and as time goes by many more of these kind of articles will be made because they have sufficient notability because they have tons of reliable sources. And also, I think the argument that has been made many times is still true; we don't have non-notable fiction articles because we don't want articles that exist just to massively retell the same story a hundred times in different ways and perspectives; we want those articles only if we can have actual real world stuff like creator interviews and reception information. I agree with you that spinouts are appropriate, but not unnotable spinouts. I just don't think it makes sense. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of what we're trying to decide here, and what you seem to be missing, is weather a spinoff is an entirely separate article or not. I'm not the best at explaining things, but from what I can tell, you're missing that important fact. Many articles are just going to be too LONG if all the pertinent info is stuck into one article. Think about it this way -- a play with only two characters could easily have its character list fit into the main article, but one with twenty probably. Why should the former get special treatment just because it has less? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The amount of treatment shouldn't depend on the cast size - but it should depend on how much real-world coverage the plays have received. If the first has received very little, it's likely that the characters shouldn't have sections in the article at all; if the latter has received a lot, it's likely that all the characters deserve their own articles. The guidance given by WP:PLOT on how much content an article should have is the same as WP:N; so even if spinoffs are part of the original article, they should be limited by the amount of real-world coverage. If there's no real-world coverage for fictional elements, their sections should never reach sufficient size to spin out; if there are a lot of small sections with no real-world coverage which are making a notable article too big, those sections should be merged or deleted within the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Those last sentences are a dangerous problem... but I think I'm now seeing where you're coming from. You feel that guidelines from WP:PLOT say to "trim" down sections that have become too long with text which is basically just a description of the work. You feel that the amount of explanatory text should directly rely on the amount of real-world coverage - in this imaginary play, it would be reviews and interviews. [break]

Yes, that's pretty much it. I don't think I'd say 'directly' since there are other considerations such as readability which affect the amount of text; but I certainly think that the depth of coverage which is appropriate for a topic depends largely on the amount of real-world coverage of that topic. If you're at the level of creating non-notable spinouts, you've exceeded the correct level of coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that we should strive for a higher ratio of real-world to description text, i realize that we can't always get there. I realize that there are some very notable fictional works which are complex enough in their "plots" or just have so many different aspects and elements that the level of detail required may still be only superficial, but still take up a lot of space. These same notable works, may have nothing on their individual elements/aspects in the way of real-world info, or only those kinds of things that people write off as "not enough". [break]

If no-one in the real world has seen fit to comment on its complex plot or large cast, then those aspects don't deserve a significant amount of coverage. It's not usually necessary to describe every plot twist, or every character in a fictional work, in order to give a summary of the work, and if nobody out there has done so, then nor should we. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To assume that no notable work like this exists (i.e. a fictional element section with no/little/not the right kind of real-world coverage that would reach sufficient size to spinout), or ever would exist, is fallacious.

You've moved the subject of that sentence from work to element when you add the paretheses. Notable works exist with both notable and non-notable elements. A notable fictional work could be notable only for its influence on real-world people; in that case, only the slightest of plot summaries would be appropriate, and no subarticles on fictional elements would be justified, even if several subarticles (Influence of Hypothetical Work on XXXX) might be justified. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your second argument, your talk of merging and deleting, is counterproductive when applied on an "always do this" scale. I'll contend there are cases when this is a good idea, but there are also cases when it is a bad one... but that actually strays from the topic a bit, b/c little sections can always stay in the parent, or be grouped into a list. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's more of a style argument than a notability argument. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of all the counter-argument rebuttles, the only thing that matters--when we are talking about spinning out fiction articles--is whether it meets WP:PLOT. No matter if you view it as a "section" of a parent article, or an article all by itself (i.e. the former would mean that WP:NOTE has not bearing on its existence, and the latter meaning that it must meet WP:NOTE), the fact remains that you cannot spin out an article of plot information. In other words, you cannot spin out an episode plot summary just because someone wants a play-by-play of the episode in question. You cannot spin out a character article if the only thing you have is his/her particular plot information from their respective movies/television/books etc etc. There must be something else. It's unlikely you'll find any character that appears in multiple works with written about the real world information on the character. Whether it's how they cast the role, or how they came up with the idea for the character, if they appear in multiple works then they have a more realistic chance of having the real world content necessary for separation (and satisfaction of WP:PLOT). The difference between whether the article is considered the former example I gave, or the latter example I gave, is on how sources are applied to the article. If you consider a spin-out article a "section" of the parent article, then "third-party sources independent of the subject" does not apply, and using DVD commentaries, or interviews with the creators to discuss some real world content is all that is needed to justify the existence of the article (also, that there was so much info that it needed splitting in the first place, but that goes without saying). If you view it as its own subject, that's when WP:NOTE comes into play and you have to find those independent sources. So, what we really need to determine at this point is how we view spin-out articles, because that is going to tell us how we can decide what qualifies as needing "spinning out". Personally, I don't care if the article only uses primary sources (i.e. DVD commentary, Q&A with the creator, companion books), so long as the plot information doesn't overshadow the real world content. We have to remember that having 2 lines of real world content doesn't justify having 30KB of plot information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well ok, if that is the question we then have to ask this: If articles are going to cover, for example, their plots in full in another article if it is long and complex like Chrono Cross, what limit is there then to how large those articles can grow? They could be massive articles if no longer constrained by being a summary. A policy would have to be made to constrain them from becoming epic retellings of the story. Also, I would love to know where people have gotten the argument that these sub articles are extensions of their parent article and not individual articles, because I honestly haven't seen that in any policy or guideline pages.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any article where the plot itself was covered in a completely separate article (which would go against WP:PLOT). Also, you cannot create a policy that governs how much plot information can be written down, becuase it's subjective per topic. If someone believes that there is too much detail then they can slap the section with a tag that says so. Many plot section of film articles how way too much information in them already. You can choose just about any random film article and prove that. There has been a general consensus that films should range between the 500-900 word marker (with the more complex films going deeper into the 900 territory...sometimes being necessary to extend past that). Television shows are less, because they're only 22-42 minutes long, on average, and you shouldn't need 700 words to give a basic summarization of the plot of the episode. The point of WP:SS isn't about just when to split off articles, but also how to write them, and articles need to be a succinct as possible. Chop out the wordiness, keep it tight. You can usually read through a plot section of any given article and reword multiple sentences into fewer, more "to-the-point" sentences. As for article size, WP:SIZE's current rule of thumb is that when you get to 60kb of readable prose then you should really start to think about separating out something from the article (the key in that being "readable prose". I've seen many editors just open the article edit page and see "72kb" at the top and yell to high heaven that they need to split off the article. But, when you just look at the readable prose the article is actually closer to 40kb). If the only extremely large section in the article is the one on the plot of the subject, maybe that section isn't as concise, and succinct as it should be. Wikipedia isn't a substitution for watching, reading, listening, playing or anything else. As for the policy on defining what a spin-out article actually is, there isn't one. People interpret the spin-out guideline with their own perspective. Some people view it as a separate entity, while others view them as part of the parent article. Regardless, there are still policies to follow when it is spun-out. What we need to do is give a specific identity to these spin-out articles, so that editors who spin-out know exactly what they need to do in order to justify the separation. Spinning out just to have an elongated plot section is not a justifiable reason.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

exactly. As written, its a reasonable approach to the best of current practice. DGG (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment has become detached from what it was a reply to, but current practice in the AFDs I've seen is generally to require notability from all articles. As written, WP:FICT gives a free pass to all fictional articles to ignore notability concerns - but you may have meant something else by 'it'. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't necessary mean that all lists of fictional elements are being challenged. The ones that I see pass through there usually fall into two types: lists of fictional elements at a relevence level too deep to be encyclopedic for WP (not necessarily spinouts of spinouts, but material that would not be present in the notable topic's article should WP:SIZE not be a concern), and lists that are poorly written in considering WP:WAF that accessing the usefulness of the list is questionable and arguably, deleting and starting the list anew is likely to achieve a better end result than trying to trim down from that list. The more general case, a list of major and minor characters from a fictional work, seems perfectly acceptable given how the general case of a well-written list doesn't show up much through AfD, though there is a factor of the size and notability of the work to determine if a list could be trimmed and merged further back into the main article.[break]

This doesn't fit with what I've seen, but I suspect we've seen lists of different elements in different media - so lists of characters in, say, a television show tend to make it through because they have a large enough fanbase, whereas lists of vehicles from games tend not to because they don't. I've seen lists of characters from games go both ways. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But again, I don't think we have enough experinece to say exactly where the line is between an acceptable and a unacceptable list is, only that we know there are such spinouts that fall on both sides. --MASEM 14:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The current, inherited-notability-for-spinouts guideline allows both. Now, there are some that should be allowed, and some that shouldn't, and that there isn't a great deal of agreement on where the boundary is; but I think we should have some sort of boundary if we're to reach anything that we can call a compromise. We need to explicitly state the things which are made unacceptable elsewhere: for example, that a spinout with no sources at all is unverifiable and should be deleted, just to establish that unacceptable spinouts exist. Equally, we need to explicitly state the things which are definitely acceptable; I can't think of a criterion other than real-world coverage that does that. The middle ground is what we should leave uncertain - the current guidelines extend that uncertainty all the way through definitely unacceptable content. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that, as was pointed out above, we may create a guideline that is out of step with current AFD practice, and accidently encourage the types of articles we don't want, as the nutshell description seems to say that making a totally non-notable character article is fantastic. What we need is to say what kinds of spinoffs are encouraged, such as when there is a ton of reliable sources talking about it, like Characters of Kingdom Hearts, what kinds are discouraged, ones that have no notability, and those in the middle that require an individual judgment call. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

