Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)

Final adoption as a guideline

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

• Support, though it is far from my ideal choice. In a perfect world, I would see a much stronger emphasis on third-party sources. In this world, I think that stronger emphasis would alienate too much of the inclusionist camp for this guideline to achieve consensus.—Kww(talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Revision of second prong permits an article on essentially every TV episode that has production information. Deleting the importance test for episodes and characters guts the guideline by permitting an article on essentially everything the developers ever commented on, and the late timing of this massive revision invalidates the entire RFC.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Not enough support of independent sources, and unlike Kww, I find that makes it unacceptable. We can certainly leave WP:N to solve it, as well as improving awareness of sourcing requirements and helping to support closing admins who ignore fan runs with no idea of where independent sources will be found. Sources need to be independent. That means not from the creator or those involved with the fictional work. This runs directly counter to that. If there were more an emphasis on merging inappropriate content, this might work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• support because we have to finish this process sometime. I suppose the neutrality is shown bey the fact that, like Kww, i support though I actually find it basically unacceptable also, for of course exactly the opposite reason of Kww and Seraphimblade. Fiction is fiction, and its importance within fiction is sufficient to justify an article if there is sufficient material. I think the only real solution is a total rewrite of the general concept of Notability, which I think a self-imposed straightjacket, which ought to be replaced by the two distinct concepts of 1. Important enough for coverage in a separate Wikipedia article. and 2. suitable for a separate rather than a combined Wikipedia article. However, i don;t think we can afford to wait for that. Seraphimblade and I have some common ground in preferring merged content, but it would not be "inappropriate" content but content that while appropriate is not suitable for a separate article for some practical reason. What will need continued defense is the suitability of full and detailed content on these subjects, whether merged or separate. DGG (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I personally don't see a reason for need for independent sourcing of the second prong and development commentary imo should be enough in almost every case since the policies and guidlines of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS were never really written with fiction in mind (those exceptions being so few they'd likely not be good articles anyway). However, I'm willing to say that it's a starting point that is a compromise as close as we can get. We also need a functioning WP:FICT as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please calm down and drink some tea. Lets focus on the substance of what I wrote. thank you. Ikip (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Things people say in userspace pages don't necessarily have anything to do with reality, and TTN was in trouble not for merging, but merging obnoxiously and aggressively. Again, most of the articles that fail this guideline, should it pass, are merge candidates anyway. The only reason they would be deleted is because AFD can't be shouted down by one loud fan. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• Oppose as "significant" can and will be interpreted subjectively as I've explained elsewhere on this page and as Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria (fictional elements) is a better way of going about things than using a subjective word like "notability" that is open to (mis)-interpretation per User:Ziggurat/Notability and User:Thanos6. As a matter of principal, I have to stand up against use of "notability", because it is inconsistent with the notion of a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit. With that said, I commend Randomran and some others for their good faith attempt to compromise (Randomran came really close to convincing me!) and I was somewhat on the fence, i.e. not sure how it would be implemented, but if everything I argued to keep that is listed at User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions would at worst be merged or redirected with edit history intact, I can support. If anything that I argued to keep on that list would be redlinked or have the edit history deleted, then I can't support. I'd like to support as a compromise, although I still think "notability" is an anti-wikipedic concept (verifiability is sufficient for a paperless encyclopedia; notability strikes me too much as subjective, elitist, and such). So, it depends how it is used in practice, which I guess I would have to see in actual discussions. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Spot checking some of the cases and ignoring the ones that are lists (as we aren't attempting to address that here), and those that fall outside of fiction, I would believe this all to be true (they would all be retained, though editorial decisions to merge are still an option), but if you have a concern about a specific case, please list it. --MASEM 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, my primary concern is the information is preserved per WP:PRESERVE. I frequently read a magazine that has a new article on some fictional character for say an article that may currently be redirected, but with the new sources might justify a standalone article and in these instances it's far easier to have the basis article in the edit history to improve rather than having to start all over. So, even in the instances above where I argued to keep, but the close was a merge and redirect, I think in the above cases, they were acceptable compromises. I can't think of any above where a redlink would make any sense, particularly because since my rename I have been far more selective of which discussions to comment in, i.e. I tend to avoid AfDs for articles that I can't rescue, which means I am only commenting in the handful that I strongly believe has some potential. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • We need to work PRESERVE better into the AFD process as well as making sure histories are retained when they should be, but I believe there is a larger need to work out how fiction is organized better to preserve even more. For example, the next step if this is accept is to go and define how to use lists and other supporting articles for preservation of topics. --MASEM 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I just don't understand how several editors here can continue to say that this article will preserve fictional articles. When a cursory look at the page shows that this will create 3 hurdles that every editor must jump over before their article is accepted. "A subject that meets all three prongs may qualify for a standalone article." In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters 2, an editor was topic banned for the same behavior which this article will permit: the merging of hundreds of editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • The three prongs, combined, are much less of a hurdle for most fictional elements to meet than the single requirement of WP:N, being "significant coverage in secondary sources". Also, be aware that TTN was not blocked 6 months for just the act of merging, he was blocked 6 months for his methods of fait accompli mergings - using processes to overwhelm those that were trying to keep the articles without discussion and the like. Merging is not evil, but as A Nobody notes, there are certain things that need to be done to keep merges appropriate for the GFDL, as well as to retain redirects to help searching; fixings those is outside this scope. --MASEM 16:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
              • According to his[block log] it that doesn't appear to be the case.
  • Renaming "notability" as "inclusion guideline" is not going to happen without major chances across a whole bunch of policy and guidelines. "Inclusion" implies any type of inclusion - article, section of an article, one tiny mention, and the like, and we want to be inclusive, which is true. This FICT is not trying to define an inclusion policy, but instead is instead trying to determine whether an article should exist for an included topic. "Notability" is a word that needs to be fixed, but FICT is not the battleground for it. (Of course, we do want to be concerned on the overuse of the word "significant" but that can be fixed). --MASEM 03:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Another concern is that nearly 100 edits had made to WP:FICT since the RfC started, so which version is even being supported or opposed at this time? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• On the fence as well. I feel that too easily this could lean either way, and as it stands is too loose for both sides but I'm unsure if until put into practice just how the policy is used. I do believe however that for a lot of editors this may come back to bite folks in the posterior.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Generally support: This guideline was built primarily on the premise of what was actually going on at AfD, rather than being the sort of idealistic fluff that generally gets lobbied for at WP:N et al. Making sense of AfD and giving it a frame of reference is more valuable than trying to affect it on a wide scale. Nifboy (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per Kww and DGG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This last effort has failed again. This page does not have consensus and is unlikely to ever have consensus. Returning to my previous position: This, via a "notability subguideline" is the wrong way to work on this. Notability is about the existance of suitable sources for a whole subject/topic. This page is trying to consider intimately connected subjects. It is trying to justify inclusion as an individual article for subject that on their own fail WP:N. The attempt is therefore to document inclsion criteria independent of WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I'd like to throw notability out the window when it comes to fictional topics, but this is the best compromise. It's taken over a year of heated debate to get here, and we should seize this chance and get back to writing the encyclopedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel uneasy when a guideline uses phrases like "well beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline", because I see no reason to have fictional topics follow any stricter criteria than other subjects. Also, I don't like the "three-pronged test". Rather than requiring an article to fulfill all three criteria, it would be better to make it similar to WP:BAND, i.e. fulfilling at least one of them should be sufficent. SoWhy 07:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But BAND and FICT cover two different things. The only thing to talk about with articles under BAND is real world information because you aren't talking about fictionalized bands. With fictional articles, by your logic, if they meet the criteria of "being something important to the fictional element" (like say, the pilot episode), they might still not have anything beyond a plot to say about the episode itself (depending on the series). In such a case, we don't need a separate article just to rehash a plot summary, as we generally have other pages that already discuss the plot of the pilot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You think that any article with a real-world perspective should satisfy notability? This seems to me a very silly argument.
• Oppose The 'This page in a nutshell:' section doesn't appear to reflect the guideline's actual content:
  • The link to WP:PLOT seems out of place given that this doesn't clearly support the linked text (which I find confusingly worded) - this could be changed to 'For an element of a fictional work to qualify for a stand-alone article, reliable sources must be available to demonstrate that it is an important aspect of an important fictional work and provide information about the element's development or reception. Plot summaries alone are not sufficient.'
  • the 'Three-pronged test for notability' calls for third-party sourcing "well beyond the basic threshold" of WP:N but the second dot-point states that "self-published sources such as author commentary" are suitable sources for establishing notability, when these are explicitly ruled out by WP:N and not mentioned in the three-pronged test as being suitable. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You have a valid point: 'This page in a nutshell' has to be amended, and has been overlooked. However, I don't think this is a valid reason to oppose on its own, as the nutshell section will be brought up to date soon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It does not conform to our core principles and policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand this oppose, as you've mentioned it before and I believe that it isn't anywhere close to accurate. How does it not conform to V and NOR? I don't believe anywhere on this page does it suggest that editors write their own commentary (thus WP:NOR is not an issue). It clearly states that it requires reliable sources (which satisfies WP:V). As for this neutrality thing, again, not really seeing where it states we should be one-sided and only publish what we like. As a matter of fact, I think in the "Independent sources" section it clearly states that the article must adhere to WP:NPOV. So...what are your real reasons for opposing this potential guideline, because you've stated these before I have a hard time believing that you really believe that these are problems with this guideline (at least, I haven't see statements in the guideline that back up those issues).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Weak support, but for the opposite reason to JulesH. I think that the guideline may not be strict enough, but if the "real-world notability" section is properly applied, it'll do. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support on the basis that it's worth a try. We can always come back to the drawing board if need be. Hiding T 10:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support – per Kww. Much better to have this rather than not have it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support as I see this version of WP:FICT as a huge improvement on earlier versions, because one of the inclusion criteria for a standalone article about an element of fiction is the requirement that it must include significant, real-world information about the topic. This means that elements of fiction must be covered in an encyclopedic fashion (which has a real-world focus), rather than treating them purely as elements of plot (which has a fantasy-world focus). Therefore this guideline binds together the existing consensus at policy and guideline level (e.g. WP:NOT#PLOT,WP:WAF), but still leaves editors free to cover an element's role from a plot perspective if it can be demonstrated that the element of fiction is central to understanding the fictional work. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Machiavellian principles. Like many I would rather screw FICT altogether and make GNG the policy here, but until pigs fly (or all the inclusionists get lives and leave us to toil in geekdom :P) this is a sensible compromise that should reduce the amount of crap on-wiki. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, albeit reluctantly (I do prefer WP:N as well), and per User:Hiding above. The interpretation of guidelines in actual discussions differs sometimes widely from the intention of the guideline and the participants in the creation of it (as I witnessed with earlier versions of WP:ATHLETE). Fram (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support IMO - It does not contradict WP:N, but it /does elaborate and expand the ability to document non-real items. Example: while a movie may be fiction, the fact that it was made and distributed is a real life event - this (if it were a guideline or policy) would explain the proper procedures for writing about that event. Ched (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Flawed, but workable, and certainly better than having nothing at all. We see a dozen articles at AfD each day that have to deal with the issues presented here, and a consistent framework will make for improved articles. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, just as I did in the straw poll above. Certainly it isn't perfect, now will it ever be. I think that it is a good compromise between both inclusionists and deletionists, and I don't really see how it violates any core policies. WP:RS might be the only one, but FICT still says that reliable sources are needed to produce a quality article and that without them articles are likely to be merged. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I like the reduced requirement for independent sources. In my experience with fiction articles it is possible to create a comprehensive write-up from an out of universe perspective with reliable secondary sources from the developers while having few independent sources. This is usually true in the case of character lists (and often main characters). There may be an official website confirming basic character information and DVD commentaries or companion material that provides detailed background info on production, sales, etc.. The result is a solid article which may not have the substantial independent coverage of the GNG, but has the potential to be well written article. What's more is that I think this is good middle-ground between people who think notability must be completely proven and people who think notability is completely inherited. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• STRONG OPPOSE This proposal is a continuation of a 4 year edit war,[1] and two AfD's[2][3] it will not solve this edit war, it will only inflamme it with new rules. The proposal has failed at least twice before. 1st 2nd This is more Bureaucracy and Rule Creep.Ikip (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first time this policy fell apart, Radiant's FICT, it was simply overtaken by time. The original WP:FICT was vaguely worded and very know-it-when-I-see-it, and while it didn't hold up on its own, its general philosophy sees unwritten consensus. (We don't cover very minor characters, we merge characters into lists, upmerging fictional item articles into setting or list articles is preferable to deletion, etc.)

The second time it fell apart, Deckiller's FICT, it was just "WP:GNG applies to fictional subjects." This was crushed under "Well duh, only an idiot needs a separate guideline to tell them that," "What about lists? I thought we liked lists," and "WP:GNG eats babies."

This guideline is informed by the failure of Deckiller's FICT, and Radiant's FICT accomplished its goal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would be deleted if the GNG were strictly applied'

Your argument presupposes that GNG is strickly applied now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your entire premise is based upon the idea that there should be a guideline in the first place. I disagree stongly. I think there is enough acronyms which editors use to delete other editors contributions already. This is WP:BURO WP:CREEP, which will disrupte a lot of editors contibutions, and alienate even more editors. Everyone who supports this proposal gives empty repeated assurances here that articles will not be deleted, but the past behavior of many of these editors here[4][5] tells a starkly different story. My concern is what is best for the project. Is it beneficial for a small group of editors to push this policy against the will of hundreds of contritibutors? This proposal, and prospals like this guideline, are the reason why journalists are universally negative about wikipedia's "draconian" deletion policy. The Economist says that deletion policies like this one are the reason why wikipedia editing has dropped. As Wales says, "All those people who are obsessively writing about Britney Spears or 'The Simpsons' or Pokémon -- it's just not true that we should try to redirect them into writing about obscure concepts in physics...Wiki is not paper, and their time is not owned by us. We can't say, 'Why do we have these employees doing stuff that's so useless?' They're not hurting anything. Let them write it..." Stop worrying about what everyone else is doing, and focus on contriubting more, instead of pushing your idea of what wikipedia should be on others. Ikip (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This is a strawman argument. There are other options.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Has the markings of yet-another-policy that is either vague or too strict and will be used to block potentially valuable content from being included. Special notability guidelines for fiction? Sounds like beginning of first they come for you... §FreeRangeFrog 01:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And we reach the apotheosis of the thread. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - seems fair and basically everything that is already in place among the current guidelines but organized into one neat form for instant use. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is senseless WP:CREEP. First, if the work is notable and the element is central to it, it's probably covered by someone critics/commentators. So I don't see a need for mandating the third element "real-world impact"; I can see it as an alternative to the element being central, e.g. some minor character or meme that catches on. Second, the sentences that come right after those three bullets flagrantly contravene WP:V: "But there must be a reasonable belief that evidence exists for all three criteria." No, either you have a source or you don't. Hunches aren't good enough. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would point out that the arbcom has all but begged for the community to come up with a notability guideline, so calling it creep when the community does so seems off somehow. I'd also point out that the presumption of sourcing comes from WP:N, and so there's a larger issue at hand in contravening WP:V. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Instead of addressing any of the substantive points I've raised, you're telling me that we must pass this because some committee said so. No, thanks. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - unfortunately, notability guidelines on Wikipedia (WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT, WP:ALBUM, etc.) have mostly been treated as binding so far (they shouldn't be), and therefore I cannot support any proposal for a guideline which excludes many informative and encyclopedic articles from Wikipedia. Especially concerning is the regard to elements within a fictional work, which often have insufficient real-world coverage but are important to understanding the particular work of fiction, and all of the information is verifiable through the work of fiction itself. Ed17 brings up another very important point, namely that people come to Wikipedia to gain knowledge about anything and everything ("the sum of all human knowledge"), and articles about seemingly trivial fictional topics actually have far higher readership than many important real-world topics. In addition, these articles attract new Wikipedians who might not necessarily write about fiction later. Therefore, as long as articles about fiction are encyclopedic and don't violate core policies like WP:V and WP:NOT, there is no reason to exclude them. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose For all the reasons above, and below, already given in opposition. And the ones not stated. As far as I'm concerned, notability is ridiculously subjective; hence, this "guideline" (which are usually followed to the exact fucking letter. In fact, how many of you had the urge to delete that word? That's what I'm talking about.) is ridiculous. Are the newspaper and publishing conglomerates going to dictate what is notable now? When I can't find a newspaper article or book on the subject, will it get deleted by some pedantic Wikipedia enforcer? (Probably) Is this going to be one more thing I'm going to have to fight about (the actual existance of the article)? Maybe someone needs to tag articles as non-notable so certain people's browsers filter them out, and maybe tag other as counter-revolutionary while we're at it... Int21h (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I am 100% an inclusionist.. that is one of the great strengths of Wikipedia: information about many, many things that simply wouldn't be in a regular encyclopedia. To me that makes Wikipedia much better than a regular encyclopedia. In that context, I think that placing a notability restriction on fiction would ensure that only "mainstream" fiction would be accepted as notable (due to a large number of reviews, commentary, recognition etc.), while excluding less well known but still artistically, culturally valuable fiction topics. It's basically a value judgement - worthy or not worthy? I don't think such judgements should be made, at least in this case. -BloodDoll (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment on the above three opposes. This isn't the forum to comment on WP:N as a whole. If you feel that guideline is illegitimate or shouldn't apply to fiction this has no bearing whatsoever on the adoption of this guideline. This is an attempt to make it easier to write and maintain fictional articles where the subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG. If this fails, all that is left is the GNG. This proposal represents a net increase in articles kept. Please keep that in mind. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Strong Oppose This proposed guideline exemplifies the politics and lawyering that has grown to consume Wikipedia in the last 3 years. It constructs bureaucracy and global rules, when what we need is common sense and the general principle of independant coverage, applied on a case-by-case basis. Instruction creep like this "three-pronged test" makes it all too easy for editors to zone out and mechanically apply rules, rather than giving honest consideration of the article and whether it adds to or detracts from Wikipedia on the whole. AfD hero (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I can fully support a guideline that recommends strongly there be sourced information rather than in-universe fancruft. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. A reasonable and sensible compromise that is badly needed and is a significant improvement over the status quo. Apart from other considerations, having a specialized notability guideline will allow future discussions about notability of fiction articles to be more focused and specific and also will provide a proper place for conducting such discussions and for hashing out further consensus. Right now the absence of a fiction notability guideline destabilizes WP:N and even WP:NOT. Nsk92 (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I think this is a very well done guideline. It's clear and concise. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: realistic workable guideline, consistent with underlying principles in WP:GNG & WP:V. A guideline for this is long overdue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Looks sensible. --Kleinzach 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Mixed feelings. On the one hand, this is good policy. On the other hand, a lot of articles about fictional characters exist that do not come close to meeting these requirements and I would prefer them to continue to exist. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this unnecessary rule-creep. I agree with SoWhy: it's redundant with Wikipedia core policies.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• The three pronged test is terrible. If the element is "central to understanding the fictional work" it need to be discussed on the page for that work. Why would we want another page for the element? For an element of a fictional work to have its own page it should be because of notability beyond the work. Thehalfone (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support oppose. I would like to see something much, much more inclusionist. Wikipedia is sui generis. One of these days I'm gonna get round to rationally reconstructing my instincts about the limited usefulness of our encyclopedia metaphor. To my mind most deletionism, however well-intentioned, can't help but implicate itself with either a kinda paternalism (like users can't work out for themselves what cruft is) or a kinda optimism (like it will earn the confidence of people whose fundamental beef is with the open source nature of the project itself). Anyway, practice and guidelines are out of synch, this might bring em a lil closer, so weak weak support opposition from the centre of my limpy limpy soul. Franciscrot (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So the sitch, if I've got this straight, is that although many of us are opposing this on the grounds that it is too lax / inclusionist, it would nonetheless be helpful in supporting the deletion of a huge number of articles? (As an aside: I think fancruft bugs a lot of editors because it feels disproportionately conspicuous, like Wik is overwhelmed or overgrown by it. But this dynamic can be handled by careful pruning of the links from articles whose existence is noncontroversial, so that the only users who see it are those who are looking for it. I wonder if it should be possible to exempt articles from the "Random article" function (or is it possible?!). Franciscrot (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Would it be better to change the name to something like Wikipedia:Notability (elements of fictional works) to make its coverage clearer? My earlier Oppose was based mostly on the fact that I [mis]interpreted the guideline to being something that would apply to fictional works themselves (in which case I thought it was far too strict). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed guideline should be more restrictive than what it is. Elements of a work with outsized popularity today may not have it tomorrow, despite WP:NTEMP. I personally don't think WP should become a shrine to every character or element dreamed up by content creators unless it enters the collective psyche of culture itself. Some timeless examples of these being Fonzie and Homer Simpson who have left such an indelible imprint on society that their existence transcends the body of work in which they originated. However, when their respective series' began, neither would have been notable enough to warrant their own article. It is only after such time that their influence on culture was shown not to wane that they became notable. IMHO, unlike "immediate" notability for IRL subjects and topics, there should be some criterion for "staying power" when it comes to fictional elements. The application of WP:NTEMP to these articles, if not completely revoked, should at least be severely limited. Allow these fictional subject articles to continue to be created, but they should be continually reviewed for sustained notability, and methods to ease the process of deletion of such articles which no longer meet notability guidelines should also be implemented. GreyWyvern (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If fiction was a relatively new area of WP topics, I would think we would be able to impose a slightly stricter guideline to that field, as you are right - articles on characters and episodes shouldn't really be split out from lists of such until there's enough to actually write about them. However, the fact is that there are 100,000s of fiction articles out there; to impose a stricter guideline would effectively be a fait accompli process of forcing fiction articles that have been around for years to be cleaned up. This guideline recognizes that there's a lot of fiction out there that will need cleanup, and that at the current time, the best method of going forward is baby steps - let's work on establishing real-world information that later can be expanded to more complete coverage, while simultaneously larger discussions on how fiction , notability in general, and the like should be handled. Ultimately, we do want fiction editors to break out articles only when necessary, but that's not a step we can immediately jump to. --MASEM 16:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Even I'm mainly an editor in the field of anime and would be severely impacted by this guideline, I can see the need to limit the proliferation of fictional-work articles. However, I propose a grace period to be granted for the adoption of this guideline such that people are given time to transwiki material that would fail this guideline. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support IMO, the more guidelines the better, as it helps editors interpret (and where necessary) expand on the core policies for particular situations and subject areas. Of course, there will be discussion and evolution in what each guidelines says: that's how consensus is built. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per many of the above who cited WP:CREEP. Having one notability guideline is bad enough, we don't need to make it worse. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Though I'm opposing this proposed guideline too, I disagree that WP:FICT is a bad idea on its face. Subject-specific notability guidelines have been tremendously useful in other areas, and there does need to be clearer guidance on fictional elements. I personally don't see the proposed version as a winner because regular content creators will struggle with using it, but I would cheerfully support a simplified version similar to the Goodraise proposal. Townlake (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support We need stricter rules on fiction notability inclusion. As I stroll farther into many article I start to find them reading more and more like fan-sites. These are often uneditable piles of garbage, with no way to find out if things in them are true or not. Wise dude321 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: A fiction article without secondary sources should be deleted, just like any other article, and OR is not something to be merely "avoided". shoy (reactions) 16:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This proposal requires secondary sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • "Although an article with no independent sources may meet the minimum threshold to avoid deletion..." shoy (reactions) 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Independent is not a synonym for secondary. "A topic about which there are no significant secondary sources cannot pass this guideline." Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support. I suspect that many editors do not regularly see the extend of the articles on non-notable characters/other plot elements. Working on Tag and Assess 2008, I personally went through about 4,000 articles within the scope of WP:ANIME, and was shocked by the amount of these articles. Refer for instance to any of the articles in Category:Kinnikuman characters, which is only one example amongst many. Another series/franchise had in excess of 400(!!) articles. I will leave you with the following: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia."—Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. G.A.S (talk · contribs) 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I have an ambivalence about the inclusion of fictional topics, but what I am anxious to avoid are mammoth plot regurgitations, original research and topics splitting into a myriad of articles covering increasingly obscure in-universe topics. I would be happy to see articles about fictional topics rely exclusively on sources such as developer commentary, as long as there is some real world information (and not plot regurgitation exclusively) and that content relying on non-independent sources is NPOV and doesn't make critical assertions. Furthermore it should be a given that articles about elements of fictional topics should be of potential size (while retaining quality) to not fit into articles about the parent work. The guideline should, I think, ensure the above outcomes. However, some of the detail may need tightening up: specifically, what exactly might constitute an element 'central to understanding the fictional work?' Editors might claim a character is 'notable' because they have had X ammount of cameos.bridies (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would also mention that this would, if it went into effect and was actually enforced (which would be rather difficult IMO), create such a plethora of lists relating to fictional content as would reflect poorly on the overall nature of the encyclopedia. WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a directory" - this includes such lists. Our readers come here to read articles, not browse through lists. And I think we should consider that carefully. –The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose because I feel that Wikipedia is a place where all things must be documented. If you apply this "three prong test" you will forbid a large volume of literature from being added to our collection of articles for no good reason. --Rgemerson (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support - May not be ideal, but it's a start, and we really need a guideline for this area of the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not a guideline, it is just a deletionist's opinion, and it is too harmful to Wikipedia's further evolution. Krasss (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The only aspect of the "three-pronged" test that is necessary is the verification of "Real-world coverage". The other points are unnecessary and place too much importance on associated works. Unlike a number of editors here, I feel it's too lenient, and feel it would be used to justify keeping articles on minor fictional characters and so forth. Either an element of fiction is notable under overarching guidelines or it isn't. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That seems conflicting to say its too lenient and yet that the only prong needed is the third. There are minor characters that assert notability for a separate article, but these usually are due to them meeting the first two prongs (see, for example, Sideshow Bob). Those prongs together prevent having articles on every character from a barely-notable web comic, or from a short-lived TV show, or the like, while allowing characters and such from a multi-year, highly successful work that has entered the public conscious to be given their rightful due. These prongs together address the fact that not all fiction is created equal. --MASEM 13:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The intention of the test is to create a more lenient criteria for judging notability, but in practice you only need the third prong. Basically, the proposal is flawed. Regarding your example, Sideshow Bob would merit his own article in the first place because he has been covered and discussed by several secondary sources. The other two tests are useless. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, then we just have a difference of opinion. I agree that the third prong is noticably stricter than the first prong. But both are needed. I support this compromise because the status quo leaves us with deleting characters who are central to a work of fiction regardless of that centrality. That is an outcome that illustrates (to some) the disconnect between WP:N and "reality" (you can argue about their definition of reality). This guidance attempts to bridge that without giving away the farm. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not everything merits an article. Some fictional articles should be deleted. That's a harsh truth. Really, if the subject can't fulfill the third criteria, whether or not it meets the first two is pointless. Also, comparing this guideline, to say, the ones determining notability for musical groups and songs, it's very lacking. Those guidelines deal with what kind of sources are acceptable to determine notability. In comparison, this guidelines feels very insular. How many other notability guidelines were consulted in crafting this? WesleyDodds (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Not everything merits an article (though there is a range of opinions on that as well). I would also argue that most people feel that some real world connection should exist in these articles, but that a range of opinions exists there as well. We are attempting to write a guideline to allow for that range. We want to avoid infinite splits into increasingly more trivial articles and we want to avoid just saying ">2 RS or it goes" for articles which may have been spun from their parent due to SIZE. How do you suggest we do that in the fashion that MUSIC or NB does? Wikipedia:Notability_(books) offers 5 criteria. One is basically the GNG (which is what most books are kept/deleted on anyway). 4 is spotty in terms of falsifiability. 5 is pretty indefensible as a notability criteria. Wikipedia:Notability (music) doesn't really analogize well. If a musician charts or is broadcast, they can get an article. Ok. What is the analogue to WP:FICT? Even then, charting doesn't map well to independent sourcing (presumably the idea) and there are several cases where an article would be deleted by WP:MUSIC and kept by the GNG. Likewise with ATHLETE, which is just as arbitrary. I'm not trying to drag those guidelines down, just note that we aren't really placing them under the same scrutiny and that they don't serve the same functions. A musician or author isn't an obvious daughter to a larger, notable subject. Every fictional element is. That doesn't translate across. So we have looked at some of those guidelines (note below the discussion of the size of this guideline in comparison) when creating this, but for some of the reasons I pointed out, that referencing will not be noticable in the text of the guideline. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has worked both on fiction articles and music articles, I can say the music guidelines for notability have been far more useful and relevant than these proposed guidelines. The real problem is that priority emphasis is not being placed on secondary sources. When I work on a fiction article, my first thought is "What sources can I find at my library or online?", not "How important is this to a larger fictional work?" Because it's irrelevant. Secondary sources will determine if it is important enough to merit its own article. That's why the songs guideline works so well. Charting on a national sales chart is a very clear-cut criteria for gauging notability based on secondary sources. We don't have that here; instead there's a focus on how much a character has appeared in a series and so forth. Personally I think there needs to be another overhaul of the proposed guideline, and until then, I will continue to oppose. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Charting...is a very clear cut criteria for gauging notability based on secondary sources". I agree, partially. It is a good proxy. Charting doesn't mean that something will be covered. It means that it is likely to be covered. But I think that we understand each other well enough. Hopefully some overhaul of the guideline can be made so that it satisfies your concerns (though it seems like you are looking for a recapitulation of the GNG). Protonk (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - This seems to be way over the top in my opinion. Why must fiction significantly exceed the basic threshold of the relevant notability guideline? Are we trying to delete every low important piece of fiction from Wikipedia? I feel that only the third prong, real world coverage is required to demonstrate notability.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not meant to delete such articles, only to recognize that failing to meet any of the prongs usually means that these topics are covered in a larger article (via merges, not deletions). See my comments above and before this for more. --MASEM 13:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Way too strict. Many people come to read Wikipedia articles about a movie or show even if it is not of "particular cultural or historical significance". If there is an article about an anime character, who cares, except those interested in this anime character ? Plus, fiction is an area where a lot of Wikipedia newbies start their first article, I don't want them to be slashed because of such a guideline, see Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Characters and the like from shows of little "particular cultural or historical significance" can still be covered in the show's article, with redirects used to help locate information (they are cheap). As to the second point, a lot of first time Wikipedians also make their first article on their own garage band, on themselves, and the like, many which are speedily deleted. Note that fiction articles do not outright qualify here, but instead in many cases merges can be done to retain their contributions. --13:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)
• Support and suggest stronger criteria re: pop music, especially punk rock. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, as already pointed out, the title is misleading; even the lead admits that it's not about fiction - this was de-generalised elsewhere - but about elements of fiction. Who do you think you're fooling? Why? Second, the vaguest possible criteria placed at #1 is useless and dangerous. "Significant artistic impact, cultural impact, or general popularity" are not strictly defined, and cannot be. These ambiguous "criteria" do more harm than good. Third, wording of #2 (recurring character) emphasizes tv crap (maybe it should, but then what's the point of "central to understanding"?!) at the expense of real literature. Jason and Medea are not recurring, should they be deleted? Probably ... but then, it appears that the first sentence of #2 deliberately overrides RS, and must be failed for this deviation alone (it appears that "central to understanding" may be claimed without reference to RS, while not central or not understandin need them). Take away these worthless #1 and #2, and it's reduced to quotes from upper-level rules. NVO (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Your examples fail in your case. The guideline says very clearly that any article which passes WP:N simultaneously passes this one. And I would bet a good deal of cash we could find information on both that exist in the reliable sources which would save those two articles, quite easily. The fact that the two articles are about heroes whom are 2500 years old may help in that regard.
    And we're not trying to fool anybody; I'm not sure where you got that idea; it is acknowledged that the name might be an issue. For prong one, those are the criteria placed upon the work from which is element is derived, not the element itself.
    As for prong two, if it emphasizes "tv crap", that may be poor wording of the guideline. It's quite easily possible to apply "recurring characters" to video games, comics (Calvin and Hobbes), book series (Wedge Antilles, protagonist of Rogue Squadron). That you see this as "at the expense" was a view that the creators/wonkers of the guideline didn't want to happen. No comment whatever I left unanswered. --Izno (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support in general, although, like any other notability policy, this type of separate policy or guideline is entirely unnecessary if we simply require that an article have enough reliable sources available that it can meet the existing content policies such as the verifiability policy. That reduces this whole problem to a much simpler one that has been already solved. If there are enough reliable sources, the article can exist. If not, not. It also eliminates the subjectivity in the importance and role parts of this guideline. But since this proposal has heavy reliance on reliable sources and verifiability it will suffice. Articles should always be reduced to what the reliable sources support and that should extend to whether an article should exist on a topic or not. - Taxman ^Talk 20:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. As far as I can tell, the wording of this proposed guideline will allow for well-written, verifiable articles about television episodes. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The guideline is too long and complex, and there are too many guidelines already. --Rumping (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Recent copyedits have made this proposal much more clear. I can approve of it as it appears now [[6]] and it would be helpful to have a this guideline active. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unclear, and unneccesary. - brenneman 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support If it needs further refining it can get it afterwards. We need to start somewhere. BreathingMeat (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support as a hard-fought compromise with support from both sides of the aisle. I support increasing clarity where possible, but I am mindful that changes that appear minor may actually be significant. An acceptable balance of succinctness and explanation may not be reachable. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support the idea, oppose the language I believe this to be a step in the right direction, although the language needs to be tightened. There are aspects of prong 1 that I am not terribly keen on: defining "general popularity" sounds like a potential minefield to me, artistic and cultural impact aren't much better. Prong 2 is not particularly clear - how are we defining "episode"? That could mean a television episode, an installment of a serially published novel, such as Bleak House, or an episode within a work: the penis throwing episode of Jude the Obscure. That is a major loophole and could lead to problems. Otherwise this is OK, I don't really see it radically changing the status quo but I welcome the renewed emphasis on verifiability and sources for fictional subjects. There is not a real answer to the content issues that face Wikipedia: I don't think that IG-88 is notable, others clearly do; I think that minor Swedish poets are notable, others perhaps do not—we've been having these arguments for the five years I've been on the project and, frankly, they bore me. There is not going to be a policy or guideline that will precisely define what is notable and what is not, but I think that this guideline may eventually help define broad limits on what we want and do not want when it comes to fiction. That can only be a good thing. Rje (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support My earlier concerns at the straw poll[7] have been alleviated by the clarifications made to the guideline regarding reliable and independent sources. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 14:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note to closing administrator This RfC was posted on 28 January 2009. In the 6 days since then there has been 110 changes to this proposal (as of February 3rd).[8] This means that those who voted for the proposal earlier, voted on a different proposal. In my opinion, these 110 changes over 6 days also shows a lack of consensus. Ikip (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per many of the above who cited WP:CREEP. Having one notability guideline is bad enough. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose as it does not sufficiently take into account that not all extremely successful works (particularly older examples, wherein the source language is not English) have an array of accessible and reliable western mentions and/or treatises on the subject. A considerable part of the Wikipedia visitors also rely on it to access more obscure character information, but it can be argued that this is what Wikia is for. Some greater correlation between the two sources might be an idea. The all-accessible notable basics within Wikipedia, and an end link at the bottom of the main page (in the Wikiquote manner) perhaps? Is there a handy command previously available for this? Dave (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • In all cases, characters or elements who are covered in reliable sources meet our inclusion guidelines (including this one). Protonk (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Please speak carefully, Protonk ... it's our tendency to misuse the categories of sources that causes much of the confusion. That would be a one-prong test. If the sources were reliable, but not independent, such characters would fail WP:N, and they would have to meet all three prongs before this guideline would include them. Your statement would only be true if they were independent reliable sources.—Kww(talk) 17:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Kww is right. Though I suspect the sources Dave is talking about would be both independent and reliable. Protonk (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • My apologies for being unclear. I was thinking about that it's been very hard to find (encyclopaedically useful) acceptable press or book mentions for various extremely successful manga, and drew the loose conclusion that the same likely holds true for other Eastern media. If a considerable amount of reliable third party sources would be required to feature any mention/article whatsoever within Wikipedia then quite a lot of (notable in the extreme success and fandom popularity sense) works would go without any mention whatsoever. Then again, I may have misunderstood the [[WP:FICT] text. Dave (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • If you are discussing creating articles based solely upon editors' personal interpretation of the manga itself, there isn't any real possibility of that being acceptable. We've argued back and forth about how independent secondary sources need to be, and what the acceptable ratio of secondary to primary is, and what the acceptable ratio of independent secondary sources to non-independent secondary sources is, but the chances of a guideline being passed that allows articles with no secondary sources at all is effectively zero.—Kww(talk) 20:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I have given my reasons below as part of a general discussion, but as I see that !votes in this straw poll are still being counted, I place mine here so my view is counted. Then, according to Wikipedia:Policies#Proposals we should tag this as failed. It has had several years to gain consensus and constantly fails. My suggestion is that we mark it as an essay rather than a failed proposal. SilkTork *^YES! 08:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. The text at present is inconsistent (there is still reference to the three pronged test but the test has been renamed for instance, and the text now talks about conditions). It suffers from massive WP:CREEP. The guideline, if adopted, would also immediately generate hundreds, if not thousands of additional articles in need for cleanup, review, merging or deletion - a severe case of WP:BURO. "Notability of Elements of Fictional Works", in particular the first and the third conditions, are ackwardedly worded and will be constantly subject to the systemic bias that if one editor doesn't know about something, it cannot be notable - a source for more senseless edit wars instead of less of these. Last but not least, per Ikip. The text should be completely frozen during the RfC for adoption, since the early voters and late voters aren't considering the same guideline anymore. MLauba (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per lack of requirement for independent sources. This whole push is one to lower the bar for what amounts to elements of trivia. This really needs to be recast as a discussion about the stuff the fans want to include; i.e. endless detail about television E&C and other such things. Specifically, it is not really about 'fiction'. No one is arguing to delete Lady Macbeth or The Little Prince; it's always about some unimporatnt thing; something unencyclopaedic. Jack Merridew 12:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tally of recurring comments (currently incomplete)

