Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 55

"List articles"

Hiding, I think you are must be mistaken that the following statement has been cribbed from WP:N:

Often, separate list articles grouping characters or episodes are created for formatting and display purposes. The existence of such articles does not imply an "inherited notability". Rather, these articles are often accepted in the context of ease of formatting, reducing overall article size and navigation. Such lists will typically share a lede with the main article in order to better contextualise the list's contents.

To be honest, the statement that lists "are created for formatting and display purposes" is contraversial and misleading. It gives the impression that lists are somehow exempt from Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even though we both know they are not. WP:LISTS defines lists as encyclopedic content like articles that are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies as standalone articles, so I don't agree with this paragraphy for the following reasons:

1. List-articles are not a recognised class of mainspace page in any policy or guideline;
2. They may be created for "for formatting and display purposes" implies that this is the sole inclusion criteria for a standalone list;
3. Separate lists of characters or episodes are usually only created to support a notable topic, and should not be created as a dumping ground for content that contravenes policy.

I request that this section is removed altogether. Better that this guideline be silent about the inclusion criteria for lists until such time as the inclusion criteria for standalone articles is agreed upon. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• WP:N: Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation. That's WP:N. If a list is split from the main article for size reasons, that falls under "formatting and display purposes". But I personally want to see mediation occur from now on, because the way people are communicating on this page is no longer healthy with regards to building a consensus, and such language and manner of cumminication gives the impression that such behaviour is somehow exempt from Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even though we both know they are not. I request you accept the need for mediation. Better this guideline be silent on everything until a consensus is emergent. Hiding T 11:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest Hiding, the above statement from WP:N is very different from what you have written. WP:N does not mention or deal with "list-articles" at all. If you want to introduce an exemption for lists into this guideline, please make an explict proposal of why you think it is a good idea and what the benefits would be, and we can give it consideration. Crying mediation just because I have challenged you is unnecessary. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not "crying mediation", and I'm certainly not doing it because you challenged me. I simply believe it is neccesary given the length of time this debate has been going on, which is, roughly, three years or thereabouts. I am gratified to see I am not the only person who thinks that way. Hiding T 11:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So explain what you are trying to achieve with this paragraph. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than continue this, I repeat my request that you consider mediation. Hiding T 12:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I sense the need for everyone to take a chill pill. About a month ago things ran smooth when everyone gave it a rest for a few weeks=, maybe that time is approaching again. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I will assume that this paragraph was introduced in good faith, but perhaps Hiding was not aware of WP:LISTS until now. I know that it is current practise to roll non-notable fictional topics into lists, but that is because there are so many articles that fail to comply with WP:N and WP:NOT, and grouping them together in the hope that a notable topic will emerge in some ways makes sense.
It seems to be this practise would not occur at all if all characters and episodes were notable, so drive to merge non-notable content into lists of related topics must be seen as an interim measure, otherwise an RFC to exempt lists from WP:V and WP:NOT would have taken place a long time ago. This practise is not documented as being a part of any policy and guideline, and inserting here as if it was when there is not supported is a mistake in my view. I would prefere to remove this paragraph at some point as the content of these listarticles fall outside the scope of Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines, but if Hiding wants to put foward his arguments in their favour, then there may be a good reason why for holding an RFC on this issue.
Alternatively, we could have a seperate section about putting non-notable content into lists, which I would support it were to be agreed that they this is clearly a temporary measure in accordance with WP:PRESERVE. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything I have written is supported by WP:N, WP:V and WP:LISTS. Gavin has a flawed understanding of Wikipedia as evidenced by his use of the phrase "non-notable content". Notability does not apply to content, per WP:N, therefore Gavin's entire argument fails. If we look at WP:LISTS we see that discographys are a cited example of a list used on Wikipedia. If we look at articles on bands, we see that it is common for the discography to be split from a page to a separate article for size reasons, which is a display issue. The information contained within that discography has to be verifiable. This is current practise, is accepted by the community and meets our policies and guidelines. I see no reason why we would create a walled garden for fictional articles. Hiding T 09:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FICT is not about lists. None of the other notability guidelines mention them: neither WP:N, WP:BK nor WP:MOVIE. Nowhere in WP:LISTS does it say that lists are created for formatting and display purposes, nor does it say that they accepted in the context of ease of formatting, reducing overall article size and navigation. When you say everything that you have written is supported, there is no evidence to show this. There is no evidence, in any policy or guideline, to show that "list articles" exist at all, let alone are accepted practice. It would be best if this paragraph is removed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean when you say There is no evidence, in any policy or guideline, to show that "list articles" exist at all, let alone are accepted practice. Can you elucidate on this point, critically through defining what you mean by "list articles". At the minute I find the sentence so at odds with the current content of Wikipedia that I must obviously be missing something. Hiding T 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "List articles" is not defined or used in any policy or guideline, so it is fair to say that this is a term that you have created yourself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On what basis do you make an assertion that it is fair to say that this is a term that I have created myself? Given that these are two words, both of which are readily understood by anyone with a basic understanding of English, and which, when placed together do not have to become a "term" and therefore be assigned a different meaning, but furthermore, as a term is defined since 2004 at Wikipedia:List article (a page created before the existence of formal policies) and also utilised in the guidance at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists first line of the section General formatting, on what basis do you make such a staggering accusation and such an outright levelling of bad faith? I'm seriously astonished by this, not only because of the serious lack of research from someone who espouses very demanding views regarding the sourcing of information. I think I will once again have to iterate my desire for a mediator to moderate discussion between you and me Gavin, since you have now proved yourself beyond reproach in the way you choose to personalise issues as basic as word comprehension. Given none of your arguments actually have any substance, I suggest you stop making them in order to preserve whatever dignity you have left. Hiding T 12:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you will have to admit that Wikipedia:List article and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists use the term "list articles" when they really mean is standalone list. Neither of them says say that lists "are created for formatting and display purposes", nor does it say that they "are accepted in the context of ease of formatting, reducing overall article size and navigation". When you say everything that you have written is supported, there is no evidence to show this. It would be best if this paragraph is removed, as the style and content of lists falls outside the scope of this guideline, which is about inclusion criteria for fictional topics which merit their own standalone article.. Please be assured that no accusation of bad faith has been made or intended, nor is there any such assumption on my part. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A list is a display format for information, and if you read WP:N you will see it clearly states "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation." Now I don't see anywhere in that text that states a list is exempt from that guidance. Do you? So what's your position? Hiding T 10:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:N does not mention lists in this context; the introduction of lists using wording taken from WP:NRVE is purely your creation. The statement "separate list articles grouping characters or episodes are created for formatting and display purposes" is not supported any where in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

First error I noticed

The first error I noticed in this proposal is the Plot summary section, which cites WP:NOT#PLOT. A recent straw poll determined that that section does not have consensus to be policy, so it cannot be policy and should should be removed from that policy page. Not to mention all of the reasons against WP:NOT#PLOT I wrote about here. Some of you may say "There's no consensus to remove it", but a majority of people said WP:NOT should not have a section on plot summaries. Policies must have wide acceptance among editors, and WP:NOT#PLOT does not. Even if one accepts that there is no consensus to remove it, 'no consensus to remove from policy' and 'no consensus to be policy' are not mutually exclusive. They actually look quite similar. And the straw poll was not asking if WP:NOT#PLOT should be removed. It was asking if WP:NOT should have a section on plot summaries, and there's no consensus for that. Period.

This proposal is simply out of touch with how Wikipedia operates. Look at Fictional history of Spider-Man, which survived 2 AFDs[1] [2]. Look at Storylines of EastEnders (2000s), which also survived 2 AFDs[3] [4]. Both of those articles can be written about veritably, fairly, and without resorting to "original research." Spider-Man and EastEnders are both notable. Yet those sub-articles, those "spinouts", contain no evidence of that, and they clearly don't need to or they wouldn't have survived two AFDs. The articles Spider-Man and EastEnders do contain evidence of notability however.

The other problem with this proposal is that it quotes Wikipedia:Notability extensively. That "guideline" was forced upon Wikipedia by Radiant!, he rewrote it himself, tagged it a guideline himself, and then edit-warred over the guideline tag. I'd be quite interested to see a large straw poll on Wikipedia:Notability itself. The biggest thing people misunderstand about Wikipedia:Notability is that "significant coverage" is considered evidence of notability by Wikipedia editors. That's a fact. But that is not the only thing that editors consider evidence of notability. The existence of sub-notability guidelines is proof of that. If "significant coverage" was the only evidence of notability, there would be no "SNGs." Does the number 5 have "significant coverage"? It doesn't matter. The number 5 is not real either, and it does not need "special consideration" to write about it. Are triangles real? Writing about triangles does not require "special consideration" either. Spider-Man, the number 5, triangles, a random character on EastEnders, they are all symbols, symbols that exist in the minds of humans (nevermind that "mind" is also a symbol). Is the number 5 as real as a mountain? The word "mountain" is not even real. Go to a non-English speaking country and say that. It's merely a symbol that certain people have a vague agreement as to what the symbol can be substituted for. But the map is not the territory. You can say "every topic must stand on its own feet" all you want, but until you realize that you're speaking in metaphor which is not real, you can keep writing proposals that go nowhere. Regarding the following statement in this proposal: "It is not enough to simply assert that an element of fiction such as a fictional character, or a segment of a fictional work, such as an episode or scene should be the subject of a standalone article simply because the book, film or television series from which it is notable." That statement is completely alien to the current practices on Wikipedia. The statement is schizophrenic. "The Harry Potter series is notable, but that doesn't mean that Harry is notable." See how ridiculous that sounds? People were splitting off articles long before Wikipedia:Notability was created, which was created since several inclusion guidelines existed before it, like WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, etc and since "non-notable" was a common reason for deletion given in VFDs and AFDs. The whole concept of "notability" is a semantic game anyway.

Please take a step back. And please stop editing like cult members arguing over your cult's religious tomes. Is "notability" real? Ask yourself. The reification of the word "notability" is the problem. Snap out of it. Every word I've constructed with my keyboard is also a symbol. Are those words real? It doesn't matter. --Pixelface (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, we did have a 200+ editor input RFC at WP:N recently (in 2009): Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. It affirms where notability stands (as a guideline, no stronger than that) and what the SNGs should be doing relative to that. So retreading what notability should be and shouldn't be is not necessary. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Pixelface, you know why Wikipedia has content policies, such as WP:V which underpins all the notability guidelines. These polices are the so we can choose which topics merit a standalone topic without the need to consult an editorial board or a cabal of administrators. If we ignored these policies, then contributors to Wikipedia could not be able create or edit article without having to confer with lots of different editors in order to establish that there is consensus for them to to so. It is much easy to have a guideline on one page which we can all consult, and that provides us with assurance that if we follow it, then our contribution to Wikipedia will result in a better encyclopedia. If we were to ignore the rules all the time, I think you would find that subjective judgement rather than verifiable evidence would be used to judge our contributions, which might not be in your interest if someone were to take a dislike to you. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise is the older discussion. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation is newer and was brought up about delisting it entirely. While the ultimate descion was kept, it was noted upon closing by the admin that there were serious disagreements within the community that the actual guideline itself was the propoer guideline for WP:N. However as the discussion was just keep or delist, it was kept.陣内_Jinnai 00:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagreements there were, but no alternative to notability as inclusion criteria was proposed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That we could not agree on what would be better, did not actually mean we agreed on the status quo. If only 30% of people like the old way, and the others are divided over a group of overlapping proposals, we have no consensus to adopt anything new, but also none to keep the old. What we do in that sort of a situation is to continue to discuss until we do have something, and in the meantime we fortunately do have a policy backup, commonsense, AKA what will improve the encyclopedia. IAR was meant for situations not covered by policy. Obviously, we will not always agree on common sense, so we unfortunately will have to discuss each case. And we do have policies that help , such as WP:V, and WP:NOR. We still cannot write about fiction out of our own heads, without reliable sources. My own opinion is that we could easily have achieved consensus , except for a few people who wanted extreme positions, such as all characters whatsoever in a soap opera being notable enough for a separate article, or all episodes in even minor series. (and of course also the people who wanted to minimize fiction coverage, and have a very limited view of what should be in an encyclopedia.). DGG (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy

Can anyone think of an article which would pass this proposal but fail WP:N?