21st Century Text Structure

NOTE: Readers should take a moment to first read this[4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs) 10:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As this discussion and my comments impacts more than just fiction articles I moved my contibution to this topic to Template talk:Subarticle. I tried to do this quickly once I realized my error but one response comment (by Ursasapien) was moved with it. Low Sea (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, my comment was about the discussion here and makes no sense where you moved it. Could you either put my comment back or delete it from the other discussion? Ursasapien (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My bad Ursasapien. Below is your original comment in the context of this page as you correctly point out it should be. These are indeed two different discussions and yet my comments apply to both, but moreso to the sub-article discussion I believe. Low Sea (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The debate is whether these articles/sections each have to be independently notable (sourced by two or more reliable, independent sources) or if the topic has established notability each article/section under that topic should be considered notable. [break]

This is based on a misunderstanding of 'topic'. Spinout articles have spinout topics; they are not articles on the parent topic. The topic of List of characters in Star Wars is "characters in Star Wars", not "Star Wars". The topic of Elan Sleazebaggano would be "Elan Sleazebaggano", not "Star Wars". So Star Wars' notability is not inherited by either article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe most editors understand that WP is not paper, that hard drives are cheap, and that we edit in a multi-dimensional structure. The issue is what standard do we use to ensure that the encyclopedia is not simply a collection of indiscriminate information. Ursasapien (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What criteria/methods do you use now to determine if a section is appropriate for keeping inside a main article? Low Sea (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we are trying to come to consensus on that. Certainly, WP:SIZE issues come into play. The basic issue is subarticle=inherited notability vs. subarticle=needs independent notability. Ursasapien (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is about readability and navigation, not about subject matter. You are confusing form with substance. The form of a "section" is totally irrelevant to the issues of content and notability. In other words: a section is a section is a section ... whether it is one sentence, two paragraphs, a "list of x", or a full page with subpages of its own. Low Sea (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, "section" is quite a clear term. It's a part of an article topped by a heading. See WP:SECTION. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is the stuffy old two-dimensional thinking that Low Sea was talking about. We look at WP as if it were paper and all "sections" must be on the same page and topped by the same heading. This is essentially Britannica online. Ursasapien (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for a modern encyclopedia, but willfully misunderstanding a word whose meaning is spelled out in the online help seems like a bad way to go about modernising it. Though, if your goal is to make an encyclopedia that can defeat Khan, making rules that include every single member of both versions of starfleet is probably the way to do it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Percy, you just supported my position and you don't even realize it. You said a section is a part of an article topped by a heading (a title if you will) ... this does not say how big a section is, how small, what color, what language, etc... In multi-dimensional text structures a section's location and shape is an absolute NON-issue. There is a difference between (as you put it) "willfully misunderstanding a word" and "expanding its meaning in a new context". The heading on this section is "21st Century Text Structures" and in this context the current WP definition of section is inadequate to the task. Low Sea (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think the definition of section is inadequate, your best approach would be to use a different word, rather than redefine a word which has a whole article to define it. I realise that words can have different meanings in different contexts, but it's still better to avoid confusion. Your 3D point of view is a valid one, but as I've said elsewhere it doesn't imply that we should discard notability. Considering an extra 'depth' dimension is fine - but the depth of coverage given to a topic should be governed by how much real-world coverage there is. A user should be able to look deeper and deeper, but only until the coverage runs out. When coverage stops, we should stop providing subarticles. WP:N exists to make sure this happens at the article level, but WP:IINFO covers article content, too. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On a separate issue, the term "inherited notability" has some significant problems. Take a look at this discussion[5] at the Village Pump and note the discussion at the bottom on the idea of Umbilical Notability. Low Sea (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose what we are struggling with is "what is a section?" If an article (a seperate page if you will) can be considered a section or not. Percy illustrates what I see as a basic misperception. I think of List of characters in Star Wars as a section of our article on Star Wars, not as a seperate article on the characters in Star Wars. With hyperlinks, we should be able to point back to the section in the main article and allow people to navigate back and forth seemlessly. Ursasapien (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no struggle with that question. See WP:SECTION. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about you go back and carefully read WP:SPINOUT and quit playing silly games of semantics. Ursasapien (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Silly games of semantics"? I'm not the one trying to change what "section" means. WP:SPINOUT gives advice on how to break out long sections - not long sentences, not long articles. It doesn't exempt the new articles from notability, and it doesn't say they remain part of the original. It explicitly calls them "independent". Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You hold to your interpretation, as if it were crystal clear, when there is no consensus for your point of view. "gives advice on how to break out long sections" - EXACTLY! WP:SPINOUT speaks about breaking out a long section into a seperate (aka "independent") article to make the information easier to read. There is a reason you leave a summary in the main article and put a hatnote linking back to the section in the spinout article. The reason is that the articles are linked. Why do you insist in forcing your obstinate, idiosyncratic point of view on everyone else? Ursasapien (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you think my interpretation is? You seem very angry about it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem very arrogant and sure of you unequivocal rightness. Your interpretation appears to be that when you split out a section of a long article, this section suddenly becomes a seperate topic and wholly independent of the article you took it out of. This does not seem to be borne out in the guideline which requires a summary and a hatnote. I am not angry, but I am passionate and your snide attitude leads to a passionate response. Nevertheless, I am logging off so any replies will probably not occur for 24 hours. Ursasapien (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you weren't angry, you wouldn't be calling me arrogant and snide. Hopefully tomorrow you will be civil. Requiring a summary and hatnote are there for ease of navigation; they don't imply that an "independent article" has a dependency. Nor do they imply the opposite; you seem to think I'm saying that WP:SPINOUT is contrary to WP:FICT's position that articles should be judged as part of their parent. All I'm saying is that that is only said by WP:FICT. I do believe it shouldn't say that, but I don't believe that based on a misreading of WP:SPINOUT. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be civil and calm today, as I was yesterday. You do seem to be saying that WP:SPINOUT does not jive with WP:FICT's assertion that spin-out articles are inextricably linked to their parent article. You state that WP:FICT is the only guideline that makes this assertion. I contend that this statement is demonstrably false. Perhaps, if you do not see this, we will have to agree to disagree (although I think you will find that you are in disagreement with a number of editors). Ursasapien (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, please explain to me how you get from "independent article" with templates, to "inextricably linked", without assuming that they are in the first place. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Break

If I could just move things to the left a little... Now all this talk of multidimensionality and sections is getting rather silly. But this 'modern' definition of a section, a section is not just the section itself, but if the section should happen to be a summary (or even something like a summary) of another article, that article is now part of the section too. And if that article itself should summarize other 'child'/'sub'articles, they're part of the section too, aren't they? And so on we go, ad infinitum (well, until we reach an end to all the branches). Now that seems to me to be a very awkward definition of a section to me. One doesn't have to see articles as somehow completely unrelated to all other articles (who does?) to consider the normal definition of a section more useful for discussions.

When you talk about hatnotes, Ursasapien, you're not referring to hatnotes on the 'child' article, which template:main specifically tells editors to avoid, are you?

Personally, I think any article should be able to stand on its own without a 'parent'. If you deleted the parent topic, the article shouldn't suddenly become non-notable. If anyone has come up with a workable solution for allowing 'child' articles to be non-notable without opening up the doors to anything and everything, please refer me to it. Richard001 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

When I speak of a hatnote in the subarticle (or child as you put it) I am speaking of {{Subarticle}}. If the subarticle is completely seperate from the main article, why bother including a summary and a link? Why not simply put the link in the See also: section and be done with it? WP is not paper so your hypothetical ad infinitum should not be a problem. Nevertheless, can you give me some concrete example of where this hypothetical could ever be the case? As far as notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view are concerned, aren't all sections of all articles expected to cross these thresholds? [break]

Verifiability and NPOV, yes. Notability, no - though the requirement for real-world coverage in WP:PLOT would seem to say otherwise. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that subarticles can be about non-notable subjects (who has?). [break]

From WP:FICT: "A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources of real-world coverage may be appropriate..." - that says that spinouts can be about non-notable subjects. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is approaching wikilaywering if you pick and choose parts; the overall text of FICT (in the para below the sentence above) warns explicitly that singular fictional articles are generally contested. But again, what a lot of this comes down to is the fact that I don't think anyone participating in this discussion has an clear picture of how non-notable spinouts are dealt with as I'm mentioned above. We know a few lists seem always appropriate, we know a few types of articles that are never, but the DMZ between those is so large and vague. The only additional caution that we can give is that for any non-notable spinout, you should expect to be challenged by other editors, and possibly the only additional thing would be to create a talk page tag that includes when the spinout was created and why it was, to help remove that ambiguity. --MASEM 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I feel that that sentence and indeed that whole section gives a free pass to all fictional articles, no matter how non-notable, is that it doesn't ever go so far as to say that there are articles that should be deleted. "may be contested" is as strong as it gets. It establishes an upper bound for the 'DMZ' but no lower bound, and as such editors can always point at it and say that their non-notable article should be given the benefit of the doubt. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that WP policies and guidelines, as well as common sense, allow for a cluster of articles to cover a given topic. The topic must meet inclusion criteria and the depth to which we cover that topic must be balanced and neutral. Ursasapien (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but spinout articles have spinout topics, and it's those topics that need to have notability demonstrated. The depth to which we cover that topic must be balanced and neutral, and the only way to make sure of that is to require coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aggregate articles