Nature of commissioning

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't gone through all of the rigmarole to achieve non-profit status, but I don't think they even advertise themselves - do you really think that Jimbo Wales et. al. are out to become tycoons with Wikia? And even if they were... why set up a complete duplicate project? What does it matter how the taxes are filed if Wikia is already providing exactly what you're describing - free, in-depth fiction wikis funded by ads, publishing GFDL-licensed content? --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Third party" appears twice:

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

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

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

It always causes difficulties when someone writes something that doesn't reflect their intended meaning. It's the actual meaning of the words that have effect, though.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I always find problems occur when words are quoted extant from important contextual markers. Hiding T 12:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I find that problems occur when policies and guidelines are changed because of a dispute over one article. --Pixelface (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Sorry to prick your bubble Hiding, but your proposal won't fly. What you are suggesting is carte blanche for plot only articles. WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits plot summary on its own, and in any case such articles are not encyclopedic because they don't contain any real-world coverage such as context, commentary, analyis or criticism. Your proposal cannot be accomodated here - either you go to WP:Village pump (policy) and get policy changed or you move yourself over to Wikia where the inclusion criteria for fiction are much more loose. We can't provide an exemption for fictional topics from policy - that would an example of an editorial walled garden. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• You're wrong Gavin. Arguing over the rules rather than article sontent is what kills my proposal, and what slowly strangles Wikipedia. That what you write actually has no relation to anything I write is why I no longer choose to engage with you. Having proposed WP:PLOT, I think it's quite clear I am firmly on the side of articles containing real-world coverage such as context, commentary, analyis or criticism. If that were really what this argument is about, there would be no problem. What this argument is really about is people standing inside glass houses which mark their vision for Wikipedia, slowly throwing stones at other people's. Hiding T 12:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't conceive of a plot-only article that either isn't itself a bloated, rambling article or part of a scattered, rambling article series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fortunate; I have an open mind, and as such, no pre-conceptions. I'm happy to judge each case on its merits. Hiding T 12:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Really? I would say that your mind was closed to the approach this guideline is based on. Your attempt to delete WP:NOT#PLOT indicates that you have no desire to support any guideline that seeks to ensure fictional topics are treated in an encyclopedic fashion, but only a subjects of plot summary. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• One edit from my many used as evidence for a character slur? Come on Gavin, that's poor statistical analysis, especially from someone interested in accountancy. How's that coming, by the way? Out of curiosity, do you have that link stashed somewhere for ease of cut and paste? I do wonder if you'll turn up at my funeral and give a eulogy about how I once deleted WP:NOT#PLOT, and actually place it into context for once by mentioning I did it to test whether it still had consensus to remain in policy. Just a thought. I can't work out if you are my own personal troll, or I am yours, or, and this is the best one, you and Pixelface are the same editor engaged in some crusade to try and point out how silly Wikipedian policy is. As if we didn't know that. Still, those are my low moments, and as such, really shouldn't matter for much. I look forward to the next time our paths cross, perhaps after I have just added a few more references to the odd article, and you jump up and tell everyone how I hate references, I hate analysis and I only love plot only articles. I figure I must be doing something right if I occupy the position between you and Pixelface. Heck, I might even have consensus. refactored to avoid any offense I may have caused and for which I would like to apologise. Hiding Consensus endorsed editor 10:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• And, just a thought, but if I may, I'd like to counter your argument with the contention that being both an editor who has added WP:PLOT to policy and removed it supports my assertion that I have an open mind, rather than your assertion that I don't. An open mind, by definition, is capable of change. You might want to bear in mind the fact that I openly reserve the right to contradict myself, because I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong on any given occasion. Even this one, if someone can so prove it. Hiding T 10:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not Gavin.collins. But I'll tell you what I think though. Gavin.collins has nominated tons of Dungeons & Dragons articles for deletion. He's cited WP:NOT#PLOT in many of them. Gavin.collins apparently took notice when you removed WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT in May. But he doesn't seem to realize that you removed it because you were playing devil's advocate. And he doesn't seem to be aware that you're the editor who proposed WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy in the first place. And he doesn't seem to be aware that you're the editor who added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT in the first place.

• You may be doing something right, but I couldn't tell you what for the life of me. Certainly not this edit to WP:V, that came about because you were having an editwar on UGOPlayer. Certainly not this edit to WP:N, which mutated like cancer into the current "GNG." Certainly not your addition of WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT, which you added even after Leflyman said "I think this would be an extremely contentious issue" and "I suspect that if this were to be seriously promoted, a veritable rebellion would be fomented on Wikipedia", and after Badlydrawnjeff said "is it worth the drama, and does it really improve anything?", and after 6 people supported it and 5 people opposed it, with another person opposing after you added it.

• I first removed WP:NOT#PLOT on March 10, 2008. That was 3 days after this AFD closed. That was a character article that was pretty much just a plot summary. Yet it was a non-admin closure snowball keep, which you signed off on Hiding. There were also several other character articles nominated for deletion around that time, and the articles were all pretty much just plot summary. Yet there was no consensus to delete them. So it was obvious to me that there was no consensus that articles are not simply plot summaries. It was obvious to me that WP:NOT#PLOT did not have consensus to be policy.

• Incidentally, nine hours after I first removed WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT, the article History of For Better or For Worse was nominated for deletion for not meeting WP:NOT#PLOT. The article was just a plot summary, nothing more. Yet the article was kept — showing that "Current consensus is that articles are not simply plot summaries" is false. After it was kept, the nominator redirected the article, and then Benjiboi brought it up at ANI, and then Black Kite, a party of E&C2, took it DRV, and then the article was deleted, because of WP:NOT#PLOT — which people in the AFD didn't care about.

• You don't have consensus behind you. But you acted like you did when you added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT. It's been pretty funny watching Gavin.collins argue with you. I don't know if it's a misunderstanding, but if Gavin.collins thinks Kermit the Frog is not a fictional character but instead an anthropomorphic frog, I don't know what to think.

• It was tragic watching you run around trying to save those Brookside articles in May, nominated because of FICT, which was based on WP:NOT#PLOT, which you proposed. In addition to the mountain of threads that WP:NOT#PLOT has spawned at WT:NOT since you added that section to policy, there are two threads about WP:NOT#PLOT at WT:NOT as we speak.[9] (oldid) [10] (oldid)

• Hiding, you created Frankenstein's monster. But you don't have the integrity *or* the courage to kill it.

• Gavin.collins has made the 2nd most edits to this talkpage. It's entirely possible that Gavin.collins is a troll. I've had my doubts myself. You can contradict yourself all you want, Hiding. But you royally messed up when you added WP:NOT#PLOT to policy. --Pixelface (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Like Gavin and Kww, you too lack context and seem to throw, well they're not so much scattergun accusations as disgruntled opining. If you think I'm the only person on Wikipedia to blame for all of the above then I will be your Personal Jesus. But as I indicated before, I'm not interested in this argument any more. It's in policy. I don't lack the courage or integrity to kill it, I lack the ability to make myself understood. And for what it's worth, Jimmy and Larry created Frankenstein's monster. I just darned his sock while everyone else argued over who was going to tighten the bolts in his neck. I think I'll now try to keep to dispute resolution guidance, take a long term view, avoid the situation and wait for other users to move on or consensus to change. Hiding User:Pixelface's own Personal Jesus 14:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well then please fill me in on the context "Hiding." I'm all ears. You're the one who mentioned me in this thread.

• You proposed WP:NOT#PLOT 13 days after you tagged WAF a guideline. Fine. WAF was created by Amcaja on March 27, 2006[11] — the same day that a press release[12] came out saying Wikicities was renamed Wikia, and the press release mentioned Wookieepedia. WP:WAF mentioned Wookieepedia the day it was created and it continues to plug Wookieeepedia to this day, along with several other Wikia sites. You proposed WP:NOT#PLOT 7 minutes after you mentioned comics.wikia.com on another page. So give me some more context Hiding. What am I missing? If you proposed WP:NOT#PLOT because of articles about comic book characters, have any of them been improved because of WP:NOT#PLOT? When you signed off on this AFD, how did the article relate to WP:NOT#PLOT?

• In October 2007, Sgeureka said TTN "enforces" WP:NOT#PLOT. Your bad edit to policy led to two arbitration cases, E&C1 and E&C2 — just like Leflyman predicted when you proposed WP:NOT#PLOT.

• It's in policy, but you never should have added it. There wasn't consensus for it to be policy. It's in policy, but it doesn't describe common practice. It's in policy, but only because 6 people (Hiding, JzG, Will Beback, Rossami, MartinRe, and Deckiller) loosely agreed to it and only because you ignored the 6 people who disagreed with it and only because ten people (Bignole, Cameron Scott, Collectonian, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Jack Merridew, Masem, Moreschi, S@bre, Sceptre, and Sgeureka) have edit-warred to keep it there. I'll let you figure which of those people were involved parties of E&C1 or E&C2. You may recognize some of those people from the E&C2 workshop, Hiding. Why were you there? Is it because you knew you had something to do with it?

• Maybe Jimmy and Larry did create Frankenstein's monster. But are you familiar with The Sorcerer's Apprentice? You're the apprentice, and TTN is the brooms — and even has a broom award from a sockpuppet to show for it.

• You're not the only person to blame, but how about you accept a modicum of responsibility? You made some bad edits to policies and guidelines. Do you agree with that or do you want to take back your "mea culpa"? I'm starting to see why you you "absconded" and why you changed your username. --Pixelface (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• "So it goes." Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five. Hiding T 09:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I asked you for advice Hiding, so imagine my surprise when I discovered you talking about me like this here. Do you know that the novel Slaughterhouse-Five isn't considered an acceptable source for the articles Billy Pilgrim or Kilgore Trout or Tralfamadore because of your policy edits? That Kurt Vonnegut is not considered an acceptable source because of your policy edits? WAKE UP. --Pixelface (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I apologise that I mentioned your name and in some way offended you. I see you haven't accepted my advice to move on. Did you know that the novel Slaughterhouse-Five is considered an acceptable source to use for the articles Billy Pilgrim and Kilgore Trout and Tralfamadore regardless of my policy edits? That Kurt Vonnegut is considered an acceptable source because of my policy edits? "WAKE UP it's a beautiful morning." The Boo Radleys, "Wake Up Boo". Hiding T 09:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Move to Notability (elements of fiction)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose as WP:FICT covers both works and elements of fiction - see the discussion at WT:FICT#Works & Elements above. The problem with this proposal to seperate works from elements is absurd is that you can't, you have to consider Fiction as the sum of the two. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Um. From the lead:
    • "Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is a proposed guideline that defines the inclusion criteria for elements of fiction. It covers individual components of serialized work, (such as television episodes or comic book series) and elements from within the fictionalized world (such as characters or settings). This guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole"
  • We're in really rough shape when someone this involved with the proposal doesn't know what it says. I think a lot of the "oppose: what the hell does this even mean?" comments are turning out to have a very good point. Randomran (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: People are genuinely confused about the scope of this guideline. We need some kind of rename, because the title does not summarize the text. It would be like having an article on lasagna that only talks about sauce. Randomran (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's clearer the way it is - but then again, I'm not gonna get my panties in a bunch either way. — Ched (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think that just saying "fiction" is clear enough if the proposal is reworded a little, and it's shorter. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support (this or, better yet, Wikipedia:Notability (elements of fictional works)) I, and numerous others, were confused by this guideline and originally !voted Oppose because we thought rules such as "must be historically or culturally significant" applied to fictional works and would render tons of good articles non-notable. Clarifying that those strict restrictions apply only to elements (ie, that they to Admiral Ackbar, not to Star Wars) would really help elucidate the main points of this proposal. I suggested renaming above a few days ago, and a couple dudes liked it (and a couple didn't). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The move is unnecessary (not to mention the labor involved in moving all the sub-pages). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) doesn't specifically state that it is primarily about elements of fiction, neither should this guideline. If there is any doubt about what this proposal covers because of the title, the nutshell should easily clear up any confusion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support and suggest stronger criteria re: pop music, especially punk rock. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Clarifies the scope and removes the temptation to start modifying the guideline to cover works of fiction as a whole, which would be a rather noxious example of scope creep. JulesH (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Helps clarify the scope. The proposal does not cover books, comic series, tv shows, movies, etc but rather characters, settings, weapons, spells, space ships, and the like. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support This would dispel a lot of the confusion about this guideline. Besides, there's no reason WP:FICT and WP:FICTION can't still point to this guideline, just the official name won't be the same. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Proof and pudding

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

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

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

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

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

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

See:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec) I am glad that we all agree that the "guideline was confusing (or may still be)" I am glad that we all agree that "some people may have been confused".

"I think you may be misunderstanding the guideline." --Phil Sandifer

"a lot of these comments are drive-by and are clearly demonstrating a misunderstanding of the guideline" --Phil Sandifer

"do not clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding, but with such widespread misunderstanding it is hard to take them entirely seriously either." --Phil Sandifer

As A Man in Black wrote:

"The fact that there's such widespread misunderstanding is a sign that this is not very clearly written. If it's being misunderstood now, it'll be misunderstood at AFD."

As Michael wrote:

"Is wiki edited only by folks with Master's Degree? Wouldn't it be prudent step back from this fiction proposal and see if it can be written in a way that even an fresh editor might understand?"

I have read and reread this proposal, and I agree that:

parts of this policy are "confusingly worded" (Nick-D), "the text of the proposed guideline is very confusing." (SMSpivey) "The text is confusing and vacillates frequently" (CRGreathouse) "The text is confusing and too complex." (Taprobanus) "Its time to simplify in the extreme..... not confuse with more and thicker layers of beaucracy...The existing standards are confusing enough to newcomers" (Michael)

For this reason, this proposal should remain a proposal. Ikip (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So you understand the intent, scope, and proposed effect of this guideline clearly? It doesn't weaken your argument if you do, but this well I must've misunderstood what you meant! nonsense has got to stop. Either you're campaigning against something you understand and oppose or you're shouting an uninformed opinion as loud as you can. The former is productive, the latter is obnoxious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinly veiled accusations of bad faith do not become you, nor do they serve this discussion. Ikip (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so accusing someone of bad faith is like a trump card on these discussions? Yeah, I must be new here. --Mblumber (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're making two different kinds of arguments against this, and they are contradictory. Pick one and stick to it. Either you understand the implications and are against them, or don't understand the implications and want clarity. Switching back and forth as it suits you is intellectually dishonest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That quote is verbatium from Black, so maybe Black can answer your question Mblumber. Black, calling other editors "intellectually dishonest" with "veiled accusations of bad faith" does not "serve this discussion" Black. Again, as I reminded you above, if you have something of substance to argue, argue it, piety personal attacks simply show how weak your argument is, and not only insult me, but insult editors who are also confused by this policy. There has been 110 edits to this policy since it was put up for RfC, and this page is larger than any main page now. Ikip (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a veiled accusation, nor am I accusing you of bad faith. It's a direct accusation of argumentation tactics that make it difficult to have any sort of productive discussion with you. You are adopting the position that suits you better at the moment, even though the two are mutually exclusive. Either you oppose this because you don't understand the implications, or you oppose this because you don't like the implications (even if those implications arise due to the misunderstandings of others). They are both valid arguments but you need to stop slipping from one to the other when it suits you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, if there are genuine misunderstandings due to unclear language, those should be fixed. On the other hand, if you're taking a guideline that explicitly says "This guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole, only elements within those works" and complaining about its coverage of works of fiction as a whole, I think that one's pretty much on you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Both lists should be kept per WP:LISTS. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"This guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole, only elements within those works." for example, this guideline does not cover The Golden Girls, it only covers the characters and episodes within the Golden Girls. Those characters and episodes in Golden Girls: "To justify articles on individual elements, the work of fiction from which they derive must be of particular cultural or historical significance. This requires that the work significantly exceed the basic threshold of the relevant notability guideline" Character and episodes must signifigantly exceed the notability guidelines. Are we all on the same page now? I am simply reading what is clearly written in the proposal. Ikip (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This guideline does not cover works. So when "the work" has to "significantly exceed the basic threshold" we are clearly, and by definition, not talking about the subject of the article covered by this guideline. Since that subject is not a work. You're not actually dense enough to miss this, so I assume you're just being querulous? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I have not met someone with so many personal attacks in a very long time, is this the way an admin is supposed to act? Ikip (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So that's querulous then? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I take that back, Man in Black has edged you out. Congratulations Black. Ikip (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot possibly comprehend how you can interpret the language that way. The "work" stated in the guideline is mutually exclusive from the "episode or character". Nifboy (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

GENTLEMEN. This is not the place to bicker. Flat statement: The proposal, despite its best of intentions, is confusing. Telling me or others that we must read it slower does not convince. Add a new first line to it: "Editors must read this slowly and carefuly, as its content and presentation may be confusing". Frankly, I do mot care if you call them "elements of fiction", or characters from The House of Glue. If inclusion of a character (read element) in an article (read work of fiction) would overburden the article, guideline allows that it may have a seperate article. Your prong says the character (read element) must have notability beyond the requirements of the GNG in order to have its own article. Are you now suggesting that articles (read works of fiction) are now allowed to be as overburdened as they will definitely become with the eventual and ultimate push toward merges and redirects? Wiki is paperless. Why the rush to create monster single articles? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The prong says the work must have notability beyond the requirements of the GNG. "To justify articles on individual elements, the work of fiction from which they derive must be of particular cultural or historical significance." What about this sentence does not clearly distinguish between elements of a work of fiction and the work of fiction? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Then the prong is superfluous and need not be included as written. That an article about a work of fiction EXISTS means it has the required notability in reliable sources as already required by guideline. Your very clear explanation tells me the article about a work of fiction must now exceed the requirements of the GNG. I have repeatedly read above that the proposal is a loosening of requirements, but your very clear explanation tells differently. You explain that the characters (read elements) can only have seperate articles if the work from which they derive exceeds notability requirements. The phrase "must be of particular cultural or historical significance" is totally redundent to existing guideline and acts to confuse, not enlighten. Sorry... and thank you for the clarificatiom... but no sale yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It does create a second path to notability for episodes and characters. The first prong requires that the overall work exceeds the GNG. So, for instance, imagine two articles on episodes of TV shows. One is an episode of Seinfeld. The other is an episode of a show that got cancelled after four episodes and forgotten. The Seinfeld article is more likely to survive, because Seinfeld is significantly above the minimum threshold for notability. Whereas the other show, meeting WP:N more minimally, is likely to see articles on individual episodes deleted for failing the first prong. Clear? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Crystal, Colonel. Im understanding you explanation, I still respectfully feel this propoasl is an unneccessary complication to an aleady complicated system. Your 1st prong requires an overall work must exceed the GNG. Not neccessary. A work should MEET the GNG, but there should be no expectation that it be exceeded. You describe two articles on episodes of a TV show. It does not matter if the episode article is about Seinfeld or I Love Lucy or My Mother the Car. That the parent article exists, means it showed notability per current guideline. And article about an episode from any of the shows is allowed to exist if its inclusion in the parent article would overburden it. There is no need for a subjective phrase that indicates the parent articlemust exceed. If its notable, its notable. And this does not matter if it has been written up in articles around the world and has won a dozen Emmys. Notable is notable. That the presumed lessor parent article might only have one review in the New York Times and one review in The Post, was cancelled after one season, and never won an award... does not matter. Notable is notable. If an article is required about an element of the former, due to size contraints in the parent article, fine. That an article might be required for an element of the "lessor" article due to size constraints of its parent, fine too. Both parents are equal having met inclusion criteria. A proposed guideline that essentially tells us one is more equal and more deserving flags in the face of existing guideline. Additional regulation is not a way to make wikipedia easier to use for newcomers OR the old guard. And with respects, that you had to be here to hand walk me through it means its still too durn complicated. You understand it... but then, you wrote it and know what you meant it to say. Now if it only clearly and conciseley said just that.... Again, and with respects. Less is more. Simpler improves Wiki. No sale. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal seems to be that sub-articles are inherently notable. That position failed spectacularly to get community consensus when last it was pushed. I know, because I was the one pushing it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Phil. The "no notability needed for sub-articles" failed by a huge margin at the WP:N RfC. If that's what you're shooting for here for fiction, then you're honestly not going to get it. The only type of sub-article that enjoys relative community consensus at the moment are character lists for series big enough to justify splitting them out of the main series article. That said, that's an argument for another day and another time after the discussion here at FICT concludes. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

? I have no proposal here. Am merely refuting his contention that a parent must have notability beyond the GNG or the child will get axed. That dimishes Wiki. Further, guideline for the sake of more guidelines is counterproductive in improving the project. He answered me and I responded point-by-point. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil is saying that your assertion that all "sub-articles" are notable isn't true and doesn't have consensus. We understand that you oppose the guideline. Protonk (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be clear consensus for any particular position - that's why this matter is so vexed. But the general argument about sub-articles is not generally settled. Consider, for example, the similar structural argument about geographic entities - towns, villages, streets, stations, schools, etc. Some want articles to be held at a high level of abstraction, others want numerous stubs going down to a fine level of detail. The essential problem is that the division of topics into discrete articles is somewhat arbitrary and guidelines like WP:SIZE and WP:N push in different directions. What I've noticed recently is that the online Encyclopaedia Britannica has a different approach. Its articles are quite huge, for example, its article on Judaism has 213 pages. But this doesn't matter because its search engine will take you directly to any appropriate subsection with nested headings such as The history of Judaism > General observations > Nature and characteristics. We should likewise aim to build nested tiers in a similar way and be relaxed about the level at which the article split takes place because this is just an implementation detail. But from a technical point of view, it seems best to have articles at an atomic or elemental level because these provide the most flexible framework for assembly into multiple parallel hierarchies. For example, suppose we have a character like Tarzan. He doesn't just appear in the original ERB stories but also in numerous developments, spinoffs and crossovers such as PJF's Wold Newton family stories. By having a linkable article upon the character, we are easily able to reference this in numerous separate places and this is a good thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tarzan is so notable, we could probably make three articles on him, each with 50 references. We need to figure out what to do with less famous subjects. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The same principle applies to less well known characters such as Andrew Blodgett Mayfair. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I do agree that there's no reason we could not consider the coverage of a TV show (for example) to be covered by a large number of articles all effectively part of a "single" topic article, just representing many subparts of it. However, and this is important, based on the WP:N RFC, there is no way to achieve that without deconstructing a lot of policies and getting over some of the perceptions that a large number of editors have about how WP articles are written (on both sides) - just as need to work policies to aim to include more, we need to realize that redirects are key to helping prevent thousands of permastubs while still allowing searching. FICT is too small a guideline alone to try to establish this change, and I'm working on a path forward that reflects what I believe is a more practical matter for coverage in that light. For the time being, we have to recognize that fiction element articles are highly criticized (spinouts more so), and this is an attempt to at least assert what are the foundations of a good fiction element article. --MASEM 12:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Warden makes a valid point in addressing the flaws inherent in this proposal. I am making no claim as to the notability of secondary articles. I am simply stating that if an article is required about an element of the former, due to size contraints in the parent article, that is fine and already covered by guideline. That an article might be required for an element of the "lessor" article due to size constraints of its parent, fine too, and already covered by duideline. Both parents are equal having met inclusion criteria. A proposed guideline that essentially tells us one is more equal and more deserving flags in the face of existing guideline, and works to the degradation of a paperless encyclopdia. Beauracracy for the sake of beauracracy is to be discouraged. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

While I could argue for this case, we are limited by the results of the WP:N RFC that outright denies that spinout articles lacking notability are ok. As I've mentioned above, there's a lot of work to get to that point, but present attitudes and interpretation of policies overall do not really allow these articles to exist without any concerns. --MASEM 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The results of Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise said no such thing. --Pixelface (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please help me understand this without personal attacks:

My example, again:

"This guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole, only elements within those works." For example, this guideline does not cover The Golden Girls, it only covers the characters and episodes within the Golden Girls.