I can't, which makes it redundant. Hiding T 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Or, more importantly, pass WP:N and fail this? --MASEM (t) 13:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we have discussed the potential of writing a plot summary only article, using reliable secondary sources for coverage. Plot summary on its own can't be used to establish notability, because its not indepenedent of the primary work. Potentially the requirements of WP:N which requires independent sourcing and WP:PLOT which prohibits plot only articles could be evaded, but this guideline makes it clear that real world coverage is required to meet Wikipedia's content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That would then add WP:WAF, WP:V and WP:NOR to the list of policies and guidance this proposal is redundant to. No-one has, as yet, thought of an article though, including the proposer. Hiding T 14:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since your starting point is that this guideline is redundant, I can't accept your bald assertion Hiding, it they make no sense - this proposal does not even mention WP:NOR. This guideline fits with the existing frame of policies and guidelines, but that does not make it redundant per se, as they still have to be applied to this specific subject area, in the same way WP:MOVIE and WP:BK do for quite some time now. Nonetheless I will come back to you soon with some examples of plot only articles that are reliably sourced to illustrate why this guideline is needed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hilding does have a point. This is a notability guideline, not a content or style guideline. If we either don't increase, decrease or alter the types of articles that would survive a GNG in an AfD it is pointless.陣内_Jinnai 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Its not a numbers game. This version of the guideline is not any stricter than any previous versions, and there would be no benefit from making it more strict than WP:N. Nor does it not attempt to cover any stylistic issues - this guideline is about sourcing, as are all the other notability guidelines. The raison d'être for this guideline is given in the preamble - it provides specialized guidance about the notability of fictional topics, which must be given special consideration because they are not inherently real; unlike books or films, fictional topics don't have a real world manifestation.
  In answer to Hiding, I think the article Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons) does come close to being a well sourced article that is virtually all plot summary, without any real world commentary. Admittedly the sources it cites are not independent, but if they were, this article demonstrates that type of coverage that is not balanced, even though it cites sources respected in its subject area. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Gavin, to an extent it is a numbers game. If it does not have an impact on the notability of an article that would otherwise be kept or deleted by the GNG or other SNGs, its redundant. Content is not the purview of notability. Plain and simple.陣内_Jinnai 20:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this redundant guideline is helping anything. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You could say that of WP:MOVIE and WP:BK, but they too are useful guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Point, and has been made, this a notability guideline. Content belongs with content policy. Stucture belongs with editing or style guidelines. Notability deals with referencing and what articles are approrpiate based upon those references and community consensus driven by policy and various wikiprojects. That's it. That's all this should be talking about and should not be talking about how to format. It is approrpiate to define what might make a source defined or not defined in WP:N useful or not for defining notability. That is where talk about creator commentary comes in, FE. It is also for defining what type of articles are generally the types that would be accepted as stand-alone articles and what doesn't. That's what three prong test tried to do. Beyond defining what "real-world impact" is, there is no need to go into an articles content or structure. The only reason for defining that is because its necessary for notability. Everthing else should be moved off of this guideline and referenced to the appropriate policy, guideline or essay. >If that's not what you think this article should do, it should be an easay because its going beyond what a notability guideline should do.陣内_Jinnai 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Providing evidence of notability is shows that a topic can meet Wikipedia's policies, so you can divorce this or any other SNG from the content policies that underly them. If a fictional topic does not meet the inclusion criteria, then it is going to fail one or more content polices as well. Your assertion that this should be an essay makes no sense, because you still need inclusion criteria for fictional topics that distinguish between real world coverage and plot summary, and that is what WP:N fails to do on its own. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No you do not need to define that. Content policy itself can define what is needed in an article, ie that fiction articles are more than just plot and trivial real-world information. Notability does not define that. It defines the amount and types of references you can uses. You, and others, are trying to have WP:FICT be too much of a load-bearing guideline which is why we have WP:Fiction which is entirely about content...not notability. This document tries to do too much. It tries to act as policy, when its not. It tries to act as a style guideline, when its not. That is one of the reasons it failed last time it will fail this time as well because it does not try to compromise (in fact it just is redudantly spouting out what the GNG says which there was a lot of opposition to for fictional articles which likely has not abated (and trying to pass it without a similar level of RFC i would oppose).
Also I have not really seen any attempt from you to try and compromise with those who believe the GNG is to strict. The document does not in any way, shape or form attempt even the spirit of consensus as it doesn't even allow for creator commentary to be used to show notability. Every attempt at an alternative you have soundly and repeatedly said that it's not the GNG therefore it shouldn't be used. Zero attempts at compromise. Nilch. Saying that stuff that does not meet that criteria will be merged or deleted is not compromise, its stating something obvious.
That is why this should remain an essay. It is essentially one sides view on notability (as well as loaded with unessary stuff like content format).陣内_Jinnai 21:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you came to this conclusion. Content policy itself does indeed define what is needed in an article, and if a topic is notable, then it may be presumed to satisfy content policy:

The problem with plot summary is that it can be admitted as evidence that a topic is notable, since its source is not independent of the fictional work itself. That is why significant real world coverage is required too establish notability for fictional topics.
As regards compromise, I am always open to new proposals, but they have to be honest about their aims and objectives. One proposal which I believe you want compromise on is to do with creator commentary, that you want it treated as if were an independent reliable source, when in fact its not, it is basically self-published and is not independent at all. It is very hard to compromise if you are suggesting that fictional topics should be exempt from Wikipedia:Verifiability, because policy that independent sourcing is required for standalone articles. WP:V is also very central to how Wikipedia functions, so I doubt very much that a compromise that involves constructing an exemption for fiction could be established along those lines. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, when have I said fictional elements should be exempt from WP:V? You are confusing that policy with a guideline, WP:N, which I do disagree in regards to fictional elements.陣内_Jinnai 13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not confusing the two at all. WP:N basically provides guideance on how WP:V is applied, and both insist on independent rather than manufactured sources as a basis for the inclusion of a topic as a standalone article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons)

What issues does the above article have which this proposed version of WP:FICT alone can solve that no other policy can? Hiding T 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Significant coverage

I don't understand this shift from significant coverage to non-trivial coverage proposed by Jinnai on the grounds that he is "putting this more in line with the GNG which does NOT require signifigant coverage, but just non-trivial".
I would have thought it obvious from WP:GNG that significant coverage is required:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

Why would we want to use the term non-trivial, when significant is the established description? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Creator commentary

I have to question the following statement added by Jinnai:

Creator commentary on specific elements may still hint at the likelyhood of the element being notable.

It seems to me that this statement runs contrary to the spirit of WP:SPS, which says that "self-published media...are largely not acceptable". The reason is that they are not allowale is that generally they are not considered independent of the primary source. WP:BK specifically rules out such sources on the grounds that "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book".
I think it would be better if this guideline did not run contrary to these other guidelines and the above statement should be removed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought FICT was dead, and we were going with NOTE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I specifically said "hint" because a series that gets creator commentary usually is more popular, more reviewed, etc. Series without them tend to be less popular and less notable. Therefore "hint" is approrpriate as compromise IMO from saying that they can be used as notability and saying they can't be. (honestly I think for elements of a work, creator commentary should be usable as partial evidence of notability of an element. IE if all you have is CC, then it would fail, but if you have CC + 1 non-trivial source that covers the element in detail that is independant that that's enough)

I do think its best to get things clarrified in notability in general as there are just too many problems.陣内_Jinnai 01:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If the source is not independent of the primary work, then that source is not evidence that a topic has been noted in published commentary from reliable sources independent of the topic itself. This is a serious conflict - you can't used creator commentary as an independent source because creators, publishers and promoters a direct interest in publicising the primary work. This not a credible statement. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not always. If its a seperate book form of media, yes. If its commentary on a DVD with the media itself there really is no marketable reason to do that, especially if there is only 1 version. People will buy the DVD who will buy it already; it won't increase sales any because you have commentary on a media people intend to buy already to watch or read.陣内_Jinnai 15:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how your argument can be supported. WP:MOVIE says "The published works must be someone else writing about the film. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its creator or producer) have actually considered the film notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

nothing writer by the creator can make the work itself notable, but what the creator says about he different plot elements or characters can indicate which of them are important. The value of what creators say of their own intent has been a major theme in critical theory for centuries, with sharply diverging schools, but it is one of the factors that can be considered. DGG (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what is meant. The creator of a work cannot be used in any way, shape or form to show notability of their work. They alone cannot be used to justify a separate article for an element within a work, but can be used as evidence with non-trivial independent sources to show notability of an element when something is on the edge, ie up at AfD. Furthermore, refusing to use creator commentary when it can be verified would violate WP:NPOV.陣内_Jinnai 05:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Then creator commentary may be better placed in the section Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria, rather than being used as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so because it can help show notability as an independent article, ie not be merged or redirected.陣内_Jinnai 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We both know that sources that are not independent of the primary source can be challenged as having been manufactured for promotional purposes, which can take the form of attempting to obtain monetary or non-monetary gain from writing Wikipedia articles. Sources such as creator commentary can't provide evidence of notability for this reason at all, because they are just not credible in terms of accuracy, bias or undue weight. This is a non-starter, believe me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because they can be, doesn't mean they will fail a challenge automatically. SPSes are challenged every day and not every one of them fails, even though we caution against their use. In some cases entire articles are based upon them and these articles pass challenges to reivews of their sources. We aren't saying SPSes aren't allowed automatically because they can be challenged and therefore should not do so for creator commentary, but should note that it alone cannot be used to show notability.陣内_Jinnai 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Directories and databases

I note that you have tagged the inclusion criteria that form part of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) with {{where}} template. With regard to the following can you explain why you have done this?

Directories and databases are examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

Note that this wording has been cribbed from Note 6 of WP:N, and is already in use and widely accepted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

well, i tagged it with {{where}} b/c i was actually unaware of that little nugget squirreled away as a ref on WP:N, and i appreciate you taking the time to draw my attention to it. I have been a regular editor on wikipedia for several years, and thought that i was familiar with WP:N. Given that the main text is referring to WP:NOT, i would assume that the directories and databases it is referring to are those like the phone book, with such an incredibly large scope (all people in that geographic region) that individual members are only loosely connected. It might be better to use wording like:

"Some reliable sources, like directories and databases, are indiscriminate collections of loosely connected members, it is recommended that articles should not usually rely on these types of sources to establish notability."

Feel free to remove my tag, and perhaps wikilink to that section of WP:N.