I've added a new section on aggregate articles, to make sure that the articles that are definitely allowed are allowed without having to inherit notability. Any suggestions on improvements for the content or wording are welcomed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose this section and ask that it is removed. The idea that groups of fictional groups of characters, which do not have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, individually or a group, is just a means of circumventing WP:NOT#PLOT. I have seen many examples of the articles given as examples: they contain citations from fansites or other regurgitation or synthesis of primary source material, none of which warrants an article for any of the individual characters or a group. These articles are a type of list with long plot summaries. This section should be removed, as this type of article falls outside the scope of Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't disagree that the typical way these lists are approached are riddled with other policy violations or otherwise generally written as a fan guide. However, the collective approach of presenting non-notable characters in this fashion, as argued elsewhere on this page, is currently an acceptable mid-point solution between inclusionists and deletionists; they fall out of main articles on fiction as spinouts, and they help prevent having many singular character articles around without notability. This doesn't mean presenting a list of characters is a free pass; it needs to be written to support the main work, and should be written per V/NOR/NPOV, concise plot elements, not told as a plot rehash, and the like. --MASEM 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• There should be no compromise on this issue, as it is obvious that the example articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT and fall outside the scope of Wikipedia. I don't accept your argument that this is an acceptable "collective approach" or that it is an "acceptable mid-point solution". Lack of reliable secondary sources leads to unverifable plot summaries, which is basically a synthesis of primary sources at best or plain original research at worst. This section is a free pass to original research, in universe perspective and convert Wikipedia into a fansite. Where content is not substantiated by real-world content from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it should be cut out not aggregated. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• TTN tried to enforce that, and basically got his head chewed off by dozens of others that disagree with that. Exactly how we treat fiction is not well defined. Obviously the key work must be notable, and there's some need to describe plot elements to support it, but the level where supporting the work and creating "fancruft" is not bright. We need a short-term compromise, being non-notable lists, to figure out what the long-term goal is. --MASEM 22:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I did not follow his story closely, so I only know of him through the debates here, but I understand he got into trouble for edit waring, not his perspective on notability. I think if he were here today, he would say that just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean we should sanction it by loosening the requirement for real-world content based on reliable secondary sources. I propose this section be removed, because it goes against WP:NOT#PLOT. I have never seen an article deleted for contravening WP:WAF, but if this section is not removed, then we have opened the flood gates for in universe plot summaries. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin - would you object as strongly if, in "A grouping of elements has established notability if there is significant coverage of the grouping as a whole, or if there is a significant amount of coverage of the individual elements," we inserted "real-world" before coverage? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry Percy, I totally disagree from where you are coming from, and the examples (Characters of Kingdom Hearts, Smallville (season 1)) given in the aggregate section totally freak me out; they appear to be well referenced, but in fact they are based on primary or unreliable secondary sources, mainly self-published fansites and TV guides that are not subject to peer review, and are terrible examples to include in any guideline. WP:N says there must be reliable secondary sources, not only to demonstrate evidence of notability for each individual element, but because real-world content cannot be drawn from primary sources. WP:WAF explains why a real-world content supported by reliable secondary sources is our only defence against in universe plot summaries comprised of synthesis. The creation of a class of articles called aggregates that permits synthesis is not only bad practise, but is unnecessary, since the internet has made available a profusion of reliable sources that were once available only to accademics. I totally dispute this section and it must be removed as it contravenes WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SYNTH. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of that is addressed earlier in the article - the Defining notability for fiction section explains that coverage for notability has to be real-world secondary coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested addition to resolve the spinout issue

I'm going to suggest the following text to be added to help try to resolve the issue on spinouts.

Non-notable spinout articles are often contested if they do not directly aid in the general understanding of the main fictional work and its real-world aspects. There is no requirement or limitation for what content a spinout may or may not contain, but editors should be aware that non-notable spinouts that cover in great detail the minutiae of fictional elements that may only be of interest to those who have read or seen the work are typically trimmed, merged, or deleted; such information is appropriate for

Typically, acceptable non-notable spinout articles can include the following, though this list is not exhaustive:

• A list of major and/or minor characters from a work
• A list of episodes or volumes from a work
• A list of recurring objects or terms necessary to understand a work (a glossary of sorts)

Similarly, the following types of non-notable spinouts are generally trimmed, merged, or deleted, but against, this list is not exhaustive:

• A list of one-time or cameo characters from a work
• An article about a fictional character from a work that lacks academic coverage
• An article about a fictional setting
• An article about a single episode or volume from a work.

These should be considered as rough guidelines, and each spinout should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

This is just an attempt to set where the acceptable bounds are for spinouts, but I point out that there may be cases in the second set (the typically non-accepted versions) that are appropriate, which is why this guideline cannot say "These types of articles are not acceptable". --MASEM 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be more acceptable. I've corrected some typos (hope that's OK) and I have a few thoughts:

• I'd delete "non-notable" throughout, as the advice is generally applicable.
• I'm uneasy about "There is no requirement or limitation for what content a spinout may or may not contain" because there are - such as WP:V and WP:NOR; perhaps it should read "There is no notability requirement or limitation...".
• It's probably better to remove "major and/or minor" as everything is major and/or minor. Perhaps it should read "A list of characters from a work; in some cases, a list of major characters may be more appropriate"
• I'm not sure about the glossary entry - it needs a note to remind users about WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOT#DIR.
• Some fictional settings are fine. How about "An article about the fictional setting of a single work"?
• In fact, all the "an article about..." entries would seem to be saying that individual elements aren't generally suitable for spinouts. Perhaps we should just say that explicitly?

How would you feel about making some or all of those amendments?

I generally think there's major, minor/recurring, and then one-shot characters.

Ok, maybe saying glossary isn't the best, but it is appropriate for "list of terms" or the like for a fictional universe where they need to be introduced (Star Trek, Harry Potter).

Some fictional settings are fine, but not all are. What we list here needs to be nearly universally ok with some exceptions, and single setting articles tend to be hit-or-miss. This is also why it's important to be explicit about what types of singular articles are typically inappropriate, as we know those are; this doesn't meant other singular element articles are appropriate (the list is not exhaustive) just that we don't have enough info for sure to state that in the general case. --MASEM 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's that much doubt about fictional settings, then I'd argue that we shouldn't mention them at all. How did you feel about my other thoughts? Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that non-notable can be considered redundant here, but I think we want to be explicit to say that these are only cases that apply to non-notable aspects. With notability, all these fly out the window. Obviously, spinouts still have to meet V/NOR/NPOV and other policies, so that's fine. I agree that if a setting is questionable, it shouldn't be listed; we should only be calling out explicit cases that are known to be generally kept/uncontroversial, and cases that are generally deleted without controversy.

I'm still not comfortable with saying non-notable articles are OK in those words. By saying they're OK on a notability guideline, we're saying that they are notable. The title of the page is "Notability (fiction)" not "Acceptability (fiction)". Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make another suggestion here, and that is, I think we may want to consider a breakout with a separate guideline on "Fictional Spinout Articles" (maybe WP:FICTSPIN). Take the bulk of what's already in FICT, what we're describing here, and what's in WP:MOS, and move it there, {{seealso}} to point from FICT and MOS to there. It's not quite a MOS, it's not quite a NOTE, but fits in between. We leave what is currently the first para in FICT on spinouts here to match with the previous two sections. This allows us to explain more on spinouts without weighing down FICT, removes the issue of what are appropriate spinouts from FICT, thus allowing that definition to change with time without affecting FICT, and so forth. This will shorten FICT (a common complaint) as well. --MASEM 15:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that separating the guidelines for spinouts is a great idea. I don't see a need to restrict it to fictional articles - having it at Wikipedia:Notability (spinouts) (WP:SPIN) would put other topics on the same footing as fiction; and it would mean we could move the controversial parts of this guideline elsewhere and finally leave us with something we can all agree on! Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: Wouldn't that effectively make the left-over WP:FICT a copy of WP:N? The main article (TV show, computer game, book) needs to demonstrate notability (WP:N), and almost everything else (characters, LoEs, etc.) are automatically spinouts (WP:SPINFICT). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This should be where any exceptions are made. It's a good place to discuss it, and moving it to another page feels like CREEP to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we're better off with one accepted guideline and one disputed one, than with just one disputed guideline. Once the spinout issue is resolved, we can merge the guidelines back, if you think that would be better. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking about the episodes clause, and I'm not fond of all nn episodes being merged... change it to "episode pages where the primary focus is on plot and/or trivia", so episode pages like The Unicorn and the Wasp (on DYK now) survive, as it'd be hard merging all that production info into even a season page. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better; though I'm not sure how well it interacts with WP:NNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Good attempt Masem, I know you are trying hard to get something acceptable to all, but that suggested list is very bad. To discourage all "world of" articles, when GA's and probably FA"s will be made of a few of them? Or lists of minor characters, which by definition shouldn't have whole article explanations. I think this discussion is illustrating the impossibility of attempting to divorce notability and this spin off articles. Here's an easy guideline for spinoff articles; "Spinoff articles on a particular section of an article, such as the characters or the development of a game, can be created if there is an overabundance of information drawn from real world reliable sources and this information creates an imbalance in the article that trimming and summary style cannot fix." How's that? Tear it up, but it makes sense to me, it's how you get articles like Development of Elder Scrolls IV. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  What you describe is perfectly fine without the issue of notability, because if there is an overabundance of information from real world aspects, then the topic is notable and any issues we have with non-notability are out the window. I doubt anyone has a specific problem with that type of article; the sticky wicket that we are dealing with is when there is absolutely zero aspect of notability on the fictional elements, we need to find a way to deal with them; we can't let them spread far and wide freely nor out-right delete them without creating a huge chasm in the population of wikieditors.

  Now, as for the selected list items themselves, maybe its the phrasing that's bad. I am not trying to discourage "world of" lists, which are good to have, but discouraging "location" articles (like Black Mesa Research Facility). Lists of minor/recurring characters with concise descriptions are appropriate as well. Any language suggestions or improvements are suggested

  I would argue that we have to keep in mind that notability is not the only criteria for inclusion of an article in WP; it is a inclusion guideline, but not the only one. Non-notable element/list spinouts are not notable, but the current general consensus is that when reasonably approached, these can be included. This is why the guideline split I'm suggesting is for only non-notable spinout articles specifically for fiction. They will still be mentioned here in FICT as a possible solution for presenting non-notable elements, but how they are presented and what material is presentable in that fashion should be left to this other guideline. I would still make sure editors are cautioned that any non-notable spinout article is likely to be challenged, and that continuing to look for notability aspects is highly recommended. --MASEM 19:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've not been very active in this discussion recently - I've been rather busy. I have been following it, however, although in recent days I've not been able to keep up with the details. Since I last commented, there has been much discussion about notability for spinout articles, and in particular, concern about the idea that spinouts can be non-notable in certain situations. These concerns have been expressed most notably :-) by Percy Snoodle, and I agree with almost all of his contributions that I have read.