So: "This guideline does not cover Golden Girls, only elements (episodes and characters) within those works."

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

The series Golden girls must signifigantly exceed the notability guidelines. Does the golden girls pages then inheriet the notability of the Golden girls? Are we all on the same page now?

Thank you. Ikip (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Terms like "inherited notability" carry a lot of unhelpful baggage. The work needs to be important in the real world, the element needs to be important to the work, and there has to be something to say about the element in the real world. What you're describing is the first part of that, and the first prong in this test. Being really important to Joe's Webcomic is not enough. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Episodes as elements

This is one spot that is attracting confusion that I am inclined to understand. When we started the guideline, we had in mind, basically, "episodes, characters, and other similar stuff." Which means we were thinking in a TV paradigm, and we wrote a guideline that works very well for TV. Most of the underlying principles work well for comics, video games, and other media. But the work/element distinction, which works great for TV (Work = series, element = episode) has some trouble porting cleanly. Adding to this the existence of multimedia franchises (Star Trek, Doctor Who, etc) and you've got a bit of a problem.

There are limits to what I think we should solve about this here - the guideline will not be helped by explaining the work/element distinction for every medium. But some clarification is warranted - probably a footnote to the following effect:

The line between a work of fiction and a component is not always clear. In general, the distinction should be analagous to the difference between a television series and an individual episode. When considering what a given subject is a component of, care should be taken not to split articles beyond where significant real-world perspective will exist for each sub-article. Individual WikiProjects or notability guidelines may have more subject-specific information.

The final sentence, I imagine, will change to include examples as WikiProjects and notability guidelines adjust to this guideline - it's something that will happen over time.

Thoughts? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that it would a great idea to explain the work/element distinction for a lot of media, at least initially. If we start with the most common (films, TV, novels, comics), we may find that that's enough, and stop, or it might help make it easier to consolidate them at a later stage. cojoco (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I just don't want to step on the toes of existing guidelines/WikiProjects is my main concern. Comics, in particular, are a thorny one, and I wouldn't want to even try it without getting lots of input at the comics WikiProject. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying is that this discussion is more about establishing consistency across different types of fiction than as a guideline for editors? If you are a new editor attempting to come to grips with the guidelines, it is much easier to make decisions if there are clear examples to guide you. More general statements about notability are harder to digest, and may lead to Wiki lawyering and general arguments. cojoco (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a balance of a couple of things to me. We want clear guidance in this guideline. We also want appropriate decisions for different media. And we want to get those appropriate decisions without empowering WikiProjects to undermine the guideline with overly lax interpretations. Which is why I find the matter vexing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• To tell you the truth, I still think we should separate our guideline for in-universe elements from our guideline for chunks of serialized fiction. Trying to tackle too many things in a single guidelines leads to confusion, which creates unnecessary opposition. Short, simple guidelines are better than one huge one. I also think it will be easier to reach a consensus on how to handle episodes than how to handle characters and other stuff. Randomran (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd agree, but the three prong test does seem to me to work for both, and we seem very far along in dealing with both. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• With the exception of episodes, I don't really think that we should be looking at works of fiction for this guideline. Films are covered by WP:NF, books by WP:BK, and webcomics and similar web stuff by WP:WEB. We're treading on a lot of toes that way. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah - the issue is, say, with an individual novel in a trilogy of Star Trek novels. If such a novel passes this guideline, do we keep the article? People will say yes, and have a fair point. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:BK still applies in that case though. Doesn't matter whether it's the first, second, or third book in the trilogy. In any case, as the guideline currently reads, we're focusing on "[a]rticles covering elements within a fictional work," so I'm pretty sure this is a moot point. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • So we want to just limit this guideline to episodes and comic book storylines? That'll be a tough sell - I don't think we'll have a very good answer to give someone who wants to use it on one book in a series. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)We need some separate qualifiers for an article on an episode. It's too easy to point to any ratings page, or eipsode summary website, or other forms of coverage that say 'the episode existed' and claim 'notability'. Almost every tv episode aired nowadays has such pages out there, and certainly not every episode is notable by current standards and practices here. We would have to set the bar at detailed review or something similar to make it worthwhile. We also run another risk, in that we're crossing into the TV Wikiproject's milieu here, and they might have higher standards, to avoid every episode of The Bachelor, or Tila Tequila Gets Drunk, getting its own page. Establishing a standard for Fictional Story shows will rapidly cause bleeding out into other forms of TV, and saying 'well, not our problem' isn't going to work.

It seems to me that for a while at least, the thinking has been Series, Season, Episode. Prove the Series is notable, write a page. Prove a given season is notable ,break that out and make its' own page. Prove an Episode of the Series is notable, break it out from the season, with some reasonable exceptions, like the Finale of M*A*S*H. I do not think that IF we try to push into this long-working approach, we should do so lightly, and we shouldn't do it without hitting any wikiprojects which may be affected, including WP:TV, and the WP's of any shows out there... buffy, star trek, House, whatever. ThuranX (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a cheap punt, though - episodes are half of the issue that drove the guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not meant as a punt at all. Almost everything I've seen since I got here has focused on... static... elements of fiction. Characters, Locales, Objects of importance. I wouldn't call an episode an element of fiction, but a work of fiction, or better, a part of the ongoing WORK of the fiction. I cannot equate a character to an episode, because the story has to be told in some way, and we're not about to create articles on each chapter of a book, are we? Episodes, like chapters, are a convention of the medium, not an element of the story contained within. Episode articles run the risk of just being bloated PLOT bubbles; many of those not merged by TTN are just that, in fact. The notability for them needs to be measured differently, especially since the biased hype is that every episode is a 'very special' or 'shocking' episode, depending on if it's a sitcom or a drama. We've seen careful good work at episode with the WP:SIMPSONS and WP:South Park, but... do we really need articles for every episode of Lazytown? We'd need to be quite careful in any attempts to push FICTION into this, and I'm averse to even trying. I think that establishing a guideline for the Elements of Fiction is hard enough. Consider, for example, that as an Element, we could focus on the aspects of Lazytown that matter, and while I doubt there are many, we might be able to support articles on the Series, the main character, hero, villian, and the puppetry of the series. But we don't need 40 or 50 or however many episode articles. Similarly, we don't need articles on each episode of every Adult Swim cartoon; the articles about the series seem to work just fine. ThuranX (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, even ignoring the second prong - if such articles have concise plot summaries, the Adult Swim cartoon is highly notable, and the articles are largely out of universe information, I'm hard-pressed to argue for a problem, and extremely hard-pressed to believe that the articles would be deleted. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. But I can't find an episode or character article with significant real-world perspective that has been deleted recently. And I've looked. In practice, that really does seem to be the decisive factor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So glad you brought your own strawman kit, and built it yourself. What I explicitly talked about were non-notable episode articles, and the need for a careful examination of what will constitute genuine notability for an episode article, and that creating such a rubric will equire input from the groups far more familiar with the intricacies than we are. Imposing policies on them from outside will go over as well as a surprise cholera party. You instead cherry picked phrases, and promptly glued them together into your standard 'in practice, good articles already stay' screed. I said nothing about unfair deletions of good articles. What I said was about the creation of undeletable BAD articles. Re-read what I said. ThuranX (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I didn't say good articles stay, I said articles that pass the three pronged test stay. Which is the more relevant point. The test accurately describes our keeping and deletion of TV episodes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, strawman. What you said was "I can't find an episode or character article with significant real-world perspective that has been deleted recently." that's NOT the tpye of article I am talking about, and you know it. let me be clear. I am concerned that the non-existent threshold for inclusion established by this policy will permit bad articles about episodes, which only cite viewership or tv guide quality webarticles for 'notability' and have no actual real world content, to stay. that's what I'm concerned about. I've been very clear about this twice already, and you know it.ThuranX (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple people at Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability said the number of viewers is evidence of notability. There's more discussion about it at WT:EPISODE. --Pixelface (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would clarify matters a great deal if we didn't try to deal with episodes (or issues of comics or serialized novels or whatever) here. They really are distinct from the other kinds of elements that the proposal deals with, and I think a different mechanism is needed to cope with them. Let's leave any proposals for how to handle them for another time and concentrate on the core of the proposal, which has always seemed to me to be the fictional elements, i.e. the characters, locations, plot devices, etc. JulesH (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can make such a large change to the guideline without effectively restarting the comment process, and given as it looks to me like the guideline is passing with only a few changes needed, I'm loathe to do that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I look at this again, I think the issue may not be as large as I thought on first glance. Right now, element is defined as including "individual components of serialized work, (such as television episodes or comic book storylines)." The "such as" clearly extends this to other serialized works, but outside of comics (which are exceedingly thorny) I don't think the serialization issue is that hard. And as the risk here is inadvertantly covering something we don't want to cover (since WP:N will still cover anything we fail to cover that we should have), being conservative seems to me wise. We definitely want to avoid covering individual issues of comics, but "comic book storylines" already sets that grain above issues. Past that, I don't see any landmines, which leads me to believe that until someone starts abusing this guideline, the whole issue is not a big deal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The only real distinction is that there will be items within a serialized work that will be considerd both a work and an element and that may be what needs clarrifying. FE: A TV series may be made up into seasons, which could be considered both a work and an element because those seasons could be made up into episodes. I'd consider episodes probably the lowest rung here though since anything else, characters, universe, etc. would likely come based upon a higher level. However, video games have broad series, indivisual game series which include main and spinoff series and each of those include indivisual games and each of those game usually can include characters and settings. Thus the lowest rung is the characters and settings.じんない 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes people make this more complicated than it already is. This guideline has 'rungs of priority' now? Who determined these rungs, where are they linked, how do different rungs interaction with the three prongs? are the standards varied by rung? Can we get a chart of this? I'm so confused, and no one wants to play battleship to calculate a notability standard. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia."

Jimbo Wales: "I agree with this one completely."

...from at least as far back as January 2002 --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What's confusing?

Since this seems to be the biggest outstanding issue - will some of the people who complain that this is overly complicated or confusing please flag the parts that are unclear or overly wordy so we can work on them? So far I've got:

• There's some confusion on whether the first prong raises the standards for notability.
• The GA section is still confusing people.

What other portions need work? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as confusion is coming from specific parts that are poorly worded, a lot of confusion is also coming form the sheer length of the guideline. I know you like the explanatory portions, but they're actually interfering with peoples' ability to read and understand the guideline, because there's just too much to read. Randomran (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, this is one of our shorter notability guidelines. I think saying that 13k is too much to read is a hard sell. I mean, excessively wordy bits that can be shortened, yeah - let's trim. I just want to know where people are stumbling. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to sell anything. Repeated comments in the RFC are misreading it, or saying more or less "I can't figure out what you're really trying to say". Randomran (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's fair. I'm looking for leads on where to fix things. For instance, the first prong doesn't seem to me to be fixed by shortening - on the contrary, it apparently needed another sentence to reiterate something that was otherwise up in the lead. "The whole thing is too long" is a bit like "there are too many notes in it." One wonders where to cut. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is something that needs a few quick copyedits. I think Goodraise has a better starting point, erring on the side of briefness. We should take something like that, and add in a few extra sentences for clarity. Randomran (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Are you joking? You don't throw out a proposal that's garnering this strong support. Starting over is not the right move. The comments are such that, barring a major change in the next day or two, we can fix any areas that are flagged as confusing - I've already got one, and I'm working on something for the GA bit - and tag. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, just for you, I made a general trimming copyedit, which took the guideline down to 10.6k. It would now be our third shortest notability guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've come round on the goodraise draft. When it first came out I was inclined to think about it the same way you are. The more I read the two the less I see on common. I'm not inclined to substantively move toward that length or formatting. Protonk (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as what Goodraise offered either. But I think there's something to be said for starting minimal and adding what's necessary, rather than starting with something comprehensive and nuanced and trimming it down. Randomran (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• A somewhat bold idea, because a lot of comments have been concerned that the three-prong test is just too complex to apply at AFD. What if we just scrapped the first prong? It's by far the least valuable of the three. I don't doubt that it has *some* value. But is there anyone who loves it so much that they feel we have to have it? If people can live with it, it looks like a lot of opposition could be swayed with the simplicity of a two-prong test. Randomran (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's vital, actually - most obviously for webcomics. Losing it there would, I think, lead to an utter shitstorm down the road when webcomics get overgrown via this guideline and someone tries to take a hatchet to them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • ...maybe. I'm aware that it causes a lot of opposition, but I also think that it has some utility. If we "scrap it", I would just rewrite it to say "the work the element appears in must be notable". But I do think that there are some on the deletion side who would be moved away from supporting were the first prong to be eliminated. Remember, with respect to the opposition, some of the complaints are a matter of rhetorical flourish. they see three prongs and they say "bureaucracy!". Again, not trying to rag on the opposition, but some of that feels a little excessive. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking out loud. I'm aware that people are worried that this might lead to a shit storm of over-inclusion. But most people who are worried about that have pushed for us to add stuff about independent sourcing, as a requirement under WP:V. It's possible that independence is a much simpler and uncontroversial control on trivial articles. Randomran (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I know, didn't mean to jump down your throat. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd think that those who are worried about over inclusion would simply be able to point to WP:N and WP:V for their arguments. — Ched (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
          • That's exactly what I'm getting at. If we already say in the "independence" section that we often merge articles with no third-party sources, then I'm not sure we need the first prong as well. Why make a mess with two bullets, when only one bullet is necessary? Randomran (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The more I read the proposal, the more I'm convinced you could scrap the three-pronged test entirely and the guideline proposal would be vastly improved. It would help if there were more specific examples, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm also finding this proposed page confusing. I'm going to read a the archives to try & make sense of it, but a guideline shouldn't require that. - brenneman 23:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you find unclear? Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a compelling reason for this to exist given in the guideline itself: "In lieu of meeting the general notability guideline..." doesn't tell me anything about why I need another guideline, as opposed to the generally accepted one, and "Facts about development and reception can be verified in self-published sources..." doesn't seem required (based upon what's presented on the page) and is at odds with how we treat such sources in general. As I stated above, I'm trying to plow through a lot of archives, but pages need to make thier own case for existance. - brenneman 00:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on the volume of discussion, we know there's a number of fiction articles that, based on consensus developed through AFD "keep" results, that will generally exist. There is a subset of those that clearly surpass the need of the GNG, that's fine. But by far, a large number of these articles (a majority) fail the strict wording of the GNG and what "secondary sources" are generally considered - yet they survive at AFD based on other metrics. This metric generally includes some type of real-world sourcing, whether a third-party or first-party source. Now, we can spend days trying to justify if developer comments are secondary sources, such that there would be perfect alignment of the goal of this guideline with the GNG and thus nullifying the need for it, but the fact is: there is a strong disagreement that developer comments are secondary, but we presume that if such comments exist to begin with, there's likelihood for further development to get clear sourcing to meet the GNG, and thus the article should not be deleted. Thus, there is a need for at least the third prong and this separate guideline.

And that brings us to the first two prongs, which are needed to prevent a work of no or little notability that has extensive developer commentary (the example I use is my own webcomic that has one independent article about it, but which I've maintained a daily log of my writing notes) for having a plethra of articles that really should be covered (if they need to be) in the main work. There are editors that want to dissect fiction topics ad infinitium, and the laxer standard of the third prong will give them fair game to do that for minor fiction works. The goal is still cover the aspects of the fiction but not split out to a separate article if there's no good likelihod of improvement. --MASEM 00:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The third prong is not the "laxer standard"; in fact, it's the strictest one, since you need to find secondary srouce documentation, and that doesn't always exist. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The third prong is more lax than the GNG. Secondary =/= independent. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be laxer than the general notability guideline (why is it, in the first place?), but it's not the laxest prong proposed. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is that way in the first place because we are trying to carve out one of those "exceptions" to the GNG. I think (as do many people working on this guideline, though the feeling is far from unanimous) that the GNG generally does a great job of giving us articles that end up meeting our core content policies. That is its job. Where it does not do so perfectly is fiction. And this guideline, hopefully, offers some way to let us have articles that meet our core content policies but wouldn't meet the GNG. Protonk (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's in conflict with the glossary at the top of this page, which reads "General Notability Criteria (GNC) refers to the catch-all criterion in WP:N itself, that may indicate the notability of any topic. Failure to fulfil the GNC means a topic is not notable; subject-specific criteria may only indicate where sources are likely." By offering "some way to let us have articles that meet our core content policies but wouldn't meet the GNG", the proposed fiction guideline does not adhere to the GNC and is ultimately flawed. This guideline proposal completely misses the point of what a subject-specific guideline is supposed to do. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can change the glossary at the top of the page if you like. I'm sorry if your opinion of what an SNG is supposed to do differs from mine. I don't think we are likely to make much headway in continuing to talk about this. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to change either the glossary or the proposal, because otherwise you have a glaring contradiction being presented here. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what the "good article" section is supposed to describe. I'm becoming warmer and warmer to the idea of being very clear and blunt, and putting in something like "No subnotability guideline can override the GNG, so this one can't either. If there aren't third-party, independent sources, the article violates the GNG, and all this one can do is buy it some time. Sources need to be found quickly, because articles that come to AFD a second time without an independent demonstration of notability should be deleted at that time."—Kww(talk) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Such a view would, I think, lead to the proposal having a net loss of support. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Need is an awfully strong word. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but this section is called "What's confusing" and that's very confusing, not to mention completely undermines the proposal. You're outright contradicting what you want people to understand going into this discussion. As long as it's consistent, it's an improvement. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Most four letter words tend to be. "Must" is equally strong, and fairly appropriate. "Should" is pretty namby-pamby, and allows for an indefinite lifespan for articles completely lacking in independent sources ... that's a sore point for a lot of us. It may not quite contradict WP:N or WP:V, but it encourages a kind of "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" state to go on forever. I'll live with it, but Wesley is quite right that our refusal to be explicit about it is a point of confusion.—Kww(talk) 01:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We may well have to recognize this as a necessary vagueness, though. I mean, at this point the guideline is already getting more complaints of strictness than of leniency. If we clear this up, based on the comments, I don't think we can in good faith clear it up in the direction you want. (I suspect we're equally hard-pressed to clear it up on the opposite direction, mind you.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a necessary vagueness we're talking about. Protonik said the purpose of the proposal is for there to be "some way to let us have articles that meet our core content policies but wouldn't meet the GNG" and then I pointed out that the top of this very page says that the GNG is the end-all, be-all of notability. That's a contradiction. So either Protonik is arguing the wrong point, or whoever wrote the glossary is wrong. This needs to be clarified. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The top of this page (i'm assuming you are saying the talk page) says the GNG is the catch all notability guideline - if it doesn't fit any sub-notability guideline, a topic can still meet the GNG to be given its own article. There's no contradiction. --MASEM 02:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it uses the stronger version that I generally prefer, that if an article fails the GNG, it is not notable. That pretty much states that no SNG can attempt to include a broader range of subjects, which is what we are all dancing around with the "good article"/"search for sources" language.02:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Then change the glossary. The top of this page....aw, nuts I'll just change the glossary. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support Kww's inclination to change to blunt language. I also concur with Wesleydodds re: the attempt to circumvent GNC being self-defeating. ThuranX (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

examples

And that response calls upon facts that (as far as I can see) are not in evidence. Can I please be provided a link to the page where "they survive at AFD" has some illustrations? - brenneman 00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the policy page because we thought it would clutter it. Would you like some examples of AfDs where we feel the guideline matches the outcome? Protonk (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And the point of "the prongs follow AFD results" that the 15-20-so active editors that helped developed it felt was a true point without evidence, and thus we have no exact list to provide. However, you can review AFDs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters or Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television or a few other ones there and quickly get the flavor of what occurs. --MASEM 01:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also probably worth looking at some fictional subjects articles - including ones that are A or B class in their respective WikiProjects - and seeing if they meet WP:N and if you think they'd be likely to be deleted. For example, as it stands Lando Calrissian is almost entirely unsourced, with one sentence of real-world perspective that was added yesterday. However I think anyone trying to delete it would have been laughed off of AfD. Numerous similar examples exist - Xander Harris has no independent sources, but would overwhelmingly survive an AfD. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at the Cordelia Chase article for contrast. –Whitehorse1 10:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(responding to Masem) Thank you for the pointers. However, looking at them makes me question the need for this guideline even more: Currently both "deletion sorting" lists are at (characters) ot very close to (television) 100% deletion for items that would be covered by this list. (Three "list" articles are outside the auspice, no?) - brenneman 11:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

more feedback

on RFC Notability guideline for fiction here as edited by Phil Sandifer at 20:26, 29 January 2009.

Perhaps due to over-ambitious goals, the end result comes across a confused and twisted mess — its provisions unnecessary, given how much it rehashes & repeats existing well-established guidelines/policies.

The proposed guideline is for deciding notable (or, worthiness for inclusion as The Economist clarifies) if they meet a three-pronged test. Its bullet points such as the 'Importance of the fictional work', 'Role within the fictional work' are hard to follow; or "For fictional subjects, terms such as reliability and independence have specialized meanings" (huh?). It is filled with subjective and vague wording like "should be significant" or "an encyclopedic understanding".

The proposal is composed of redundancy after redundancy: "Some care, however, must be taken to ensure that the distribution of fictional articles avoids corporate promotion and adheres to a neutral point of view." By core Policy all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. "Original research and original analysis of primary sources should be avoided.". Already disallowed sitewide as a core Policy. More unnecessary instruction dissuades "trivial detail or information about the plot", when trivia sections in any article are already discouraged, in favor of incorporating pertinent parts into the article body; and, by policy mere plot summaries are too. "This test does not supersede Wikipedia's content and inclusion policies such as those on verifiability and what Wikipedia is not." It can't.

Narrow statements like "may be decided by consensus to be better covered in the article on the work of fiction itself instead of a separate article if there is limited information available." ignore merits of summary style spinouts and sub-articles, which organize content for readers, improving readability and navigation.

Evaluating "element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work… [or] other essential elements…" brings to mind for series's without plot arcs this means losing all episode articles. For example, the Doctor Who episode-set Horror of Fang Rock, which was set in a lighthouse. There's probably sufficient material for a decent real-world perspective article. Is the episode-set central to understanding the fictional work i.e. Doctor Who? Definitely No Way. It could only be so if in every subsequent episode the main characters talked about "that time in the lighthouse". Unintended favoring of plot arc-based shows skews inclusion.

We have Featured articles which "represen[t] the best that Wikipedia has to offer showcas[ing] the polished result of the collaborative efforts that drive Wikipedia". An example is Beyond Fantasy Fiction, which explains it was a "fantasy fiction magazine", "lasting less than two years" "ten issues", and "not commercially successful"; its talk page announces it "appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 1, 2009". The community chose to spotlight it online, for the world to see. Arguably, it's conceivable it could not meet the first prong. Taking a media example from further down the page, 200_(Stargate_SG-1) it's conceivable it could well not meet the "central to understanding the work" or "essential element" of the work requirement of the second prong.

A sea of distinctly unusual claims or statements include determine "whether a source meets our guideline on reliable sources through consensus ...[and] at specific WikiProjects." It suggests individual wikiprojects be held up to overrule established practice and policy…this tends not to hold water at an articles for deletion debate. The demand works of fiction be, of "particular cultural or historical significance" is arguably set too high. It continues, saying survival depends on sources with 'clear claims' of "artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work". You even state what you want the authors of sources to say!

Some issues are probably fixable through copyediting - "about fictional subjects"; "—issues that are less likely to crop up" (I wondered if this was meant to mean more likely at first). Other issues with the proposal are deep-rooted.

Even the proposal fails to decide on acceptable sources. [D]eveloper commentary is not "independent", nor is red blue; it mandates "non-promotional sources". Material produced or otherwise contributed to by "content creators" are, excepting rare disowning - years later - of early work, by nature promoting the work. Any press pack, for example, may offer production and development information; yet, is regardless promotional. Scholarly journal coverage of popular culture is another issue, of course.

Its description persistently unsourced/unsourceable articles that “resist” (??) improvements are often merged into others—as against deletion—seems questionable. To decipher the point being made, if indeed there is one, is no easy task. The answer lies in the first line of the proposal: "proposed guideline that defines the inclusion criteria for elements of fiction" — i.e., as opposed to criteria for removal (deletion by any other name) for articles that would stay under "existing thresholds" referred to by this sentence in the proposal.

Substantially the proposal, which announces itself as a fiction guideline, is about film and especially television; other mediums too. Discussing the worthiness for inclusion of detailed coverage of popular culture encounters different views. Certainly, popular culture including fictional articles are among Wikipedia:Most visited articles, so are desirable by those who consulted Wikipedia. That's completely different to any editor whimpers of their 'like' for them. Undoubtedly other niche and specialized topics aren't swamped or lost if fiction and its elements form part of the encyclopedia, thanks to things like categories and search engines. A past discussion referred to above mentioned Category:Episode redirects to lists - the first subcategory there reads "following 200 pages are in this category, out of 1,796 total.". Different perspectives continue to be discussed, and probably will for some time. –Whitehorse1 10:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Certainly, popular culture including fictional articles are among Wikipedia:Most visited articles, so are desirable by those who consulted Wikipedia." Yes, they are amongst the most popular, together with articles relating to news items and articles related to sexuality and porn. However, Wikipedia is not a news site, and Wikipedia is not a porn site. We should not adapt our policies and guidelines wrt what is popular, but wrt to what is and is not fit to be included in an online encyclopedia. Opinions on this will always vary, but should not be influenced by what is the most or least visited. Fram (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, broadly. Articles relating to, for example, sexuality and porn merit encyclopedic coverage — be they coverage of pre-20thC erotic poetry or RS analyses on the adult movie industry; yet the aim should always be not to titillate, but to inform. Likewise while we don't need an article on every news story, longer-term stories with rs-demonstrable long-term wider impact may belong. Our inclusion policies should not restrict 'highbrow' or 'lowbrow' culture nor encourage it, by default. Our goal should instead be placing things in context, considering not just works in themselves but their vintage - impacting likelihood of academic journals coverage - and avoiding judgements on their intrinsic value based on their popularity, prestige or lack thereof. –Whitehorse1 12:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The articles that we want and the articles that we get do not match up in any logical sense. I'll pick on "Dodds" (forget the first half of the user name), who noted that he writes articles based on the secondary sources. When he writes an article about a fictional character, he goes and looks in a book or looks online or in the library. That's admirable. I do the same thing. I write articles working from secondary sources almost exclusively. But saying it is admirable doesn't mean that most people do that. Most of our articles are written from memory, summary of plot, or summary of recent news articles. When people write about Comic book character XYZ they don't look in Alphabetical Anthology of Comic Book Characters. They look in the comic featuring the character. Most of us, the editors, the janitors, the handimen/women, don't do that. We look for sources, create structure and follow rules. We attempt to walk down this wild hose of open editing without shutting off the flow. Websites that try to shut the flow off become a complete joke. they become little fiefdoms where the owners can be princes of all they can see, but where no one bothers to go. So we've got to work on a compromise. We have to have some inclusion criteria. That ship has sailed. We have decided, for good or ill, to have some inclusion criteria based on "notability". We try here to generate some criteria that would make sense given the kinds of articles that we get and the core content policies we want to enforce. I understand your point that we shouldn't give the impression that we want "high-brow" or "lowbrow" or "middlebrow" works. We don't. the first prong doesn't demand that. We have written it for specific reasons (see the above sections). those reasons were not immediately apparent when the guideline was presented to the community. they are now (hopefully). Protonk (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's probably true most articles are written like that. It's not unreasonable to begin an article saying what the thing being written about is i.e., using a brief plot summary; of course expansion with production, critical analysis and reception etc., is necessary.

It seems the proposed criteria would artificially determine if an element is includable using arbitrary factors. An unintended consequence. As I suggested in my comment above, the requirement an element be central to understanding the fictional work favors a work dependent on how the writer/producer etc. structured the particular work. Thus, a series without plot arcs could lose all episode articles, while one having an overarching plot would generally warrant their retention. Using the example I gave above, the classic series of Doctor Who for the most part didn't use plot arcs, much less one spanning its entire run. By contrast, the 2005 revived version does. Ditto Stargate SG-1, Buffy, etc. All 3 of those had occasional standalone episodes, but an overarching plot with an eventual full or partial resolution. A majority of episodes from those last 3 would therefore meet that criterion; the vast majority from the classic series example, would not. Whitehorse1 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since my featured articles are being dragged into this, 200 (Stargate SG-1) meets the GNG so its use is completely moot. Same with any element, faction we can think of that meets GNG. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, DWF, I wasn't suggesting your work was sub-par in any respect. Far from it! I simply referred to an article deemed high quality, and which I also knew from past viewing was not key to understanding the work (Stargate SG-1) as a whole. The FA list is ordered alphanumerically. Yours, got picked by virtue of being first. Whitehorse1 11:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, fictional works are sources. News articles are sources. If an editor can summarize a news article, they can summarize a fictional work. So-and-so wrote such-and-such. This is what happened according to this source. When speaking of fiction, this is what happens according to this source. Editors obviously can summarize news articles — that's evident from the "In the news" section on the Main Page. Most editors write plot summaries directly from the fictional work, the primary source. It's acceptable to do that. Look at our featured articles about fictional topics[13] [14]. Note how many citations you see in the Plot sections. It's understood that the fictional work is the source.

I could write an article about Maria Bolkonskaya — completely sourced to Wikisource — that would be verifiable, contain no unpublished opinions or facts, and be written in a neutral way. Those are Wikipedia's core content policies. For people wanting to know "Who is Maria Bolkonskaya?", the article would answer their question.

Maybe Wikipedia needs inclusion criteria. But does "notability" need to be that inclusion critera? We need to stop and think: What are we trying to keep in? What are we trying to keep out? That's the most important question: What are we trying to keep out? Wikipedia is a paperless encyclopedia. It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So people naturally have different opinions about what Wikipedia should contain and what should be kept out. That's apparent at AFD. Wikipedia can cover more topics than traditional encyclopedias, and it does. A lot more. Which fictional things should be kept out?