(extra ranting, read if you like) To be honest, it is difficult to keep up with all the conversations on just WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR, that to be asked to also be aware of the minutiae of their supporting guidelines is a little inhuman. And we could both attest to many editors on here who would feel that coverage in a reliable source has satisfied WP:V, so guidelines be damned - i generally challenge the notion of that wording, and even WP:N, as being widely accepted (remember the hue and cry when it was upgraded from essay?).--ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• You make a valid point in this regard; I think note 5 does not fully explain itself. Your wording has its merits, but I recall an exchange I had with another editor (Masem) regarding the term "indiscriminate collections of loosely connected members" which makes this term problematical. He argued something along the lines that lists of characters or episodes should always merit their own standalone page on the grounds that they were not indiscriminate, but that they were part of a set of fictional elements that should have their own page on the grounds that this would provide comprehensive coverage of a topic. I have therefore amended WP:FICT#Inclusion criteria as follows:

Coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; some reliable sources, like directories and databases, mainly summarize secondary sources, and should not be used in place of secondary sources to establish notability.

I think this follows your train of thought, but is less likely to be disputed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

actually, the reasoning for using those other terms is because i feel character lists are not indiscriminate. I was more referring to a fictional database that decided to list every fictional character ever created, or databases like IMDB being used as the only 3rd party source to say actor X played character Y (or as the only source for info on episodes). However, if a third-party were to write an exhaustive encyclopedia on a fictional subject and that source was deemed to be reliable (i.e. it was truly encyclopedic in nature and not full of speculation or original fiction by the editor) i think it should satisfy our needs to be a specialized encyclopedia, and we could write articles based heavily on that source - although still not exclusively. I don't tend to think articles should be written if they can only be sourced to one book, site, etc. I think that making the claim, "Coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability..." is too bold and would never have agreement, it sounds too contradictory to the sentence from WP:V that our threshold for inclusion is verifiabilty. i find it only necessary that as a guideline we recommend articles to not rely on some kinds of databases and directories as the only source because it calls into question that actual notability of the article. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In my view, if the content of a list is not supported by reliable secondary sources (if only in the main article), then that suggests to me that it is indiscriminate listcruft without a rationale for inclusion. A broad rule of thumb might be that if, say, a list of characters is not the subject of coverage in an article about a notable topic, then it is indiscriminate stuff. I am not sure how else you can distinguish between listcruft and geniniely encyclopedic coverage.
With regard to the argument that coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability, if only because Wikipedia is itself a tertiary source, and because tertiary sources tend to be summaries of secondary sources, such that it is very difficult to agrue that their coverage is not received third-hand so to speak, from a secondary source. Summarising a tertiary source is the equivalent of summarising a summary, and is the equivalent of hearsay from a legal perspective.
In theory some "Encylopedia of..." type publications may contain commentary from from reliable secondary sources (say an expert opinion of the editor), but I think this is an example of a secondary source being "embeded" in a tertiary source that might be allowable as evidence of notability if the expert opinion can be clearly distinguished from the rest of the tertiary source.
For these reasons, I think it is necessary to be bold, and a recomendation not to use tertiary sources as evidence of notability invites Wikilawyering. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

you're arguing that the subject does not merit inclusion (is not-notable) despite it's non-trivial discussion in a reliable third-party source only because that source is tertiary? while our other guidelines already say one should not depened on such sources for high levels of detail, they do not cast them off as irrelevant for establishing notability. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, if it is the subject of non-trivial discussion in a reliable third-party source, then it is clearly a secondary source (such as commentary from an expert editor), even it is embedded in a tertiary source. Same goes for primary sources; sometimes you get commentary from an expert with, say, embedded as an introduction to Classic texts such as The Prince, which are often the best source of criticism, analysis and context. Although the publication itself may be a primary source, the commentary (such as the introduction) may be classed as a reliable secondary source. However, primary and tertiary coverage on their own do not impart any notability per Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

i am wondering what phrasing you are interpreting as saying, "...tertiary coverage on [its] own do[es] not impart any notability..." - please keep your quote relevant to tertiary sources. it seems to me that WP:OR is discussing content and prose, not suitability of inclusion. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean: I may have over stepped the mark. I have amended the wording in accordance with the footnotes in WP:N as follows:

Note that all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

Please feel free to amend this if you feel it can be improved upon. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Been a while since I checked in on the debate, but the last time I looked, I thought the winds were blowing in the direction of once again decoupling inclusion guidelines for works of fiction and fictional things. Which decoupling I heartily approve of, in no small part because of the wrenching ontological confusion that comes from equating the two -- the ropes and straps used to try to yoke them together show all over the place. A quick glance at the voluminous archives doesn't find when the winds shifted again, so a plea from a passing editor: please, please separate them. Focus this on just inclusion guidelines for fictional things, and leave works of fiction to format-specific guidelines like WP:BK and WP:NF. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Format-specific guidelines have been created because a work or element of fiction can take many different real world forms, and establishing their notability can be done in a variety of ways, e.g. Lady Chatterly's Lover is not only a notable work of fiction in itself, but the book itself was the subject of a notable obscenity trial. Establishing the distinction between of works and elements of fiction which have not been distributed seperately is more difficult. The terms works and elements can be used interchangeably to describe episodes in, say, a television series, or individual works which can be grouped together, such as a collection of short stories. This guideline is necessary where a work/element of fiction is not format-specific, simply because the boundry between the two is not clear. For this reason, it seems sensible to me to have a seperate guideline for "fictional topics" which covers both. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If your Lady Chatterly example is intended to show how something can be shown notable as both a work of fiction and a fictional element, it's not working -- both of those demonstrate the notability of the work of fiction. Admittedly most of my experience working on articles on serial works has been manga and comics, and I've never fought in the trenches of a television series, but I've yet to find a short story serial art collection where the distinction cannot be clearly made between the stories and what they narrate. Given that television episodes seem to be the main point of difficulty, possibly that format alone needs separate inclusion guideline. But as I said, I haven't been engaged in this debate for some time, and don't have your experience. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with you to a certain extent, Quasirandom. The problem appears to be working out how to change the guidance on this page. Do you have any ideas? Maybe yet another restart? Hiding T 12:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No specific ideas. To be honest, I stay out of guidelinewonkery these days, because it's my road to wikiburnout. So I occasionally kibitz from the sidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sniff test

This proposal is, as it stands, a more rigorous version of WP:N. That is, it sets up criteria in addition to WP:N for inclusion. All articles that pass this will pass WP:N, but it is possible for an article to pass WP:N and fail this.

This, to my mind, fails the sniff test. There is clearly nothing resembling a consensus that fiction articles should be governed under a stricter standard than WP:N. There is no way, looking at the past debate on this matter, to come even close to that interpretation.

This proposal is clearly DOA, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Unless its advocates can provide some reason why, given the context of this debate, there is community consensus that the notability requirements for fiction are actually stricter than WP:N (when in fact this dispute arises primarily because of the large number of people who advocate for extremely lose notability criteria for fiction, and their ability to sway AfDs), this proposal should be delisted, as it is disingenuous at best to give the suggestion that a proposal that so blatantly fails the sniff test is a serious possibility. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You could say this of any or all the SNG's. The reality is that, in the same way WP:N provides practical guidance on the application of Wikipedia's content policies to article inclusion in general, so too do WP:FICT, WP:BK, and WP:MOVIE provide practical guidance on their application of to specific subject areas. In this sense, WP:FICT and the other SNG's are not stricter than WP:GNG, they just illuminate the various notability issues that apply to fictional topics, the key being that plot summary on its own can't be used as evidence of notability.
As you have not said what your "sniff test" actually represents, I would guess it is based on some set criteria loosely based on subjective judgement. I am afraid I would have to dismiss your bald assertion that this guideline is in any way stricter than WP:N. So far, your proposal at Wikipedia:Fiction has skirted around the issue of article inclusion criteria. Instead, I think it is a vague and deliberately misleading essay in which various exemptions from Wikipedia's content policies are currently nesting. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You manifestly can't say it for, for instance, WP:BIO, which says explicitly that these are additional options for satisfying notability. And for something like WP:MUSIC, there is a clear consensus to tighten the notability guidelines.

Given that it is a dodgy claim to say that there is consensus to apply WP:N as is to fiction, the claim that there is consensus for an actively stricter version is transparently false. Hence my saying it doesn't pass the sniff test - it is self-evidently false.

And I don't see how you're rejecting the claim that this is stricter than WP:N. It's the exact words of WP:N with extra requirements written in. I mean, you're not even being subtle here - you're transparently saying fiction has to meet some standard of supernotability to be included. And you know full well there's no consensus for that view, which makes me wonder what the point of this page is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What specifically are the extra requirements built in? Exactly in what way does this differ from WP:N? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Real world" appears nowhere in WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You want to debate this, I'm cool, start a discussion about it if you feel it is misplaced, but don't dismiss this proposed guideline on the pretext that it more stict. Note that WP:BK and WP:MOVIE go out of their way to explain why plot summary without critical commentary is not allowable as evidence of notability. WP:FICT simply makes this clear: plot summary on its own is not independent of the primary work, even if it comes from reliable source. This is not strictness, this is common sense application of WP:N which says that Independent of the subject means that works produced by those affiliated with the subject are not evidence of notability. There has to be some real world coverage to show that the primary work being noted, not just regurgitated.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'm saying that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this viewpoint has consensus for elements of fictional works, and plenty of reason to believe it doesn't. And until you provide evidence otherwise, this proposal should be delisted as a proposal, as it does not appear to be even remotely serious. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This things going nowhere. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's either redundant since it restates WP:N, or it goes further than WP:N. What I find strange is the fact that Gavin is arguing that FICT is similar to WP:BK and WP:MOVIE when it patently is not. FICT goes further than WP:N by adding extra hurdles to the route proposed at WP:N, whilst WP:BK and WP:MOVIE add alternative routes to that set out at WP:N. Someone please, please, mark this as rejected and then put up an index of all the versions of FICT and all other related stuff, similar to Wikipedia:Notability (populated places). Hiding T 23:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be cool to see all the different versions. There must be a bunch. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer's been the biggest holdout in shutting this atrocity down, so I'm confused as to why he's suddenly throwing in the towel now that it finally has in it most of the things that make it worthwhile including the substantial real world coverage? I think this is a dodge to get people away, so that in a month the zombie corpse can rise to again try to get through the 'if it exists, it's notable' level that Phil long advocated. We don't need Phil to make this stricter proposal into a recognized guideline, and we should push for this version to rise to that of a guideline. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thuran, does it take work to spew your pathetic lies about me, or does it come naturally for you? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no one person "holding" this project up. There are many contentions. We still have an RfC outstanding. There is still the problem this would not pass in its current if a similar number and demographic of respondents came to comment on the proposal as a whole since it was split evenly with that less strict proposal (and there were a number who didn't like the more liberal version thought the GNG was good enough). I think people here do not understand this is absolute base level of what should constitute enough evidence of importance to be kept as an article, not to create feature articles; people also seemed trapped by the past and use it at times as a weapon to point out that because it already is, it cannot be anything but (specifically in regard to the GNG, even though the GNG lacks consensus on its current form).陣内_Jinnai 06:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Jinnai, I think there are many undercurrents out there that mean that this guideline in its current form will not be accepted immediatetly, but I am confident that it will be accepted gradually, grudingly and maybe with some more amendments. But it is clear its precepts have precendent in WP:BK and WP:MOVIE, so Phil's bald assertion that it does not have consensus does not hold up - everything in here is already policy or is included in another guideline. The innovation this version has over old versions is that the inclusion criteria are consistent with WP:N, WP:PLOT and WP:WAF together. The exemptions from that have been proposed over the past two years do not work, and have been shown to be nothing more than special pleading for fictional topics because they ignored the bigger picture. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is policy, does not mean it is unchallenged. The notability guideline has and continues to be one of the most challanged guidelines. It has no true concensus on fiction given the last 2 debates there and the RFC here. The problem with this version is it will never be accepted by enough of the community who actually work on the articles because it does nothing to try and reach a compromise most can live with and the proposals always proposals put forward are always sumarily rejected it what appears to be bodering on bad faith by those editors that nothing but the GNG can be used, despite on SNGs allowing limited execptions. FE, several criteria in WP:BK do not require meeting the GNG, specifically anything other than #1, although #2 probably would have such, but it isn't nessasarily guaranteed.陣内_Jinnai 14:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What alternative are you suggesting to WP:N? It is clear that this guideline is the consensus par excellence, if you take into account all the SNG's which have been based on it. If you have any doubt that WP:N is successful, note that it is the only policy and guideline that has actually been parodied, for heavens sake. It is a really sound policy if you ask me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I can point you to the discussions that noted clear disagreements with the GNG, many of which were on specific issues, not on it as a whole. Specifically fiction was never designed to be covered by the notability guideline. It is a round hole and fiction is a square peg. You can't force something like that.