However, the main reason I am commenting now is that by stepping back, I have noticed something: different editors use the word "notable" (and hence "non-notable") in slightly different ways, and I think this may underlie some of the difficulty in reaching consensus on how to word this guideline. The main difference is between the concept of an article which is notable simply because it is about a notable topic, and an article which is notable and demonstrates its notability per WP:N.

I think it is helpful to distinguish between the two, and also that it is important that we do not add too much wikipolicy baggage to the meaning of simple words like "notable". In other words, it is perfectly possible to have a notable article which does not demonstrate its notability per WP:N (in fact, Wikipedia is full of them!). So, while I agree with Percy Snoodle that there should be no compromise in notability for spinout articles (all Wikipedia articles should be on notable topics), there may be some scope, in some circumstances, for spinout articles to rely on parent articles to demonstrate that the spinout topic is notable enough to deserve a separate article.

The principle of not attaching too much meaning to simple words applies also to the word "spinout". One contribution of Percy Snoodle which I did disagree with was the comment that "In neither case is a spinout of a spinout appropriate". However, this is because additional meaning is being added to the word "spinout". In the simple meaning of "spinout", spinouts of spinouts occur all the time: an important character from a list of characters is a common example. However, Percy Snoodle is using the word "spinout" to mean a spinout which gets special treatment in terms of the notability guidelines. But it isn't a good service to Wikipedia editors to devise subtle meanings for these words. I hope that my suggestion about the meaning of "notability" will help to resolve this issue as well. I must say, the quality of the discussion here is extremely high! Geometry guy 20:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly object to this idea of spinout, as lack of real-world content and secondary sources is a free ticket to original research and extensive plot summaries. In particular, I propose that the following to be removed entirely:

"A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources of real-world coverage may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article, as described by summary style"

This basically turns Wikipedia into an open fansite. There is already enough spam and fancruft pretending to be sourced material without making the fictional guidelines somehow make them appear acceptable. If we allow this to go through, Wikipedia will loose its reputation as a source of verifiable content.

My view on the topic is that "A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources or real-world coverage is never appropriate, particularly when the amount of content for that element would ordinarily be deleted from a long parent topic, due to the fact that there no reliable sources to demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion of the subsidiary topic within a parent article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

While a section within an article on a notable topic does need to be sourced (per verifiability), the notability guidelines make clear that they do not limit the content of an article, merely what things are acceptable subjects for articles. No section or content of an article should be deleted per the notability guidelines, only whole articles. SamBC(talk) 20:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very sympathetic with Gavin Collins' point of view: it is, in some sense, my a priori point of view. We have to find a way to address the spinout issue: it should be a compromise, but it should not compromise the basic principles which underlie Gavin's comment. Geometry guy 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have to agree that the need for these articles seems to conflict with other aspects, however, I strongly think we need to allow them to gain some sort of middle ground and peaceful editing so that we can then as a whole take a look at the larger picture and determine if we need to go in another direction.

The thing is, it is becoming very clear that the content and style of spinouts needs to be corralled to meet certain expectations, and that's why I think we need a guideline on the MOS side to describe what is appropriate content for fictional spinouts. We still mention they are acceptable for non-notable articles per WP:FICT, but editors need to be aware that there are expectations that these articles need to meet and that spinouts that fail these and cannot be improved to meet them (through trimming or other actions) may be deleted. --MASEM 20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think we are in a position "compromise" here, as what you are proposing is a fundamental change to the rules by shifting the goal posts so that a synthesis of primary sources falls within the scope of Wikipedia. My understanding is that where content is not substantiated by real-world content from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it should be cut out not spun out, otherwise Wikipedia will become clogged up with lots of spinoff articles made up of plot summary and regurgitated primary material (as is the case with Dungeons & Dragons spinout articles). Sometimes being a good editor means that we have to delete, merge or cut out synthesis and original research and insist on real-world content from reliable sources, otherwise Wikipedia will degenerate into a fansite. This spinoff section is currently based on the premise that synthesis should not be edited out where it is sourced. Its difficult to edit sourced material, but I feel that is the cowards way out of this situation to allow spinoff articles without real-world content or reliable secondary sources just to accomodate it. If I quote the offending sentence at the core of this issue, it reads:

"A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources of real-world coverage may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article"

However, what this means in reality is the following:

"A spinout article comprised of original research or a synthesis of primary sources with an in universe perspective may be appropriate where a plot summary is very long because it does not contain real-world content based on reliable sources as evidence of the topic's notability."

I don't subscribe to this view, and I don't think there can be compromise on this issue: I propose that this entire section should be removed, since it goes against the spirit of WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and ignores WP:RS. No guideline that goes against core Wikipedia guidelines will be enforceable; it leaves too much ambiguity and will lead to endless debates about what is and is not an acceptable spinoff article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Every article on WP uses a small amount of synthesis to summarize information. A plot summary of a notable work is definitely going to have synthesis to distill key details of the work down. However, the point is that this synthesis should be without POV-pushing (eg what is actually described in WP:SYN) and with no original research. It is possible to write a list of non-notable elements that satisfy all other aspects of WP articles (V/NOR/NPOV, etc.) save for notability. We want to make sure spinouts are written to that standard. I completely agree that the typical ones that are out there are poorly written in exactly the manner you describe. This is why I am stressing that we need to deliniate to a point what spinout contents are appropriate, and how their approach has to be written. If we accept spinouts, we have to also accept that when they are poorly written, they need to be tagged, improved, and ultimately trimmed, merged, transwikid, and possibly deleted if no editor otherwise takes the initiate to improve it once notified. That's why I am proposing the breakout guideline to set what those standards need to be, because we get that situation that you point out. --MASEM 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Every article on WP uses a small amount of synthesis its true, but WP:RS encourages us replace it with real-world content, context, analysis or critisism cited from reliable secondary sources. There is no need for spin off articles which cite trivial content from unreliable sources, when what is needed is bold editing. Keeping article content about fictional topics in the real-world is hard, but that what differentiates Wikipedia from Wookipedia - higher standards. Spinouts are a POV pusher's licence to spam articles they think are important; what I am saying is that we have to be firm about enforcing the existing guidelines if we are to avoid the existing situation where unsuspecting editors are contributing to articles that have no real-world content that will ultimately be deleted. We need to have strong boundries, and not give in to the desire to create lenghy plot summaries on poplar topics. From a notability perpsective, loosening the editorial guidelines is like drinking sea water laced with the salt of synthesis. I propose this section is removed, as it goes against WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and ignores WP:RS. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you on the basic concept. I pretty much agree that plot-only article from any point is not good for WP in the long term, and we should be working with off-site wiki a lot more to offset these details. However, there's a point where sticking hard-nose to the policy can be harmful, and again, that is because there are a numerous group of people, a good number of newer ones but several experienced ones as well, that would likely leave the project if we were that strict on reading of PLOT and NOTE, and likely they wouldn't go quietly. Unless there is a much larger discussion of which way we take WP overall, FICT has to be written to reflect the current consensus, which is that these types of articles are ok (even spelled out so in a footnote at WP:N), even if this is incongruent with PLOT (I can argue there's a looseness in that, but), because remember, policy and guidelines don't create consensus, it is the other way around. Again, we could take the hard road, ban all non-notable fiction articles including spinouts, but that's against how WP should be run. If we do have a larger discussion (and there may be one developing at PLOT) in which way we take this, we'll reflect that in FICT. --MASEM 00:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that there's a point where sticking hard-nose to the policy can be harmful, but the situation as it stands is actually the reverse: currently we are too tolerant of synthesis and plot summaries, and this gives the illusion that this material is useful to Wikipedia, when in fact it is not and will be ultimately be replaced by real-world content from reliable sources. By allowing spinoff articles, and pandering to synthesis, we are being dishonest to a whole class of current and future editors who think the poorly sourced material will be kept, when ultimately it will be discarded in favour or real-world content from reliable sources, or deleted wholesale due to lack of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, I think you may have misunderstood my comments. I am against spinouts which are not on notable topics (although I am fairly "inclusionist" on the meaning of the word "notable"). However, I want the word "spinout" to have a simple meaning which everyone can understand: an expansion of a summary section in a parent article. As such spinouts, spinouts of spinouts, and so on, are perfectly legitimate as long as they meet other guidelines. Our job here is to make clear what the notability guidelines are for such spinouts in the case of fictional topics. Geometry guy 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Break point

May I interject for a moment here? We all agree here that Wikipedia is not a fansite (well, except a handful of new editors who stumble onto this page, but they can be educated), so that really isn't a point of contention. I also respect your commitment to defending the wiki from what you perceive as a major threat to its law.

However, as the multiple megabytes of archived discussion here have proven (a pity they're too long to be easily read...), there is no consensus for the absolutist stance against sub-articles. Further, after quite a bit of blood, sweat, and tears, it has been agreed by all the major participants here that a limited tolerance for articles on fictional elements that lack proof of independent notability is necessary. Yes, this does go against the apparent intent of some of our other rules, but it allows us to better meet our true goal of writing informative and readable articles.

Ultimately, the saddest part about all of this is that we have to codify it at all. In the magical land of best practices, editorial judgment is always given leeway with the rules, and wherever a subarticle was necessary we would welcome it on its individual merits. Unfortunately this is reality, where WP:IAR frightens people, so instead we must bicker over exactly what millimeter a line should be drawn at that shouldn't need to be drawn at all.