Scores of people think the concept of "notability" is broken. Scores of people think Wikipedia's notability guidelines are broken. Guidelines that say topics "should be notable" are not a given. This is a wiki. Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies was created in August 2003. I can understand that. We don't want an article about every person who has ever been born. But the only reason that Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies was renamed Wikipedia:Notability (people) in December 2005 was because an editor named Jiy wanted to create a common naming scheme for several different guidelines. That's the same reason Wikipedia:Fiction was renamed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) in December 2005. I've created a timeline of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

If Wikipedia:Notability was written to describe common practice, it should have said that articles are frequently deleted because people say the subject of the article is not notable. That's their opinion. That's common practice. People try and persuade each other that something is worthy of notice by providing evidence of notability. That's common practice. "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is considered evidence of notability by a large number of editors. But that is not the only evidence of notability. Debates over "notability" have become a sideshow to the real debate: Should this subject have an entry on Wikipedia or not?

Why should an article about Maria Bolkonskaya be kept out? --Pixelface (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Keeping aside the fact that Maria Bolkonskaya undoubtedly has enough sourcing to meet the GNG in full, we have one problem here. I see PLOT as part of NOT. You don't. I see generation of analytic claims from primary sources as original research (I don't know where you stand on that). Unless we reconcile that, we are just going to talk at each other. Not discuss things. If you believe that an article compliant with the core content policies can be written entirely from a single primary source, then we will never come to agreement.

Likewise, you may be correct about notability guidelines stemming from the project's "need" to deal with weightier stuff. We are closer in agreement to that then you may believe. Wikipedia has (and has had for some time) a pretty big inferiority complex about not being the "elder medium" (despite the fact that we are obviously phenomenally successful because we aren't paper). You can see it in the flagged revisions debate. You can see it in the debates about preventing anon-editing, about FAs and GAs and about deletion. Some of the notability guidelines were borne out of that. We figured "I'm tired of people saying, "oh this pokemanz article is longer than this Napoleon article. WTF?", so lets make it so that this is some respectable publication (under the ill conceived preconception that slightly moderating our content and inclusion policies would cause ignorant and belligerent academics to treat wikipedia as something other than a hotbed of vandalism)" Hence, we will only cover biographies if they have won an award. We will only cover music if it is charted. Etc. That's part of it.

The other part is that we face (and have always faced) serious threats from content that we actually don't want (And have never wanted) which works its way onto wikipedia. Promotional content. POV forks. Malformed essays. Etc. That's a big part of the wild hose I mentioned (and a huge proportion of the roughly 30,000-50,000 articles deleted per month). Deleting those with some regularity in a system like ours requires some inclusion criteria. Those criteria are meant to be applied fairly and are (presumably) derived from shared principles.

The last part of the motivation is a partial rebuttal to my first point. The fundamental justification for anonymous and pseudonymous editing is that authority is not derived from the speaker. What I write in articlespace is supported by sourcing with a minimal amount of authorial interference (there are some arguments that this isn't possible, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion). As such, NOR is a critical component of our content policies. It is a companion to V, showing the reader that what they have in front of them isn't bollocks, despite the fact that it might have been written by an unemployed longshoreman in his underwear. So the generation of those analytical claims must be offloaded to sources where the voice is known and vetted. Where does this put us? We can only write PLOT summary from firsthand knowledge. We can't add any claims of real significance apart from summarizing the plot.

Coming back to WP:N. while I can see your point about the specific subject guidelines, I'm having trouble seeing it for the GNG. DGG makes the point (somewhere else on this page) that the GNG was a dodge so that we could eliminate articles which didn't get sources in traditional media in an attempt to stamp out the Pokemanz. I disagree and I think the GNG bears me out. I have yet to see a more clear and factually neutral guideline on wikipedia (save IAR, which is a policy, I know). It is well motivated, clearly laid out, unambiguous where it need be unambiguous and fuzzy where it need be fuzzy ("signficant" and "multiple" are two important points where textual flexibility is key). It privileges no specific editor group, no faction, no format. Unlike the SNGs (including to some extent this one), it doesn't make arbitrary distinctions (as well thought out as they may be), it doesn't have unnecessary prongs (seriously, any editor who thinks this guideline is too complicated is invited to read Wikipedia:BIO#Additional_criteria in its entirety). It is beautiful, almost (It has some symmetry to it as well). The only way I could like it more was if it were in iambic pentameter.

So yeah. Some of these guidelines were written because editors wanted to exclude things they didn't understand. But not all of them. And not all of them are constrained by this unfortunate provenance to remain instruments of exclusion and ignorance. They can be views as positive formations of what an encyclopedia is--especially what an encyclopedia of amateur editors is. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I see an example like Maria Bolkonskaya, and someone asks "Why would we want to keep out this obvious example of a high importance character?", I just shake my brain. OF COURSE we don't want to keep those articles out, we want to keep out all the unimportant crap. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Maria Bolkonskaya. But War and Peace is a notable novel, and that character is a major character in that novel (according to the War and Peace article). I don't know how important the character is. But the article for Maria Bolkonskaya could be completely sourced to Wikisource and still meet Wikipedia's three core content policies.

What are some examples of "unimportant crap" we want to keep out? --Pixelface (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I went to AfD to find some examples, but I guess since the last ArbCom freeze about episodes and characters, the flow of character articles has slowed. That said, I'm sure you could find a great many in PROD and older AfDs. The problem with these examples of bad articles is that they are usually worked out quickly. It just bugs me when people use something good as an example for something bad to illustrate their point, because it feels like the argument amounts to nothing more than trickery. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That injunction ended months ago. If the flow of character articles up for deletion has slowed, that's probably because since TTN hasn't edited since December 26. Protonk doesn't seem to think Maria Bolkonskaya is an example of something good. What do you personally think are some examples of "unimportant crap" that should be kept out? --Pixelface (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Protonk doesn't seem to think Maria Bolkonskaya is an example of something good." ?? Not sure what you mean. If you mean I don't think it is a good example by which to judge this guideline, you are correct. If you think I don't believe it should have an article you are incorrect. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, heres some examples from some books on my shelf. Some already have a presence on the wiki, others do not. Loial an ogier from Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time series, the Records Department the location where the character Winston works in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Shadowfax, a horse from J.R.R Tolkein's Lord of the Rings series, Harry Bryant the superior officer to Rick Deckard in Philip K Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, and Frankie one of the hyper intelligent mice from Douglas Adam's The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. These are examples of characters/settings that I do not feel should have standalone articles. It is worth noting that Shadowfax has what I would consider a perfectly adequate compromise. I hope most articles go that route. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that character article, my intitial thoughts are, "How many sources exist on the character? Are there enough to justify a separate article, or could the character be sufficiently covered in the War & Peace article or an overall character page?". Even if the character is pivotal to the story and you can get a number of fantastic sources together on the character, you might still only have enough for a stub, or the information you insert could be redundant to what's in the War & Peace article. That's the sort of thing these guidelines should be helping us determine. The question is: do they or don't they help us address these questions? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are Leo Tolstoy, and Louise and Aylmer Maude unacceptable sources? My initial thoughts are "Is War and Peace a notable fictional work?" Wikisource says "War and Peace is generally thought to be one of the greatest novels ever written." So I guess that's a yes. And then I think "Is Maria Bolkonskaya a major character in that work?" The War and Peace article seems to indicate so. That novel has 580 characters in it. What's wrong with a stub for a major character? Not all articles are going to appear on the Main Page. All character articles are going to repeat at least some information from the fictional work aricle. That doesn't matter. If a reader wants to know "Who is Maria Bolkonskaya?", if someone looks up Maria Bolkonskaya in an encyclopedia, if someone looks up Maria Bokonskaya on a search engine, why should there not be a separate article on Wikipedia for that character? --Pixelface (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

what's next?

The guideline is roughly hovering around 60/40 in terms of its support. The RFC has been tremendously useful in the sense that it's given us valuable feedback to improve the proposal. But at best, the RFC reveals the need for improvement. At worst, it's inconclusive, due to the changing nature of the guideline, and problems with people WP:CANVASSING and votestacking by messaging specific audiences. The watchlist notice is on hold until we reach a new stable version, if not indefinitely.

To some extent, the 40% opposition cancel each other out by bickering between "no exceptions for fiction" and "complete exceptions for fiction". The remaining comments -- somewhere between 10% and 20% -- refer to the guideline as confusing, unclear, and excessively bureaucratic. Of course, several people who have been intimate with this proposal over the past few months are unable to imagine a clearer guideline. But if you are able to take a step back, you can see that this is far from the simplicity of "no original research" or "neutral point of view". Each of Wikipedia's core policies is a single intuitive principle, which is then clarified and expanded with some nuance. This guideline may be fair, but it's a mishmash that is difficult to read, apply, and discuss.

There's nothing intuitive about this guideline. It starts by calling itself "notability (fiction)", but then it says "this guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole". In the same breath, it wiggles around by saying that episodes and comic book storylines aren't categorized as "works of fiction", but that they're elements of a fictional work. Ugh. You're not going to appeal to anybody's intuition with logic like that. The guideline then goes on to offer three separate principles, all of which much be applied at AFD, all of which must be debated as we discuss words like "significant" (prong three), "exceeds" (prong one), or "central" (prong two). Then, if the casual reader couldn't be any more frustrated, the guideline adds a de facto fourth prong buried in the "independence" section by making independent sources a necessity, but in the most wishy-washy unclear language imaginable, even marrying notability with "good article status" somehow. And then the folks try to resolve this convoluted mess by shortening and expanding these explanations.

Alright, so no changing the balance, and no changing the structure. How do we build a consensus? Randomran (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with a rename to clear up the awkwardness of the start. Notability (Elements of fiction). That and the considerable tightening we've done, I think, comes out to the right level of reaction for the volume of opposition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the rename and intro. copyedit. I also suspect that tuning prong 1 might alleviate some angst -- the "exceed"s piece seems, well, excessive to me, and every knows I'm a heartless anti-fiction, fiction-burn-in-hell jackass. In terms of compromise, I think setting (okay, lowering) the bar for prong one to "source material is itself notable" might be amenable. Really, this is starting to look like a hybrid between an fiction-specific rewrite of WP:GNG and WP:WAF. Maybe all this would be a bit simpler if the two were somehow merged into a WikiProjectElementsOfFiction that really combined the two. Or maybe I should go back to paying attention to my newspaper students, and find out why they're all hovering out a workstation in the far corner of the room. Shit... --EEMIV (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think we need both "the work should be very important" *and* "articles without independent sources will get merged". If we drop one and keep the other, we'd still do a good job of containing the cruft. ... that said, I support the rename, and think it could improve things a lot. Randomran (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But the "articles without independent sources get merged" is merely advisory. And, in some sense, it stands in contrast to a two prong test. If our three prong test says: these three prongs mean that an article may be written about the subjects and independent sources may exist (for the reasons I noted a few sections up), then it is not contradictory to say "articles without independent sources get merged in practice", because we are offering something of a presumption of independent sources. One could argue that we need the first prong but not the "independent sources" claim. But I don't think we need to remove either. Also consider that we don't just have opposition to the first prong AND not all that opposition comes from a clear understanding of it. Most of the opposition to the first prong comes either from a flat misreading of it (where they assumed it modified the element, not the work) or from an extension of the "cultural importance" point (where they talked about limiting ourselves to museum pieces). Both of those two objections are dealt with through rewriting the first prong. We make it more clear and more democratic. There is some opposition that says "I understand the limitations of the first prong but it is still not a good idea". Those (IMO) split into two categories. People who think the firs prong will be non-binding and people who think that it will unfairly limit our range of coverage. It is those two camps we need to think about addressing. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my argument about the first prong isn't that people oppose it specifically. Just that we can accomplish the same thing with less. A lot of our opposition comes from people who think this proposal is too bureaucratic, with too many things on the list to check off. We can afford to drop a prong. Again, if we're telling people to merge stuff without independent sources, then don't we have a way to reign in stuff that would fail the first prong? On a whole other note, how do you feel about the rename? Randomran (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well. I think there are rebuttals to "too bureaucratic" that don't involve changing the guideline. I mean (I know I mentioned this in a response to Pixel above, but bear with me), look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). That is a hell of a lot more intricate and byzantine than this guideline. Look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or Wikipedia:Notability (web) (which is much shorter). I know WP:WAX applies, but really, how bureaucratic is this guideline? How many people would say it is too bureaucratic looking at the current revision? How many would have said it was bureaucratic if there weren't 2-3 people above them in the poll saying so? How many were saying it just because they couldn't be bothered to read it (I would discount anyone who says "too bureaucratic" and "the first prong means that you are making this worse than the GNG" in the same sentence). I can assume good faith and say that people said what they meant and understood it...but only up to a point. where we are talking about using this as feedback to change (IMO, and I know there are disagreements) the scope and nature of the guideline, we better be sure that it is good feedback. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the copy-editing has made a difference, but I'm not confident that it has. I think you're focusing too much on readability. Yes, the notability (people) guideline is long, with a lot of clauses. But in application, it's simple: if you meet any one of those criteria, you're notable. This one is much more onerous: we have to apply three different prongs to an article to make sure an article meets all of them. It's like three guidelines in one. And the application won't always be obvious: people will argue about whether the original work is important enough to deserve expanded coverage, or whether the real world coverage is significant enough, or if the character/episode is central enough. That's a lot of arguing. And even then, we still use a litmus test of third-party sources as a reason for merging. Again, usability is even more important than readability. Randomran (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of those guidelines are merely longer. But in some senses we seem to have an inherent predilection for guidelines with multiple possible routes to notability (rather than three which much be satisfied in tandem). so people would be ok if we said: here are your three criteria, meet one and you are good but are somehow flummoxed by the instruction: meet all three. I don't see how it is so hard. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Meet all three" isn't harder to read than "meet one of the three". But it *is* harder to apply. It turns any AFD debate from a one dimensional discussion (does this meet the test) into a three dimensional discussion (does this meet the three tests, plus the other little nuggets tucked in the section on independent sources). I'm what you might call a "veteran editor" and I'm foreseeing this as a huge pain to explain and debate. Now imagine a new user who creates their first fiction article. Randomran (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

People seem to think WP:GNG is clear enough and it 5 point, not 3, that must be satisfied. And there are also "other little nuggets" in every guideline as well.じんない 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, WP:N is really just one prong with a lot of explanation, like most other guidelines and policies. If we were to look at these three prongs and get into words like "significant real-world coverage", "reliable", "significant artistic impact", "central to understanding"... we might be talking about a dozen points, all of which have to be satisfied. Randomran (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that all AFDs should be multidimensional, and people get lazy. Did the single chart? Yes? People are still supposed to examine whether there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article ...[because]... articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. We get the argument on music articles as to whether WP:NSONGS acts as an exclusion filter, or whether an article that satisfies WP:N can always be included. Even after that's over, in all cases, editors have to evaluate the sources used in an article and determine whether they are reliable, and whether they actually support the content attributed to them. We are faced with an old problem, and I think we need to take Albert's advice: "Make everything as simple as possible, but make nothing simpler than possible".—Kww(talk) 00:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• You persuaded me that some of our other guidelines are multidimensional, but still I see this guideline as being more complex than most, and more complex than necessary. Again, if we generally agree that there shouldn't be an article on every character in some obscure manga or webcomic, then why do we need both prong #1 *and* a statement that we merge stuff without independent sources? It seems to me that we'd only need one or the other, not both. Can you give me an example of something that would have independent sources, but still fail the first prong? Randomran (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, for things that meet the GNG or transcend their parent work. But we already kind of cop out there (for good reason). Protonk (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• If any article that has independent sources and fails the first prong would probably meet WP:N, then you've shown that the requirement for independent sources and the first prong are completely redundant. Randomran (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think that's it. I don't think there will ever be a case when the first prong won't be satisfied, but the third one will. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• No, we are looking for a much more narrow set of articles: those which don't pass the GNG, but have some independent sourcing and their parent work doesn't pass the first prong. Even then we would have just shown that the first prong isn't strictly the same as the requirement for independent sources. We know that already. It just lets us know that independent sources are more likely to cover the subject in some depth. that's an important distinction. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's a set so narrow that it doesn't exist. If the first prong is there to let us know that independent sources are more likely to cover the subject in some depth, then why do we also need to say that articles without independent sources are merged? Again, the requirement for independent sources makes the first prong completely moot. Randomran (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Because if you meet these three prongs, the independent coverage doesn't have to be a direct and detailed examination present in multiple sources. I have personally set Bulbasaur as my standard for the worst tolerable article ... if it can't be that good, it has to go. As it stands, Bulbasaur fails WP:N miserably ... the independent sources are passing mentions, with the exception of one joke about pesto. It would, however, pass this guideline. I'm sure that you could find such trivial mentions of characters in works that didn't pass the first prong. "Aun Freya", for example, was the meddlesome sister in "Photon: The Idiot Adventures", an anime of such minor import that it doesn't even get a Wikipedia article (nice to know that there's a level to which we do not stoop). There's commentary on the DVD, and I'm sure that NewType had an article that you could extract one or two facts about character. Google turns up a few hits on some sites that might be reliable and independent. However, the work doesn't even approach meeting the first prong.—Kww(talk) 02:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm w/ Kww here. If we say "every article that this guideline covers mush have independent sourcing, then we are 1 step from the GNG. If instead we say "here are three prongs that indicate we might want an article and that the subject might be the subject of independent sources--that is good enough for inclusion. If editors determine that independent sources don't exist it will probably get merged". That's fuzzy, sure, but it is closer to where we want to be. And huh...I thought Photon would have an article. :) Protonk (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• We're pretty much already there. What does the independent sourcing requirement in the "independent sourcing" section mean, if not that? Or are we leaving it deliberately vague to avoid pissing people off, only to force people to wikilawyer over it when proposing merges? Randomran (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Randomran, when did elements of fiction become its own subject area? Talk about creating an editorial walled garden - this would be a tiny one. Either we have a notability guideline about fiction as a unified subject area now, or have a notability guideline about elements of fiction which be absorbed into a notability guideline about fiction later. It makes no sense to draft a guidleline that applies only to elements of fiction, when the inclusion criteria apply to both elements and works just as easily. Nothing could be more intuative that have a guideline about fiction as a unified subject area.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well what we have now is a notability guideline for elements of fiction. Have you read the part in the lead that says "this guideline does not cover works of fiction as a whole"? Randomran (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• While i agree 100% with the sentiment Gavin (ie if you removed all instances of "element" it could easily been seen to apply to fiction in general), I believe that altering the scope would undermine the entirety of the proposal and any sort of consensus we have now. The biggest problem is that we allow stuff like director commentary for fictional elements here, but not fiction itself.じんない 23:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well...they are a class of articles. They have the rather unique attribute of universal subordination to a notable parent article (with the minor and relatively rare exceptions of character or elements which transcend all parent works equally). This creates a reason why we might want to treat them differently. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm still around and have a pretty clear idea why this guideline is hard to understand (anyone who knows the difference between "if" and "only if" will also be able to help). But I also have thoughts about alternative ideas. I'm most likely too busy until the weekend, and fairly likely too busy until the end of the weekend, but I've kept this on my watchlist and followed many of the issues, so I hope I can make a useful contribution next week. Geometry guy 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you guys are trying so hard to fix this up. Some guidelines are just not meant to be. AfD hero (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the alternative is applying WP:N strictly, with a few editors stonewalling its application by turning AFDs into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Trust me that numerous editors are infuriated that WP:N is applied strictly to fiction to delete articles, and that just as many are infuriated at those people for being infuriated. This is a pretty important issue to settle, and the only way to do that is to come up with a guideline somewhere in the middle of these two camps. Randomran (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

exactly. except that by now its more than a few who think it not useful, at least here. We don't get handed the guidelines by some authority, & then make an encyclopedia to fit. We try to make a reasonable encyclopedia, and devise guidelines that will get us what we want with the minimum conflict. Sometimes minimizing conflict is as important as getting exactly the right thing for every article. DGG (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, you need to look at Geometry guy's comment about "if" and "only if." There's a difference between:

1) If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

and

2) Only if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

You could rewrite the second sentence to say:

2b) A topic is presumed to be notable only if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

But WP:N doesn't say 2 or 2b. And it never should. N is an inclusion guideline. Not an exclusion guideline.

Does Wikipedia need a guideline about fictional topics? If so, why? If so, I suggest a survey. --Pixelface (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't WP:GAME WP:N by wikilawyering. There is an entire section on what we do with articles that don't meet the guideline. We haven't had an exception to WP:N for fiction, unlike other subject areas like WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. It's time we did. But I think people like the WP:BATTLEGROUND too much, doing battle one AFD at a time. Randomran (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an important issue of comprehension, not wikilawyering. Geometry guy 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The challenge with notability guidelines is that they have two roles. The first is to say "If the topic meets multiple criteria X, it may be presumed notable enough for inclusion". The second is at least to suggest that "If the topic doesn't even meet multiple criteria Y, it is almost certainly not notable enough for inclusion". There is, and there should be, a gap between X and Y, and the most contested discussions at AfD concern the articles which fall between X, the stricter criteria for presumed notability, and Y, the less strict criteria to avoid a snowball delete.

Fictional elements (and possibly spinouts in general) currently have the problem that the gap between X and Y (at WP:N) is too large, so too many AfDs lie in the hotly contested middle ground. This proposed guideline is an attempt to close that gap based upon consensus, both from experience at AfD (which I would call case law) and agreement among editors of differing viewpoints.

To do that it has to be utterly clear where it is lowering the upper boundary X or raising the lower boundary Y. There cannot be any confusion between a statement that says "If the topic meets these criteria, it is presumed notable for inclusion" and one which says "The topic is only suitable for inclusion if it meets these criteria". ("If" versus "only if".)

However, the proposed guideline jumps between the two perspectives without warning.

• (Intro) "Articles covering elements within a fictional work are generally retained if their coverage meets these three conditions"
• (Second prong) "Other essential elements of the work are appropriate too, but only if their significance is verified in commentary from reliable sources."

The first of these suggests that the three criteria are conditions for presumed notability (X). The second seems to ruling out certain elements as notable (Y).

The first and third prongs are more ambiguous: they both use the word "must". To attempt to combine the forms: "The article is generally retained if the fictional work from which they come must have produced... and significant real-world information must exist". How can something happen generally if a condition must be satisfied?

It is a good exercise to analyse the rest of the guideline from this perspective. Some sentences are clearly prohibiting certain articles, some are accepting them, and others are ambiguous. I'm not surprised that editors find the proposal hard to understand.

There will always be a gap between X and Y: accept that, and try to narrow it. If this is not done with utter clarity, it will be ignored. Geometry guy 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem with notability on WP (not just FICT); it is a mix of "inclusion" and "having an article", and desperately needs to be split, though this requires a lot more work than just fixing WP:N or the sub-notability guidelines. Unfortunately, we have to build FICT on the framework that the "notability" guidelines determine when a topic should be included and described in its own article. There is the issue of topics that should be included but should not have their own articles as to what we do with them, and I think that is going to take a lot of work and is presently beyond what FICT is attempting to do, but is what is hinted by your note on the second prong above. In other words, the conflict you describe is true if notability was simply inclusion, but in reality, with notability being about inclusion and article worthiness, there is no discrepancy. It's nuanced, unfortunately, but in so much as WP's concept of notability is in the first place. --MASEM 23:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a gap in our guidelines. WP:V says articles without reliable third-party sources are deleted. WP:OR says the same thing. WP:N is a logical extension of that, and requires reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject -- just like our policy. WP:FICT is here to create a gap in WP:N, and show where reliable third-party sources aren't strictly required. If there already *is* a gap, it comes from WP:IAR. Our goal is to document that gap, and I think Phil Sandifer has done the best job of anyone yet. That's where this proposal comes from. Randomran (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, I've found many of your comments sensible, but WP:V and WP:OR don't refer anywhere to deleting articles, only removing material, as far as I am aware, so there is no sense in which WP:N is an extension of them. Instead it builds on Pillar One and WP:NOT. Please read my comments more slowly. I can't believe anyone can digest them in 10-15 minutes. Geometry guy 00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got hasty. But WP:V and WP:OR do say that we should not have articles without reliable third-party sources. You're right that it doesn't necessarily mean deletion: it can also mean a redirect or merge. That's consistent with WP:N as well. Randomran (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

An illustrative flowchart

I have no doubt that this proposed guideline is amenable to logical breakdown, so I've tried to create a flowchart based on the text. I've put the GNG test first because if the element of fiction meets that, there's no need to deal with the prongs at all (shouldn't the text clearly reflect that fact?)

I've assumed that the first sentence of the 2nd prong: "The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work" should be read as having a comma after "episode", so that episodes (and, though unstated, comic book storylines) do not have to be central to the understanding of the work, but recurring characters do. This may be a misinterpretation.

This is, of course, just the bare bones of the logic - it's necessary to read the text to understand what the words mean in context. If you disagree with the flowchart, don't shout at me, it's just my interpretation of what the text says and it's probably wrong because I'm pretty stupid. But by correcting it perhaps we can clarify some of the outstanding points.  —SMALLJIM  00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice job and effort! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is tremendously helpful, and helps to make the three-prong test easier to understand and apply. That said, I think you could afford to merge the middle two boxes with the box to their left: "is the element an episode or recurring character?" That would be simpler, and still basically accurate. Randomran (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think epsiodes should also have to apply the "central to understanding the work" as well. They shouldn't get a "free pass" on that.じんない 01:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I should get a pony. But sadly, we are both doomed by external forces to disappointment. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Heh, well FICT is suppose to be a compromise from what goes in AfD, and those who want to show some improtance, then why do episodes not have to show importance to understanding, but characters do? That's a blatant double-standard of not needing to meet the 2nd prong.じんない 01:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, recurring characters don't either. So individually released chunks of plot and major characters get a pass. Because, well, that seems to be the norm. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not according to that flowchart. That flowchart requires characters be "central to the understanding of the plot", but not episodes.じんない 01:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil/Jinnai -- I think there's a genuine disagreement about whether "central to understanding the work" is itself part of the test, or just a clarification of what already passes the test. You see why people were concerned that this proposal was excessively bureaucratic? Because one person sees a set of words and interprets it one way, and another interprets it another way. It's a wikilawyer's dream, and a newbie's nightmare. Randomran (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I think you have right now episodes in that one only being assessed on the 1st and 3rd prong. I mean any number of Dragonball Z episodes have commentary on them, but almost all of them would fail the 2nd prong if they had to show importance to the work because many of them just have them staring at each other making comments with cuts to an aside story of no significance. Looking at the flowchart as it stands now though, every episode with at least a few commentary reviews by reliable sources would make it in.じんない 01:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment later, but just to emphasis here: there is not a missing comma, and the importance test applies to episodes of a series.—Kww(talk) 02:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is absolutely great. Let's get a cleaned up version in the proposal ASAP. And then, I suspect, we'll have definitely done enough to satisfy the "too complicated" folk and can think seriously about tagging. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I generally like it, although perhaps the first prong's -- is the element part of an important work -- "No" answer should point to a new box off to the far right: "A Wikipedia article might not be appropriate". --EEMIV (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A redirect might still be, though. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a poor idea given that this refers to the first prong - that could be read as us applying the first prong's standards of significantly exceeding the GNG to entire works of fiction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I'm still holding out hope that the first prong might be trimmed to works that merely meet GNG, rather than exceeds. I see your point, though, and agree in light of the current phrasing; NM. --EEMIV (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to be on the safe side and just say "a stand alone article is inappropriate", rather than "include it in the article on the work". We shouldn't be preempting editorial decisions like this. It could be included in a list, or not at all. Let that be determined by consensus. Randomran (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If people are going to interpret the second prong this way, I'm switching over to the oppose camp. 99.999% of television episodes should never have an article. The only way an episode of a television series gets an article is if it is crucial to understanding the series. Episodes don't get a free pass, and there was not a missing comma. Placing a comma there completely changes the scope of the second prong.—Kww(talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange that I am in agreement with Kww here...じんない 02:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A flowchart is a nice idea, but the second outcome "include the article in the work" is effectively a directive to delete and/or merge an article on an element of fiction into the main work. That suggests a standalone article is possible only if the criteria are met, whereas the guideline suggests a standalone article is possible if it meets the criteria. I think the main reason efforts to find consensus for this guideline have so far failed, is that it does not make explicit that there is a gap between criteria for inclusion (if editors see the need) and criteria for necessary exclusion. Geometry guy 21:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We do want to say that a standalone article is possible if and only if the subject meets this or the GNG (Think of the notability guideline as one big OR gate). If an subject doesn't meet this or the GNG (and it is within the remit of this guideline), it doesn't get an article. Whether that means merge/smerge/redirect (which I guess is a particular form of smerge)/delete is up to editors, and we make that explicit. I'm not sure that the guideline suggests otherwise. If it does, let's start to modify it in order to make that more clear. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The resulting issue of Episodes