Even taking into account the various SNGs, none of them have ways of figuring out notability of elements within a fictional work because those guidelines were not deisnged to do that and the GNG was not either. This guideline isn't as well because it doesn't allow for exceptions like WP:BK does, WP:MOVIE and WP:WEB and they all deal with fiction in some way. WP:FICT stands alone as making it harder without some alternate path.

I have suggested at least 2 alternate paths, sumarailly discreted by you and to a lesser extent Kww without you or him offering an alternative.陣内_Jinnai 20:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BK, which I believe is one of the first SNGs, does indeed deal with elements of fiction via its section Derivative articles. From the standpoint of WP:BK, there is nothing new or strict in WP:FICT that does not exist already. What I believe is the difficultly which Phil may be having is that, for the first time, you are reading a notability guideline that deals with all of the content policies relevant to fictional topics in one guideline. It is not that this guideline is stricter, it is just more comprehensive than it has been for some time, and because of this there is no place for the the exemptions or loopholes that were implicit in some previous versions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This would have the effect of making fiction the only area of Wikipedia where all of the content policies on fiction mandate outright deletion for non-compliance. I would say that I am skeptical that this has consensus, but I'm getting tired of using understatement for rhetorical effect, so I'll just call it flat-out ridiculous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What other policies would you use? The fact remains that Wikipedia's existing content policies exist to enable editors like you an me to create or contribute to articles without having to obtain permission to do so from an editorial board or a cabal of administrators. You can dismiss this proposed guideline with a bald assertion that it is flat-out ridiculous, but the fact remains that WP:FICT states explicitly how the content policies apply to fictional topics, something which you are probably not used to seeing in a guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Gavin. It is not the consolidation of content policies for fiction into one page I object to. It is the declaration that deletion is the appropriate remedy for all violations of the policies - a situation that would be unique to fiction. I'm all in favor of a consolidated policy page for fiction, but that policy page should not be a page on the base issue of whether or not to have an article. Not all content issues are notability issues, and trying to shoehorn them into a notability guideline is bad policy making. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not in the proposal, Phil. Quote me where it is, and it can be discussed, but the section that does discuss deletion specifically counters your histrionic claims. ThuranX (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your talent for obfuscation here is failing you. Perhaps you should revert to all caps profanity - it suited you better. You cannot get around the fact that this page creates more stringent inclusion criteria than WP:N, and then goes on to advocate deletion and merging for articles that do not meet this higher threshold. In doing so, it elevates a fiction content policy - one I have consistently advocated for as a content policy - to grounds for deletion. This is transparently what this "proposal" is doing, and there is no way around that fact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any such declaration, Phil. What it does say is that this guideline should not be used as a set of deletion criteria. Remember that topic inclusion and article deletion are seperate processes. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Baloney. You know full well that a notability page is a de facto deletion criteria page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. This page specifically excludes such assumptions. Stop accusing others of lying as well, it's getting tiresome. ThuranX (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This page could insist that black is white, but that would not make it so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I think you are being disingenuous in this context. The section Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria is very clear that purpose of this guideline is not to be used as a deletion criteria. Which articles are kept or deleted is collectively determined by the participants of AfD discussions, and they usually make their decisions based on their own knowledge of the topic (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrell Corporation) or the evidence presented to them in the articles concerned. I have never seen an AFD in which an editor has stated that an article fails WP:FICT, and everyone else changed their vote or said "OMG, if it fails FICT then it must be deleted. The process of deletion does not work that way and you know it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Significant or Non-Trivial?

With regard to this edit ,where in WP:GNG, is the term non-trivial used, if at all? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The WP:GNG does not use the word "non-trivial", but does use the words "more than a trivial mention" which is exactly what non-trivial means. While it comes under the heading of "Significant coverage" since FICT doesn't say what it is, it will be contented to rather be higher than lower as the word signigiant implies more than moderate. That was really the problem I had with it before. I admit non-trivial may be at the other extreme. I think its best here then to reinterate what signifigant means. I do realize people can go to the GNG, but many elwayers won't.陣内_Jinnai 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the change that you made to WP:FICT by substituting "significant" with "non-trivial" is of benefit, becasue it appears you are arguing that coverage for fictional topics should only be "non-trivial" which is the bare mininium, where as the term "significant" is somewhat higher that. I am sure you are acting in good faith, but in my eyes your change looks like you are trying to water down the requirement for significant coverage made in WP:GNG, and for this reason I don't accept your changes. I would argue that your departure from WP:N has been made to give special treatment to fictional topics not afforded to other subject areas, and I am not sure what your motivation is. If there is a benefit, please explain.
On the one hand, I do recognise that your approach is not totally invalid, but I wish you would understand why I object to it. Although WP:BK and WP:MOVIE use the term "non-trivial", they define this term in both the body and the foot notes in terms of sourcing, rather than in terms of focus of the coverage itself (e.g. tertiary sources, such as database listings, and self-published sources such as blogs are not evidence of notability). Personally, I consider sourcing to be a seperate issue, dealt with by WP:SOURCES. Furthermore, it is hard to discuss this issue in terms of trivia at all, as again, this can be viewed as an entirely seperate issue dealt with by Wikipedia:Trivia sections.
If we go back to the roots of what is trivial and non-trival, my understand of what is non-trivial is illustrated by WP:GNG, which says

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material

I just don't agree that the term "non-trivial" does this issue justice: only significant coverage can "anchor" a topic to its sources, otherwise it is not possible to distinguish between content forks and articles which genuinely meet all of Wikipedia's content policies, such as the Terminator series of content forks which are not the subject of significant coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Significant implies a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning. Without actually explaining in the article (I feel a wikilink back to the GNG would not suffice) it will almost certainly be used to hold sources to higher standards than they should. If a review of 5 paragraphs has one paragraph talking about a character in-depth, then that may be viewed, without the explanation as being "insignificant". At the same time an entire paragraph devoted to explaining one character is hardly trivial commentary given the size of the article (assuming all paragraphs are decent length).

Part of this has to do with the poor choice of wording in the GNG. Significant tends to hold a higher standard than what the GNG requirement actually specifies.

Due to the controversial nature of fictional element articles I believe we need to go the extra mile and spell out something like this, if indeed significant is to be used. For other SNGs they do not have nearly the same level of controversy.陣内_Jinnai 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Significant does imply a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning, I agree. But the issue of content forks still remains: if you don't have a standard that is high, you can't distinguish between a "genuine" aricle and a content fork. The Terminator content forks all contain non-trivial coverage related to their subject matter. For example, the article Terminator (franchise) does not contain any significant coverage about its subject matter, ie. coverage that address the concept as the Terminator as a franchise directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content, even though I use the word franchise in its broadest possible sense. Significant coverage is vital for anchoring an article to its sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Terminator, creating a franchise page is considered a common practice when you deal with multiple works within a series. If you disagree that's a separate issue that should be taken up elsewhere.

However, I think we need to emphasis what significance is as if we do not we are handing munition to deletionist and mergist without giving anything to inclusionist. We are effectively saying "screw you" to anyone who wants to create an article that has some secondary sources, the content on them is clearly not trivial. I say this because the part about inclusion criteia does not also include the possibility that the article be able to WP:IAR and be kept for other reasons.陣内_Jinnai 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with this approach is that the difference between "trivial" and "non-trivial" is just too slight. Significant coverage is a superior requirement, in that sources address the subject directly in detail are easily discernable. Coverage which is not direct or detailed is usually insufficient to use in an article without being supplemented with orginal research or synthesis. In any case, if a topic is not the subject of coverage that is direct and in detail, how can you claim it has been noted at all? What is the point of non-trivial coverage if the subject matter is being addressed in this way? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And that's why I think it's wrong. Your trying to over-compensate for the marginial difference between trivial and minor to just shift it over to the other extreme completely bypassing the middle ground of moderate. As to claiming if it is notable, if almost every reliable sources continually mention some element, but do not necessarily go into detail due to the way their article, interview, show, etc. is structured, its hard to say the element is unnotable since so many RSes seem to want to mention it. This is where I say a multitude of non-trivial sources, aka those that use minor coverage that is above trivial. We define trivial by consensus as what is trivial for one source may be signfigiant for another one. I do agree it needs to be covered directly, but the level of detail can vary, but does need to go beyond the basic facts of its existance in the narrative.陣内_Jinnai 09:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing extreme about being clear, which is why the requirement for "significant" coverage is important when it comes to resolving disputes. If almost every reliable sources continually mention some element, that does not mean they are notable. A mulitude of trivial mentions is not a substitute for coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail; the coverage has to be focused. If there is no focus, then it is difficult to ascertain wether the source is addressing a notable topic, or whether it is addressing a non-notable only in passsing. Perhaps the only way to resolve this issue is to draft an RFC on the issue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Non-trivial or significant

The term "non-trivial" has replaced "significant" in regard to the level of coverage that is required to establish the notability of fictional topics. The term "significant" implies a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning, and may imply a higher standard than is required. Comment is requested on whether "non-trivial" or "significant" should be used to describe the type of coverage that address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• My strong opinion with "trivial" from years back is that we should not label any source as trivial. The issue is with sources that contain "trivial coverage of the subject", and the use of trivial is synonymous with incidental. There is definitely a problem with the word "significant". In everyday use, is means highly substantial, even providing input that changes/determines the entire view. In technical terms, "significant" means almost the opposite of this. It means anything down to things barely measurable above, even at, the noise level. For this reason as well I thing the use of "significant" is non-ideal. I suggest using the phrase "incidental coverage of the subject" in places where with less words you might use significant/trivial. I know it's more words, but often very interested editors need these things explained precisely more than briefly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• I favor "significant", mainly because it is a term of art: directly taken from WP:N, it should have a consistent meaning across Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is also the way the general notability guideline defines "significant" and the lack of clarrification here.陣内_Jinnai 03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Remove both "non-trivial" and "significant" as subjective terms. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Restore the term "significant" — and require a high bar. There certainly are trivial sources; the sources of no import, that are often unreliable. What is required is multiple reliable sources that comment in depth about matters of substance. A fistful of ghits dredged up means boo. tehyz gonna index tweets, which are not evidence of anything. The idea behind notability is that someone of note has taken note — and opined in a significant way on the subject in question. A trivial mention of a term in the context of a source covering a larger context doesn't cut it.
  We are supposed to be covering what others have already covered, not leading the way to cover what we like. If you like what is good and significant, then you're in sync with the core goals of the project. If you find that the reliable sources have not covered what you love in a manner that has little trouble meeting the inclusion criteria of most editors, then mebbe a site that is more suited to your finding and collaborating with people who love what you love is the best choice. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep non-trivial as the term is used in multiple SNGs, including every SNG that could possibly cover a fictional elements.陣内_Jinnai 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• significant - kinda... I agree with Kww, that the term has established meaning borrowed from WP:N and it is a threshold i can support... however the comments by Jack suggest that some editors take the term too far and so a reiteration of what the term means (more than trivial, but less than exclusive) might be helpful. As an aside (which means you can leave off reading cause i made my point), in a recent AFD someone had claimed that a three-page article in a publication was "trivial" when compared to the whole works of the publication (i.e. past issues) - no one agreed with that view after it was shot down, so i don't think it's a widespread perception, but it makes me wonder if WP:N doesn't need more clarification. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion & Deletion