Moving back to the practical realm (read: wording quibbles) now, I would suggest that for character lists the guideline accept lists of "significant" characters, as I believe that would succinctly capture the notion of major characters plus minor characters important to the plot. And if we need a corresponding word to point out that lists of everyone who showed up in one frame of one episode of the series aren't useful, "exhaustive" (or "all") might help. --erachima formerly tjstrf 01:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not prepared to accept less than Masem's original wording in this section, which I think is already a compromise. (Personally, I think the real root of the problem is at WP NOT, which should be interpreted as meaning that the group of articles on a fictional subject should not be devoted entirely to the plot, and that real world aspects should always be included to the extent their importance justifies. The division into articles is entirely arbitrary and a matter of editing. I consider Masem's solution as the bare minimum necessary, and I would urge a full but not excessive coverage of plot summaries as a key part of articles on fiction, a main reason that readers come to these articles in the first place. The reason I urge the rejection of Gavin's supposed solution is because the interpretation under it would typically restrict the coverage of plot to the extent it would not provide the necessary information. I'm willing to accept Masem's compromise--inadequate and restrictive though I think it is-- as a matter of peace, just to settle this issue and get on with working on articles. If a few can't accept that, perhaps almost everyone else can. DGG (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't - Gavin is wrong about what Masem means, but absolutely right about how Masem's wording will be used in AFDs. It's 100% inclusionist, not a compromise. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG that Masem's proposal is our best chance for a compromise. Gavin and Percy's absolutism will only lead to further stalemate. I do not believe they fully comprehend the number of editors that consider episode and character list as de facto acceptable. I agree with erachima that it is truly sad that these things have not worked themselves out in the normal course of editing. I must disagree with Percy, both in the conclusion that this proposal is %100 inclusionist (%100 inclusionist would be a full article on every character, weapon, episode, plot device, and setting in fiction with no restrictions) and in his call for a prescriptive guideline rather than a descriptive one (the same arguments will be used and prevail at AfD, regardless of what guidelines say). Ursasapien (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• "%100 inclusionist would be a full article on every character, weapon, episode, plot device, and setting in fiction with no restrictions" - yes, that is what the current spinout guidelines allow. Saying they "may be acceptable" and "may be challenged" means that AFDs will end in no consensus - so the articles will stay. The "absolutism" here is in the inclusionist direction. A compromise would have to actually say that some articles are disallowed; the spinouts section does not. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• I understand your desire to try and reach a compromise but I don't agree, as this policy change represents a divergence from WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SYNTH. No matter how many editors want to create in universe plot summaries based on synthesis of primary material, it is still not acceptable because it contravenes WP:N and WP:V. I am placing a disputed clean up tag on both the Aggregate & Spinoff sections. I suggest that these sections go up for review at a highter level, its just too big a policy change to push through just so we can reach a compromise. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to take this for review at a higher level. We have already been to the Village Pump and had a policy RfC. The basic fact is that the guidance change occured at WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT, while editorial process on the whole has never been in complete agreement. It is completely acceptable for these issues to be worked out "on the ground" at AfD and within wikiprojects. In conclusion, I point everyone back to the following quote from MalikCarr, "That's the way consensus is supposed to work, and in practice, the way it does. Guidelines proposed, drafted and implemented by a few editors will never replace the consensus of editors. This is why guidelines should follow consensus, not consensus follow guidelines. It's counterintuitive, a form of circular logic, and wholly ineffective." Ursasapien (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good, great. Let's follow consensus and allow some extra articles - let's not provide a stick for inclusionists to hit other editors with. Consensus is not 100% inclusionist; the spinout guidelines are. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Forget notability, scholarship is at stake

My two cents are that few combined pages are always better than many stand-alone pages. This is better for editorial oversight. Even if we allow lots of plot summary, it would be duplicated on each character page, the episode pages and whatever other pages there are. This duplication allows errors to persist by diluting the number of experienced editors working on each page. For example, look at this contradiction between Lorien (Babylon 5) and Whatever Happened to Mr. Garibaldi?. Lorien asks Sheridan, as his life hangs in the balance after he nuked the Shadow city on Z'ha'dum,

“ Do you have anything worth living for? ”

In Lorien (Babylon 5) it says that Sheridan answers, but not what his answer is. But, in Whatever Happened to Mr. Garibaldi?, he answers "Delenn". The outlines of this scene, one of the most important in the whole series, is given or alluded to in several other Babylon 5 articles, with varying levels of accuracy. This is shamefully bad scholarship. After all, even if our goal is a compendium of all human knowledge, we owe it to the readers to get the information right. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And those types of errors are exactly the sort of thing we are attempting to deal with in this guideline: we must prevent the over-simplification or exclusion of in-universe information vital to understanding the subject, while also preventing the over-division or expansion of in-universe information into an impenetrable labyrinth from which the non-fan cannot distinguish essential information from trivia. --erachima formerly tjstrf 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said, erachima. This seems like a minor discrepancy, in and of itsself. However, I think the majority of editors would agree with your concern for scholarship and verifiability. I think the spinouts this discussion is speaking of are different than the one you referenced. The solution WP:FICT advocates is a List of Babylon 5 Characters and a List of Babylon 5 episodes. Each of these list would contain a short summary and may not contain the answer or the question in either article. Ursasapien (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal or notability guideline?

The page is currently tagged as both a proposal and a generally accepted notability guideline. Which is it? SamBC(talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It should only just be proposed, but there are editors that feel the fact that it is a notability guideline needs to be there too. However, there's no standard for a "proposed notability guideline". --MASEM 17:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The following English Wikipedia notability guideline has been under continuous revamping for months on end. Although it is still under development, it represents a generally accepted standard that editors should follow. However, it should be treated with common sense, the occasional exception, and checked for stability before use.

--erachima formerly tjstrf 01:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

-) Lol Geometry guy 09:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

New concept for sub-articles - a possible line of compromise?

I've been following the "spin-out article" debate here for a while, and would like to propose a solution that hasn't been discussed yet.

An encyclopedia should be organized by topic. While typically each topic should be covered in one article (or on one page), we all know that in some situations, more than one article is needed per topic. (Just think of George Washington.) I think there are two cases in principle, and one has to decide for each topic which case applies.

1. The topic can be divided into two (or more) sub-topics, related but clearly separated, each of which is notable (as evidenced by sources). Then, Wikipedia should treat them as two separate topics.
2. We deal with only one topic, which is covered on more than one page for reasons of size, readability, etc., per WP:SS. Then Wikipedia should treat these articles as only one topic. That means that notability is judged only for the entire topic, not for each individual page. But it also means that the topic should appear only once in categories, disambig pages, the alphabetic index, etc. Distribution of content across pages would not be an issue of WP:N, but purely of WP:MOS. (Of course, content policies such as WP:NOT apply.) The topic should also be viewed as one unit with respect to the AfD process, etc.

For fictional topics, I think we often meet the second case: There's a lot of material, but it's still only one notable topic. List of recurring characters in XYZ Comics is not a separate topic from XYZ Comics, not something one would expect to find separately in the alphabetic index of an encyclopedia. Treating this as sketched above will not solve WP:NOT issues; but it will reduce the impact of possible violations of WP:NOT on the overall structure of the encyclopedia. Maybe this is a compromise.

I think we currently lack a good model for the second case, where one topic is split into several (sub-)articles. I'm prepared to make a more detailed proposal on that, which would be somewhat more complex, involving changes in a wide range of areas. It would also not be restricted to fiction. But I'd first like to see whether you think that this might be the way to go. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see the difference between this and the wording of the current section on spinouts ("Spinout articles should be judged as if it were still a section of the parent article...") Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The current wording applies this only with respect to notability. However, I think one needs to be consistent. If it's only one topic - then treat it so. Do not list non-notable subaspects of the topic on disambiguation pages, for example. Do not list the sub-articles in categories. Make it clear that a sub-article is not a main article, even on a technical level, e.g. using the subpage feature. Then we may disagree as to what level of detail coverage is required, but the impact of this disagreement on the overall encyclopedia will be low. --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see; we've talked about this above at #Identifying spinouts (Was: Partial revert). Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Subpages are a technical feature that are strongly discouraged for any page in mainspace, which is why we started using "spinout" over "sub-article". This is not to say we cannot have some template on a talk page that identifies a spinout article for future editors, while the prose on the content page should be very clearly obvious what article the spinout supports. However, just as redirections are cheap, sub-topics in a spinout page should be populated in redirects and disambig pages to allow for ease of searching, even if the term itself is non-notable; at worst, the reader is redirected to the main page of the work of fiction containing that character and thus will now know where to go to learn more. --MASEM 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough

You know, from where I sit it is quite apparent both sides in this debate need to rethink their positions and put things on the table and accept they aren't going to get their way on everything. Until that happens there is no point in even debating this issue, because everytime a consensus develops a new voice enters and drags the consensus in a different direction. Wikipedia and consensus forming simply cannot move to cover every voice, sometimes the voice has to move to where the consensus forms.

People need to focus on what we're actually debating. Some people want all articles written to an encyclopedic standard, some want articles only on the things they like, and some people want articles on everything. I don;t think there is a consensus for Wikipedia writing about everything, I don't think there is a consensus on what notability really means, but I do think there is a consensus that we write an encyclopedia, and that the featured article standards are what we aim for in an article. Maybe it is time to deprecate notability and a number of other ideas and tags and simply have one tag which states, this article does not meet the following standards, and then list where it fails. Let us not forget in all of this that notability developed as a way of discussing how to build the encyclopedia. Like all tools, we can put it aside and use a different one. The goal is to create an encyclopedia. Let's build it rather than continue to debate this issue. The guidance on this page clearly has no consensus, I think it is time to put it away. It is starting to become divisive. Hiding T 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability in general, not just for fiction topics, has much more support for it, even though there's always disagreers. Unless WP:N (and then by extension, WP:IINFO) is depreciated, saying that FICT is invalidated will not make the problem go away: deletionists will use WP:N as their main tool to delete things.