Are all episodes created equal here? Is an episode of a national, major network, prime time show like "Lost" fundamentally "more important" to a work compared to an episode of a kids cartoon show (like "Spongebob") compared to an episode of a daily soap opera (like "Guiding Light")? Does it matter if its a more dramatic presentation with a series/season-wide plot line or a sit-com with minor long-term plot elements? Does it matter if it is cable verses over-the-air shows? (I don't know, I think we're going to need to figure out this distinction.) --MASEM 03:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• My preferred interpretation of this would probably be rejected by the preponderance of people who we have polled as "too complicated". I think that the format of the show has little if anything to do with the importance of having a standalone episode article. The biggest consideration is the nature of the narrative and the granularity of episodes. The next biggest consideration is the availability of information on those episodes that isn't DIRECTORY and isn't PLOT. The next biggest consideration is the importance of the narrative itself to the show. Obviously if reliable, independent sources treat episodes as individual and in some detail, we may as well(I'm actually surprised that the X-files is lists by season rather than episodes, there is no shortage of sourcing for those episodes). Protonk (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think this is why we had the "central to understanding the work" part. Because some episodes are central (like in a serialized drama), and some aren't (like in series of one-shot cartoons). But "central to understanding the work" is ripe for Wikilawyering and battleground bickering. We could clarify what we mean by central, but then that only makes the guideline more complicated, and alienates support. Randomran (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think you get different answers from the analysis, but the fundamental question is the same: is understanding the key points of that particular episode key to understanding the fundamental meaning of the series? Most comedies, animated or live-action, will have difficulty ever justifying an episode article on basis of importance (although some will make it based on GNG, like the "master of my own domain" episode of Seinfeld). Some episodes of dramas will qualify, most will not. An occasional soap opera might even qualify. I don't think that separate guidelines are necessary based on genre.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So to combine the above comments so far, this is telling me that episodes of a more dramatic show like "Lost" where there is significant plot development each episode are weighted more heavily than less over-arching plot shows such as "House" (yes, even though there's character development throughout), "Scrubs", and the like. That's not to say that these shows can't have episode articles, but if we are considering the weight of all the prongs, this suggests that an episode of a dramatic show can likely live with less real-world info, while those without it should have a bit more to balance it out (more closely meet the GNG, as most Simpsons episodes can do). --MASEM 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • While accurate, I think this is getting absurdly nuanced. Most editors don't have enough direct experience to really say that's an accurate description of our practice. And even then, most editors will see a guideline based on that kind of nuance as excessively bureaucratic. Imagine applying the test to an episode -- after dealing with prong one and prong three, you look at prong two and argue about whether the episode is central or not, based on whether there is enough of an overarching plot, and then if it would need to be offset by more real-world info. That's a recipe for a lot of long tedious arguments. Randomran (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The easiest way to determine if it's notable is basically if it's the pilot, series finale or the general question "If someone missed watching this particular episode, would it impede their understanding of other episodes significantly because of plot development, new characters or other criteria?"じんない 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Meh, I'm inclined to treat this solely as a sourcing question. It's easier to justify the concept of "importance" with characters and other fictional elements (the line between the main characters and the secondary characters is fairly apparent in most cases; conversely, an article on in-universe locations is probably on the unimportant side), but with episodes, you have such a host of interweaving problems (does a new character introduced mean it's important? A major character development? Setting changes? Many series have one of these in every other episode) that I'm pressed merely to make it a sourcing question. The problem then is that we're putting episodes on the same level as non-character fictional elements when they're obviously more important most of the time, which is the perplexing part. I can't think of another way to quantify importance past that though. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That's why a means question like mine would work. If missing the episode does not significantly impair your ability to understand the plot, then it's not an important episode, unless it's the pilot or finale, or meets the GNG on its own. I could find enough reviews on various BLEACH or Naruto episodes to list almost every single one shown in English, but do we want that?じんない 08:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, we do, as it would make us that much more comprehensive of a reference guide and that much more useful for our readers. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Personally I would not, especially for a lot of BLEACH episodes have significant recap in them, sometimes half the episode and the episode may only push the plot forward a bit.じんない 08:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • So long as it is verifiable in reviews and all, I would much rather err on the side of having stuff that is of value to some of our readers, editors, etc. than that a handful don't have interest in. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I disagree. If we are saying that's enough for episodes, then we should just ignore the 2nd prong for everything by that standard, because everything can perhaps be useful to someone, somewhere.じんない 08:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
            • We should cover everything that can be covered in reliable sources. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
              • No, we should not, as that's a violation of WP:NOT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Which has been disputed for as long as I can remember, but we're saying any ones that can be referenced with reviews, i.e. any one that can have reception sections and thus wouldn't violate the disputed plot are worth keeping. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • (to Jinnai) I still think your question is too subjective, but I guess something is better rather than nothing. As for the Bleach and Naruto episodes, the lack of any production information is the key bar there. None of them are going to hit GA anytime in the near future, so that's the barrier there. I could drag out a pair of reviews for some episodes (although the quality of several of the IGN reviews leave much to be desired in terms of actual reception). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Replying to Sepiroth: I tend to agree that it's primarily a sourcing question, which to my mind means that it should normally be handled by the GNG. The only reason we would be here is if the sources for the episode are essentially missing ... there's DVD commentary, but no independent reviews, no substantial third-party material. If people want to build an article about a TV episode that didn't get reviewed or noticed by third parties, they had better be able to justify that it was a particularly important episode.—Kww(talk) 10:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at the problem, the more I realize that the problem is a lack of precision. We've thrown in language that's vague or contradictory, and now editors are arguing about what they mean. For some people, "central to understanding the work" would make 99.9% of episodes delete-worthy. For others, it's a puff phrase, and we would keep most episodes. This is a recurring issue in the guideline, and a legitimate reason why people oppose it. The guideline is supposed to shrink down arguments and build a consensus. If all it does is create several keyphrases for people to Wikilawyer over, then its purpose has failed. And that can't be fixed with a nice diagram. Randomran (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this takes it the way of the previous FICT, but this might be necessary if the lack of precision here is a problem. First, of course, remember that if an episode can meet the GNG by itself, its not an issue here, so we're talking about episodes that may have potential. This is why I think we almost need to spell out ones that clearly surpass "important to the work", specifically those limited to prime time dramatic series ala "Lost" or "24". Other shows would need strong evidence that a specific episode is notable. I don't like this approach but it does apply precision that we are looking for.

The other way is to recognize no special meaning for any type of episode, and instead make sure that over in WAF, directions are given that for more dramatic shows where plot is developed every turn (which can include "Lost" but may also include things like "Naruto") that season-long descriptions are more appropriate, with episode lists preferred over individual episode articles since it's not the singular episode that is important to the work but the overall plot that is. This doesn't mean individual episodes may still quality (even if it didn't meet the GNG, the Lost episode "The Constant" was highly regarded and noted to well establish a specific character, and thus would quality). --MASEM 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're onto something. In fact, we might be able to deal with it in a few words. We should say "episode from a serialized storyline", or something to that effect. It would let shows like 24 and Lost pass the second prong, while avoiding stand-alone articles for every episode of Saturday Night Live or a simplistic cartoon. In fact, I'm going to make a bold edit and see if it sticks. Randomran (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, for an epoisode to be "central to understanding the work", this prong must be "verified in commentary from reliable sources". I think it is already clear that we can include as many articles about episodes as we like under this criteria, but that does not provide carte blanche to create an article about every single one, nor does it make it necessary to list them either. I have argued elsewhere that Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide that plot summary on its own is not encyclopedic, and I don't want to start an allowing every episode of series like 24 and Lost being listed just because WP:ILIKEIT. The bottom line is the inclusion criteria cannot be stretched or exemptions given to prime-time television on the basis that it is popular; there has to evidence that each episode passes WP:FICT on its own merits in order to justify its own article. As regards the issue of listing non-notable characters and episodes, that issue should be dealth with else where (if it has not already). --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• No free passes for any class of episode.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• It sounds to me that both of you disagree with the exception for recurring characters too. You're both saying that "central to understanding the work" is really just "significance verified in reliable sources". I'm going to try a bold edit in the opposite direction, and see if it sticks. Randomran (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The language when this argument started was The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work. This was then later followed with the statement that "notability must be verified". There was no exception to the second prong. I would have opposed any such exceptions from the beginning. We've discussed that recurring characters will have an easier time passing it, but never giving them a free pass.—Kww(talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Again, if that's the case, then we should make this part of the guideline 100% clear. I'm not trying to make a substantive change here. I'm trying to remove ambiguity, so there's no more room for confusion or wikilawyering. If all elements require their significance to be verified, then let's say that flat out, with no bull. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I made a pass at that after Gavin made a change that I thought oversimplified.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Gavin went back to the ambiguous wishy washy wording. I've tried simplifying it both ways now: saying explicitly that certain episodes and characters pass the prong without reliable sources, and now the current version where we say that everything needs reliable sources. If people disagree with both wordings, then we have a problem here, and the critics of this guideline who said that "even the authors don't actually know what this means" would be right. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the latest version: "The significance of the element must be verified in commentary from reliable sources. Notability requires evidence, and bald assertions of significance are insufficient." --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not surprised. Let's see if everyone else agrees. Several editors (including me) have been under the impression that the second prong can be passed without sources, and I'm pretty sure that many have supported this proposal on that basis. But let's see if they can live with this. Randomran (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The requirement for verification has been there for some time. It doesn't require any independent sourcing, however: a DVD commentary or creator blog that says the episode or character is important is more than adequate.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that what this might do is make the second prong extremely strong to the point very few episodes and characters can pass it; "essential"ness is a topic not discussed much by reliable sources, even the creator (though they can be), and even with the presence of real world information, an element that readily meets the third prong may be shot down by a strict interpretation of the second. There needs to be the "obvious" essentialness, which I know begs for many many games to be played, but I think is going to make this at least more appealing than if people have to meet both the real world requirement from the third prong and this new "essentialness" from the second. Unfortunately, I do see problems if we define bright lines for essentialness (akin to my "prime time network drama series") or let editors state this for themselves, but either way, we need to edge on allowing more of these articles as to assume good faith that they can get better. I'm not saying that we can't use the stronger second prong, but I think that significantly alters how this guideline will be perceived. --MASEM 18:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between the original "central" and the current "essential", but I'm not sure "essential" is actually stronger. I'm pretty flexible on the exact word chosen to describe importance. "Crucial" seems stronger yet, and "pivotal" seems synonymous with "central". Any other choices?—Kww(talk) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this version of the second prong works - I think it makes the guideline significantly stricter, which is a poor decision given that the guideline seems more viewed as over-strict than over-lenient.

Whether or not there is a sensible ideological reason for doing so, there is a free pass that is rightly given to episodes and major characters. They form the bulk of the articles in question, and they are accepted. I think there are ideological reasons for this, based on what is generally viewed as central to understanding of fiction in Western culture, but that's neither here nor there. The stricter second prong, which does not give an easy clear to episodes and characters, does not seem to me to reflect community practice, and I think that there are many people who supported the guideline who would balk at it, myself included.

This is a sausage factory of a decision, but it's the right one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we need to have independant sources to claim that a protagonist whom we read/play/watch through their eyes needs independant sourcing to say they are central. At some point WP:COMMON SENSE needs to come into play here.じんない 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just footnote it, and explain that the major characters and episodes/storylines of text with serialized, multi-episode plot arcs are generally cosnidered to be OK. I mean, the issue is that I think there is a presumption of significance for a certain class of articles - basically, major characters and episodes are OK. An article on an episode of The Sopranos that satisfies the third prong isn't going to get deleted because of people saying "unimportant to the overall series." Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that there appears to be an exception for the second prong for episodes from serialized fiction, and recurring characters. But Kww and Gavin Collins are strongly against that. It seems they never believed in such an exception. We need to clarify this, rather than hiding it in footnotes or ambiguous contradictory language. Randomran (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know Gavin never liked it, but it had been a concession he was willing to make. For me, the problem, in the end, is that this guideline has more opposition for strictness than leniency. As such, I don't think we can,in good faith, make it stricter. If the episodes/characters exemption really is a no-go, I think we have to look at scrapping the second prong and accepting that esoteric elements with real-world commentary will survive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

One way to consider this is to consider (remember?) that while all three prongs need to be satisfied to some extent, strong evidence in one of the prongs (likely the third) can balance out weaker metrics for the other prongs. Case in point, for example (even though I would say it's GNG-able) is the Buffy "All Singing All Dancing" episode, which could be completely standalone from the series (there's minimal character development, and doesn't impact the overall Buffy plot) but the fact that it was a completely musical episode attracted a lot of real world attention; another example could be the Babylon 5 episode "Day of the Dead" which was written by Neil Gaiman and included Penn and Teller as notable guest stars, but otherwise the episode impacts little of the overall B5 plot. Alternatively, a "Lost" episode with only a sole review to support the third prong will likely be kept since very few episodes of the series are unimportant to the mythology (well, there was that one with the two lovers and the diamonds that was like "who the heck were they?", but that's the exception, not the rule for Lost). Note that I'm not saying that strong evidence of meeting one or two of the other prongs is sufficient to completely ignore failure to meet a third one; you have to show at least some metric to meet it. --MASEM 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Those episodes do pass the GNG. We are really talking basics, here: if an episode genuinely attracted attention, it will easily pass the GNG. What loosening this prong will do is permit articles on episodes that attracted no outside attention, even if no one can provide a cogent argument that the episode was important. That is basically saying that all television episodes that appeared on a DVD with commentary are notable. This is a fundamental change to the guideline ... we aren't talking something that changes a nuance a little, we are talking providing carte blanche to an entire class of generally bad articles that we have been successfully placing into lists, instead.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(Phil) If it has to go, I believe at least a bare-bones black/white list should replace it. By bare bones I'm saying stuff that almost everyone here has agreed is either almost always worthy (given the other 2 prongs) or never worthy (unless it can meet the GNG).じんない 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The new phrasing says there's an assumption for serialized episodes and major characters. Can that assumption be disproven? Phil/Jinnai? Gavin/Kww? Randomran (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would say it can be, if a convincing case for triviality can be made. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Not a chance. It really disturbs me that people are trying to give episodes a free pass, when they are, as a rule, some of the worst articles around, and most have been stuffed into lists, where they belong. This prong used to allow only characters and episodes, if they were deemed important. Then people lobbied to include other elements if their importance was verifiable, so that was added. Somewhere along the line, people started treating characters and episodes as no longer needing verification because the language was specifically calling out episodes and characters. I think we should go back to the language we had when this argument started, and recognize what that language said: episodes and characters can be included if they are important, and notability must be verifiable. Easy, and it was what I voted for. No free passes for anything ... this is smacking of inherent notability of episodes and fictional characters, and that is completely unacceptable. Nothing is inherently notable. Not episodes, characters, yak-herding villages, named bridges, or any of these things people try to expedite.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• If what you say is true, then the language was never clear. Because I was under the impression that we had an agreement that episodes from serialized works and recurring characters inherently pass the second prong (which is not the same thing as inherently notable, since they also have to pass two other prongs). We can't go back to unclear language. We have to clarify this now. Do all fictional elements need to have their importance verified in reliable sources, or is there some kind of exception/presumption/relaxation for certain kinds of elements? Randomran (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not quite so harsh as Kww, I do believe it is a bit too lose. Reoccurring characters and episodes in a serialized work still need to show they are signifigant to the plot.
  1. For characters the easy test is: Is it a titular character? if so, it probably is. Is it the primary protagonist(s) from whom we either see the story narrated or whom all the action swirls around? Ifso, then yes. Is it a primary antagonist of the story or major arc in a long-running series? then yes. Can others be major characters? Yes, but those aren't so clear cut and need to be handled indivisually.
  2. For episodes it's a bit tricker. First the series should be seralized and then second question to ask. Is it a pilot, season/series finale or season starter? If so, then yes. If not, i'd say it would have to go through a test of "would the average person's knowledge be seriously impared if they missed this episode?". If the answer is yes then it probably is. If the answer is maybe or on certain items, that really depends more on the series. I do not know how we would caudify such a test though.じんない 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm having a hard time seeing what was vague about The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work. That says the element should be an episode or a recurring character, and that the element has be be central to the understanding of the fictional work. It then further says Notability requires evidence, and bald assertions of significance are insufficient. "Notability" was wikilinked to WP:NOBJ. If you ignore the wikilink, it didn't quite require reliable sources stating it was important, but it never gave an inherent pass to anything. How could you read it as claiming anything inherently passed?—Kww(talk) 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Because you can verify that a character is recurring, and you can verify that an episode has an impact on the storyline of the work as a whole. The standard there was intended to be low. At least, that's what was intended when people were working on this section. Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed that you've pushed to add the requirement for independent sourcing, pushed to remove these exceptions, and still won't so much as budge on the first prong. It's like you want four prongs of WP:N. With a guideline like that, I won't be surprised if it's rejected, and we're back to the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Randomran (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't removed a thing. I'll happily put the version back that was there when this argument started. That language did not make any exceptions for episodes. It did not make any exceptions for recurring characters. I'm sorry if you thought it did, but it didn't. Please don't criticize me for agreeing to go along with what the words meant. These three prongs are a major concession, and, completely intact, this guideline is significantly looser than WP:N. There is no reason to go looser, and certainly making a change that completely changes the impact of this guideline and permits articles on all episodes and characters without regard to importance isn't reasonable.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not criticizing you, let alone for changes you made. I'm pointing out your refusal to make anything but trivial concessions to inclusionists, and that it will likely obstruct this proposal becoming an actual guideline. Call it a prediction. Randomran (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorsing this guideline as written, and leading the charge as a well-known exclusionist fighting for approval of the guideline, were far from trivial concessions. Neither eliminating the second prong for the two most common classes of sub-notable fictional articles nor undermining the first prong for all classes of articles are reasonable concessions for inclusionists to request.—Kww(talk) 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Hey now. Let's not get into sniping back and forth. Honestly, we aren't going to get most of the inclusionist on that list to switch to support unless FICT reads "We are abolishing notability". I'm glad that we got DGG to come over. I'm saddened, though not really surprised that A Nobody didn't ome over. But most of them aren't at the margin. We aren't going to win them over with "one more" concession. We might be better served by ensuring the guideline is as clear as possible, count heads, ask prior "opposers" based on clarity/mistakes/etc. to review the guideline and make some summary of this RfC. Protonk (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am keeping an open-mind; however, I can't bold face a support when the page is edited daily. Seemingly slight changes of wording can be interpreted in unfavorable manners and it's probably best to hold off any final stance if/until we have something finalized, but I oppose for now in that I don't want a support above that applies to who knows which version. The page has been edited over 100 times since the RfC started; it's hard to get behind something that is still in flux. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• You've opposed it above, citing the word significant, your concerns about "notability" and the fact that supporters use the word "cruft". That's what I was referring to. If you're on the fence and I have misread that then I'm sorry. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I do oppose those things, but don't believe my opinion is final and we're not really on a final version yet (look at how many discussions on this page today alone!). I thus strongly recommend us holding off or not continuing the RfC while it is still being worked on, because the list of supports and opposes above refer to many versions of the page, so who knows what people who commented initially think now. And after all, we don't have a deadline, so it's not as if we're in some kind of rush here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with A Nobody. The guideline isn't finalized, and we're probably going to need to have another kick at the can before we try to get a consensus once again. We're close enough (a majority, but not a consensus) that we shouldn't just start from scratch. But we have to make changes, and we can't rush this. Randomran (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree w/ Kww about the desired outcome, though I think I read the wording the same way Random did. Furthermore, I don't see who we are conceding to. I'm not sure there are very many opposes up there who would be switched around if we did change the wording to make all episodes and recurring characters exempt from prong 2. Protonk (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think a lot of us read it the way I did. Including a lot of people on the inclusionist side. This isn't about personal attacks and sniping. This is about building greater support. When this guideline starting to resemble WP:N more and more, how are we supposed to gain anything more than "majority, but no consensus" for this guideline? Inclusionists are being asked to surrender an exemption for recurring characters and episodes of serialized fiction -- for one prong, not even complete notability. What are deletionists giving up in exchange? I don't see a heck of a lot. Randomran (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• If it's true that your misapprehension was widespread, then we have a problem. The real issue is that no one is asking inclusionists to give up anything they ever actually had, but if enough of them believed they had it, that could cause problems. I'm still surprised that you can read The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work and believe that either episodes or recurring characters bypassed the importance test. For even episodes to get the exemption, it would have had to read 'The element should be an episode, or a recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work, which is a different sentence. My belief is that you got the impression from discussion that there was an exemption, and then never noticed that the words didn't say that. The people that commented during the RFC weren't a part of those discussions, and thus didn't get the same wrong impression.—Kww(talk) 03:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• We are (if I may call myself one) ceding ground in policy. Right now, the only possible guidance in guidelines or policy is the GNG. We can talk about outcomes in AfD and reasonableness, but if I am appealing to the only "rules" that have community consensus, I would only be able to appeal to the GNG. the GNG effectively comprises the deletionist position (with the exception of people who have some sort of problem with content types, they can be ignored as inconsequential). This guideline represents a textual expansion of that position beyond what we have now. We don't have to support it. If this fails we don't go to "there is no notability rule for fiction" we go to "multiple independent sources with significant coverage or it gets nuked". If I wanted to, I could go through the fiction category and nominate stuff for deletion on the basis of it failing the GNG. If I was thorough enough to not nominate something that actually has sources and convincing enough in my nomination language, most of them would probably end up deleted. In supporting this policy, I am saying that I believe such a crusade would be harmful to the encyclopedia and that some more nuanced guideline must exist. but I'm not giving up nothing. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Kww, I'm glad we're clearing this up, because I strongly feel that the only way to build greater support for this guideline is to clarify issues like this. But then I also feel strongly that as we strive for clarity, we have to maintain the inclusion/deletion balance we currently have, or else we're going to *lose* support. In clarifying this prong, we've made it more deletionist -- I know that's not your interpretation, but that's how a lot of people are going to interpret it. (Unless we keep the part about the assumption, even a rebuttable assumption.) We're going to attract *less* support. This guideline is going to fail. Randomran (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Gah. I leave for a few hours, and look at the thread you all make.

I will say, I think it misleading to suggest that we are giving a pass to episode articles outright. We're giving a pass to the second prong, sure. The first and in particular the third prongs are still going to clobber plenty of episode articles, and especially the bad ones. The only issue here is whether we should be discussing importance to the work for episodes of a serialized narrative. And the answer, honestly, is no - most of those are going to pass that prong, if not via clear evidence than by clear mass assent. An article on an episode of The Sopranos or Heroes or some other series with a clear, serialized narrative is not going to be deleted for the unimportance of the episode.

Better to ditch the prong, honestly, than try to make it more stringent. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the test for importance was agreed upon a long time ago, so there is no need to drop this prong. Phil and Masem always wanted an inclusion criteria based on "importance", while Kww wanted evidence that a topic is important to be based on reliable sources from third-party sources so that the basic inclusion criteria of WP:V would be met. The compromise, as I understand it, is that reference to third-party or independent sourcing has been omitted, but we have worded this guideline to say that if a topic passes the three-pronged test then it may qualify for a standalone article, rather than does qualify as would be the case for topics that pass WP:N.
It seems to me that if we drop this prong, then we are back at the point where we have to agree how independent sourcing should be introduced into this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to reemphasise, Phil, I'm not asking it to be more stringent. There never was an exemption for episodes, and I'm opposing any effort to make it less stringent for them.—Kww(talk) 11:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, regardless of how you interpret it, there are going to be people who *do* interpret this as more stringent -- including myself, Phil, and Protonk. We're likely to lose support from inclusionists. Second of all, we already have a requirement for independent sourcing -- we say in the independent sourcing section that articles without independent sources are merged. I really don't see why we need super-notability of the work (prong 1), verification that the element is important (prong 2), *and* a requirement for independent sources. These three requirements collectively shrink the audience for this compromise: it annoys people who don't want to go through a checklist of four requirements, and it annoys inclusionists. We need to *increase* support if we're going to turn this into a guideline. Randomran (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

While I recognize that the old wording was potentially ambiguous, the intent was always that episodes and major characters are assumed to pass the second prong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Any ambiguity is wishful thinking: The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work isn't an ambiguous sentence. If you wish to argue at AFDs that every recurrent character and every episode is important, that is your right, but the guideline never stated that as an assumption. Attempting to make such a sweeping change to the guideline at this stage of the game is inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself and not listening. Your opinion is just one. There are many people who interpreted this as an exception, and now it's gone. The proposal is losing support, and will not become a guideline. The WP:BATTLEGROUND will continue, unless we make changes that *increase* support. Randomran (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I'm not listening ... you aren't replying. Please parse the sentence in a way that creates an exception. Justify your interpretation. Use logic and reasoning about the meaning of the words and the way the sentence is constructed that makes your interpretation plausible.—Kww(talk) 17:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think Kww is right that an exemption cannot be given to episodes and characters - this is an example of an editorial walled garden being built in front of our eyes, and just is not going to work. However, I can see where Phil is coming from - the wording has been ambigous from the outset at the RFC (17:34, 24 January 2009[15]), but I for one did not understand it. Perhaps we need to understand the changes that brought this version about. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. It works by consensus, not "truth". And just between Phil, Protonk, and me, you have three highly involved editors telling you that your interpretation isn't the "one true path". (For the sake of parsing, though, the guideline said "it should be an A or a B. X's are okay too, but only if Z." That sounds like A's and B's are treated differently from X's.) It's not about interpretation, it's about consensus. If you insist that the proposal has always reflected your views, that's fine. But that fact won't change that your preferred position on notability isn't supported by a broad base of Wikipedians, and so your proposal won't obtain a consensus. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Accurate parsing is always important to English comprehension. It doesn't say it should be an A or a B (emphasis added). It says The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work, which is "it should be an (A or B) that satisfies X". The absence of a second article eliminates your reading, and the absence of a separating comma reinforces it. Giving an exemption to the importance rule for episodes would read The element should be an episode, or a recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work. Eliminating the rule for episodes and characters would read The element should be an episode or recurring character. Three substantially different sentences, with substantially different meanings.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the two meanings were different. But you're wrong that this debate is about which meaning is right. It only matters what will gain consensus. Randomran (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia."

Jimbo Wales: "I agree with this one completely."

...from at least as far back as January 2002

I ask about episodes in my survey, Masem. --Pixelface (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is it acceptable for someone to go around adding Notability tags to all the new episode articles? I find this very disheartening. Enigma^msg 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and much more. Enigma^msg 07:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised it's Scrubs? --Pixelface (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as they don't have any sources showing their notability, technically it's not wrong (sources can still be listed and only show verifiability). However if they don't give a reason and are just doing it in a huge swath, then it's likely they are likely disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.じんない 06:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. Enigma^msg 07:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, those Scrubs eps are almost surely notable, but without a project behind them like the Simpsons, they're screwed. You need to make some of your eps GA status to protect the others. It's a lot of work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The episode articles are clearly sourceable as seen at Google News from which one can and should add reception sections. I don't see why take the time to add templates, but not the time to add reviews? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons and Lost eps are bulletproof because they have the manpower to write great articles. Why people don't take the time doesn't really matter, because they don't. We'll just have to save them if they go to AfD. Hopefully TTN or someone else doesn't overwhelm us. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll start now. This took me all of two minutes. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are the man. We just need a few hundred of you. Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so far (since templated versus my and in between improvements): [22], [23], [24], and [25]. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice job. Thank you and keep up the good work. Enigma^msg 07:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you brought it up Enigmaman, my recomendation is to get one of them to GA, establish notability on a couple more, and then remove all the tags for this season. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe a Scrubs episode has ever made it to GA. I'm willing to give it a shot if anyone can help me out. Enigma^msg 07:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have at least help lay a foundation as there is more information from the linked sources that can be used. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(replying to じんない's post upthread) The editor adding this template discusses these edits at Talk:List of Scrubs_episodes#Notability, so the suggestion that they "don't give a reason ... just doing it in a huge swath ... likely WP:POINT" might be off the mark. Either this discussion should move there, or someone should invite LeaveSleaves (talk · contribs) to this thread. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

However if they don't give a reason and are just doing it in a huge swath, then it's likely they are likely disrupting Wikipedia to make a point - Or he is trying to initiate cleanup. Ever since the TTN debacle, it is considered poor form to boldly redirect bad/redundant fiction articles without discussion, and some editors also consider it a poor form to plan a merger down the road without alerting editors to that "risk" via templates. What's needed is tagging via templates and wait how articles develop, and there is nothing disruptive if it's done in a huge swath if there a is a huge number of bad/redundant articles. It boils down to "if you don't want to see your articles tagged for eventual merger/deletion, don't create them faster than you can fix them". – sgeureka ^t•c 13:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(redent)I know the new season premier would be crazy easy. It's the best place to start. Contact me on my talk page if you're serious, and after making some improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks Edgarde for informing me of this discussion. I would urge everyone interested in the topic to check my comments at Talk:List of Scrubs_episodes#Notability. At no point was it my intention to cause disruption. Neither do I believe any disruption was caused. Those tags are intended for exactly what they state. I don't believe that those episodes met the necessary GNG when I tagged them and I only restored those tags when it was removed with no indication or intention to address the issue. If tagging articles for issues is disruption, then I am guilty as charged. ^LeaveSleaves 12:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It only becomes disruptive if one or two parties begin an edit war. If editors start reverting you, it's advisable to take it to the talk page and advocate for applying the tags. This is especially true if multiple, different editors are reverting you. Randomran (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read the prior discussion I specified above, but as I stated there I restored the tags when they were removed without specifying valid reason or sometimes without any reason whatsoever. In some cases they were removed calling the edits cleanup!. How is restoring tags in such cases be called disruptive? ^LeaveSleaves 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an edit you disagree with is almost never disruptive. But if it degenerates into an edit war, it can become disruptive. It's the responsibility of the community to work out such disagreements constructively. Randomran (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, two problems here: 1)You never gave a rationale for the episodes not being notable, or brought it up on the article talk pages or on Wikipedia talk pages like WT:FICT or the Scrubs talk pages. 2)In some cases, you added and readded the tag three different times to the article. That's edit-warring. Enigma^msg 17:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Notability}} already gives the rationale, and there is no need to repeat what the template says. Now, if an article already has "reliable, secondary sources", and an editor keeps (re)adding the notability template without further explanation, that could be regarded as disruptive. But when reasonably applied cleanup templates are removed without addressing the cleanup issue, then it's certainly no disruption to restore the templates. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see those articles separate from List of episodes article. And WT:FICT is not a legitimate place to discuss notability of fictional material until it is accepted by the community. And I said this on Talk:List of Scrubs_episodes#Notability, if you hadn't removed those tags for the second time under false summary, I would not have reinstated the tag. In fact, you have my assurance that if you remove those tags now you would not see me adding them back.