Gavin, notability guidelines whatever their theoretical intention is, are in practice deletion guidelines. That much was confirmed by pretty much everyone when i brought it up on the most recent de-listing proposal for WP:N. This just essentially sets the bar higher without giving alternatives like every other SNG to show notability.陣内_Jinnai 07:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai, we have been over this ground many times before, and the bottom line is that topic inclusion and article deletion are seperate areas of Wikipedia.
The term "Notability" is not a reflection of whether a topic should be deleted or not; it used in the sense that the topic has been noted in published commentary from sufficient reliable sources independent of the topic itself to to create an article that meets Wikipedia's content and style policies. "Notability" is a set of inclusion criteria that enable any editor to create or contribute to articles without having to obtain permission to do so from an editorial board or a cabal of administrators.
Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria do not provide verifiable evidence of notability and are likely to fail one or more of Wikipedia's content and style policies as a result. For instance, an article which does only contains trivial in universe coverage of a work or element of fiction is likely to fail WP:NOT#PLOT.
So you see it is not notability that is the "higher bar" Whether or not a topic is notable is an indicator whether or not a topic means Wikipedia's content polices. Notability is not the reason for deletion per se, it is because a topic fails one or more content policies that is the reason for deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Gavim, an article can be quite easily verifiable without being notable as verifiability requires only one idependant source. Notability requires multiple sources. It is considered a higher bar in that it can be used to remove the mention of Monkey D. Luffy as a notable character in One Piece even through its verifiable that he is a the principal character in a world-wide best selling managa. Therefore it is used for deletion and merging.陣内_Jinnai 08:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That is correct Jinnai. Notability is a higher bar than verifiability. That is because you can't apply Wikipedia's content policies one by one in isolation to the issue of article inclusion. Content policies have to be treated as a framework, each one supporting the other. Editors can create or contribute to any article so long as the topic meets all of Wikipedia content polices, not just one policy on is own. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. It seems naive to think that an inclusion guideline is not going to be marshaled as a justification for deletion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. WP's policies and guidelines steer away from inclusion (the fact that we have WP:NOT but not an equivalent WP:IS is one symptom of the issue). Notability is gears towards when content should either be a standalone article or otherwise merged and/or deleted in some cases. There are things that we require for inclusion-V, NOR, NPOV-but nothing that is a helping hand to bring content to the work. That's not to say everything we'd want to include should be an article, but believing that notability is the same as inclusion is a misnomer. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think this guideline is very definite on this issue, that "it should not be used as a set of deletion critera". In any case, deletion is the outcome of last resort for articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria; if sources are available why not improve them instead? I think this is the common sense approach taken by most participants in AFD discussions. In my experience, an article will only be deleted if it fails multiple content polices, e.g. it is unsourced, it original research or the topic is covered better elsewhere. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we don't need such guidelines, but because they will more often than not be used for deletion (people will point to WP:V and saying "notability is just a guideline" if they want to keep things), we should be wary about setting the bar too high and if we raise the bar, we must, like other sngs, allow for alternate paths of notability.陣内_Jinnai 18:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

When you say that notability "sets the bar too high", one has to ask, higher than what? Notability is only as high as the content policies which underpin it, and if there were set of alternatives that could replace them, then this would be a valid comment. But since there is no alternative, it is a spurious arguement. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying this sng proposal sets the bar to high in comparison to the GNG without alternate routes as the other SNGs have (while also raising the bar in general).陣内_Jinnai 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the other SNG's are very clear - there must be verifiable evidence of notability for a topic to be included in Wikipedia as a standalone article. The form of evidence must varies slightly in each SNG, but this reflects the fact that most subject areas are about real world topics, which can be observed as well as read about. Fictional topics are not inherently real, and so the only verifiable evidence we have of their notability is shown in the Inclusion criteria. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That last part is clearly your opinion and one that does not have consensu.陣内_Jinnai 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a better statement is that there is no alterative proposal being made that fits within the framework of Wikipedia's existing polices and guidelines, which do have consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. The use of creator commentary, FE, does not violate any of the 5 pillars. Nor does getting information from multiple reliable sources that talk about the subject directly, though not significantly or even exclusively; in fact quite the opposite as using too few may violate that.陣内_Jinnai 21:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Creator commentary is just not independent of the subject. As regards trivial coverage, what is the point of writing an ariticle if the subject matter is another topic altogether? This sounds like special pleading to me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Creator commentary is independant enough in regards to elements. In regards to the work, no it's not. Promoting a specific element or not will not in almost any case get more sales than not nor make their work as a whole seem better/worse, which would be the conflicts-of-interest here (the exception to this could be if the new content was in another media that cost money). The use solely of that could violate neutrality, but so could the lack of it. The information is still verifiable and it's not original research.

As to the second point. Tivial comments, your right. However comemnts that are less than signifigant, but more than trivial is different.陣内_Jinnai 00:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

As it stands, does this proposal have a viable chance of garnering consensus under the level of scrutiny that the previous proposal was subjected to?

Yes

1. Established much stricter criteria, doesn't obligate deletion in cases of failure, and that takes care of some earlier hurdles. ThuranX (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No

1. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC). The last proposal saw a number of misguided oppose votes objecting that it was setting up stricter requirements than the GNG, and many more who viewed it as too strict. In this case, we have a proposal that actually does set up stricter requirements than the GNG. Such a proposal has no chance of community consensus.
2. 陣内_Jinnai No, if the same general audience that came for the last RfC came in I am certain it would not pass currently.
3. The way forward is to abolish "notability" as an inclusion criteria. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

   That helps nothing at all; then every single thing on Earth would wind up in here. Further, it's not going to happen, so instead, we should work with what we have. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

   It is true that WP:N has probably never enjoyed consensus inasmuch as we define the term these days. I agree that it's never going to be abolished, and that abolishing it would be worse than keeping it at this point, but it is worth keeping in mind as a limiting factor in conceptualizing the scope of the guideline. It is a bit of an odd duck as pages go. Too popular to abolish, too illegitimate to make policy. Those that wish to extend its scope would do well to remember that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

   I agree with A nobody. RE: "That helps nothing at all; then every single thing on Earth would wind up in here." This Slippery slope argument has been made before repeatedly. There was no threat of Wikipedia having every single thing on earth before WP:N. ThuranX, I know you are not esposing this, but several editors have hinted at this in the past: WP:N is not the only thing saving wikipedia from chaos. It can be argued very convincingly in fact that WP:N is causing extreme negative publicity for wikipedia, and we are losing a lot of promising editors because of WP:N. Ikip (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Ikip (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
5. And barring a sudden plague that wipes out the editors on one side of the debate, it probably never will. --erachima talk 07:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Obnoxious "I defy your poll" !vote comments

Y'all should just chill out. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Another view

I'm not well-suited for the tedious discussion and "straw polling" on this talk page but am very interested in seeing something like this become policy. I have written my views on the matter here and would welcome anyone crafting this policy to draw from those if they find it applicable. Savidan 18:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick comment: I doubt that treatment of fiction can be agreed enough to be "policy". Guideline, yes, ideally. As for the essay, I think they share most of our feelings on the matter, but we've also been down that road before and soundly rejected by the split in the community on fiction treatment. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Savidan has got his head around all the key issues relating to notability, and I think his essay makes worthwhile reading. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Not be used for a deletion critiera"?

Should this read: "not be used as a speedy deletion criterion"? I can't imagine why we would go through all the trouble of writing a notability policy and not use it as an inclusion/deletion criteria at all. I can, of course, understand why this wouldn't rise to the level of a speed deletion criteria. Savidan 18:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

hehe... you just proved Jinnai and phil's earlier point... i'm sorry, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. this is an example of problem prose where we say you can do one thing, but then later take it back...

Articles that do not meet the inclusion guidelines above may be deleted...

... this guideline... should not be used as a set of deletion criteria.