I don't feel these present arguments are bad. We have a guideline that's 90% of the way there in describing the current practice that is acceptable on WP, and the one area on spinouts is the one that we just need to be careful with as to match current expectations: it should not be a free pass for all material to be included, nor a free pass to remove all non-notable spinouts. Having this argument,, even if it is highly split, is not a bad thing; this is likely a lot more range of input than we've had in the past for this. --MASEM 12:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. I see more agreement than disagreement here, and also more engaging discussion than divisive argument. There are plenty of middle ground editors here, e.g. Masem and Percy Snoodle. There are disagreements on matters of approach, but not, fundamentally, on what should or should not be included in Wikipedia. Geometry guy 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some topics are necessary to understand others

Since the section I added to try to explain which list and list-like spinouts we want to include doesn't seem to have been too controversial, I've added another section, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Some topics are necessary to understand others which tries to explain the non-list spinouts we want to include without allowing a blanket exemption for all spinouts. What are people's thoughts about the new section? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I nearly coughed blood when I read this: "Generally, these fictional elements are described in the plot summary of the main article and do not need to demonstrate independent notability." This is beyond the pale.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's referring to the section in the notable article, not to an independent article. Perhaps that should be made clear. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Better? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The way the section is written, it basically gives carte blanc for people to write tons and tons of articles filled with fancruft and minute details of their favorite bit of fiction because they can use the excuse of "well, it was just so much detail I had to put it in its own article." Where are the limits? It is too ambiguous and gives far too much leeway and wiggle room to allow for fansite creations within Wikipedia. It is not necessary to understand every last element of a fictional topic in order to understand it from an overview perspective. Collectonian (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It only allows for an independent article if a reliable source has described the topic as essential. If it's only the editor's opinion that it's essential, tough luck. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but say one reliable source makes a comment about some element of fiction, like work x was set in the fictional town Y. What stops anyone from claiming "okay, now I can write a huge lengthy article about topic fictional Y because some source happened to mention it in passing. It needs to be clearer that reliable sources (more than one) have actually given the topic extensive coverage, not passing mention, and that it needs to be a non-primary source. It also needs to be clearer that the focus should still be on the real-world aspects, otherwise one is likely adding excessive plot detail in attempting to spin out the article. Collectonian (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a problem, yes; we should definitely mention WP:PLOT in that section, and the source(s) involved definitely need to be secondary. I'm trying with this section to specify the individual elements that are suitable spinouts, so it's possible that the condition may be weaker than the full WP:N criterion, which is why I put it in the singular; if you feel that making the requirement be for multiple sources to say that, then I'm OK with that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's done; how now? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's better...though should something be noted to also defer/refer to the relevant MOS when trying to determine spin outs? For example, with television episodes, DVD releases should almost never be spun out, but included in the main or the relevant episode lists without excessive detail. And to note that creating a spinout should not be the first step. I.E. Don't just create a character article if the main is a stub or there is no existing character list first, and that discussion within the article before spinning out would be appropriate to confirm that such a spinout is suitable? It amazes me how many fictional articles will have a stub for a min article, while having lengthy plot filled individual articles for every character. Also, for the issue of size, to make sure the main article isn't to big due to needing clean up. In my experiences, many times people claim they spunout something because of size, but the size issue was caused by the main article having a beyond overly long plot section, bad formatting, excessive unsourced fan rumors, etc. Collectonian (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably a good idea. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are trying to do with this, and its a good effort. The problem is, before these recent changes, this guideline was already just a bit too long; now we've got two new conditions (even though they are using existing text). I think this new case is a subcase of the first, most general case of being a notable topic, [break]

This is when there is a notable parent topic and a non-notable but essential subtopic. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

though adding the condition that if the RS saying it is important to understand an element to understand the main work, people will bend that to think that if a review or the like mentions an element but does not elaborate on it, that means it can be included. [break]

Yes, that's a problem; the one which Collectonian is worrying about. We should find a way to deal with that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to be trying to make this less complex, even if that means we need to rely on sub-guidelines for highly detailed guidance. However, the core of FICT needs to be clear and concise, otherwise, new editors will "tl;dr" and ignore it completely. (Yes, I know it wasn't there before, the problem is that we are still adjusting it, wordsmithing should come later). --MASEM 12:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I'm hoping with these two sections is that we'll be able to do away with the spinouts section, and still keep the good spinouts. The spinouts that are left after these two sections are added in are lists with little or no coverage, as a whole or of their parts, and individual elements that are not important to understanding the parent topic. Both those categories of spinout seem to be the sort we can agree we don't need. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As a long term goal, yes, but not in the short term. We need a process to ween such dependancies away (if that is the ultimate direction WP wants to go), but not cold turkey.

Here's what I think we need to do. We need to step back, revert recent changes on this and get back to a FICT that reflects current consensus even if it is contrary to certain policies. (What would be missing then would be outlining what types of spinouts are appropriate). This has been "disputed" or "proposed" for nearly a year now, let's make it stable, even if it is not 100% meshing with policy and guidelines. We make sure we say that certain aspects (spinouts) are often questioned so that editors are aware it's not a perfectly resolved issue (and possibly one covered in a separate guideline). Get all that set, let it sit for a few months and make sure that there's no major issues with it. Then we can start proposing alterations, using RFCs and other notifications to get community-wide consensus. Restrict spinouts to certain types? Sure, if the community goes for it. Prevent any spinouts on fictional elements lacking notability? Again, sure, if that's how we want to proceed. But let's get an updated stable FICT that reflects what has happened over the past year in place before trying to create new issues and potential problems. --MASEM 13:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can do that simply be removing the spinouts section. I know you've put a lot of time into it, but it's the only part that is substantially disputed, and now it's largely redundant. Reverting to before it was added seems like a huge step backwards. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Subpages?

This keeps coming back to me when I look things over, so I'm actually going to ask; is there any reason not to use subpages in mainspace? If not, then why can't we use that to indicate where an article is intended to be considered a "sub-article"? It would be unlikely to be found on first-search in the search box by people who don't already know what they're looking for, although it would turn up on search results. It would be reached by random article. That sounds like good characteristics. Does anyone object to that idea, apart from people who think that there should never be this sort of "sub-article", however it's arranged? Barring there being a technical or core-policy reason not to do things in this way, of course. SamBC(talk) 13:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that was about my suggestion above... Subpages have once been used in mainspace, later they were disabled; I think we could now re-enable them for a well-described purpose (in fact a different one than they have once been used for). --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:SUBPAGES, disallowed use #3: Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. --MASEM 13:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is this possibly something worth opening up a discussion on more widely? SamBC(talk) 13:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Subpages also interfere with articles like Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (re Masem): Yes, that's precisely the passage that I would propose to change.
    

(re SamBC): I would be interested in a discussion, perhaps let's prepare a more detailed proposal first. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Subarticles (i.e., subpages of the main article space) were disabled because they are a bad way of organising articles. Instead, the category system was introduced. I give two examples which illustrate some of the many problems with subarticles. First, History of biology: is it a subarticle of Biology or History of science? Second, Al Gore: this is not, one would hope, a subarticle of List of recurring human characters from Futurama!! These are just my favourite (even slightly silly) examples, but they illustrate why subpage organization doesn't work. Geometry guy 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But this suggestion wouldn't suggest a complete hierarchical-organisation of articles, the only subarticles would be spinouts. I see there are other difficulties, though. SamBC(talk) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but this suggestion is unlikely to gain encyclopedia-wide support, because of the many problems involved in enabling main space subpages. Also the concept of a spinout depends on article history (I think History of biology may have been spun out from Biology rather than History of science, but I'm not sure) whereas content guidelines should be independent of article history. Geometry guy 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the subarticles would provide an alternative structure to categories: (Notable) topics would be organized in categories, while (not independently notable) detail material is organized in subpages to the "main article" (which alway exists per WP:SUMMARY.)

I have put up some private thoughts in that respect here: User:B. Wolterding/New subarticle concept --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts contain a lot of good ideas, but fundamentally, as Percy Snoodle has pointed out, a "subarticle" is usually about a particular topic within the parent topic. The topic of List of 30 Rock episodes is "Episodes of 30 Rock" (not "30 Rock") and the topic of Janie Fricke discography is "Singles and albums by Janie Fricke" (not "Janie Fricke"). These topics are notable: they can surely be found in reliable secondary sources, even if the current articles don't always cite such sources. There is no reason to make them subpages. Geometry guy 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed sections & subsections which conflict or are inconsistent with existing guidelines

I have reason to believe that this whole section and its related subsections should be removed from this guideline, as they conflict with the existing consensus of WP:NOTE and WP:V that are applied in other Wikipedia guidelines.

Demonstrating notability for fictional topics

The sentence "Such sources can include creators' commentary and interviews regarding the work or topic, bearing in mind the restrictions if the work is self-published" conflicts with WP:RS, which requires sources to be independent of the authors, publishers, their publicists, agents and distributors. Deleting this section does not preclude citing such sources as references, however, this sentence is a reversal of exisiting policy because it attempts to establish notability of a fictional subject through sources that are not independent. "Intellectual independence" is a safeguard to ensure that advertorials and other promotional material cannot be used as evidence of notability.

Agreed. Notability can not and should not be established from self-published sources. That opens the door for every fan-written work ever created to claim their stuff is notable for inclusion on no other basis than their writing a commentary about it. Collectonian (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, doubly agreed. Creators' commentary and interviews are good sources for meeting WP:V, but not notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable groups of topics merit aggregate articles

The statement that "In many cases, while individual elements cannot establish notability individually, a grouping of elements may be able to do so" conflicts with WP:NOTE and WP:V directly. I disagree that fictional topics can possess notability simply by aggregating primary sources or coverage from unreliable sources. Although aggregation may at first appear attractive where there is a large volume of material that can be used in an in universe plot summary based on synthesis, it is a poor substitute for reliable sources. This is why WP:WAF goes into great detail why this style of article is just not appropriate for Wikipedia, primarily because it encourges content that does is devoid of real-world content, context, analysis or critisism. A grouping of elements can only establish notability if there is sufficient real-world content supported by reliable secondary sources to justify a stand alone article for each element.

Some topics are necessary to understand others

The statement "if a reliable source describes a fictional element as necessary or critical for the understanding of a notable topic, and the amount of detail necessary to explain that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within either the parent topic or in an aggregate article, then that topic merits its own article" again conflicts with the requirements of WP:NOTE and WP:V. Where content is not substantiated by real-world content from reliable sources that are independent of the topic, it should be cut out not aggregated. Furthermore, one reliable source is not enough: there must be multiple reliable secondary sources containing real-world content to justify a stand-alone article.