What truly bothers me is that at no point anyone is concerned about the actual quality and legitimacy of those episodes as stand-alone article. And I was hoping that me tagging those articles would at least have someone consider these issues instead of just creating these articles that serve no encyclopedic value. I have edited the List of episodes article for quite some time now and seen such articles being created with no importance given towards their stand-alone notability. The one time I chose to take the initiative to raise this issue returned me with the accusation of engaging in an edit war. ^LeaveSleaves 18:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise. The Scrubs articles are generally terrible, and there isn't any particular hope of improvement. I keep a watch over a list of redirects in the area to make sure that they don't get resurrected without improvement, but I haven't seen any editors taking the effort to actually improve the articles. I do see a lot of edit warring over articles that are redirected because they violate WP:NOT#PLOT, though, generally by anonymous IPs that don't engage in any discussion.—Kww(talk) 18:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Most new episode articles added to Wikipedia are terrible: Usually they are unencyclopedic teasers (sometimes entered before the episodes actually air) just giving the set up and leaving the resolution totally open, in defiance of NOT PROGRAM GUIDE. Sometimes they are over-expansive frame-by-frame description of the action (frequently in long run-on sentences) bot trying to distinguish the subplots or clarify the action and readable only by devoted fans, in defiance of NOT FANSITE. These particular ones are in neither category--they're just confusing. I have to say they do not make a case for being in separate articles rather than a combination article. If notability means suitability for an individual article in Wikipedia, they're borderline. The thing to do is discuss whether or not to merge, not play tag. The real thing to do is try to find someone who can rewrite these articles knowledgeably, or try to teach the author how to do better at it. I don;t actually care whether they are separate or not, and neither will our readers: they will care whether they are of decent quality.DGG (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say most articles in general when initially added are in weak shape, not just episodes, but as happened in this thread, the potential for improvement exists. We were able to find some reliable sources for reception sections of some of the Scrubs artcle and I reckon the DVDs probably have stuff that can be used for development/production sections. Even articles on the most notable of topics, such as Julius Caesar, had humble beginnings. Potential matters most, because if we based things on current state, well... Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Potential is very important, which is why I don't think anyone questions a new Simpsons or new-series Doctor Who episode right after the episode airs, because potential is there. On the other hand, a new episode article from a series where one or two episodes are broken out is probably premature. Ignoring what exists already, we should really be encouraging in WAF the creating of new episode articles in userspace and only bringing into place (over redirects that should be to an episode list) once the article meets FICT or GNG - that is, at worst, showing the potential to be expanded. Obviously, most presently do not do that; we don't necessarily want to punish here, but we do want to ask for editors to be more cautious about willy-nilly expansion. --MASEM 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether adding the tag is simply the first step towards merging, as an editor involved in this discussion once wrote: "tag-wait-merge-noticeboard-merge". that has yet to be seen. Ikip (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Test case

It seems to me that a good way of judging how this guidance will play out is with a test case. Since Valerie Gray is already nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Gray it would make a fairly good test case to see how interpretations of the guidance as written differ, and how that would impact at afd. It might help tweak the guidance or at least impart a better understanding of it to see how it works, acts and is understood in the field. Hiding T 12:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, with the caveat that we do it here as opposed to there. *goes to look* Ugh, instant re-direct. No secondary sources, too much alliteration. But to use this guideline: The work (Danny Phantom) does not exceed the relevant notability guidelines. -> Redirect - brenneman 12:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Prong 1 passes with ease. We aren't talking a few sources buried in obscure places: the existence and popularity of the show is well established. Prong 2 might be able to pass, but it's a bit more questionable. The amount of detail on "Valerie Grey", the character, necessary to comprehend "Danny Phantom", the work, would seem to be low, and an independent article might not be justified. I could see arguments pro and con on that point. Failure of prong 3 is evident: no real-world information is present in the article. A cursory search doesn't reveal any. If people could find real-world information, it would certainly pass this prong. As the article stands now, it's a delete. Improved with real-world information, it would quickly become at least a provisional keep, and with any corroboration of the character's importance to the series, it would become a clear keep. Prong 2 is the sticky point, which is one of the reasons I want to keep it as a filter. Otherwise, minor character articles would proliferate out of control.—Kww(talk) 12:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, Can I throw {{fact}} on it passing prong one? What makes you say that, when there are not secondary sources that surpass, outstrip or transcend the multiple reliable sources that we normally require? - brenneman 12:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We would routinely accept a series as passing WP:N based on an IMDB article and a review from TV Guide. This thing gets 1.4 million Google hits, has an IMDB article, a dedicated page on TV Guide, as well as 173 mentions there, independent guides to video games about him, etc. The franchise doesn't just squeak its way past WP:N, it exceeds the minimum standard.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The article may pass prong 1 and 2 (I am unfamilar with the show and say this in good faith), but the lack of Google News/Scholar/Books hits indicates that there is no real-world info (prong 3) available for the character. This makes this particular article look unimprovable and wikipedia is better off not having it, so the article should at best be merged&redirected, and at worst deleted. That's not to say that maybe Danny Phantom (character) could satisfy prong 3, but the May 2008 notability time stamp isn't looking bright there either. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it gets four Google News and one Google Book Hits. Thus, it's not a hoax, libel, etc. and if it's redirectable, there is no reason for the edit history to be deleted. There should not be an AfD on this, but rather a talk page discussion of the validity of a merge, improvement, or redirect with edit history intact. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You got me. The German equivalent of the word "lack" implies "shortage", while the English word implies total absense; I meant the first meaning. With all important and due info present in the LoC, there is nothing to merge, and with a shortage of good sources, there is nothing to improve for a standalone article (i.e. all new info short be added to the LoC). Seeing that the article was silently restored to its pre-redirect version, a deletion with redirect would actually solve that problem from being repeated. I see no benefit in keeping the edit history of a subject that should not have its own article by today's wiki standards and that is at risk of edit wars over a redirect, but your mileage may vary. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason not to keep the edit history. Reasons for keeping include the usefulness for non-admins like myself to see contributions of potential admin candidates and that there is a basis or framework of an article when/if additional sources are found for either future development or future merging that saves time from having to request undeletion or starting over. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel prong 1 is a weak, but passable, case (particularly when you look at the main series article). Prong 2 is fine, but Prong 3 fails. Because of the weakness of the first prong, prong 3 would need to be well met to make this a non-redirect. (Mind you, and maybe something to address, my hands twitch at that much plot description which is effective reduplication of episode plots instead of a true character description, making me want to editorially move it into a list instead of leaving it like it is regardless of notability) --MASEM 14:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A clear pass on prong 1 (a three-season show on a national cable network that's on almost every cable package sold in the US is going to significantly exceed WP:N - arguments to the contrary fail the sniff test). A plausible pass on prong 2 - recurring character. Fails prong 3, however. Ergo, merge. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's see how fun this test is to apply.

• The first prong isn't passed. Danny Phantom is merely a notable fictional work. I haven't seen any clear claim or artistic or critical impact. Merely existing for three seasons isn't enough to pass the first prong.
• I refuse to accept that this passes prong 2, because no one has shown me objective evidence that this character is important.
• It has plenty of information on development, as her suit changed throughout the series. The article also discusses how the voice actor changed throughout the series.

So, it fails the first two prongs, and passes the third prong. Randomran (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, you're difficult, aren't you: The first prong is explicitly passed "when the work (not the element) exceeds the relevant notability guidelines." (As a note, I really do think we need an adjective like "significantly" there, just so that this doesn't become "three sources and it's through!") A major multi-season television show is going to significantly exceed the GNG, which is the relevant guideline here. As for the second prong, well, that depends on which version of it we're using - if we're using the one that grants an assumption of passage to major characters, one of the primary antagonists of the series would surely count. As for the third prong, however, the suit changes are plot information, since the show is about super-powered suits, and the information is phrased as in-universe events. The voice actor changing is exactly the sort of "names of the production staff" that does not satisfy the third prong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But the first prong is concerned with the importance of the original work, and I haven't seen a clear claim of importance. You're right about the second prong though. I was bringing up the third-prong mostly to be devil's advocate: I want you to imagine having this argument with 6 fans who insist that there's real world coverage here, and that you're asking for blood from a stone. This is exactly why it might be a good idea to drop a prong. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was my understanding the third prong requires non-plot sources (of which the article has none). Otherwise, I could write long long articles about any character because of a change of clothes. Unless I am missing something, the voice actresses are just mentioned in two sentences in the lead (nearly any character is played or voiced by a real person), and this little bit of information hardly justifies a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Although i voted delete in the "test case", i'm pretty happy with the final result of turning it into a disambiguating redirect. However, when i think articles are clearly unsuitable as standalones, i am always wary of voting "merge", when the merge is non-binding in any way (even the closing admin can say "keep"). As long as the merge option can not be trusted to be interpreted as the !voter meant, then it will continue to cause problems. Making "Merge" an offical (and enforced) result would go a long way to making me happy to say merge these fiction article. Enforcement is not difficult; if the consensus is to merge, the closing admin should move the page to be a subpage at the targets talk page, and change the redirect to point to the article. It is no more difficult than deletion, would keep all contribs in history, and make "merge" a viable !vote. Hence any WP:Fict guideline would have to coordinate with changes to AfD to make redirect/merge stronger to get my support.Yobmod (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Line has been crossed.

That last change went past good faith revision, folks. It clearly contradicts the original language, and clearly opens the floodgates for thousands of articles that were not passable under this guideline. It is a sufficiently major change that in my view it invalidates the entire results of this RFC.—Kww(talk) 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What? That was always what the second prong was intended to do. I can go find you the chunk of discussions that led to it, which were about creating a white list of stuff that could clear the second prong. I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but it is not a huge change to the proposal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. We already tried to placate the deletionist side by adding a requirement for independent sources in the sources section. Not only did we still get a ton of opposition from deletionists bases on "there isn't a requirement for independent sources here", but the few deletionists who supported this guideline have shown absolutely no give on the first or second prongs in exchange. For the sake of attracting wider support, it may be necessary to scrap prong one, prong two, *or* the independent sourcing requirement -- as they haven't done us a whole lot of good. Also, the RFC isn't "invalidated". We're reacting to the comments by making changes. I think preserving an exception to episodes and characters is consistent with what we need to do in order to pick up more support, as well as dropping another requirement for the sake of simplicity. Randomran (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please point at a piece of text actually in the guideline when the RFC began up until yesterday that provided such an exception. It did not exist. Changing this guideline so that every episode of Scrubs with DVD commentary gets a free pass is an enormous expansion.—Kww(talk) 17:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I don't have to point at text. I can already point to a handfull of editors who thought they had something, including myself. And I'm not even an inclusionist. Randomran (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point at all ... did we have editors that mistakenly voted for something that the guideline didn't say? Probably. We certainly have a lot of people that obviously voted for and against the guideline in terms of things it didn't say. Does that justify modifying the guideline to match their mistake? Not unless you can show that people that voted for the guideline weren't using that language as part of their reason for supporting it, or that the impact of the change is trivial. Neither applies in this case.—Kww(talk) 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll concede that there isn't hard evidence about what people will or won't support. But I'm willing to bet you "loser leaves Wikipedia" that this guideline fails under your proposed wording, even if I support it. (That's not a threat, by the way. It's a statement of confidence. Nobody should have to leave Wikipedia unless they've actually done something wrong.) There is very little in this guideline for inclusionists to like, and there are as many of them as there are of you. Randomran (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What inclusionists thought we had

Scrolling through past discussion, I saw a mention of "what inclusionists thought they had," intended to suggest that the inclusionists who are concerned about over-strictness are simply deluded and imagining they have more of a leg to stand on than they think. And it occurred to me that the hard-line inclusionist position has not gotten much love on this talk page in some time, while hard-line deletionism has been taken with great seriousness.

What did inclusionists think we had? Hundreds of thousands of articles that did not appear controversial. Valerie Gray, discussed above, has been around for three years without any controversy. We've had articles on every episode of Doctor Who for as long as I can remember. We thought we had a status quo. Were the articles often bad, in-universe rubbish? Yes. And many of us wanted them to be better. But they were there, and always had been.

And we have been faced, for some time now, with a small cadre of editors dedicated to removing them. And doing so because they are non-notable. Because apparently "non-notable" is a sensible term to apply to something watched by millions of people. We've seen articles that contain only easily verifiable facts tagged as POV because they don't cite independent sources. We've seen transparent description of plots called OR. We've seen, in other words, multiple policies being bent far out of what their names suggest they are meant to be used for, all trained with the sole purpose of decimating content. Content we wrote, and used, and enjoyed without rancor for years.

Honestly, for the most part, what inclusionists want is for the editors who think that contributing to an encyclopedia means removing content out of an obsession with following the rules to be banned. We think that editing with the sole purpose of destruction is vile. And that explains some of our more lunatic fringe. And frankly, I can understand them. I understand why someone who wrote and used a resource for years without any sense that there was a problem is pissed as hell at someone who is just systematically ripping it out while calling them names. I understand it much better than I understand why anyone wants to delete Valerie Gray, which seems like an accurate and harmless article on a subject of apparent interest to millions.

The calmer and more moderate chunk of us are willing, however, to compromise. We appreciate the fact that fiction articles kind of suck. We would like them to be better. And we know that sometimes articles improve only when you hold a gun to their head. So we're willing to compromise - you can rip out the articles that suck, and we'll keep the ones that don't. Where "suck" is defined as being a stinking mess of in-universe trivia, and "don't" is defined as at least providing some sort of real-world perspective and treating it as a cultural artifact and not a person who happens to not really exist.

That's where the inclusionists are. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I can see cases for redirecting, but it actually does get some Google News and Google Book hits and can thus be verified. There is absolutely no argument for deleting its edit history. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is pretty accurate. I've had brushes with rabid inclusionists who see starting an AFD as vandalism, let alone tagging something for issues. Phil Sandifer has been willing to make concessions to people in the middle, and even on the other side. But only when they make concessions in kind. If inclusionists are the ones making all the concessions, we're back to the WP:BATTLEGROUND of doing this on an AFD by AFD basis. Trust me that Phil Sandifer is right: there are some episodes and characters that will never be deleted, in spite of a lack of reliable third-party sources. And it's not just rabid fan bias: it's that the articles are actually pretty good, because they have real-world coverage, and don't go into absurdly trivial detail. Randomran (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, it always bothers me that you imply that the guideline, even in my preferred version, is some kind of overly-deletionist thing. It makes enormous concessions on other guidelines, makes as liberal of an interpretation of policy as it can, and tacitly acknowledges that policy-violating articles will frequently be kept for indefinite periods of time.—Kww(talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If we've pushed you as far as you're willing to go, then maybe it's time to abandon your support, and pursue the support of others. I'm saying that entirely in good faith -- there are sometimes when people end up outside the consensus because their view simply isn't close enough to the middle ground. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If we could at least agree that the Valeria Gray article would be redirected with its edit history intact, then I would see that as a compromise, i.e. I think it should be kept outright, but so long as it is isn't deleted outright either, then we have a true middle ground. A delete and redirect is not a middle ground. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nearly every case of a fictional element article failing FICT should result in a merge to a larger topic with no deletions. Unfortunately, specifying that here is not appropriate (that's a process, not a matter of determining notability). That needs to be emphasized better at AFD, and maybe at WAF. --MASEM 21:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DELETION perhaps? I don't think that's an idea that only applies to fictional topics. An article on a non-notable (but sourcable) concept should usually be merged up to a parent level, where one logically exists. JulesH (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What deletionists want

We want inclusionists to recognize that a standing rule which is a compromise is better than no rule. right now the situation that phil describes is roughly true. However, we can't fix the fact that people prioritize rules over other things (as the 'pedia scales we can't even say whether that is good or bad). What we can do is write a rule that isn't at direct variance to current practice but still lets us keep the place from becoming a mess. Right now we have no compromise and a rule in place which causes some dissonance. This is the worst of all possible worlds. We want inclusionists to know that. Shutting down FICT isn't a victory for fictional subjects. It's a fucking death sentence. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a death sentence, it's Decimation. Yeah, inclusionists need to know that without this guideline, a lot of stuff is going to get deleted. But deletionists also need to know that if they don't seek the middle ground, you're going to see inclusionists taking the extreme position in AFDs. And that means they'll be able to block at least 1/4 of all attempts at deletion, let alone merging/redirecting. Randomran (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Decimation? Could you tone down the hyperbole? "Without this guideline, a lot of stuff is going to get deleted"? A lot of stuff is nominated for deletion because of this "guideline". I can't count how times I've seen someone redirect an article for "failing" FICT. Propose a merge for "failing" FICT. Nominating an article for deletion for "failing" FICT. "This lacks the necessary real-word coverage required by FICT." And yet at actual AFD debates, people dont' care what FICT says. At actual merge discussions, they don't care what FICT says. That's why we are supposed to describe current practice. Making up a rule nobody is going to follow is pointless at best, and just foments a battleground at worst. --Pixelface (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why they use a proposed guideline to delete stuff when we have a much harsher guideline to delete stuff in the form of WP:N. I stand by decimation being more accurate than death sentence, because not all articles will be deleted. Just the ones that don't get stonewalled by folks who don't believe that a guideline that's been around for a few years has consensus. Randomran (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't always a proposal Randomran. The status of this page has changed a bunch of times. This was a subject-specific notability guideline, an "SNG." But it wasn't always a notability guideline.

Do you know how this page came about? On March 15, 2005 Radiant! created Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters came about because of this AFD from March 2005, started by a user named GRider. GRider was going around nominating Star Wars articles for deletion. GRider was later indefinitely banned. Radiant! rewrote FICT on March 29, 2005[26], referring to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters.

The problem with that rewrite is that it did not reflect consensus. Maybe it reflected the discussion at that deletion policy subpage, but certainly not common practice. In March 2005, Radiant! wrote "Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction." But the practice of having articles for major characters has been going on since NOTPAPER. That's from at least January 2002 — when the English Wikipedia had about 20,000 articles. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not mentioned Wikipedia is not paper as far back as March 2003.[27]

Do you know how many AFDs related to fictional topics are started by sockpuppets? That are participated in by sockpuppets? Why should we let trolls and sockpuppets dictate Wikipedia guidance?

Wikipedia:Fiction was renamed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) in December 2005 when an editor named Jiy wanted a common naming scheme for several guidelines[28].

Radiant! rewrote WP:N in September 2006, and tagged it a guideline after a mere 16 days, and then edit-warred over the guideline tag.[29]

What makes you think WP:N is harsh? Because you created the WP:FAILN redirect yesterday because you think articles can "fail" N? They can't. An article cannot "fail" a guideline. WP:N says topics should be notable, and it tells people what almost every editor considers evidence of notability. --Pixelface (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I get it. You don't think notability has consensus, because you think it's written by trolls, sockpuppets and vandals, and attribute it to specific owners that you don't personally like. I disagree. Try again later, whenever you figure out a way to reach out to people who disagree with you. Randomran (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because I will see a failure here as proof that the community does not agree on standards of fictional notability and thus arguments for deletion are purely subjective and not consistent with any actual consensus. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can tell yourself that, and in the meantime I can nominate hundreds of articles for deletion because they fail the GNG and get them deleted. Sure, everyone will get pissed off but most of the deletions will be upheld. You know this from DRV. DRV is a policy wonk haven. If a deletion proceeds by the numbers (that is, above board) and the reason for deletion was "failing the GNG", it will get upheld ~90% of the time. We can all say "well, there isn't consensus for fictional notability standards" 'till the cows come home but the GNG still applies. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree as lately it seems even without this guideline I have been able to get the fictional subjects to at least result in merges and redirects. Since my rename, no article that I argued to keep currently has its edit history deleted. And TTN's mass nominations caught up with him and he stopped editing at the face of community uproar. So, if someone were to see this as a opening to mass nominate things for deletion they would almost assuredly be accused of disruption a la TTN. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Arbcom (for good or ill) explicitly punted EnC 3 to us here at FICT. I also believe that a RfC on TTN would result in some serious dispute over his methods and speed but not the underlying deletion (or at least not have a consensus around that point). I think my basic point (expressed without the hand waving) is in my reply to Col. Warden below. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

right, but that's not a happy outcome for anyone. It messes up our coverage of fictional subjects, it skews us toward elitism (often unconciously), and it alienates everyone involved. My point is just broadly: if you are an inclusionist and you are opposed to this compromise because it institutes a rule where previously there was was void, you are messing up in a big way. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember to me even having a guideline titled "notability" is a tremendous compromise as I whole-heartedly believe it is anti-wikipedic. I am really for non-notability and/or having something called inclusion criteria rather than a popularity contest. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know. And I'm not saying that supporting it isn't philosophically very hard. It probably is. But functionally the choice is between an arbitrary state with no real clear guidance and some guideline which bears a resemblance to the subject matter and allows us to include editors and articles. Protonk (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say anything that cab be verified in a reliable source should at worst be redirected with edit history intact. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I just don't get why people are bound by "notability," as it sounds elitist and subjective. Why we wouldn't have "inclusion criteria", which is straightforward and neutral, is baffling. Just because we've have this disputed GNG thing, we shouldn't feel beholden to it. Throughout history, we have had bad ideas that we abandoned at some point for something better. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I'm with you on that. But rejection of this guideline doesn't correlate at all to rejection of WP:N. There is no way that someone could conceivably say in an AfD, "Well, we rejected WP:FICT, so WP:N shouldn't apply to Character XYZ." Well, they may say it, but it would be rejected pretty soundly. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

So long as there are enough "keeps" in the discussion or enough back and forth disagrement, the discussion is apt to be at least closed as a no consensus, regardless if it technically meets whatever version of WP:N happens to exist that day. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's what you want...you know as well as I that the deletion debates don't line up that way. The outcome there is obviously piecemeal. Articles are kept or deleted not based on their importance to the work but on who shows up to AfD in a 5 day period. Protonk (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I think AfDs are counter-logical, because you can have a total different consensus one week versus the next depending on how shows up for something people have worked on for maybe years. And we both know that there are some who essentially don't do anything else, but "vote" in AfDs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is fair play, actually. WP:FICT was offered up in compromise, as a way of allowing some fiction articles to stay, and some to be removed. I argued about the language until it was something I could accept, and then helped as best I could to get the compromise passed. Then, after all the RFC notices have been pulled from the watchlists, and many people have commented, the language I found acceptable gets gutted, with a completely absurd statement added that essentially permits articles on every episode of every series that ever got put on a DVD or had a developer's blog. That's not what I voiced support for. It doesn't resemble what I voiced support for. It represents something that I have bitterly opposed for a long time, and, had it been stated originally would have earned my derision for this as being a false compromise. If it's what inclusionists wanted, they should have made sure the language was there when the RFC began, not after it's essentially over.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd have clarified it the moment I realized it was unclear, but I'm not a mind-reader. I had no idea you were misinterpreting the second prong. It's not some sneaky behind the back change, though. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that I misunderstood something would be more credible if you could point at language contained in the guideline during the RFC process that supported your position. That language was perfectly clear, it just didn't say what you wanted it to say.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a pretty lopsided sense of fairness, then, because inclusionists actually wanted virtually all elements of fiction to pass WP:N. Then they were willing to concede that they just pass the second prong, and that we still need the third and first prongs. Then they were willing to concede that just episodes and characters pass the second prong. Then they were willing to concede that only certain kinds of episodes and characters pass the second prong. Then they were willing to concede that independent sources are still necessary, or we merge. Now you're asking them to sell out their beliefs completely. Good luck with that. Seriously. Good luck passing that guideline, because it's gonna take a miracle to get anything more than 50% support for that. Randomran (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent changes did not grant a bypass to certain kinds of episodes and characters, it granted an exception to virtually all of them.—Kww(talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop focusing who put together what wording, and start focusing on what people other than yourself actually want. You're not going to get your way. Neither am I. Neither is Phil. Neither is A Nobody. We're going to have a guideline only when everyone is ready to not get their way. And there has to be equal movement on both sides of the spectrum. Randomran (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not block FICT. But on the other hand, if FICT is going to be used to legitimize TTN-style campaigns against articles, it will be blocked. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

TTN-style campaigns aren't much good for anyone, I'll grant. But were you seriously attempting to propose a guideline that would keep virtually all television episode articles?—Kww(talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that why we have the first and third prongs, along with the requirement for independent third-party sources? Why were you pushing so hard for those, if you think every episode and character is going to be notable? Randomran (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This guideline legitimizes the use third-party sources that wouldn't pass WP:N by examining the topic directly and in detail. Nearly all extant episodes can find at least one third-party mention, and the guideline is quite direct in not insisting that such sources exist at all. Many characters are going to find a handful of passing mentions, while they would fail to meet WP:N. The whole idea of the compromise was to allow substandard sourcing if the overall franchise was notable, limiting the articles that rely on those substandard sources to particularly important episodes and characters. I strongly object to eliminating that limit, and permitting the reliance on substandard sourcing based on the franchise being notable.—Kww(talk) 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I literally cannot think of something that would fail WP:N and pass the guideline you just came up with. There's about a lick of daylight between the two, and what's worse, this takes 4 different requirements to get there. It's a recipe for no consensus. Not only will you lose anyone who is more inclusionist than Gavin Collins, you'll also lose anyone who hates bureaucracy and rule creep. Randomran (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur.—Kww(talk) 19:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like it barely meets WP:N, because it has more than a trivial mention in reliable third-party sources. Which means you're proposing a guideline where things that are borderline notable become clearly notable. You're entitled to that position. I'd even support that position. But I doubt many other people will, and we'll end up with no consensus. Randomran (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it makes it past WP:N, so I view this as a guideline that takes non-notable material and preserves it so long at is is well written and has attracted some minimum level of outside attention. If you dig through the sources carefully, you start to find that everything that appears to be a detailed discussion has "licensed by Nintendo" stamped on it somewhere, even if the reference list doesn't make that obvious.—Kww(talk) 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a matter of interpretation. For a lot of Wikipedians, you're only proposing to err on the side of inclusion if something is within the blurry range of WP:N. You might disagree, but for most folks it's barely a move to the left. Think about how far inclusionists really want to go as their first choice. You're going to need to make bigger moves than that in order to get a consensus. Randomran (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Protonk says above "still lets us keep the place from becoming a mess". It seems to me that Wikipedia is inherently a messy place and always will be. Currently there are 2,408 featured articles out of 2,728,753 which is quite close to zero percent. Even in the long term, Sturgeon's Law tells us that "90% of everything is crap". I have perfectionist tendencies and so regularly remind myself and others that "perfect is the enemy of good" (and we only have 6,017 GA too). The reality for the next few years seems to be that our good stuff is always going to be floating on top of a large slushpile of less good stuff. Trying to improve this situation by eliminating the latter seems impossible and wouldn't leave much even if it were successful. Isn't it better to focus upon improving the process whereby articles are improved rather than fighting over the size of the slushpile? What's wrong with a situation in which we have a FA about Pokemon, some GA about particular aspects of Pokemon and a large mass of lesser material forming a pool from which further FA/GA can be fished? Isn't this the essential Wikiprocess which policies like WP:IMPERFECT urge us to embrace? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• My point is better expressed as a problem of assumptions and indeterminacy. In the absence of some guideline, you and I can make opposing but equally reasonable decisions about possible outcomes simply on the basis of non-shared assumptions. Without FICT, I can say that episodes/characters will continue to be deleted piecemeal on the basis of the GNG. You can say that the absence of some guideline shows that the community doesn't want to have a guideline and wishes the current article state to exist unmolested. If there is nothing speaking to community consensus we can each do that--it is a recipe for constant conflict and heartbreak.