i tend to agree with editors who beleive notability guidelines are sets of merge/delete criteria... it's ok that they are, and admitting that people use them that way... but we shouldn't confuse people by trying to state otherwise, especially when no other guideline makes those kinds of pains (speedy deletion mentions are of couse excepted). --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Especially for fiction, 90% of the time, the information can be "merged" elsewhere (this may not be a true merge such as bringing a non-notable character into a character list where no additional information in the character article was brought in as the original list had sufficient discourse, but it's still the "merge" concept vs outright deletion. Besides in this case, there's always a redirect (and the old article history) left behind). There are some fiction articles that are outright deleted but most are due to other content aspects. (crystal-balling or being too much of a guide) --MASEM (t) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Especially for fiction, 90% of the time, the information can be merged elsewhere, but should not be. It normally consists of excessive plot detail, and should simply be deleted. It's ridiculous to have this guideline try to disclaim its very reason for being.—Kww(talk) 18:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this guideline is clear that notability is not a set deletion criteria, because you don't have to delete an article at all - it can be improved, merged or kept as is. Is is not obvious by now that the reason why articles get deleted, merged or kept is based on the consensus opinion at AFD? Despite the fact that I have witnessed many articles being kept purely based on subjective importance (e.g. Blood War, but we can't use subjective importance as a basis for article inclusion. Article inclusion an article deletion are two seperate processes, with completely different rationales. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying that it is based on consensus opinion on AfD without acknowledging the fact that it is common for people to reflexively vote based on bright line tests set up in notability guidelines seems to me misleading. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you could say any policy or guideline has consensus if you were to use only AFD discussions as a basis for your arguement, and the reason is that articles are deleted, merged or kept for so many reasons other than policy and guidelines. Some arguments put forward at AFD discussions may be based policies and guidelines, some on expert knoweledge, and quite a lot are based on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. But the decision to delete an article is made on the basis of consensus of opinion. If some editors choose to vote reflexively, they do so at their own discretion. The existence of any policy or guideline cannot predetermine how they must vote, otherwise, why bother? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, get rid of all the users who reflexively use notability guidelines for automatic votes and we'll talk. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I believe that users should use their judgement in deciding how and whether to apply policies and guidelines, but that's a different matter entirely from saying that a notability policy/guideline shouldn't be used in a deletion discussion at all. Savidan 22:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I can't get rid of all the editors who reflexively use notability guidelines for automatic votes, anymore than I can get rid of all the editors who reflexively vote to keep articles. The simple fact of the matter is that AFD only works if as many editors as possible are encouraged to participate, and that means giving each one them a vote. Some arguments hold more weight than others, but which ones do is a matter of consensus, not what is written here. The process article deletion and topic inlcusion are totally seperate, because subjective judgement can over ride Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in AFD debates, and rightly so. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't get rid of them, but you can avoid creating policy that actively empowers them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles that cannot be improved to pass guidelines should be deleted or have the useful content merged. That's a very simple concept, and one that is expressed in AFDs on a continuous basis. I can't understand why anyone would think this guideline was an exception to that.—Kww(talk) 12:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• And here we return to the age old problem of whether to delete or ignore in case something proves useful to someone someday. Another very simple concept is "why worry?", which is also expressed in AFDs on a continuous basis. I can't understand why anyone would think this guideline was an exception to that. This debate is getting tiresome, because of the inability of us all to reconcile our views and recognise that the debate we are having is better had at afd ad nauseum, because each article requires its own solution. Why is it so hard to agree to disagree? Why is it impossible to just retire this page and and simply use WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? Usually the answer is because that doesn't achieve what I'd like to achieve. My answer: Well tough. Welcome to collaboration. You don't get to win, you get to share. If you can't share, go away. Let's retire this page and slap up an index of all failed proposals, list all relevant essays and point people to WP:N. Does anyone truly believe anything we write here will ever get a consensus? Does anyone think a consensus exists on WIki8pedia regarding this issue, beyond let's argue the toss at afd? Look at all the hours spent on this page, and think of what you could have been doing instead. Wikipedia isn't an exercise in rule making. It's an attempt to create a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Hiding T 11:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not clear what your arguement is, Hiding. Are you against the concept of notability in general? Are you against SNGs in particular? Or are you objecting to WP:FICT because it "doesn't achieve what I'd like to achieve" (what ever that is)? I think your comments are lot of hot air that sheds no light. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I think Hiding it stating that you're insistent on trying to define hard-line define something when at best the core concept is a big fuzzy ball with no clear boundaries. Sometimes this had to be done, but for something like notability towards fiction, this is drastically against the concept of "consensus determines policy". We've been at least twice to hard-line define fiction notability, neither worked. You're welcome to try to push this through, but it will likely fail in the same way. Until there is either some moment of inspiration that gives us exactly how we should use notability with fiction that works for every case of past AFD and merging and like, the best advice is to leave this as "consider the GNG and other content policies, work on fiction articles that don't clearly meet the GNG at you own risk". --MASEM (t) 12:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As you know, Masem, its not possible to "use notability with fiction that works for every case of past AFD", because it is not possible reconcile article deletion with topic inclusion - they are seperate processes. Forgive me if I have I said this before, but AFD is a process of by which editors effectively negociate a consensus on whether or not to keep an article based on a variety of reasons, not just whether or not it meets the requirements of this or any other guideline or policy, and all of those reasons cannot be reflected here.
Masem, I think you know this, and when you state "consensus determines policy", what you mean to say is you personally do not agree with the content of proposal, and when you say it is "hard-line", what you really mean is that it sits within the exising framwork of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and does not provide fictional topics with any form of exemption. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is there any TV character which deserves their own article?

Maybe bugs bunny, but I can't think of any other character which is bigger thant the television show they are in. ... Ikip (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

They don't need to be "bigger than" the show, they just need to be independently notable or their article needs to be too long to be part of the show's article. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Some TV characters should have an article, and some shouldn't. As long as a particular character is independantly notable he/she/it should have an article, as per our notability guidelines. I think the clearest example is Mickey Mouse. When we think of him we think of more than Disney cartoons; we think of an entire corporation, with cartoons, movies, theme parks, etc. When sources reference Mickey Mouse they don't do it apropos of his cartoon appearances but because of him as a character with a personality. Discussing him in reference to movies, television appearances, or theme parks just doesn't approach him as an individual character, who has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. On the other end of the spectrum; minor characters and one-time appearanes aren't often discussed because of who they are, but rather they are found (if at all) as trivial mentions within the context of a larger series. The latter type of character doesn't deserve an article, yet the former does. I think the real issue here is the gray area in between fictional superstars and unknowns, yet I think the general notability guideline is good enough to suffice for these cases as well until this guideline enjoys consensus. ThemFromSpace 21:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

rather than guess about what if anything will obtain consensus, follow the compromise position, which is as a default to merge into combination articles. But BB and MM are extreme cases and are not primarily TV characters, but film. --as a purely TV character in a single show who would be notable in their own right, I'd instance Archie Bunker--again, because of the cultural importance and the sources for it. How far down this should go is likely to remain a debatable question indefinitely. I no longer debate it very much because of the obvious compromise solution. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of articles on fictional characters here that really arent noted outside fansites and the tv shows themselves. i also see too many characters discussed as if they are real: ie, consistent, explainable, and possessing their own internal motivation for their actions. nature is consistent, explainable, and possesses internal motivation. and the creators of fictional characters have these properties as well, and use them to create the characters. but the characters dont. the creators may have the characters stand for something, but we cannot assume that say, andy griffith stands for southern hospitality unless the creator or the critics say it clearly. so yes, many tv characters can have articles, but only based on the level of coverage they receive as notable fictional characters. archie bunkers armchair is in the smithsonian, so theres a potential article. when Lou Dobbs reports on speedy gonzalez as an illegal immigrant, theres an article. i think the standard should be stricter, and i think the detail provided in articles on the characters "behavior" should be more restricted. I sometimes wonder if too much detail about fictional characters and plots may verge on some form of copyright or trademark restriction.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a bizarre question. Many, many TV Characters are worth articles. I think that there are many books and articles on, for example, Nimoy's portrayal of Spock, and how there are numerous Jewish references therein, how that portrayal's changed over 43 years, and more. Many articles on characters are poorly written in universe messes, but I'd wager that +50% can be redeemed by merciless excisions of plot and the integration of the actor's discussion of their approach to the role, the writers and directors' visions thereof, and so on. Many TV reviewers discuss the nature of a new character by noting derivative behaviors from earlier characters, and so on. It's not a matter of them being inherently unworthy of pages, but that more often, the pages are unworthy of the characters. ThuranX (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The boys and girls on the Doctor Who project have done some excellent examples of articles about the characters in the show (which over the years has accumulated a cast of thousands), and normally manage a good balance between when something needs its own article and when it only warrants a presence in a list. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are. Lots. If they meet WP:N I don't see a reason not to have an article. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a really good question, and the answer should be "not many": only truly iconic ones. However I'm afraid that battle is over. Even if you started deleting all the articles about trivial characters, more would be created so fast that you couldn't keep up. There are armies of fans devoted to making sure that Wikipedia has as much content as possible about their favourite TV shows. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, we have no clear definition for "trivial" your definition may be more lax or strict than mine. The GNG does not do a good job either. It let's in a lot of one-line characters from works of antiquity and the middle ages because there is a lot of scholarly work in a field that is publish or perish and yet fails on something like Monkey D. Luffy who is the main character the worlds best selling manga and anime for nearly a decade straight by a huge margin (his vote on whether to merge was kept on "sheer recogniziability". The GNG is flawed when it comes to dealing with elements within a work of fiction and most editors are just to stubborn to realize it because it works well for most everything else. A lot of his current reception could be considered "trivial" by some as there is no clear indicator as to what is "trivial".陣内_Jinnai 21:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:GNG is pretty clear that significant coverage is required, and goes someway to defining what it means. I think you may be avoiding this point, and I still think we need to bring this guideline in alignment with WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think suspecting him of willful dishonesty is necessary. --Kizor 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Luffy character is a good example, although I wold think that someone who can read Japanese and had access to Japanese magazines could establish notability for him in the normal way. Foreign pop culture is pretty screwed unless its in English. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Right now, other than IAR the guideline does not deal with this. Other guidelines, like book, music, and the proposed published works, have ways of dealing with odd situations where you cannot directly support the GNG, but where presumption should be given. This guideline fails that.陣内_Jinnai 17:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumption of notability

I have amended the inclusion criteria to include the statement that "Coverage from a reliable secondary source does not confer notability on its subject matter if that coverage is merely a reguritation of the primary source". I feel this is one of the keys to understanding which sources do or do not confer notability, as this statement defines the link between WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I removed it because if we add that then we start to add clauses which say, "however, where a secondary source discusses material and reproduces the primary material to support and illustrate points, this coverage can be taken to...". We've got to avoid adding and adding just to close every possible avenue, because this stuff gets badly misunderstood and misinterpreted and causes issues within the Wikipedia. Since I think there's agreement from most that this adds nothing that isn't already included in the GNG, I propose we move on from it. Hiding T 10:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well that it does not say at all, so I think I would be perfectly justified in restoring this wording. For all intents and purposes, WP:GNG goes into detail about how citations from secondary sources do not always support the presumption that a topic is notable. When it says that "non-trivial real-world coverage in reliable secondary sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of satisfying the inclusion criteria", this presumtion cannot be supported when a topic fails WP:NOT#PLOT for intstance. The reason why a article that is all plot summary fails WP:FICT is that it contains no commentary, criticism or analysis that would provide the reader with any context other that already contained in the primary source, e.g. the article Gaius Baltar. Even if all the plot summary this article contains were to come from a secondary or tertiary source (say, an encyclopedia of ficitional characters) it is still a mere summary of the primary source, and is a secondary source in name only. This key point is key to the debate about why plot summary on its own in the form of capusle reviews is not allowed as evidence of notablity by WP:BK and WP:MOVIE, and why WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits plot only articles all together. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• You keep talking about "failing" Gavin, which kind of implies you haven't understood the first rule of Wikipedia. But regardless of that, if you think Gaius Baltar has too long a plot section, go and tag it. If you think it fails notability criteria, go and tag it. Oh look, it's tagged already, the system is working just fine. You don't need even more guidance to solve the problem. You wouldn't be perfectly justified in adding it back, because it will either be redundant or it will go further than existing policy. Oh, and by the way, it's your wishful thinking that WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits plot only articles all together. It says something completely different, and I'll take the word of the person who wrote it (me) over yours every day of the week on that one. Hiding T 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether I understand the first rule of Wikipedia (what ever that is) is not relevant to the discussion, so I would be greatful if you would desist from ad hominem arguments. I think you will find that WP:NOT#PLOT does indeed prohibit plot only articles; if it does say something completely different, then I suggest you enlighten us at WT:NOT. Whether or not you wrote the current version is debatable, but that does not mean you could not be mistaken.
This aside, the statement that "Coverage from a reliable secondary source does not confer notability on its subject matter if that coverage is merely a reguritation of the primary source" is probably the reason why plot only articles fail WP:N and have been included in WP:NOT, and I feel this should be added to this guideline because it would make this point clear. Up to now it has been assusmed that plot only articles have been included in WP:NOT just because some editors don't like them, but the prohibition has been created becasue plot only articles don't meet Wikipedia's other content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the first rule of Wikipedia is especially relevant, because it is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I think you'll find you are mistaken about WP:PLOT, but given that you are attempting to assert that someone who wrote something doesn't know what it means, we'll leave that one well alone. You also have your history backwards, since you are asserting that WP:PLOT exists to make clear that such articles fail our notability guidance. Given that PLOT pre-dates our notability guidance, your position is based on hot air rather than actuality. Please base your arguments on verifiable evidence in the future. the reason why the sentence should not be added to this proposal is because it is too misleading and far too open to mis-interpretation. As you have as yet failed to demonstrate why WP:N and WP:PLOT are failing in addressing the issue at hand, I can't see any value in continuing the discussion until you address the question. Hiding T 11:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Brainstorming

Given that other subject specific guidelines give other areas editors can consider when looking for notability, I think we should open up the floor for such areas within fiction. I guess really we're limiting the scope to fictional characters and elements and the like. Perhaps the best place to start is to think of examples of characters and so on that don't meet, or don't appear to meet the GNG and start to look for commonalities. In comics you have characters who have been in continued publication for close to seventy years, for example. What are we looking at with novels and role-playing and video games? Looking at WP:MUSIC they've got a clause which affords notability to an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. I'd imagine we could be looking at something like "a protagonist who has played a major role in two or more notable works." Needs work, but there's a start. Hiding T 10:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but it will never gain consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you adopt that attitude it won't. Do you think the current page has any consensus? Hiding T 15:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The current page will never gain consesus. Allowing such exceptions, may, if we can point to precedent and the exceptions are limited and reasonable.

