Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (fiction) page.
Glossary of termsFor the purposes of discussions on this page, the following terms are taken to mean the following. This is just a glossary. Where any guideline and this conflict, please defer to the guideline or edit this glossary to bring them in line:
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Threads with no replies in 10 days may be automatically moved.. An archive index is available here.|
Popping in to say "I'm Sorry".
I'm sorry for starting the 59+ pages of discussion and debate with my urge to change guidelines three years ago. To me, fiction on Wikipedia needs to be treated via a case-by-case basis, using the basic policies and notability guidelines as a framework. This page should definitely be marked as historical. — Deckiller 00:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here, have an image of a hedgehog. --Kizor 10:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it; contributions that lead to what appear to be pointless bickering can still be helpful in the long run, which I think this has been. I don't think "case by case" is the only advice, but to me its becoming increasingly clear that notability of fiction itself isn't very different from GNG types (making FICT unnecessary save for clarification of certain points, specifically real-world vs in-universe notability), but more importantly that its how holistically fiction is dealt with, which should be top-down, trying to keep everything about a work of fiction in one article and spinning out when necessary, which is counter to how most fans think about fiction. And to the bigger question, what should be WP's goal when it comes to handling fiction? How much detail should we go into. That's not meant to be a question begging for an answer here, but its one that I'm keeping back of the mind for how best to approach it. Right not there's no major "wars" brewing over it, so its best not to rock the boat but we really should address the bigger picture at some point. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Seasons episode lists
Mhiji (talk · contribs) has moved a large number of season episode lists. Since there has been no consensus building discussions about the naming of these episode lists, I have started a discussion at WT:NC-TV. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 03:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Episodes list naming survey
A survey started at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Survey on how to name episode list as "List of" or not. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Given that as this point, I think the most that watch this page can likely agree there's no special action needed for fiction, I propose to convert this from a failed proposal to an essay that hilights these points:
- Notability from fiction should follow the same guidelines outlined at WP:N and the WP:GNG
- Editors should review WP:WAF for details on writing articles on fiction.
- Editors may seek additional advise from the large projects that deal with fiction (listing out the big ones like WP:TV, WP:FILMS, WP:VG, etc.)
- It sucks but you're right. Support the essay as phrased... with any further refinements achieved through WP:BRD. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Please review the major edit to reduce this to a short essay. Also, a note that with the recent RFC on lists closed, we're working in *some* advice about lists into WP:N, though SALAT is still the major hub for list-related notability. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good. I re-sorted it into some headings and tried to write a short lead. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good too. Apart from trivial changes, I've also changed "Non-notable elements of fiction" in #Lists of fictional elements to "Individually non-notable elements of fiction" to better illustrate that a couple of not-notable-enough fiction articles may very well make a fine merged list. A native speaker should review the grammar of the sentence Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element... though. – sgeureka t•c 09:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
(Oppose A look at the archives of this m[age should make it clear that there is no consensus that the notability of fictional elements is determined in any useful way by the very general concepts of the guideline WP:N, and in particular by the criterion of th sub-guidline WP:GNG-- whetherin a positive sense, that those elements for which such references can be found are necessarily worth an article, or in the other sense, that distive focused references for the elements prevent an article in they are discussed in general references on the fiction.The history of the last two or three years of this has been the attempt to reach a statement that would guide what we decide in AfD discussions; this not having suceeded in getting teh necessary superconsensuss because of the strident opposition of a few individuals, the attempt has been to describe what we actually decide. This has foundered over the unfortunate fact that what we do is not very consistent, and depends primarily upon the degree to which z a sufficient number of Wikipedians are interested in the fiction. The principle that really applies is WP:BEFORE, that there are alternatives to deletion thatwould apply in almost every instance. There is essentially no character that has been proposed for a separate article for which a redirect at least would not be suitable, and the GNG offers little help in this--andthe proposal here offers no help whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Have you tried proposing a guideline that represents what you see as this consensus? I'm always in favor of writing down whatever agreements and compromises the community has made. I'm just wondering if you had a role in any of the rejected proposals and why you think they were rejected. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Failed proposal seems to summarise its status best. Changing this status might suggest that there is some sort of consensus which is not the case. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- This version of the page is not a proposal. It is simply a placeholder that indicates that at this spot there were several failed proposals, and until someone comes along with something better, here's where you can go to find links to determine notability for fiction. If it were marked failed, people would take the information on this page as false or non-applicable, and thus possibly would ignore notability via the GNG and other set aspects in relationship to fictional works. And there was consensus that the advice - as "Essay" - is appropriate to list out, but as you see, it is not introducing any new statements that don't already exist in other policy or guidelines. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Query about a history-merge
- This history-merge discussion started in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen:-
* the major change on 7 December 2010 must be moved to either WP:notability (fiction)/proposed-12-7-10, WP:notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07, User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal, and Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works if possible. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)has revisions. Revisions before
- The asked-for history-split point in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (20:08, 7 December 2010 User:Masem (3,158 bytes) (-8,276) (cut out non-essay stuff....) seems to be a text-split point; the end part of the page was deleted, and may have been put in another page. The history of the beginning of the page is continuous across this point.
- WP:notability (fiction)/proposed-12-7-10 does not exist.
- Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07's history is all before this point.
- User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal's history is continuous across this point.
- Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works's history is continuous across this point.
- Please, what do you want me to do? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- ...Let's ask people in WT:notability (fiction) and its contributors, shall we? As for #1, I realized that it was formerly a guideline, but it failed. I don't know what else to do except (as far as I can see) abandon #2-4, as they turned out to be separate proposals, which were for rejuvinating "Notability (fiction)", that are not worth moving revisions into. --George Ho (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
What I think might have been asked is:
- Split the history of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)
At least, that is what I was thinking, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). However, I think that the MfD is headed for a straight keep, and that a few more people should be asked before going ahead with such a thing. I'd certainly wait until ofter the MfD is closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- While I rather expected it to be tagged, not deleted, in the end (or moved, renamed, or the like) one has to ask, looking through the old proposals: Did anyone actually ever try to write an actual notability guideline for fiction, instead of attempting to duplicate WP:MOSWAF? Notability guidelines are not meant to be content guidelines,, they're meant to give guidance on what is notable. Frankly, I can't help but think that every proposal deserved to fail, for not actually being any sort of notability guideline. 86.** IP (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wait! Let's move everything before 2008 or 2007 into WP:notability (fiction), guideline 2005. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- We shouldn't split this. Instead, the best idea is to give pointers to the last "best" revisions as mileposts so that users can see the past history attempts. Splitting it up - particularly with them all labeled failed, would be a problem, and will also confuse the talk page issues. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)