• Constant conflict is another aspect of the eternal mess which one should accept as this place attracts pedants and griefers who will fight to the death over a comma. The conflict should perhaps be embraced too like Adam Smith's invisible hand or the process of evolution - a fire in which the good articles can be forged. I find AFD to be quite good motivation for article improvement and other competitive processes like DYK seem constructive. The main trouble with the current process is that deletion is too terminal and there can be inefficient repetition. This talk seems unproductive too, alas. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, but the reasons for the conflict are important. Conflict that comes from competition, time limits, or differing viewpoints is great. Conflict that comes from indeterminacy is less so. But yeah, we are well into diminishing marginal returns for this conversation. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• As to your point that wikipedia is inherently a messy place I agree wholeheartedly. It should always be messy. I love the 2nd "rule to consider" of wikipedia, always leave something undone. But we have to agree that it is usually the province of IP editors to add content and the province of registered editors to shepherd it along--stub tags, categories, formatting, unifying templates, all of those things impact presentation but are done primarily by registered editors. We are in the cleanup business. All of us. Whether we do that by pruning articles or by fixing typos is a matter of degree. Protonk 19:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Should not be about inclusionists versus deletionists

While everyone knows where I pretty much stand on things, those looking for a compromise should and can take heart in that this does not have to make everyone happy. If a couple editors here of a strong inclination declare they do not support it, then, well, those compromising do not have to make everyone happy, because making everyone happy is not realistic anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate hearing that. I've put the measuring stick for consensus far lower than pleasing everyone, and certainly consensus has never meant that everyone is happy. (That's why we have rules like WP:3RR, and why RFAs don't require unanimity.) I figure if we can satisfy *most* criticisms of this proposal with the exception of the inclusion/deletion debate, we'll be most of the way there. The best way to do that is to simplify, as far as I can tell. To the extent that we need to find a balance between inclusion/deletion, I'd interpret an equal balance of "too strong" and "too weak" !votes to mean "just right". Randomran (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, but there is a collection on either side of this debate that could end this by refusing to stick to unrealistic expectations. If we got a bunch of staunch inclusionists or deletionists onboard to this compromise, it would sail through. That's ~10 "votes" either way and it would get this from 55/45 to ~65/35 in a hurry. right now all we have been doing is changing small components of this guideline which will either be non-transformative (and generally benefit us by improving clarity) or be transformative and piss off too many people to be zero-sum. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I am fairly well convinced that we need to change WP:N first, because it is clear from here and AfDs that how notability is implemented and perceived lacks consensus. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Final impasse; close the poll as no consensus or remove the language

It's this simple. I was and am all for minor and even substantial changes to the wording of the guideline in order to fix issues with readability and language people see as confusing. However Phil has crossed that line by adding language that modifies one of the prongs; we have now substantially altered the guideline, making further discussion on the RfC moot. If people are so sure of this change that they will revert these blatant changes to the guideline, we not only lose our support but destroy everything for the intention of passing this compromise. We cannot make "concessions" to one side or another without altering the guideline[30]. We cannot suddenly say "this is what I intended" without altering the guideline.[31]. This language was never in the proposed version, nor any of the changes discussed, and was never even brought forth before the RfC. If it is not removed, I'm going ahead and closing the RfC because it's clear this is not ready for the larger audience. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether this is in fact an alteration is a matter of opinion, and it is not "blatant". The RFC isn't a vote of support. It's an effort to solicit feedback, which overwhelmingly said that the guideline was unclear and vague. We're going to work on it some more and clarify it, and then we're going to get feedback again. WP:BRD. It's not one person's right to mark this as failed. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not marking it as failed, I'm saying that you have proved Ikip right; instead of getting somewhere substantial with this, we're just going to head around in circles by adding in language to the prongs no one agreed to going into it. This isn't clearing up vagueness, it's substantially changing the second prong and weakening it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil's addition is not what the guideline said when I supported it and not something I ever could support. Reyk _YO! 19:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not have to worry about pleasing those who see this as flying the Deletionist flag over at AfD as Wikipedia is not a battleground. Having a guideline based on an elitist and subjective term like notability is itself a tremendous compromise (if not anti-academic) and removing this wording make this compromise inconsistent with the whole idea of being a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Throughout this whole debate I have advocated consensus and discussion; even though I have strong opinions regarding quality and sourcing I have agreed to many compromises. The version of WP:FICT I supported was far more lax than I would have preferred but still strong enough to prevent the indiscriminate flood of plot summaries, fan speculation and long-winded OR that drags down Wikipedia's quality and robs it of credibility as a serious educational resource. Now Phil's made a change that lowers the bar even further and incorrectly claims this is what I (among other people) agreed to- if someone misrepresents my views, whether it's deliberate or not, I'll object. And anyway, I don't think I need to be lectured about battlegrounds by one of the most strident inclusionist crusaders on Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 21:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this in religious "crusader" terms; I do see it in practical and encyclopedic terms and the reality is that what some people don't like should never trump what is relevant and important to others. We're a volunteer site, people come here to work on what they want to work on. They do not need anyone else telling them what they can and cannot work on (obvious exceptions are copy vios, libel and hoaxes). Not having articles on fiction doesn't mean those working on them will suddenly work on whatever you think think they should work on and nor will it mean vandals will stop vandalizing whatever articles you think we should have. The bottom line is you're opinions expressed on your talk page are such that, just as I am against notability altogether, do not matter in the larger scheme of things. If the page is about a real good faith compromise then it wouldn't satisfy either of us, because it would be a middle ground. If we're both unhappy, then maybe a real compromise has been met. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it reveals a deeper underlying problem, yeah. I think the guideline was deliberately vague at times, and gave both sides something to Wikilawyer over when we finally got to AFD. But once we've clarified this to the point that it's clear (and stable), we're going to get more feedback. And we're going to figure out whether a compromise is going to have to be more inclusionist or more deletionist, or if this is the best we can do. Randomran (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is, it is not even clear what it does say. "Generally speaking... it can be assumed" covers a multitude of sins, and "major characters and episodes/storylines" is ambiguous (does "major" refer only to the "characters"?). This adds confusion rather than remove it! Geometry guy 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. It also begs the question of whether the assumption can be disproven in the face of evidence. If at the end of the day, we end up with a tight-ass second prong, we'll know if that's too strict by the time we get another comment. This isn't going to be something where we just throw up a proposal and everyone signs on. It's going to require a lot of calibration and re-calibration until we know we're in the middle, with no chance of picking up more support. Randomran (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The current version is far to strict. It does not allow for common sense judgemets to be made for principle protagonist whom the story is told around. Yes, it still needs to be verified, but that can be done by the primary source itself.じんない 20:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I think we're going to need to allow something like that in order for this compromise to gain consensus. Otherwise it will only be supported by a few deletionists, and even then there will be many deletionists who oppose it because they will live and die by the third-party source requirement. Randomran (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what the language we had up until yesterday did. It indicated that the element had to be important and that the argument for importance had to be verifiable, but it did not indicate a precise standard for importance, nor did it prescribe what the argument had to be. If someone can be persuasive that a character or episode is important, and can argue his point using sources (primary or secondary, linked to the creator or third-party, it did not specify), so that other editors accept his argument as true, it passed the second prong. "Appears in every episode" is an argument for importance, it is a verifiable argument for importance, and if other editors agree that it creates importance, it passes the second prong. If other editors reject it, it doesn't. Carlton the Doorman appeared in every episode of Rhoda as a disembodied voice. Important enough to warrant an article? Debatable. Did the existence of a cartoon about him as a stand-alone character make him notable enough for a character article? That helps. Did it help enough? It can, and should, be argued both ways, allowing consensus to be reached. Debating the importance of the subject of an article is part of what an AFD is for, and it doesn't always make for battles.—Kww(talk) 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be fine if that were all we had to debate about. But now we also have to debate about whether the real-world coverage is significant or trivial, and whether the original fictional work is important or merely notable. Tack on the independent sourcing requirement, and we're going to have a *long* conversation (see above) at every AFD. That's not even about whether we should be more deletionist or more inclusionist anymore. This is about excessive time wasted on bureaucracy. The idea is to clear up as much of the debate here as possible, so we don't have to keep on hashing this out on an article by article basis. Randomran (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a philosophical disagreement that will be hard to bridge. I thought the purpose of the guideline was to lay out the things that needed to be discussed, the standards to measure them by (as much as possible), and to indicate how existing guidelines and policies interact with the topic area. I never thought of it as a method of preventing debate.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The goal here isn't to prevent debate, but reign it in within logical parameters. Otherwise the guideline would be "notability of fiction is based on how a group of editors feels on a given day". But we can't get away from that if both sides insist on rigid standards. Ironically, rigid standards will only lead to the random scattershot approach to AFD that we have now, where articles are deleted/kept on a semi-random basis. That's why I'm disappointed with your position on notability. Not because I strongly disagree with it, but because it will be impossible to build a consensus around it. Randomran (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the question of whether something is "notable" or not is an opinion, any debates about notability are going to be based on how a group of editors feels on any given day. What inconsistencies do you observe in AFD results for fictional topics? Do the articles that are kept have anything in common? Do those topics have anything in common? Do the articles that are deleted have anything in common? Do those topics have anything in common? --Pixelface (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned a while back (so far I can't recall), though I believe it was Phil (but i could easily be wrong) who said that episode summaries and major characters had an easier time keeping if they lacked a lot of, in some cases entirely, verifiability, let alone from reliable sources.じんない 22:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's exactly how Phil Sandifer tried to write this proposal and it was pretty persuasive. Some articles were saved only because people said "there are sources, give it time", or because a few editors swung by who said "WP:ILIKEIT", and they were later re-nominated and deleted. But some articles / categories of articles have been nominated several times, and have not gone away, despite failing WP:N. Those articles generally had some real world coverage, and were episodes / major characters from important fictional works. That's what this guideline says, or was trying to say, and it was something I could live with. It seems that's too soft for the deletionists, and too hard for the inclusionists. But the guideline is pissing off enough people on both sides that it has to be somewhere close to fair. Randomran (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"But the guideline is pissing off enough people on both sides that it has to be somewhere close to fair." Um, no. I asked you which AFDs have had random scattershot results. And articles cannot "fail" WP:N. So please stop saying that. Some articles have been nominated for deletion and, consisting of only plot summary, there was no consensus to delete. It boils down to a simple question: If the Superman article was just a plot summary, can Wikipedia have an article about Superman? Yes or no? --Pixelface (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me worth considering the possibilities with regards to the RfC. Presumably RfC voters fell into one of three categories: they either interpreted the second prong as intended, they interpreted it as Kww did, or they considered it one of the confusing portions. It is difficult to guess how many fell into each category. But we can look at reasons for opposition. Opposition due to the strictness of the proposal ran nearly double opposition due to leniency.

As a result, it does not seem to me tenable to argue for the stricter of the two interpretations. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop calling it a matter of interpretation? It is not a matter of interpretation. The words that were written in the guideline from when the RFC started until yesterday morning contained no presumption of importance for any kind of element. It is simply misrepresenting the truth to maintain otherwise. Anyone that interpreted it as including a presumption of importance simply misread the text.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In case you have forgotten this was last version on January 28th, the day the RfC started. It clearly does not require certain episodes and characters to be independatly verified with reliable sources...only other elements.じんない 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll happily go back to that one. It required that the character or episode be central to the work, and documented that Notability requires evidence, and bald assertions of significance are insufficient. It contained no language indicating any presumption of importance for any kind of element.—Kww(talk) 01:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It seems to say episodes or characters central to the plot do not need reliable sources. However, lesser episodes/characters or other elements do require that.

The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work. Other essential elements of the work are appropriate too, but only if their significance is verified in commentary from reliable sources. Notability requires evidence, and bald assertions of significance are insufficient.

Notice the period after "understanding the fictional work" and followed by the word "Other".じんない 07:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

protected

'Cmon, cut it out you kids. - brenneman 03:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure edits constitute edit warring, but i defiantly think that protection is a good idea. The time has come to take a solid look at what we have, talk about it and move forward when we have a clear idea of how to resolve this issue. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell

Thanks for this diff. It points out that this really is all about making the wiki safe for every TV E&C. Tag as {{failed}}. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That ship left port at least seven years ago Jack. --Pixelface (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Failed, Feb 2009

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is, and should be marked, {{failed}}. See WP:POL#Failed. Consensus for acceptance has not developed after a reasonable time period. This is unlikely to change. Repetitive arguments will not change this fact. It would be wiser for proponents for issues here to start again in a different place. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we move over to WP:N and work to reform that instead as clearly there is no consensus with regards to fictional notability and quite possibly notability altogether. It's time for a change. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck changing that. We'll be over here with possible projects. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Failure to reach a consensus here reflects a lack of consensus over notability and if we can't come to a consensus there either, then it is proof that "notability" does not have a consensus as is already evident by the vast majority of editors and readers who create, work, on read so many of these articles that maybe a half dozen people will declare "nnotable" in some five day AfD. And all the while, all this time spent discussing this concept that does not reflect the community in practice, no articles are actually being improved as a result. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not going anywhere. It's widely regarded as being necessary to avoid the indiscriminate inclusion of any old junk. Reyk _YO! 00:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It has much more widespread opposition as a subjective, elitist, anti-wikipedic concept and therefore lacks consensus as it serves no useful purpose and is used to get rid of encyclopedic and worthwhile articles per what really boils down to "I don't like" rationales. An inclusion criteria may be worthwhile, but notability is not it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Widespread opposition? Where? Reyk _YO! 00:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole category of multiple Wikipedians with a userbox that says no to notability (like the no to flagged revisions thing), several essays on non-notability and anti-notability, a host of userpages with some kind of anti-notability comment, the obvious reality of shear numbers of people who wrote and come here for these types of articles versus the incredibly smaller percentage who wrote the GNG and who write "non-notable" in AfDs, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that "notability" guidelines are necessary? Inclusion guidelines perhaps, but why "notability" guidelines? Look at Category:Wikipedians against notability. "Old junk" is a highly subjective phrase — one I'm sure archaeologists would cringe at. --Pixelface (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that notability - or at least what it aims to do, is not going anywhere. However, I am strongly convinced from the last two years that the concept needs to be deconstructed and reconstructed to better accommodate areas that are outside traditional academic bounds without making WP a huge fan site. However, that will take time and a lot of working through existing policy and guidelines to establish what it should be doing; it is not going to happen within a year, that's for sure. We need to at least give FICT a stable version to allow everyone to come to the table to talk about this deconstruction. What we need in the short term is to recognize that there is a line that we cross that breaks this for one side, makes it for the other, depending on which side we are on. Now we have to figure out how to smooth out that line. Note that ArbCom may have to get involved if those not willing to compromise stick to their guns. --MASEM 00:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability is necessary for at least two reasons. Firstly, it is required to stop Wikipedia from becoming a directory or some other species of indiscriminate collection of information, as Uncle G has persuasively demonstrated. Secondly, the requirement for coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources causes us to stick to the principle that, if nobody else has seen fit to comment on something, Wikipedia should not be the first. Reyk _YO! 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability is quite possibly our most unnecessary guideline. Not only does WP:V already cover the need for inclusion in reliable sources, if we want some kind of inclusion criteria then we should call it "inclusion criteria" and not a word that is interpreted subjectively by pretty much everyone as seen in so many AfDs where you get 3 "non-notables" versus 3 "notables", i.e. where the subject is somehow notable to someone but not notable to someone else. If we already have not a directory and not info, and reliable sources, taking this on just adds an added layer of excessive bureacracy that as seen here just adds to confusion and frustration. It is more of a hindrance for collegial writing than anything else. If we want to have some kind of practical and objective inclusion criteria fine, but notability is little more than what some like and don't like and the category linked to avove provides 188 reasons why it does not reflect the actual support of the community. As User:Thanos6 says on his userpage, "Notability must destroyed." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your 188 people would be a small, though very vocal, minority. I bet that if someone nominated WP:N at Miscellany for Deletion, the consensus would overwhelmingly be to keep. Reyk _YO! 04:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If WP:N was MFD'd, it would be speedy kept. That's because, for some reason, once a page has {{policy}} or {{guideline}} tag put on it, it cannot be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia currently has over 300 policies and guidelines. If you can't nominate any for deletion, you will just get more and more of them. Perhaps Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for deletion should be created. --Pixelface (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that, but my point remains- if there was a "Policies and Guidelines for deletion" page, WP:N would be an overwhelming keep. Reyk _YO! 07:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful as even the most people who would probably comment in the discussion would still be less than the 188 in the category, meaning even if you had 20 argue to keep it which would be a large number for an MfD it would still be several times less than the number of editors who are opposed to it, but might miss the five day discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There's that 188, plus the thousands who have created articles certain editors declare non-notable and the millions that come here to read them. Only an extremely small vocal minority actually support WP:N. The real and honest consensus is that it has no consensus. It is nothing more than a crutch for "I don't like it" and it is totally out of whack with reality and none of us should respect it or take it seriously. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with User:Uncle G/On notability it's hard to know where to begin. Coverage is not a requirement. Articles have to be verifiable, contain no unpublished opinions, and be written as fairly as possible. And "notable" does not just mean "noted." If something is written about, that's evidence of notability. But that's not the only evidence. And all kinds of things that are not worthy of notice are written about. You don't need to find someone to comment about keyboards before you can create the article Alphanumeric keyboard. YOU'RE TYPING ON ONE. --Pixelface (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, that article is in dire need of sourceing just for WP:V concerns. Once that happens, most likely WP:N will be satisfied as well. In most cases, finding a source that verifies a certain claim in an article simultaneously helps that article satisfy WP:N- because both WP:V and WP:N ask for similar things, for different reasons. For instance, an article about some scientific topic that cites an academic paper to support some fact in the article would also have its notability demonstrated by the fact that some scientist has written a paper about it. But there are times when this natural process doesn't work and WP:N doesn't happen by default. I'll give an example- I was born, some day I'll probably get married, and some day I will die. All three events would be mentioned in a newspaper; those together with my passport and entry in the phone book give enough neutral, verifiable information in reliable independent sources about me to write a stub. Does that mean I should have an article on Wikipedia? Hell, no! I'm just not notable. Another instance of WP:V not automatically taking care of WP:N is for articles that are mostly supported by primary sources- this is especially noticeable for some articles on fiction where the only source is the work of fiction itself. I say again, it is not Wikipedia's place to be the first to comment on something. Reyk _YO! 04:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you find out where those lines are Masem? A survey perhaps? Like Wikipedia:Dispute resolution recommends? Like the one I suggested to you 8 months ago? --Pixelface (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, because that's not the line that's at issue (and a survey in this area will undoubtedly be biased towards inclusionists). The line that's at issue is whether episodes and major character do or do not have to provide a reliable source to pass the second prong. --MASEM 01:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean the "prongs" in the proposal that the RFC shows has no consensus to be a guideline? Prong shmong. The survey I wrote isn't biased towards anyone. If you think it is, please edit it. Change it. Now's your chance. Write your own survey if you want. I am sick and tired of a year of your obstructionism.

Masem, are you TTN? --Pixelface (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA. I've been one of the few that could care less how fiction is treated in the end, just that there is a compromise to whatever results. --MASEM 04:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think I made a personal attack? What? That I'm sick and tired? You have been blocking progress for over a year. You could care less? If you mean you couldn't care less, that's obviously not true — because you've made 946 edits[32] to this talkpage, more than anyone on Wikipedia. Anyone. Out of 8.8 million registered users. You. #1.

So a Checkuser would confirm that you are not TTN Masem? --Pixelface (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone's got to be #1. A checkuser is generally only performed when there is a good reason for suspecting abuse- and your cranky, irrational and baseless ravings are about as far from a good reason as I can imagine. Reyk _YO! 08:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and whoever's #1 better not say they don't care about how fiction is treated. Ohhh, but Masem didn't say that. He said he "could care less." Oh okay. I look forward to Masem answering the question. It's a simple yes or no. --Pixelface (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You can checkuser me all you want, but I am certainly not TTN. And knowing your feelings for TTN, that is what I consider a personal attack, just like what you are doing to Jack below. Talk about the guidelines, not the editors. --MASEM 13:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it's good to know that you're not TTN. But you consider a question whether you're TTN a personal attack? Really? Personally, I would just say: No. I am not TTN. Next question. Do you know TTN in real life Masem?

Jack Merridew is a sockpuppet by his own admission. So I didn't personally attack him below. Your suggestion to talk about the guidelines, not the editors is hollow, ever since you copied over that comment to WT:NOT. You know the one I'm talking about. --Pixelface (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea who TTN is in real life nor contact with him. Yes, Jack was found to be a sock user, but has since been unbanned through ArbCom, thus there is no acceptable reason in bringing up his past save. And I copied that comment over on good faith to start a discussion of a possible change to a policy you had been seeking to change based on your input, moving it out of the RFC/U which was only about your behavior, not your policy beliefs; thus it made sense to bring it to a larger discussion on the appropriate page outside the RFC/U. --MASEM 14:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a joke, right? <joke>We're all TTN</joke>. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, a sockpuppet like you being unbanned is a joke. It's a simple question with a yes or no answer. Given your extensive experience in the area of sockpuppetry, perhaps you could offer us some insight, mate. --Pixelface (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Knock it off, Pixelface. Now you're just lashing out at everyone; trust me, I know how it looks online when I see it. those are damn close to NPA violations if they're not already over the line. Take a breath and come back. Alternately, No, I'm TTN! ThuranX (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone? You may be unfamiliar with my past interactions with Masem and Jack Merridew. And the giant NPA violation known as user RFC — created by Masem, and instigated by Jack Merridew. I will take a breath and come back, lest I say something as toxic as you have in the past. --Pixelface (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You could still respond to the concerns folks have expressed at that RFC. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I asked if it was a joke, so I think it pretty clear that I view your allegation as without merit. Cheers, Jack Merridew this user is a sock puppet 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Masem, my major issue isn't so much the sourcing as much as it is the blanket assertion that all episodes pass the second prong, and nobody even has to argue that they are important. I'm happy enough with the old last line of the prong, that simply pointed out that the argument had to be verifiable: that didn't rule out an argument that relied on a primary source. That combination required only that an editor be able to concoct a persuasive and verifiable argument that the episode was an important one. The language that was inserted would have allowed an article on every episode of {{Scrubs]], or even General Hospital if someone could manage to dredge up some verifiable real-world information about each episode.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the point that I believe needs to be smoothed out; I don't think anyone is stating that "importance must be shown by assertion" is a problem, but it's the exception for episodes and major characters that is causing the issue. Having no allowances of any types or episodes or characters is not seeming to pass the inclusionists, but any all-out allowance for episodes and major characters would be a problem to deletionists. We're close, that line needs to be found. --MASEM 04:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think to mark this failed right now would be to call this too early. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that it is a matter of specific issues, calling this a failure is way too excessive and the like. (Unlike the last FICT, which could not be moved to meet the needs of the RFC input, and thus failed). --MASEM 00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead it is. Now we can all refocus on writing articles. Those more interested in the keep/delete aspects, throw in an hour a week reviewing AfDs, and start really sticking to the policies, and change the culture of AfD. Then you won't have to worry about gaming Notability for Fictions. ThuranX (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It will always be easier to do no zero research and say delete. But look at the AFD for Ego the Living Planet. It was snow kept. There are certain people who want to nominate articles for "failing" some guideline, and when people argue to keep they want to keep saying "nunh-uh, WP:ABC says this." --Pixelface (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it. It was a lot of fanboy votes that were so low on good content-based arguments that I would have disregarded them, were I an admin who could close that. I note that it wasn't closed until after third party sources were found, thus obviating your declarations of snow keeps based on popularity grounds. That's a poor example, because the delete votes said it lacked some aspectr of a policy, and after those dearths were rectified, the article was kept. Had no sources been available, Ego, continentally formed mustache and all, would've gone bye-bye, as well he should have. Merge him to cosmic entities in Marvel Comics or something, along with the In-betweener, Infinity, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you dismiss the people arguing to keep as "fanboys"? Did you know that WP:NOTPAPER is a policy? Did you know that the five pillars don't mention "notability" at all? Someone could look at your userpage and declare you a "fanboy", but what's the point? Does that label mean your opinion means nothing? It would've gone "bye-bye"? No, it wouldn't have. One person in that AFD argued to delete, besides the nominator. That was a non-admin closure snowball keep, later signed off on by an admin. The nominator said the article cited no reliable sources, but comic books are reliable sources. Who is a more reliable source for that character than Stan Lee or Jack Kirby? --Pixelface (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Pixel, do you notice that a lot of those "keep" votes said things like "here are sources XYZ"? If you are opposed to people saying "This comic sux, we should delete it", I'm with you. But you seem to be citing an AfD that showed WP:N in action in order to argue that we shouldn't have WP:N. You should realize that there are editors here who really do believe in WP:N as a good inclusion criteria--we aren't using it as a pretext to delete things that we don't like, we aren't trying to fatten Jimbo's wallet by pushing things to wikia. We just think that "covered in significant detail by multiple independent reliable sources" is a damn fine threshold for inclusion (my personal objections about its limitations for fictional subjects notwithstanding). Protonk (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support tagging as {{fail}}ed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Lets do a watchlist notice on NOTE. My impression is that if you get enough eyes, you get get no consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support tagging as {{tl|failed}}. Pixelface, you are a wealth of information, and probably the most valuable editor on wikipedia. I proudly added my name to the list of Category:Wikipedians_against_notability. Everyone here talks about how they think wikipedia should be, pushing their views of wikipedia on hundreds of other editors. But no one ever talks about the human cost of such draconian policies. How many hours of work are going to be deleted or buried? How many editors are going to leave wikipedia in disgust and never return? How many editors are never going to start editing on wikipedia because hundreds of articles no longer exist in the top 10 of wikipedia, advertising the wonders of wikipedia? How many more journalists are going to add their voices to the unanimous, universal journalistic disdain of our deletion policies? The questions are never asked in walled gardens such as this. Ikip (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith most disturbing. Although I sympathize with your point about all the wasted work, at the bottom of this edit page, it does say very clearly If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. . I'm pretty sure that includes having someone's article merged or deleted. Secondly, you seem to equate shifting Wikipedia's stance on certain items with outcasting an entire class of editor. Sure, some may be disappointed and leave, but that's certainly true about every major change in pretty much everything in life, and somehow major projects still seem to motor along just fine. This would improve the overall average quality of the wiki, while cleaning up one of it's neglected corners. I might even go so far to say that passing this guideline would depolarize this supposed inclusionist versus deletionist thing everyone's always talking about. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I should note that I find the small cadre of people who have dogmatically and tendentiously opposed this proposal throughout now declaring it failed mildly amusing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I admire your efforts and like your objectives, but believe that this is the wrong way to do it. You seem to have never answered my criticisms on this page, now archived. I think this won’t work, regardless of any of the specific issues. I’d like to be shown to be wrong, I have no serious issue with anything specific, but I see a lack of progress and lots of dust. I find nothing the least bit amusing here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I've taken this page off my watchlist. I'm inclined to say that we should just stick a fork in it. The community gets the fictional notability guideline it deserves, I guess. Protonk (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this failed. There's a supermajority of support. Many of the opposing voices cannot be addressed without attracting opposition from others. But many of the opposing voices can be addressed, perhaps if we find a way to drop / merge a prong. Then we'd have something with a consensus, no doubt. Randomran (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, this talk page grows too fast for any but a few to keep reading it; the disagreements are everywhere and especially pumped off regularly into the archives. The proposal is edited regularly and no one registering a support or oppose was commenting on the same proposal. There is no consensus here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of consensus != lack of progress. I think things are moving very well, even if it's a bit tough to follow at times. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a monthly or three-monthly summary would be helpful? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too quick to say it's failed either. We've had proposals across a spectrum of importance (from flagged revisions, to low-level article merges) passed with less support than this, because the opposes weren't helpful for some reason; in this case, blanket opposition to the notability guideline. If this isn't passed, the GNG will just be used instead (that's not really a threat, it's a guarantee; it's already being used), and that's much harder to bring down than FICT. Any opposition to WP:N really belongs on WT:N, not WT:FICT... Sceptre ^(talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I exaggerated a bit; there's currently around 52% supporting the guideline, based on bolded !votes. Then again, this is not just a poll, it's much more complicated. Still, I'd say that at least a fifth of opposes come from an opposition to notability rather than an opposition to the guideline itself. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• My worry is that the gulf has not been bridged — there are people opposing because they feel the guideline is too loose (inclusionist) and others opposing because they feel the guideline is too strict (deletionist). Stifle (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not just go back?

We had good language for the second prong yesterday that everyone had agreed on before taking it to RFC, and matches the language that people weighed in on during the RFC. It's obvious that the changes have been controversial, with multiple editors pointing out that it changed the fundamental impact of the second prong. If we go back in time to 00:03, 5 February 2009 UTC, there's no reason to mark the RFC failed. If there's a need to simplify it, it can be simplified without changing the fundamental meaning of the prong, or making presumptions of things that should be achieved by consensus.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought for characters and episodes we had come to a general consensus. Not the exact wording, but the overall intent. I think something like:

1. Role within the fictional work: The element should be an episode from a serialized fictional work or principal protagonist or principal antagonist of the fictional work. Other essential elements of the work, including episodes from non-serialized works and other reoccurring characters, are appropriate too, but only if their significance is verified in commentary from reliable sources. Notability requires evidence, and bald assertions of significance are insufficient.Role within the fictional work: The element should be an important episode from a serialized fictional work or principal protagonist or principal antagonist of the fictional work. Other essential elements of the work, including other episode and other reoccurring characters, are appropriate too, but only if their significance is verified in commentary from reliable sources. Notability requires evidence, and bald assertions of significance are insufficient.

2. Role within the fictional work: The element should be an episode or recurring character that is central to understanding the fictional work. Other essential elements of the work are appropriate too, but only if their significance is verified in commentary from reliable sources. Notability requires evidence, and bald assertions of significance are insufficient.

じんない 01:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Those mean different things, and your second number 1 is the only one I would support, and it's the language used during the RFC. That'll probably be number 2 by the time someone smart enough to figure out how to use block quotes inside numbered lists fixes the formatting. I tried to fix it, but couldn't.—Kww(talk) 01:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

At the very least "episode from a serialized work" seems to have broad support.じんない 01:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And detractors. I'm not the only one arguing about this, and it is granting a pretty major presumption. What would prevent us from having an article on every episode of Scrubs? Is it not a serialized work?—Kww(talk) 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The other 2 prongs plus the "central to understanding the fictional work", though without doing something like a test question I have proposed before, there will be a lot of wikilawyering about the word "central".じんない 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Debate is not always wikilawyering, sometimes it's healthy debate. Your first version removes the test of being central to the fictional work, and permits all episodes to pass the second prong. That's why I object to it so strongly. Scrubs certainly passes prong 1, and anything with some production details and DVD commentary will make it past prong 3, but there are few, if any, episodes that are central to understanding Scrubs as a fictional work. All of the episodes are episodes of a serialized work. The second wording serves to make it difficult to justify articles on Scrubs episodes, and the first wording gives them nearly a free pass.—Kww(talk) 02:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh...I was thinking it was more due to the way i defined characters. How about "The element should be an important episode from a serialized fictional work..."? If we get any more detailed it may become too complex to explain neatly without footnotes.じんない 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I think your first version would give the inclusionist side more heartburn on that issue. Take a show like Law&Order: which of those characters are principal protagonists? In any given season, there are between five and seven characters that could be argued to be "important" (two cops, boss of two cops, assistant DA, assistant DA's hot-model-of-the-year-assistant, and the DA). Of all of those, I would only describe the assistant DA as being the principal protagonist.—Kww(talk) 02:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That's my point. Some shows may have multiple principal protagonists, but those ones are rare. My point is that only those characters really are the ones that do not need independent verifiability because their very nature makes them central to the work as a whole (you can't very well have a first person narrative without a primary protagonist, FE, unless it's a documentary). Other central characters are important, but not nearly as much and imo should thus require some kind of reliable source to verify they are essential.じんない 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Puts you in a Catch-22obligatory fiction reference: if there's any doubt at all, you'll need a reference to validate which one is the principal protagonist as well, and it's dead certain that you won't find a source that clearly states "Jack McCoy is the principal protagonist". By creating specific exceptions, all you do is create more arguments than you got from trying to apply a general rule.—Kww(talk) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Kww is right that the wording "important element or character " is much too broad, (I assume you meant this, not important episode--the selection of which episodes deserve full articles is a different & almost equally difficult question.) But the point of this proposal was that such importance is relative--the more important the work, the more the characters will be considered article-worthy. We're not going to have a fixed rule that will not depend to a good deal on judgment, but the wording should be narrower than this. DGG (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I was trying to help by clarifying the terms while still leaving some wiggle room.じんない 07:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that we are trying to model this off AFD results, there seems to be some case for episodes or a major character from a highly notable work that has some real world aspects to be kept without any reliable information that demonstrates their importance to the work. I'm not saying this is true for any episode or character article, but there are certainly some that go through without. And while I understand where people like KWW are coming from, worried that any series that is out on DVD can likely find that one nugget of information that would make every episode and character pass this guideline, I would postulate that most of these articles already exist. Remember that the goal is to establish some codified version of what happens at AFD, which is difficult but I think can be done.

Where I am having difficulty in finding a center line is that any further clarification on episodes and characters will increase the amount of language significantly to try to delineate when they are appropriate without sources. This is almost a point where we have to assume some type of good faith input from editors when they claim an episode or character is important. A reliable source is still a much better and more accepted demonstration of this. Articles from a fiction series that in the past has shown the ability to produce quality articles (ala the Simpsons) will likely not be as aggressively evaluated as those from series without such. Maybe we want to include language to the extent that it is impossible by our definition that every episode of a work is important without sources saying as such, and thus editors should only expand standalone articles for a small fraction of them.