FE: The primary protagonist in a work of fiction that is on the best selling lists around the world for at least 3 consecutive years running, especially if the original work is in a non-English language. - the latter is because we have a harder time finding sources that probably do exist for such characters.陣内_Jinnai 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that this draft proposal accurately reflects the existing consensus, because it falls within the existing framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Trying to construct exemptions for certain types of fictional topics based on inherited notability or subjective importance is not supported by Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I guarantee it would fail Gavin if you put it with a similar number and type of people who came last time.陣内_Jinnai 21:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Since most people on this page don't believe it has consensus, I think you'll find that it fails the consensual definition of gaining consensus. We can userfy it for you if you desire, though? Otherwise, I suggest we continue with some brainstorming, look to other subject specific notability guidance for inspiration, and deal with minority opinions accordingly. Hiding T 22:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think when you say it does not have consensus, I think you mean you disagree with certain aspects of it, but you are not prepared to say which ones, but this is only so much hot air. If you wish to make changes, then make a proposal by all means. All I wish to say at this point is that proposals based on inherited notability, like the rock musicians above, don't stand up to scruitany, since they are essentailly an exemption from having to provide verifiable evicence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, when I say it does not have consensus, I mean most people on this talk page have rejected it. Somehow you seem to interpret that as meaning something entirely different, but fortunately we don't have to work with people who do not make a good faith effort to compromise and collaborate in order to reach a consensus. Given that we are already discussing new proposals, I'll thank you for your invite to make one but point out the invitation was likely lost in the post, arriving a little late. At this point I shall bid you good day and afford you the decision on who has the last word. Hiding T 11:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You say you are making good faith efforts to compromise and collaborate, so if this is the case, then you will have to accept that this proposal to make characters exempt from the notability guidlelines in the same way as WP:MUSIC has attempted to provide an exemption for certain musicans (this sounds like special pleading to me) is not in accordance with the existing framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that current subject specific guidance afford other routes to notability other than those that exist at WP:N, I find your argument specious in the extreme and not worthy of any further discussion. When you are prepared to recognise that guidance states A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines and also that we can ignore all rules, and that therefore the existing framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines allows alternative routes to presume notability, you're good faith efforts to help will be demonstrated. Until that time, I don't really see how we have anything to discuss, given that you are arguing from a position which bears no relation to the spirit and totality of Wikipedia policy or guidance and have rejected every offer of mediation made. Best regards, Hiding T 11:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

More ad hominen arguments, Hiding. All the of SNGs state that verifiable evidence of notability is required, so I don't know what you mean by "Other routes" to notability". As far as the totality of Wikipedia policy or guidance, I am bang on the money. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If we really want to talk about ad hominen arguments, maybe you'd like to point out why we're discussing the need to provide verifiable evidence of notability. You seem to be accusing me of something I can't recall saying or doing. As to policy and guidance, I take that to mean you have finally recognised the existence of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and are therefore going to drop your unbending approach which insists on respecting all rules. Hiding T 14:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is straight-out false that the special guidelines are in addition to the GNG. One of the best accepted of them is quite specifically otherwise, WP:PROF, where it is explicitly an alternative. Similarly for Olympic athletes, even for the early years where we can not find any good sources except for their names and what they competed in. We make the rules, they are not handed down to us as something prescribed by higher bodies we are obliged to follow. We can use what standards of notability we choose, as long as it will have consensus in the wider community. And, for that matter, if the wider community chooses to accept articles that people specializing in this subject do not want, those articles will be in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Other guidance

Okay, looking at other guidance, they offer these sorts of routes to notability:

1. Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart.
2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
3. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
5. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
7. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
8. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
9. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)
10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.
12. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.
13. Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list.
14. Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.
15. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.
16. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
17. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
18. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
19. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
20. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
21. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
22. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
23. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
24. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.
25. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
26. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
27. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
28. The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn)
29. The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.
    • An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.
30. The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.

There's loads there to pick from and see whether any would suggest a comparable route for fiction. I'm thinking another possibility is where a character has entered the public lexicon, for example many football reports in the UK will refer to a "Roy of the Rovers" moment. Don;t know if similar stuff exists in the US? Hiding T 22:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards

I'd say recieving awards (or cases being formally nominated) is clearly a reoccuring theme as is being noted as influential to the advancement of the (sub-)genre as a whole, even if only by one reliable source, although the sub-point of #29 should also be adapted, ie it shouldn't be spun out unless the relevant info would bloat that section signifigantly.陣内_Jinnai 00:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The question then begs: what awards are given to fictional elements? Let's take probably the closest, an Emmy or Oscar for an actor/ess in a show or movie. Obviously its that performance as the character that grants the award, but does that impart anything special to the character? The only aspect I do see are things like BAFTA that give out awards to specific episodes of a show, which make that episode notable, but this seems to be the only award given to the fictional element. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it'll have to be more by each sub-genre indivisually. FE: SPJA Awards - SPJA is a registered non-profit mutual benefit trade organization that is recognized for its awards in the industry it deals with. Others would have to do as there is no global recognizer for non-episodes.陣内_Jinnai 03:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We have had this debate before, and basically you can't make an award to a fictional character because they don't exist. Awards are not actually made to fictional elements; rather it is a form of literary trope, in the same way a pretend interview with a fictional character is, i.e. it is just a form of creative writing. Such literary constructs cannot be used as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You can make an award for them. That they are recognized by an award is the same way an actor is recognized for their role.陣内_Jinnai 08:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Gavin, let's asume your right and I'm wrong. Then those awards still show industry recognization of the importance of the character, such as its influence on others in the field or beyond or the quality of the work on the character that goes above and beyond the work. However even if its just a popularity contest, it still shows industry recognization of the popularity of a character which is akin to what is required for notability, ie RSes show industry (or scholarly) recognition. Those same criteria hold true for all awards. IE, if an emmy is worth the importance, quality and popularity that the industry recognizes and that's why we accept them.陣内_Jinnai 08:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right in this regard. But the issue then returns whether the coverage of the award is evidence of notability, just like any other reliable secondary source. Awards are a bit of a red herring in terms of notabilty; coverage of them is just like any other coverage, and really there is nothing special about them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read the crieria in the SNGs, all it is, just like the GNG, is a path for the presumption of notability for an article; individually it may still be decided to be merged with the main article. If your going to start say that for elements its not okay on the grouns it's just nothing special well then better start stripping them out of every SNG then right now because there is no difference.陣内_Jinnai 09:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All of the SNG's say that verfiable evidence of notability is required without exception. If an award is to evidence of notabilty for a particular fictional character, then evidence of the award has to come from a reliable secondary source. This is the same as saying evidence of notablity has to come from significant coverage in a reliable secondary source, so there is nothing special about them as far as I can see.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The verifiable evidence for SNG notability is not required to be a secondary source, as the purpose of these is to identify cases where secondary sources are very likely exist in the future but presently do not (as determined by careful consensus). Instead, the evidence for SNGs has to be, at minimum, verifiable, meaning from a reliable source. So, let's say the BAFTAs which award specific TV episodes, lists an episode of a show that yet has an article. We can use the page itself from BAFTA that lists the awards as the evidence that it won that award for purposes of backing an article on that episode. Mind you, if no secondary sources appear after some significant time, then we can consider the likelihood of merging to a larger topic. (That's unlikely to be the case in the BAFTA situation, but that's the best award example I can think of). --MASEM (t) 11:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting article related to the debate: The 100 favourite fictional characters... as chosen by 100 literary luminaries. Hiding T 11:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, the verifiable evidence for SNG notability is always going to to be a secondary source in practise. For instance, I think you will find that BAFTA awards are the subject of reliable secondary sources. Where the idea of that an award automatically confers notability breaks down is where the award is not the subject of significant coverage or is the source of the award is not independent of the creators, distributors or promoters, e.g. minor trade awards. If Masem where to be awarded "employee of the month" at his local Walmart, this would be a good example of an award not confering notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The award itself must be considered notable (thus the monthly employee of the month at a walmart obviously fails, but something like the BAFTAs certainly does not) to even first qualify as a possible SNG aspect. The specific recipients of such awards, however, just need to be verifiable, and this can be done by both primary and secondary sources. So, in this case, any info from BAFTA is primary with respect to the organization and awards (and thus alone is not sufficient for BAFTA's notability), but award info from BAFTA is sufficiently verifiable and reliable to pass a hypothetical "episode winning a notable award" SNG clause.

Remember, the SNGs are a means to show a topic is notable when secondary sources about that topic are not (yet) available, but that there is valid evidence that the topic has merited the type of attention that will ensure secondary sources can be found in the future. The valid evidence is anything that is from a reliable source and need not be secondary. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is some mileage in this, for example the National Soap Awards give an award based on best villain in a soap. Obviously the award is for the actor's portrayal, but since we've clearly gone down the path of having articles on fictional characters, it makes sense to cover this side of the topic in an article on the character, to note that the portrayal by actor saw said actor win an award for their work in the role. Press coverage usually talks about how they played the role, which will give an opportunity to expand the out of universe content. Hiding T 11:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But if the coverage is about the actor, then surely it is the actor who is notable? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would the coverage be about the actor rather than both the actor and the role? Hiding T 11:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In theory equal weight could be given to both. But since you said that the coverage was about the actor, I presume that is what you meant. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Are you referring to "Press coverage usually talks about how they played the role"? If so, I think my words quite clearly contradict your assertion, and support mine, that the coverage is about the actor and the role. I think it's better if we accept my words mean what they state, rather than what you would prefer. We can do straw man debating all day, but it won't get us very far. Hiding T 12:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I would say that where the coverage is specifically about an actor, and the character is mentioned only in passing, then that coverage does not confer notability on the character. Significant coverage is required; merely mentioning a character is trivial coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly one viewpoint. Another would be that it's permissible to follow other notability guidance and look for verifiable, objective indicators of notability. Hiding T 14:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Significance and impact

A lot of the criteria above seem to discuss significance, impact and inspiration within the field. How do we think this would translate with regards fictional characters and elements? For example, Superman inspired a genre of comics, the Superhero. Was Bruce Willis' character in Die Hard influential in films? Is The Flintstone's depiction of its era an influence? How do we frame this stuff, and what are we looking for? Obviously it's going to come down to sourcing still, but to what extent? Hiding T 11:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the significance and importance given by SNGs is related to some established metric , whether that is a level of professionalism or an award. For fiction, we're probably looking at a metric that measures influence and longevity. That would suggest a couple of starting points:

• A major character of a multi-media franchise series (discluding simple remakes or tie-in adaptations). For example, your Superman one is a good point, Sonic the Hedgehog (video game, eventually to several TV shows and comics).
• A major character of a television show that is or has ran at least X seasons (X being 5?) or has been in Y or more books, video games or movies - that is, if the works have been around long enough , the likelihood of sources increases. Of course, this leads to the "Land Before Time" problem where there are 13 movies but doubtful any single character is significant from that.