This section now uses the plural. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary style approach for spinout articles

The statement "A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources of real-world coverage may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article, as described by summary style" conflicts with WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOTE and is an attempt to cirucumvent WP:RS. Where content is not substantiated by real-world content from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it should be cut out not not spun out.

I am not sure how my objections can be catered for within the context of current discussions, as I am seeking a rollback to the point where this guideline more strictly adheres to WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:RS and WP:WAF. The reason why I object so strongly is that I have seen the damage caused by the spamming of articles with no real-world content that have no reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability. If you take a look at Dungeons & Dragons spinout articles, you will see that not only are they mainly comprised of in universe plot summary, but the style of the articles is almost identical to that employed by the publisher. If we are to stop the steady creap of publisher's spam, then we have to be firm about insisting on guidelines that discourage synthesis. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working towards a point at which we can remove this section; most of the cases it was created to include are now adequately covered by the previous two sections. That's my belief and hope, anyway. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't conflict with WP:PLOT and by definition cannot contradict WP:NOTE since WP:NOTE accepts that specific notability guidance can offer differing definitions. "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." On that basis I've removed the tag, and hope that serves to rebutt Gavin Collins assertion that this guidance must adhere to WP:NOTE. I suggest if Gavin wants to pursue that agenda, he discusses such a fundamental change to WP:NOTE on the talk page of WP:NOTE, rather than attempting to circumvent that established guidance here. Hiding T 14:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In fairness then, if you do not accept that this section and its subsections are disputed, then I request that they be removed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept that you dispute them. All I have done is shown that the grounds for your disputing them are baseless. If you want to remove them, remove them, but state your grounds. If you want to add the disputed tag, add it, but state your grounds. Be aware, however, that other editors are within their rights to re-add them. And in fairness, make sure you quote the exact portions of policy you believe contradict with this guidance, because it may simply be your interpretation that is the issue. Hiding T 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, a précis

This page is 386Kb and my print preview says it would be 123 pages. To someone seeking to follow this without having been here all along, this is daunting. Please archive, summarize, something.

I'm concerned about the spinout of non-notable stuff. This is somehow necessary? No, it is merely desirable from a fan perspective. I just referred Gavin to a very notable commentary on an underlying concern about commercial pop culture; see Amused to Death and listen for the message. The title derives from a comment by a future alien anthropologist about what happened here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course even that article has lots of unsourced statements, several peacock words, and, arguably, "trivia" (viz. some parts the section entitled "Miscellenea"). Ironic isn't it? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the article; rather, the actual album, and by implication, the actual book that inspired it (which I've not read and wish I'd picked-up during a recent visit to one of the best book stores on the planet). The real irony is that I posted this request a few minutes before Masem raised much the same concern in the following section. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to PAUSE AND STOP for a moment

We've got too many subthreads going here, and too many changes happening to the guideline right now.

Gavin and Percy, I know I agree with the ultimate goals you present; our fiction coverage on WP is too large and vague against most policies. I completely appreciate the concern, and agree it should be a long-term goal. However, to the best I can recall, you are relatively new to this discussion; we have gone through several iterations and more heated arguments before (probably driving away a few good editors) since last May (since TTN started to purge stuff, and thus this guideline became disputed), and those concerns, that "fancruft" and the like are determental and against policy are understood. However, while this is a true long term goal, the short term goal is to get this guideline stable and accepted. To get that, we need to match the current consensus with respect to fictional elements, and that is basically what this guideline probably contained before Percy brought up a suggestion (sorry, Percy, not trying to call you out, but I know that's when all these new issues started). Yes, that version allows for spinouts, and it allowed for certain other aspects, some that don't meet exactly with policy and guideline. But remember, policy and guidelines are not rules, they are principles; these can only be as strong as consensus allows.

In the future, we may be able to have stronger consensus that proliforation of fiction topics are inappropriate, moving that all off to wikis and the like, which, sure, makes WP in the long run from my point of view, and likely for others as well. But clearly, based on the recent ArbCom cases, numerous AFDs for fictional elements, the fact that editors are questioning WP:PLOT, and the like, means that today we are not going to achieve that.

Thus, I am asking everyone to simply pause and hold off on changes to this guideline. Let us get it back to the state where it was nearly acceptable to all (this being prior to Percy's comments here), which did allow for spinouts. That version is not perfectly in line with policy, but is in line with consensus. With the understanding this is to create a stable base from which to build on that reflects the updated WP:N and the results of the recent ArbCom cases, and that it is not trying to create consensus, we need to let it sit and fine tune it for any issues with consensus as it is today. This at least gives a base FICT that strongly discourages the formation of individual character and episode articles; eg we get log(x) as opposed to x articles. Only once that it has been established should we then move from that base into reducing acceptable fiction articles more (should that still seem acceptable at the time); we may need to make sure other policies and guidelines move along with that for that to occur. (this is another reason why getting an consensus-acceptable base FICT in line is important, as it presently does not require any other policy/guideline changes).

So, all I'm asking is that we revert the guideline back to about a month ago, and consider that as the working FICT under the present WP-Wide consensus. Radical changes from that at this time should not be added unless we talk about it here first, and only should be added if it matches consensus; I would still argue for a MOS-type guideline for fictional element spinouts only to expand what's good or bad about those. We just need to make sure that aspects of that FICT that are not aligned well with existing policy and guideline are noted so that editors are cautioned that reliance on these aspects may not always be accepted, and avoiding such situations is better. This gets us that step change to get the short-term goal, of finding the intermediate path between inclusion and deletion that allows us to eventually reach the longer-term goal. --MASEM 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• What annoys me most is we could solve all of this with the maxim that less is more. To whit: "the project is about covering such topics with an encyclopedic tone, analysing in as much depth as secondary sources allow for all our subjects." Hiding T 14:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Masem. I know you don't want to see your spinout-related work go to waste, but we're actually approaching a consensus here. It's unproductive to throw that away. A blanket exemption for spinouts doesn't have consensus support, so if you're dead set on reverting, it will have to be to 27 January which requires real-world information for notability, or probably even further - before the "judged as part of the parent" debacle began. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be consensus here, but it's not WP-wide consensus. And yes, while blanket exemptions for non-notable spinouts may not have WP-wide consensus, neither does completely banning them either. Trying to set that as a guideline is going to cause a shitstorm from the inclusionists that at best will make this guideline disputed, at worst send WP over the tipping edge that it's been balancing on for a loooong time. The general aspect that merging several non-notable elements to a list is currently accepted practice; exactly how that fits with guidelines and policy is very unclear but given that this is a common result at AFD, we should be codifying that, not creating something new, regardless of which way it goes. --MASEM 14:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I've tried to put forward guidelines that allow the good spinouts - without mentioning the bad ones. The groups of topics section describes the list merge, and the necessary topics section takes care of the rest. So, the three sections we have codify the exact consensus position that you describe, without creating something new. The spinouts section makes a blanket exemption for all possible fictional articles, which is something new, but we can safely remove it. When the inclusionists see that these guidelines actually mean they can keep more articles than before, the "shitstorm" will abate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked through the edit history, and see the great sea-change in this guideline occurs after 27 January with Masem's indtroduction of the section on Summary style approach for sub-articles. I propose that we revert back to the prior version of this guideline. I do not agree with the changes that have been made since then, as they conflict with what had been agreed before that date. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that the Jan 27 change was moving what was being worked in my sandbox for two months prior (User:Masem/wp-fict-proposed) and only moved it to place when those here in WT:FICT thought it was appropriate to make it "live". I will also point out that since the first version of FICT (resulting from the Minor Characters deletion discussion), spinouts of non-notable characters have always been part of this, maybe not exactly in that language, but it was an consensus (I was not there for, I think Hiding was, however) that resulted from a large number of AFD cases. --MASEM 15:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It may have been consensus here, but it's not WP-wide consensus. We can go forwards from where we are, or from the Jan 27 version, but a blanket exemption from spinouts isn't consensual and can't appear in whatever we end up with. I think we're better off going forwards from here, by removing the spinout exemption section; Gavin thinks we're better off going forwards from the Jan 27 version. Which would you prefer? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I will again point out (and this is not a personal attack, it's just stating the case) that until you or Gavin started commenting, the spinout idea was based on a WP unstated standard that we had codified that had consensus from editors of this page, both inclusions, deletionists, and those in between. Now you're asking us to codify something that hasn't been tested in the WP waters and represents a very subtle but significant change to how fiction is approached. Again, I can't stress enough that I completely agree with getting rid of spinouts, I just cannot agree that adding that in right now is the best course of action for WP. If we stick with the version prior to Percy's changes, the worst that could happen is that WP maintains status quo, and the guideline is marked disputed or rejected and we start again, the best is that it is accepted and .. WP pretty much maintains the status quo. I've outlined what could happen if we leap ahead with the more restrictive version and that's a much worse situation. --MASEM 15:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't an "unstated standard" - it's an all-out exemption for absolutely all fictional articles of any topic or quality. To say that it "had consensus from editors of this page, both inclusions, deletionists, and those in between" is to say there were no deletionists or in-betweeners here. If you want to reflect consensus and/or reach a compromise, then do one of those things. Giving a blanket exemption from notability does neither. If we keep the exemption for spinouts, the best that could happen is that WP maintains status quo, and the guideline is marked disputed or rejected and we start again, and the worst is that the fannish inclusionists realise what's happened and spam WP with articles on every facial tic of every pet of every character in every fanfic in every fictional setting - because under the spinout excemption, they're permitted to do so. They're cautioned that that may be contested, but they're not told it's not permitted. I know you've put a lot of work into this - and if we imagine that every editor behaves reasonably, then the guidelines might look like they do reflect the consensus. But not all editors do behave reasonabley, and if we say that all spinouts are potentially acceptable, then we will get all those spinouts. The exemption is not consensual and it's not a compromise and it cannot stay. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the comment storms make it quite hard to take a weekend off from this dicussion. I can understand the desire to revert back to a point before the introduction of Masem's sandbox content. The problem i see with this is, once it is reverted, discussion and attempt to reach concensus stops. New opinions by contributors like Gavin collins don't occur, because new editors don't see the offending content. [break]