The other thing to consider here is that failure to meet the second prong usually means merging to a larger topic, but as we're trying to purposely avoid discussing lists, this can make episodes and characters difficult to deal with. If there was some language that clearly indicated that a fiction element that failed to meet the prongs but otherwise did not fail any other content guideline should be included in some aspect in WP with a redirect to it, that might help (emphasize merging over deletion) without necessarily stating lists. Thus, an episode or character that is not determined to be important to the work due to a reliance source that doesn't state this would still be covered somewhere. --MASEM 13:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the "codify what already happens" argument, but "what already happens" for most episodes is that they get tucked away into lists, and a few outliers remain separate. There are a few series that manage to pass the GNG for every episode, and this guideline isn't going to have much affect on them. With those exceptions, removing the need to provide a verifiable argument for importance of an episode represents a drift towards the inclusionist side, not a mirror of common practice.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the series that survive AfDs and the series that have every episode pass the GNG are coexistent sets, though. Individual Doctor Who episodes do just as poorly at unlicensed mentions in reliable sources as do individual Pokemon, but you'd get pilloried for trying to delete those. Can you give a few examples of shows that have been successfully merged via consensus? I'm interested in the sorts of episode articles that get merged. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Found one on my own - I'd forgotten that TTN had executed merges of Gilmore Girls. [33] is an example. I see an article with no effort at real-world perspective. Fails the third prong. Interestingly, even TTN, our boogeyman deletionist, seems not to be imposing a much stricter standard than that - by his edit summary, a directors commentary would be fine for sparing the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he wanted director commentary and reviews, which would pass the article into GNG territory. TTN generally went for low-hanging fruit ... it always disturbed me a bit that people could defend most of the articles he redirected.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of exceptionally deep digging into language parsing, "information like director commentary and reviews" suggests that what is needed is information, and director commentaries and reviews are both listed options for fulfilling this - but what is demanded is not both. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. What's so bad about lists of episodes or characters? Shadowfax, a minor character from Lord of the Rings is what I see as the perfect example: a character with a significant albeit minor role is given presence on the wiki, and a appropriately linked redirect takes you to the correct spot. See, it goes right to the section. What's wrong with putting content in lists, why does no one like lists? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Because without episode articles getting a pass on the second prong, an article like The Claws of Axos would be deleted, despite the fact that it has a good amount of real-world perspective and a concise plot summary. (It does not pass WP:N - none of the sources are independent save for the Outpost Gallifrey and Doctor Who Reference Guide, which are both fansites and fail WP:RS). But if you merge it to a list, you're left with the unsatisfying result of having to condense a 90 minute story into three sentences of plot, you lose the production information, you lose the release history. So you lose verifiable, useful information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Sounds like whoever is doing the merger isn't merging all the relevant information. I fail to see why items on lists cannot have subsections and effectively make them look like regular articles. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is what is acceptable in such a list. I disagree that we'd have to condense down a plot to three sentences, but at the same time, we're not going to include the same level of other details as Claws of Axos shows in a list. There's a balance as well as a process that needs to be better defined before assuring that lists are ok. --MASEM 15:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Claws of Axos is an 11Kb article. Not much of that is extraneous. And it's readily expandable, it should be noted, with no review information yet. (Multiple non-independent review sources exist for all Doctor Who episodes, as the BBC has published several books that include reviews of all episodes. And before someone starts, the books do contain plenty of negative reviews). The resultant list article would, it seems to me, be unmanageably large and messy - why wouldn't we want individual pages for these? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So you would simply tweak the guideline in order to prevent a policy-violating article from meeting its proper fate at AFD? You would codify the "I like it" camp into a guideline? If none of its "real-world" information is derived from a reliable source, and it's relying on fansites, that's much worse than the situation where its real-world information is being derived from reliable but non-independent sources like DVD commentaries and other creator-sponsored information. You aren't asking for a pass on the second prong ... if it wouldn't pass as a reliable source review, you're asking for a pass on the third as well.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear - the article does have reliable sources. The reliable sources, however, are not independent. And the independent sources are not reliable (though they seem to be being used only for a table of transmission dates and ratings information, which I know can be replaced by reliable sources.) The article has multiple reliable sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lists can't have Part 1 and Part 2? Perfect example in my mind is Joseph Smith, Jr., who has articles like: Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1827 to 1830, Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1831 to 1834, Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1835 to 1838, Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1838 to 1842, Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1842 to 1844. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The core problem besides how info is put into them is that some believe that a list of non-notable elements is inappropriate for WP; others do not. That's not limited to fiction, as it could be applied to sports teams, towns and villages, roads, etc. It is a larger issue to be addressed in how WP:N and summary style interact. --MASEM 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The lists of episodes are an uneasy compromise, to be sure, but that doesn't justify this guideline effectively advocating their elimination. Especially not changing the guideline after the RFC to do so.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Going back to Kww post at the start of this section, I see this amendment as being the source of our disagreement. Although Randomran viewed this amendment as "tightening this up", the effect is actually to provide some ambiguity into the guideline, in the sense the amendment suggested that certain types recurring element don't have to be the subject of reliable sources, whereas "Other essential elements of the work are appropriate too, but only if their significance is verified in commentary from reliable sources". As I have argued before, there is no hierarchy of fictional elements that is not a matter of personal opinion, but we can judge their importance in terms of sourcing. If a element of fiction is the subject of reliable sources, that is a good test for inclusion as a standalone article, and I think we should keep this prong as it is a good test, not a bad one. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But I don't see those as substantially different in meaning. Recurring characters *are* important, and the intention was never to give them a pass on the need for sources. Just that it would be enough to show that the character recurs to show the minimal level of importance: use a few fictional works to verify that they've shown up multiple times. The other two prongs would then be used to make sure that not every recurring character gets an article. Randomran (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason we don't go back is because people didn't agree what it meant. It turns out that some people thought "it should be an episode or character" was just a clarification of the kinds of elements that all need reliable sources. We need to negotiate this one, though. Because right now, it's become very strict, and that's with two other prongs that are already very strict. I'd rather just drop the prong entirely, because it really adds complexity for very little value now. Randomran (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept language simplification. It was granting a blanket pass to episodes under the guise of simplification that I objected to.—Kww(talk) 01:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• But when we simplified it, we revealed an underlying disagreement about what the more vague wording meant. No matter which way we simplify it, we're going to piss some people off -- people who think there should be an exception for certain characters / episodes, versus those who disagree there shouldn't be.
• I have another idea though. I don't think anyone ever intended to give a "blanket pass" to characters or episodes. Rather, the idea was to outline specific circumstances where a character or episode would meet the second prong. One of those circumstances was if the character was a recurring character, which could be easily verified in the fictional works themselves. But I'm interested to hear if you think there are circumstances where a character would pass the second prong without third-party sources. Something objective. I think we can build those circumstances into the prong. Randomran (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Monkey D. Luffy was not merged during the discussion about One Piece mergers on the fact he was "presumed notable" based on concept and creation from interviews with the author. There is 1 trivial 3rd-party source for a claim to notability with the rest being unreferenced.じんない 03:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't argued that the second prong needed validation by third-party sources ... simply that the argument for importance needs to be made for both episodes and characters, and be verifiable. An argument that says that "character x's personality needs to be understood, because his rash decision making is the pivotal plot point in 17 episodes in the first season" is a verifiable argument, although I would like to see it expanded a little bit in real life with the list of 17 episodes and whatnot. "Anya is an important character because Joss Whedon says that exploring her transformation from demon to human was the dramatic counterpoint to Buffy's recovery from her resurrection. He said that in the commentary of episode so-and-so" is a verifiable argument. They may or may not be good arguments, but that's to be debated at AFD. Both of them are arguments of importance, and both can be verified either in primary or secondary sources.

As for there being an objective, "every time this is true, importance of the character has been demonstrated sufficiently to pass the second prong", test, I really don't think so. Appears in every episode? I'd argue against Carlton the Doorman from Rhoda. Do you really need to understand the character of Race Bannon to understand Jonny Quest? I think not. Premiere episodes? A stronger argument, there, but not really compelling ... they tend to set the stage for a series, and most elements of most premieres get covered in the overview of a series anyway.

If you wanted the simplest, unambiguous language that doesn't change the actual scope of the prong, I think it would be close to The element must be an important element that needs to be explored more thoroughly to gain an understanding of the work, and its importance must be verifiable. The importance of characters and episodes can be demonstrated through the use of primary or secondary sources, while the importance of other elements must be validated in secondary sources.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a relief to many inclusionists that you think the second prong can be met by relying upon primary sources. But for the sake of reducing bureaucracy, it would be nice to have an "every time this is true" or even "most of the time this is true" kind of test. I think a lot of the objections are coming from people who hate bureaucracy and worry that AFDs would become a long tedious essay competition about what is or isn't important, or objections from people who are worried that extreme inclusionists or deletionists will wikilawyer a certain part of the test to get their way. Can you think of *any* way we might objectify this a little bit more, to reduce bureaucracy and wikilawyering, and save wasted time and energy? Randomran (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• We can't rely on primary sources, as their interpretation involves personal opinion. The only way we can identify an element of fiction as being important or having a significant role is to cite reliable sources. Verifiable objective evidence to support these arguements is needed, not personal opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The text that appears to be the subject of the disputes above is this:

episodes/storylines of a serialized work with overarching plots can be assumed to pass this prong

Although I consider myself an inclusionist, I agree with the sentiments that this is too broad. Perhaps this phrasing would be more likely to gain acceptance:

episodes/storylines of a serialized work which contain plot points that are relevant to the work's overarching plot can be assumed to pass this prong

That way, to pick on the favourite example above, a Scrubs episode would only get a free pass if it contained a plot item that became important for future episodes (e.g., introduced a new recurring character, changed the state of the relationships between two of the main characters, was the last episode featuring a recurring character, etc.). JulesH (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Assumptions alone won't work. Evidence of some sort, like reliable sources, is needed, otherwise every element would pass. The test needs to be verifiable and assumptions on their own are not verifable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• It would be useful to show what would be considered sufficient importance, at least for episodes and characters because they are the most common. I agree with you that it can't work on assumptions -- it has to work on evidence. But I reject the idea that using primary sources for this prong will somehow require subjective interpretation and WP:OR. Summarizing research from a reliable third-party source requires interpretation too. But it doesn't mean they require personal opinion. If folks can't make unoriginal summaries on Wikipedia, we wouldn't get very far. The previous edit definitely said this, and I'd like to think that never changed. The old version said we're allowed to use primary sources to demonstrate importance within the fictional work, but only if we focus on indisputable facts. If we require third-party sources, then we're back at WP:N. Why have a second prong at all? I don't think it's too bold to say that there are some kinds of evidence that would work in 90% of all cases. Randomran (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you wanted to place an explanatory note outside of the prong that provided examples of frequently useful arguments, I could probably be persuaded. The language would have to be cautious, though. There's a big difference between saying "these arguments are commonly persuasive" and "characters that meet these tests are presumed important".—Kww(talk) 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt we could come up with anything that wouldn't have a common sense exception. But, for example, wouldn't a television character be important to the work if the opening credits always featured them, with the name of the actor who plays them underneath? I think that would be true in 90% of cases, if not 99%. Randomran (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Only if a detailed explanation of that character was necessary to understand the work. It's meeting that "central to the work" test that is very hard to lay down bright guidelines on. I think you could describe Law&Order quite well without having a separate article on any of the police officers involved, for example. How detailed of a description of Wolowitz is needed to understand The Big Bang Theory? The prong is not supposed to be a pass for describing all credited characters. It's supposed to be a logical extrapolation from the concept that when describing a show, some information may be necessary to fully explain it that won't comfortably fit in the parent article, and is better off being split off than pruned. "All credited characters" is a much larger group of elements than the set that meets that goal.—Kww(talk) 16:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• But wouldn't that also be constrained by the amount of information you could find for the third prong, as well as the independent sourcing requirement? Sure, there would be a lot of credited characters, but many of them would ultimately get merged when there is nothing significant about their development or reception, let alone anything from third-party sources. Certainly we would cover many of these guys in the main series article? Randomran (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• On a highly popular show, the third prong isn't much of a restraint, as DVD commentaries and fan-site entries will permit material on nearly all characters, and it doesn't take much independent notice to satisfy our extremely weak language on independent sourcing.—Kww(talk) 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• If they aren't doing much and they're easy to pass, then why have them at all? Why not just strengthen the hell out of the second prong? Having two prongs that aren't "much of a restraint" adds excess bureaucracy, and the potential for Wikilawyering. Again, I'm not attacking the logic of your viewpoint. But you have to understand that if you insist upon having all these standards, we're not going to have a guideline, because it won't have support from moderate inclusionists, and it will be opposed by people who see it as excessively bureaucratic and complicated. We need ideas for a broader base of support, here. That means the guideline needs to be less restrictive, have fewer requirements, have more bright-line tests than "interpretive" tests, or all of the above. Do you have any ideas for how to increase our base of support? Randomran (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Each prong is effective against a certain kind of problem. Prong 1 prevents fan-fiction and extremely obscure works. Prong 3 blocks articles that can only grow into violations of WP:NOT#PLOT. Prong 2 prevents a popular work from having an enormous collection of articles devoted to excessive coverage of every minor detail.—Kww(talk) 12:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Turn back to the left. I miss a bit the meaning of the stuff above, but there is no doubt about Randorman said. Wiki projects are becaming a thing used by black belt guys. Rules are more and more restrictive, a sort of paranoic behauvoir against free editing. But wait, wikis was built without so much boureucracy. See to wikinews and similar stuff, as example. They simply cannot grow up, but rather fall down. Why? Too few policies? Too few rules? Wiki project will never so 'reliable' as a 'professional work', but nobody should think the opposite. This is a free work, after all. Too complicated rules, too powerful tools for wikilawyers, too disturbing limits to editor's work and too suspects against everything you can post. We could talk about the ridicolous size of images (forced to be 'thumb dimensions'), and so on. What's will be wikipedia? I hope still a thing thinked to be used and enjoyed by 7 billions humans, rather than 7 thousand 'experts'. Regards.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Throwing out an idea here, as maybe the second prong is actually wrong in what we want. The first seems ok, and the third is an absolute must. What the second, I believe, should be doing, is to make sure that we're not going to create a permastub that's about an incidental element that cannot be expanded beyond a few paragraphs of text. Given this, maybe its not the importances of the element to the work, but the necessity to expand the element beyond the basic plot summary of the work. This excludes cameos and certain minor charaters, but at the same time may also exclude major and minor characters that can be simply described (particular for one-time works or less-continuity based works, say, like Fred Flintstone (*I'm sure Fred is notable by the GNG, I'm looking at the plot aspects only). Same with episodes; not every episode of "Lost" can be expanded significantly from a given season's mythology (particular though heavy on flashbacks to the major characters) but some, like "The Constant", require more exploration due to the complexity of the plot itself. I would love to figure if there's a way to codify this better, however. --MASEM 21:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

2: Covering the element in the parent article would create an overbalance of content. When specific content is adding significant length to the article, it is sometimes appropriate to split out content into a new article. The parent article must be unable to handle the added content that would be in the new article.

Maybe? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of the right idea, but it does imply a sort of "The more you write the more likely it'll be kept" which goes against the whole NOT#PLOT thing. Previously I would have described it as an "undue weight" thing, i.e. giving a character an article made him seem too important comparatively, but that isn't really what WP:undue weight means. To me, one of the most telling signs of a bad article subject is that the plot summary is the same plot, written at the same (appropriate) level of detail, as one that can be found elsewhere, typically a parent article. That isn't exactly a codifiable criterion either though. Nifboy (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a way to get around this without being so vague it can cause confusion and probably create more problems than it solves unless we set out and at least define a basic white and black list. Otherwise it will just be based upon who is in the AfD and how good either side (usually the inclusionist) is at defending their article which disporoportiatly favors veterans over new editors and if the admin closing it decides to just count votes or actually reads reasons why, for both sides.じんない 05:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there's a really tight trade off here. If we go more inclusionist, we lose deletionists. If we go more deletionist, we lose inclusionists. But if we go to a more interpretive "apply it and discuss it at AFD" approach, we're going to lose anti-bureaucracy folks. I think our best hope comes from reducing bureaucracy, and winning over more support from editors who don't want excessively detailed rules. In that sense, we either need to drop a prong, merge a prong, or make a prong so bright-lined that we won't waste too much time arguing about what passes it or not. Randomran (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We could possibly drop it if give such a list so people get an idea what is considered apporpiate/not. Other guidelines do this.じんない 06:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Nifboy has made an important point that without this test, we end up duplicating plot summaries, in the sense that many articles about characters and episodes use the same sources as those cited in the over-arching ficitonal work, e.g The Terminator and Terminator (character). Every fictional element is mentioned in the primary source itself as an element of plot. However, when writing an article about a fictional topic, there is no encyclopedic value from from plot summary on its own; what is needed is some basic information about who created the character and why, and we need to get that information from a reliable source. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Gavin. It's a bit murkier, but no less essential than the other prongs; that's why we made it that it has to pass all three; because removing one neuters the guideline. I'm sure there's a bunch of people who would want to say "no more b'cracy!", but frankly they are deluding themselves somewhat into believing you can have hard-and-fast rules for everything that everyone will see and apply the same. It's not that way in the real world, so we shouldn't pretend we can make ideal rules on-wiki. Have you ever heard of everyone in agreement about at source in spec with WP:RS? What about what constitutes a personal attack? Trying to strip it down more than we have is just going to kill the patient, one way or another. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we build more support then. If we can't at least reduce the bureaucracy slightly, I have no idea how to gain more support for this proposal. Or *any* proposal. Randomran (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, throwing an idea, based on Gavin's comment just above. What if the second prong was:

Independence from the work: The fiction element should be able to be described in a manner that transcends the plot of the fictional work and does not simply repeat it, and necessitating the need for a more detailed description of the element.

(My wording choices may suck, so this would not need to be final). Basically, we don't want a character article if it is simply going to repeat the overall plot of the work (such as how many of the "Heroes" character articles do now) We don't need an episode article if the episode is simply stuff that happens during that season or that show (and thus, in this case, an episode like Lost's "The Constant" would be needed while many of the other Lost episodes (ignoring if they met the GNG for sake of discussion) would be part of how the plot develops. I'm not thrilled that we can't offer a reliable sourcing issue here, and I'm a bit worried on how subjective this may be, but I'm trying to see what works here. --MASEM 16:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This wording is very simialr to the requirement that coverage from a real-world perspective is required, which I am a big fan of. If a character or episode has been discussed from a real-world perspective, this coverage is likely to to be of encyclopedic value, so long as it is not trivial or shallow. In my view, we could split the third prong and get rid of the second prong. This is my proposal made in a previous section Three-pronged test for Elements of Fiction. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I like Masem's new wording. In following this, I've found myself agreeing more with Kww (I do not think all episodes or all recurring characters should be considered important to the central work). This new wording seems to allow articles where articles should be - that is, there is something else to talk about besides the work itself. Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I especially like "transcends the plot ... and does not simply repeat it", that absolutely nails it on the head. This is in line with, but does not exactly repeat the third prong. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is something I could live with, as I don't think it should outrage most moderates on the inclusionists or deletionist side. But I might prefer if we could find a way to combine this with one of the other prongs. I think we'd win a lot of people over who are concerned with rule creep, and having really tedious AFD discussions around manifold contentious issues. Randomran (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see it as a replacement for the second prong. It makes a great mission statement ... I think it describes our primarily goal nicely. Objectively, it doesn't go a long way towards making sure that our coverage of a series or fictional work is about the series or fictional work ... given detailed enough developer commentary, you can write some pretty detailed articles about things that don't really have any impact whatsoever on an overall understanding of the work in question.—Kww(talk) 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as I'm said, I'm not all that pleased with it necessarily in language (it begs gaming) but I'm trying to brainstorm between the point of a second prong mandating importance by source, and a second prong that requires this but allows for major characters and episodes. --MASEM 00:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"transcends is a reasonable concept, though I would word is as "goes beyond", but i do not think the wording "necessitating the need for a more detailed description of the element." is helpful, because of the infinite range of meaning of the word 'necessary". Necessary to me means, necessary to the fullest description and analysis that would make sense to a general reader. I see from the discussion that some other people see necessary as meaning, needed for minimal comprehension of the subject. There was some confusion somewhere above about "concise" I agree about concise writing, but it does not mean either short or lacking in detail. Concise writing is essential to any encyclopedia for all subjects, as a matter of general style. It shows up here primarily because of the very poor writing of much of the fiction content in Wikipedia, due to their appeal to the beginning editors. DGG (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So just scratch the last bit after the comma, it says basically the same thing: --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Independence from the work: The element of fiction should be described in a manner that goes beyond the plot of the fictional work and does not simply repeat it.

"and for articles that don't, try to add material, and only consider deletion or merger if you search properly in appropriate sources, and cannot find any" -- that's nothing new either, just WP:BEFORE, but it bears repeating. DGG (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about fiction

This is about entertainment; elements of entertainment.

I think lumping huge realms of stuff into one guideline is part of why the rancour is interminable. What the inclusionists want is the inclusion of TV character articles, TV episode articles, ditto comic books and D&D; it's about pop-culture. Everyone knows the sort of articles this is about. The deletionists don't view the depth of coverage the inclusionists favour as appropriate. This stuff is nominally a subset of fiction, but most fiction is not what's contentious here. The Tom Sawyer fans are not creating sprawling families of articles (no, I've not looked).

So, how about forking this discussion between 'fiction' and

• Wikipedia:Notability (entertainment) or
• Wikipedia:Notability (pop-culture)?

This would allow more focused discussion. And, ya, part of it would be where to draw the line. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many people see "fiction" and think "novels"? As I discovered, that's not really what it's about at all. cojoco (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many, I expect. I believe that a lot of the supposed support for this push is due to the mischaracterisation as 'fiction'. A lot of the support would evaporate if the discussion were properly focused on the actual material that the dispute revolves about. I'd also like to throw the 'commercial' concern in here; it is not proper for this project to give fawning coverage to commercial properties. The fans who attempt this are victims of marketing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have to take this section too seriously, as I think Jack is having a little joke and is trying annoy editors who are interested in modern culture, by comparison with his interest in Dead white males. Nice try Jack! --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This was no joke. No one is proposing deleting anything about anything serious or proper; the crap that should be deleted is the trivia, the fancruft, the fanwank; the dumb stuff that is not encyclopaedic and does not amount to 'knowledge'. The "victims of marketing" are the programmed army of commercial interests. Jack Merridew 11:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It rather depends upon your definition of serious or proper as to whether anyone is "proposing deleting anything about anything serious or proper". Instead of arguing about such definitions, let us recognise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers, and ignore hyperbole which at worst can be seen as disruptive, against which certain users are proscribed. Hiding T 12:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya, right; defending the project against a flood of worthless articles is not disruptive. Jack Merridew 12:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The ends have never justified the means on Wikipedia. Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper, repeatedly disregarding other editors' explanations for their edits, campaigning to drive away productive contributors and generally creating an atmosphere of hostility are considered disruptive. Please tone your language down and respect other people and their opinions even if you disagree with them. Hiding T 12:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Balderdash. My tone is just fine. I respect reasonable people and reasonable arguments. Jack Merridew 12:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jokes aside, as people have pointed out above it's best to keep the number of guidelines to a minimum... elements of fiction are common enough that we can create a loose-fitting canvas to cover them. Otherwise you're just appeasing fanboys who believe their franchise can screw the rules (Gundam, Star Wars, Doctor Who, yadda yadda). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>How about this "franchise"? Category:Films based on the works of Mark Twain Clearly these are commercial works, most of whose articles seem to lack references, are full of trivia, need critical analysis of their reception, are mostly plot summary, and/or are full of unsubstantiated (possibly OR) opinions. (And the same seems true, to some extent, of Tom Sawyer.) </sarcasm> --Craw-daddy | T | 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At a glance, I'd say there is likely to be dross in there. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just followed that to Huckleberry Larry and from there to VeggieTales. Somebody sure is making Wikipedia suck. They're making the world suck, too. Jack Merridew 11:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Victims" of marketing? Is that why you don't have a television Jack? You're afraid of becoming a "victim"? And if you want to contribute to a "proper" encyclopedia Jack, Britannica 2.0 is that way. --Pixelface (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am hard-pressed to think that Tom Sawyer amounts to "most fiction." Most fiction is popular fiction, Jack. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most fiction is terrible. Some of the hack fiction may be popular, but that doesn't make it appropriate to cover in endless detail. Jack Merridew 11:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So is it popular or not? Last time I checked it was on the mandatory school reading list, this I suppose equals to grossly unpopular :) but then it was thirty years ago :) NVO (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What first got me involved in this topic was the redirection, destructive merger, and deletion, of characters from Tolstoy & Austen. I initially thought it was the typical Wikipedia indifference to academic topics, but then I saw similar attacks on Wodehouse and Tolkien. And i tried to check the plot summaries for some episodes of the Sopranos, and found they were too brief to be informative. At that point I realised that the extent of the problem, & that the stuff I liked could only be saved by defending the stuff I disliked or disregarded, but that other people were interested in. (and I've from this come to appreciate some things I never imagined I would have paid attention to otherwise) Comprehensiveness is the basic idea behind encyclopedias. DGG (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tolstoy, Austen, Wodehouse and Tolkien and their works should all be covered as far as independent/reliable sourcing will allow; which will not be lacking. The limiting factor here is editors who care. In the case of "the dumb stuff" (which is a quote from an off-wiki discussion the other day with a non-editor) there is no lack of editors; there are too many "anybodys". Comprehensive coverage of pop-whatever does not mean bottomless coverage. Jack Merridew 11:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose forking this into a mess of contrasting, conflicting guidelines. If we have to dissect this into a half dozen different guidelines to get what each Special Interest Group wants, we're going to rapidly find people saying 'but X has a lesser standard than we do, so we should adopt that too'. Few people except those with extreme Notability agendas are going to be able to police all the guidelines in any meaningful way. Without a centralized discussion, we'll rapidly see erosion of notability via comparative revisions, each one 'de-escalating' the qualifications to top the next. A centralized discussion is needed to ensure real community ownership of the guideline, instead of splitting it into fragments where each SIG can get their way.

On another note, it's good to know Tom Sawyer no longer counts as real fiction. Tom Sawyer, or Bleak House, or some similar novel, would probably make a great barometer to measure against. I doubt there are 50 articles about either. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone(s) actually did try deleting the characters of A Tale of Two Cities, but we were able to rescue them at the AfDs. And I actually have seen the occasional effort to delete/redirect articles on Shakespeare or Wizard of Oz or War & Peace characters, etc, i.e. AfDing or redirecting characters who are studied in classrooms and who have appeared in multiple stage and screen adaptations and which get scores of Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar hits, i.e. article that are unquestionably improveable, but instead of doing so, just redirecting or worse AfDing. Because of those experiences of absurd claims of "non-notable", I have seen how subjectively this concept is interpreted. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I say we shouldn't fragment this policy, my major idea, and, as an aside, say that Tom Sawyer and related articles would make a good model for considering how far out notability may need to extend from a single work. You reply that people tried to AfD some characters from a different book. So what? Do those characters have reliable independent sources to assert notability? If so, then the should have been kept, and if not, then merge/redir back to the main. So what? My point is there are few articles about Tom Sawyer related elements (Huck excepted, as he's independently notable in every manner), and that's how it should be. And splitting this out to game community-wide consensus is a bad idea. ThuranX (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't have this policy at all, so take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The character Tom Sawyer appears in multiple fictional works: The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer Abroad, and Tom Sawyer, Detective. But look at how many sources are in those articles. Those novels aren't notable because they're written about, they're notable because Samuel Clemens wrote them. But those aren't ongoing fictional works, where Samuel Clemens keeps adding to it. Why shouldn't Wikipedia have entries for characters in those novels? A separate webpage or an entry on a list, it's just a question of presentation. Why not both? --Pixelface (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just about an appropriate level of coverage, it about the appropriate form of coverage. The notion of 'character' articles is a poor presentation technique; it encourages in-universe writing. Most fictional characters would be better covered in a higher concept article. List of characters in the Tom Sawyer series is not unreasonable; the section Tom Sawyer#Appearances in works by others is cruft. Jack Merridew 11:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The article Lady Macbeth is a poor presentation technique? No, it isn't. "she becomes Queen of Scotland" — is that the in-universe writing you don't like Jack? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, cruft means "Code, data, or software of poor quality." So if I write something in C++, feel free to call it "cruft", mate. How many people on Earth do you think know C++ Jack? (speaking of "systemic bias") --Pixelface (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I just browsed the Encyclopaedia Britannica and found that they have numerous articles upon fictional characters such as Sir John Falstaff, James Bond, Darth Vader, Catwoman and Snoopy. This provides ample evidence that such presentation is quite proper. Jack's contention seems to be just personal prejudice, unsupported by any objective evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  How sincere of you to cherry pick a set of highly notable characters and ignore the myriad ones that are not. Jack Merridew 12:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Britannica is a paper encyclopedia and a general encyclopedia. We are a paperless encyclopedia and a combination of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. As such, we can afford to go way beyond what Britannica covers. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for pretty much the same reasons as everyone else; the difference between Tom Sawyer and the 23423426346 Gundam articles we have is that the former is covered by a plethora of very reliable, independent secondary sources, and has a demonstrable real-world impact which again is very well sourced. It is not because they are fundamentally different categories of subject. Incidentally, I'd love for DGG to show me an old (pre-deletionist meddling) version of a Austin article up to the stellar level of our coverage of the DiMeo crime family. One could practically offer undergraduate courses in our Sopranos coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to Wikia?

Someone mentioned Meta proposals above, and they had one for fiction in 2006. Here's an old demo, but we could do it way better. I think a non-profit fiction sister project could really help with the acrimony. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not just have the one wiki for everything. Why complicate things by having spinoff wikis? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To the point that detailed coverage of fiction to the level fans want would violate the free mission content (that is, the excessive descriptions of works of fiction usually are considered derivative works, and thus are burdened (but not prohibited) by copyright, but they are not free content either.) --MASEM 01:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard you say that before Masem. Where is this described? What if it isn't excessive? What is excessive? The non-free people don't mess around, and I think if an article of plot wasn't free enough, that would be the never debated reason to delete in AfDs. I'd really like to know. If we had a clear explanation, it could either be built into the sister projects guidelines, or I would no once and for all it won't work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the deletionist that took over wikipedia, don't like long or detailed articles, or side pages they don't see as absolutely necessary. Character pages are still allowed, for the moment, but weapons and equipment pages are not according to the rules. They still exist, but only for articles with enough editors around to defend them. Since the two types of editors, inclusionist and deletionist, will never agree on how things should be run, its best to just split into two groups. I suggest we do a general vote, to decide which group gets kicked off, and who can stay and reshape the wikipedia as they see fit. Dream Focus (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There allowed so as long as we keep up the arguments in AfDs and rescue efforts. We don't have to be dictated to by anyone or permit others to ruin Wikipedia. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is something to discuss with the Foundation. You're not going to get any traction on such a project here. FWIW I don't see that the argument that the Foundation should underwrite something which is essentially "the bits which Wikipedia doesn't want" is going to be very effective. I don't see that Wikia's for-profit status is any real detraction; the content itself is still free content, and the adverts can be adblocked. Furthermore, it already does help with the acrominy - various whole WikiProjects (such as the 40K project, and a lot of people who moved from here to the various Star Wars wikis) thrive on external wiki sites now, in some cases largely because WP became a less hospitable host for in-universe content. What's left is the extremists, who won't be happy regardless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)