That's an excellent point. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I confess, I haven't read all the comments of this weekend, but in scanning the new content, I haven't seen any signifigant new arguments against the proposal, though I and others have made numerous arguments for it. (I aknowledge Percy Snoodle has made fine arguments against the wording in the past, specifically in response to my questions, and I believe those arguments continue to hold up) Perhaps at this time it would be a good idea to summarize the back and forth discussion and create a list of arguments for and against this change. I mean a live list of points that is updated as the discussion continues. Otherwise, as new people enter into this discussion, it is getting waaay too hard to read this backlog. WP Guidelines on upkeep of discussion pages state that creating Summaries is a good and helpful action for long discussions. A lot of this content is redundant restating of justifications or votes (that are perfectly reasonable) ammounting to "I also do/don't like it". Perhaps it would even be a good idea to put such a list in a FAQ type subpage. Does anyone wish to take a stab at such a NPOV overview? Else I think I'll try to do so in a day or so (...Oh, and if this has already happened, and I've just forgotten about it, I'll just get to feel stupid for a bit.) -Verdatum (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. I probably shouldn't be the person to try it, though :-) Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I second Masem's proposal to go make the last "nearly acceptable" guideline version the new WP:FICT and let discussion and other finetuning take place like we're currently doing. After the first arbcom case in November, then the second case in Jan/Feb, and the many months of the disputed/proposed state of WP:FICT, it has been getting really tiresome to see that the moment it seems we have something steady, new strong opinions (both from inclusionists and deletionists) make agreement nearly impossible. There is no consensus at the moment to make either strong opinion the "winner", so the best we can do now is live with the middle ground and work from there. I am sure we will have a better idea after a few months of editing with this WP:FICT, and we can still make the guideline slightly more inclusionist or deletionist as need be, slowly making adjustments as wikiwide consensus adjusts. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The disagreement between Masem and me isn't based on particularly different interpretations of consensus; it's based on different interpretations of the guidelines used to express those. We've been working incrementally towards a set of guidelines which reflect that consensus, but without a loophole that includes each and every possible fictional article. I think Masem may have reacted a little too strongly when it became apparent that we might do that without his spinouts section, which is understandable given how much effort he's put in, but I still think our best possible approach is to work from what we have. How far back do you propose to go? The January 27 guidelines contained the loophole, so reverting to them won't make the dispute go away. Percy Snoodle (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • As I've stated before, spinouts in nature have been part of FICT since its creation; it is not my idea to have them in there (I agree that ultimately they are probably not a good thing to include) but as Sgeureka has pointed out, this is a necessary allowance that reflects current operating procedure [break]
      • I disagree - current procedure includes some spinouts, not all spinouts. It's not current procedure to say "spinouts are part of the parent, keep them all" - it's to say "some spinouts are good, keep those". Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • (even if it goes against policy, but at times remember to ignore all rules if it makes WP better) and is a point of agreement between inclusionists and deletionists; [break]
      • Again, no, it isn't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • remove it (again, remember that the preceding accepted version of FICT, roughly about here included spinouts) and you'll never get this accepted, so spinouts will still happen.
      • Some spinouts will still happen. Why not work out which ones and why, and say that? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Force it, and you'll have a massive departure of people from the project, which ultimately may get us to a better quality encyclopedia, but it is a very bad route to get there. Again, I emphasis that guidelines should be the last place that dictate common practices, and should only be written to reflect them, transforming them when consensus is there for that aspect. [break]
      • Yes, let's do that. Let's not add a blanket exemption for all spinouts; that's not common practise, it's not consensus, it's not a compromise, it's not beneficial at all. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The reason I'm pushing the version that was around say around March 1st is that it accounted for more recent changes (major characters are no long considered "notable" off the bat, so separate articles are discouraged, though lists are fine), the outcome of both ArbCom cases, and the change in wording that the notability guidelines (the addition of secondary sources that was added mid-last year); it better measured current practices without trying to introduce new guidelines, even if current practices are bad. --MASEM 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Current practises are not what you're saying they are. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • We have the reduced pokemon lists, we have articles like List of characters in the StarFox series and List of Mario series characters. Now, I'm not saying those are in the greatest shape in terms of prose, but I know those lists are in the present form because TTN and others worked with other editors to merge individual articles into the single lists. Are these lists notable? Certainly not, yet these lists are accepted as spinouts from the main work. [break]
          • They're accepted, yes - but I don't see evidence that they're "judged as part of the parent". They're within a hair's breadth of notability, and they're beneficial. That's why they stay - because they are acceptable for what they are, not for what some other article is. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The spinout wording is not a blanket exception for any non-notable fictional article as you claim. [break]
          • As long as it only balances "may be acceptable" with "may be contested", yes it is. That is a blanket exemption. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • It strongly urged them to be restricted to "lists" and that singular items are typically not spun out (unless they have notability) though as Nydas has pointed out, we cannot restrict singular element spinouts entirely.
          • I don't propose to "restrict singular element spinouts entirely". I propose to explain which singular elements are acceptable, and why. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • If we agree that a secondary guideline on exactly what non-notable spinouts are appropriate and what certainly aren't, then we can change the language to state that "Spinout articles of non-notable aspects of a work of fiction may be appropriate if the main articles grows too larger as per WP:SS, however, such spinouts are only considered appropriate under certain limited situations as described in WP:FICTSPIN. If the non-notable content does not meet these situations, it is likely better to transwiki the content and trim what remains to avoid creating an inappropriate spinout." Then FICTSPIN can go into the limited cases we know are acceptable, what cases clearly aren't acceptable, and describe other aspects of spinout writing. --MASEM 13:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
          • That's better, because it says "only" - but it undermines that by saying "considered" and "likely". There has to be a firm line below which articles are unacceptable; that line can be a long way down if that's where consensus lies, but the more ambiguity we leave the more AFDs will turn into an admin lottery. I don't think this article should have its own spinout, though. Notability guidelines for fictional spinouts belong here; notability guidelines for spinouts in general belong elsewhere. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
            • ...to put that another way: If you can come up with a list of cases in WP:FICTSPIN as you describe; then those should be our guidelines. There's no need to invent some general rule about spinouts that doesn't have consensus support, then restrict it by explaining when it does and doesn't apply. However, this is probably a good way forward. Let's start a discussion about what those cases are. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done to Ursasapien, for finding a version of the page without the spinouts loophole. That must have taken quite some digging. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If we carry on

I'd appreciate it if people could have a look at this revision and see whether they think it will exclude any important articles or article types. I'm keen to reach a point where we've matched the consensus for what to include, without making a big mistake in how to include it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please go back to Masem's version if you havent already. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, I immediately reverted - I just want to know what articles that would exclude, that Masem's include, and which we want to include. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

... or do you want the full half-hour?

Note that a recent AFD nomination of a stack of Monty Python sketch articles resulted in Keep All even though the articles were in a fairly poor state. My impression is that this sort of thing is notable in the practical sense of passing AFD easily but quite hard to find good sources for. Some sort of inherited notability is needed for major franchises like Monty Python, The Simpsons, Shakespeare, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's very common for mass listings to fail like that - it doesn't always reflect on the individual articles. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Individual noms for single eps don't fare that well either. It's the difference between the wider community and editor who frequent these guideline pages. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Individual works, yes; individual characters and other elements are a much more mixed bag. Episodes tend to get more coverage because of listings magazines, so they have an easier time meeting WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It ended in keep all because it was too many in one with many saying delete some but not X or Y. That's why the first probably was train wrecked. In general, such group noms are a bad idea as people will not look at each individual article. If nominated on an individual basis, I suspect most would be deleted but a few. Collectonian (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Such AFDs should probably be closed as no consensus rather than keep - the articles stay, but it doesn't prejudice future AFDs. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable spinouts

So - as Masem suggests (and without worrying too much about where they'll eventually go) let's try (again) to come up with the cases when spinouts are definitely acceptable, and when they're definitely not.

Definitely acceptable

1. Minor topic lists that can establish overall notability
2. Topics essential for understanding others (subject to (1) below)

Definitely not acceptable

1. Topics that can be trimmed to fit into a parent or aggregate article
2. Topics with no verifiable real-world information at all

What else? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Driving by for a moment, I have to say that Topics that can be trimmed to fit into a parent or aggregate article is an result, not a criterion. Once you apply the basics (is the topic notable, and supported by real-world information), you get a list of acceptable spinouts. Everything else, no matter how much the author feels he would like to say, must be trimmed to fit into a parent or aggregate article. If it isn't notable and supported by real-world information, it just doesn't get an article, spinout or no.Kww (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for that position. There is, however, some feeling that there are topics that lack such support, which nonetheless merit articles. Confusingly, people have been saying that lots of different ways; I've been saying that some topics without coverage are notable, and Masem that there are non-notable articles which deserve inclusion, but we're basically saying the same thing. WP:N does make provision for the specific guidelines to add extra criteria beyond coverage, and we're debating what circumstances there are under which we should do that. Shall we take it that you, like Gavin, would say "no circumstances"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But given that these guidelines are supposed to be more descriptive than prescriptive, that doesn't work, because that's definitely contradicted by widespread practice. SamBC(talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's contradicted, sometimes it's agreed. Both are widespread. If we can find a difference between the cases where WP:N is applied and where it isn't, we'll have our answer. However, I suspect that the difference is usually either (a) popularity of the work in question, or (b) the sympathies of the closing admin. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty a much a "take no hostages" kind of guy on that topic. No exceptions. I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors, and honestly believe that to be the case. Articles on things like Bulbasaur may be a common practice, as is asserting that every actor on the Disney Channel is gay, or substituting "penis" for the noun of the author's choice. Doesn't make them acceptable or desirable.

I'm also strict about sourcing. You can't demonstrate notability because the author of a work mentioned it in a DVD commentary. Notability comes from independent, third-party sources examining the topic directly and in detail. Once you apply those criteria, most cases that appear controversial become quite simple. Very few fictional spinouts pass.Kww (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)