Of course, we need to make sure what "major character" is defined as, because we can likely get people to argue that every pokemon is significant for an article since they cross the franchise appearances. --MASEM (t) 11:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see what you mean about The Land Before Time. I think we'd have to look towards editorial consensus there, as we would most decisions on content. Hiding T 12:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Appearance in different media is not really a good indicator, I believe. It would give an unfair advantage to children's-oriented fiction, where the creation of endless toys and so on is standard practice, and the notability is for the whole series/frachise, not the individual characters or locations. I'm always using the same examples: the farmer Smurf (and his farm!) appear in the comics, cartoons, related books, and as toys (and perhaps in video games and so on as well). It has been part of a major, worldwide franchise for 50 years, so it also has all the required longevity characteristics. But the farmer Smurf has no independent notability at all, is not one of the defining characters, and is a typical example of something that is a good entry in a list of characters, but would be a poor candidate for an independent article. Fram (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the danger. What sort of safety net could we wrap around this to clarify? Hiding T 14:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The franchise argument is favoring children's works, but these by no means are the end of the possible criteria. But as a way to the farmer smurf issue, that's why it's clear that "Major character" needs to be well defined and used as the means. This doesn't prevent minor and recurring characters to have their own articles, but that likely has to be shown by general GNG guidance, not by what happens here. Only major characters, if they meet requirements, should get this pass. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not even major characters should get a "pass" (i.e. an exemption) from the notability requirements, as notability can't be inherited. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about the autmatic "pass" that was in the old articles; at least that's what I see. What we are talking about is a way to frame a presumption in the way the WP:BOOK assumes that a historically scholarly reviewed author's works, like Shakespeare, are to be considered a better chance at being notable than say the 2nd volume from a romance novel from an unknown author. farmer smurf is not, FE, as central to most of the episodes as someone like Papa Smurf or Brainy Smurf.
Without such a level Gavin, you get people saying that the third man on the left on act 2 as important.陣内_Jinnai 21:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, to stick with the Smurfs, Papa, Brainy and Smurfette are the main characters, while e.g. Farmer and Cook are secondary. But how will we decide this? Personal opinion? Or WP:N-like criteria? There are many characters for which it is easy to show that they have achieved notability on their own (Tintin, Gollem, Hamlet, Pinocchio, ...) The kind of character that gets used in references for other books, movies, ..., e.g. X is a Hamlet-like character, Y is the hottest cmputer babe since Lara Croft, etcetera... No one is going to write that X is a Cook Smurf-like character... But then a possible question would be: is it sufficient for a character to be considered notable if it is mentioned multiple times in unrelated reliable sources, without needing the actual indepth discussion (significant coverage) required for other subjects in the GNG? Or is this too broad? Fram (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad thought. How good a safety net do we think that would be? I take it by "unrelated" we're ruling out publications like The Complete Pokemon Pocket Guide? Hiding T 10:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple non-significant mentions in unrelated reliable sources is nowhere close to meet the GNG much less the SNG. Any criteria we postulate need to be based on the assumption that if the criteria is met, secondary sources will be available - maybe not at the present, but certainly in the future - based on previous topics that had met that criteria. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite true Masem. The SNGs and the GNG define significant as essentially anything that isn't trivial. SNGs go so far as to say "non-trivial".陣内_Jinnai 20:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Which one says non-trivial, Jinnai? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Every publisher works SNG save films which defines significant by an extremely low threshold of "newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews,' plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as 'Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide,' 'Time Out Film Guide,' or the Internet Movie Database."陣内_Jinnai 01:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You are being selective in your citation of WP:MOVIE which clearly says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Why use a non-term such as non-trival when you actually mean significant? I don't understand you attachment to "non-trivial", as it is only used to illustrate what is trivial coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Because people like to emphasize the "significant" part over the "tirival part". It's a lot easier to define trivial than significant. Even the GNG is murky on this as our debate and the RfC showed. The GNG defines it as "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." it gives 2 examples at the polar opposite ends. It does note it needs to adress the subject in detail and that NOR shouldn't be nessasary when using the source, but it doesn't say what that level of detail is beyond the most polar extremes. Thus it could be argued that as that these notability guidelines are used in AfDs, where delitionists like to hang out, the use of non-trivial could be a way to counter-balance that while still saying essentially what the GNG says, ie that it must be non-trivial info that addresses the subject directly and in detail.陣内_Jinnai 09:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you will have to concede that "significant coverage" is the established term used by all the SNGs as well as WP:N itself, the reason being is that it is clear in meaning. Coverage that addresses the subject directly and in detail is significant coverage, whereas coverage that does not is trivial in nature. Using terms such as "non-significant" or "non-trivial" is merely obfuscation. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Number 14: Has established a tradition in a particular genre

This one is a no-brainer, isn't it? If a character is the defining or establishing character of a particular genre, then I think we're agreed it will be notable. Superman established the superhero genre, for example. Obviously citations are needed to quotes in reliable sources which make the point, but this one looks solid doesn't it? It's cribbed from number 14. Hiding T 10:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This would seem to be redundant to the GNG, in that if you have a source saying a character is the defining example, you already have one secondary source. I can see this being there to account for the "significant coverage" part (one source does not "significant" make) but I think that the effort that would be needed to move from a source that says this to several is trivial to make. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Are we adopting the approach at WP:FILM: "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:" Or are we looking to adopt the WP:MUSIC approach and say that "A fictional element (note that this includes a character, location, object, storyline, setting, act, etc.) may be notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" Deciding on that might help us work out what we're trying to do. Although when you look at the lead to WP:MUSIC, which I think we could probably steal as teh lead for this page, you see they state: "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability." I think that's pretty clear that you need to be able to verify the claim in a reliable source, which would indicate you'd need to source an assertion that the character inspired a genre. Hiding T 13:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the language in the NF guideline, in that is says "these are characteristics of topics that are notable per this guideline", as technically those all still boil down to simple objective criteria that needs to be backed by sourcing, but its more esoteric as fictional elements are going to lack easy similar by-the-numbers type rules without either being too restrictive or too broad (the Land Before Time problem mentioned above). --MASEM (t) 13:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Go with WP:FILM, there is no consensus that specific notability guidelines has any weight beyond that point. Taemyr (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there is, because of WP:MUSIC. Hiding T 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

@Masem: What's the NF guideline? Hiding T 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability (films) (per WP:NF. --MASEM (t) 08:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the WP:FILM approach, as the WP:MUSIC approach (the article must actually refer to relevant sources) is far too strict for newbies, and may even bite experienced editors if some other events forces them to save before adding a ref - that's not far-fetched, see how The Political Quarterly was tagged for speedy delete within minutes of creation. --Philcha (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If a character is the defining or establishing character of a particular genre, then you need significan real-world coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the creator, publisher for distributor. An editor's opinion on it is own can't confer notability - there must be verifiable evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• So the consensus seems to be on for WP:FILM and "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:" Hiding T 13:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would say that's a completely fair way to start a SNG. (After asserting that meeting the GNG always is evidence of notability). --MASEM (t) 13:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is. By saying that notabiltiy can be established through reliable sources, you are effectively ignoring the need for those sources to be secondary, independent and the coverage to be signficant in accordance with WP:GNG. This line of arguement does not standup well, because you are building a walled garden for fictional topics in which the they are exempt from the inclusion criteria that apply to subject matters in the rest of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career

Seems like this could be easily adapted. If someone played or voice-acted a particular role for which they became synonymous with, ie Arnold Schwarzenegger and Terminator陣内_Jinnai 09:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Since notability can't be inherited, it can't. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That link doesn't support your argument: "three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances". Hiding T 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• You'd have to include the ancillary An article on the whatever should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there. Hiding T 13:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• I worry this approach can make an actor who has not done much work but has one key role that is well remembered (ohh, lets take Andre the Giant's character from Princess Bride) would make that character notable regardless of the limited notability of others.
• I recommend that we avoid any criteria that are already heading down the path of having to use secondary sources in order to define the criteria, as that means you already have one secondary source to go forward towards the GNG - in other words these are easier cases to define. What makes the other SNGs work is that they employ criteria that do not necessarily require analysis or evaluation of the details of the criteria, just proof that the criteria has been meet. This of course assumption that in meeting the criteria, the GNG can eventually be met. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Masem, this is word for word near enough copied from WP:FILM. So it is an approach tried and tested in other guidance. Hiding T 21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, that's reasonable. Particular if these may hint at editors at what to look for to find sources to meet the GNG or the SNG. I'm not agreeing that this specific one applies to fiction, mind you, but I'm sure there's something close. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think avoidance of "any criteria that are already heading down the path of having to use secondary sources" is the right way to go at all, for how are you going to be able to support an the coverage of an article topic that does not provide context to the reader without commentary, criticism or analysis? Notability cannot be inherited in the absence of signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of their subject matter for good reason: you write an encylopedic article without them. Fictional topics, like the article Gaius Baltar that do not provide evidence of notability fail WP:PLOT. This approach will not fly for this reason: article topics without evidence of notability will fail WP:NOT and vice versa. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Resources

The film guideline offers resources in which to look for sources. We should likely do the same here, yes? Hiding T 11:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Film guides are tertiary sources, and are not allowable for notability purposes. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier to discuss good resources than bad ones. People collaborate better in a positive environment. Hiding T 11:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reguritation

I note Hiding has removed the following wording which should be restored:

Coverage from a reliable secondary source may not confer notability on its subject matter if that coverage is merely a reguritation of a primary or tertiary source.

I am not sure why this does not apply here, given that both WP:MOVIE and WP:BK already disallow capsule reviews as evidence of notability, even if they are published in reliables secondary sources. Under what conditions would coverage that is a mere reguritation of a primary or tertiary source be allowable for notability purposes? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm in the middle of rewriting Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles to cover that, hold your fire. Hiding T 11:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith that you won't be amdending WP:MOVIE so that it is clear reguritation of a primary or secondary source is not allowable as evidence of notability. Note also that WP:BK excludes press releases & flap copy which are also a reguritation of primary source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? I've rewritten Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles so that it applies to fictional elements and stuck the text here. This page is now pretty much a copy of Wikipedia:Notability (films), so it should be easier to get a consensus because that page has a consensus. It was agreed above that we'd copy the approach taken there. Hiding T 09:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you will know that capsule reviews, plot summaries without critical commentary and tertiary sources such as film guides are not allowable as evidence of notability. Please restore the above wording which reflect these requirements, not just for films, but also for books and other media. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You are aware the proposal includes the wording you're paraphrasing from WP:MOVIE and that therefore the text you wish included is redundant and also misleading in its lack of clarity? Please assume good faith a little harder and take the time to read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#General principles, which defines trivial coverage as being 'newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides...'. Hiding T 09:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that the wording from WP:MOVIE is included here, but I am not sure why we need to duplicate it in this guideline, which is one good reason to remove what you have added. All we need to do is to boil this guideline down to essential guidance: instead of loading it with lots of specific instances where coverage from a reliable secondary source may not confer notability, why don't we just say this purely and simply. If you want to give examples that is fine by me. However, the question still arises, why is coverage such as capsule reviews disallowed as evidence of notability? If we ask leading questions and answer them with straight forward answers (instead of beating around the bush), then we will be writing a better guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Because there appears to be a consensus that such sources are not used. Hiding T 11:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Other criteria

This section should be removed because it suggest that certain measures of subjective importance allow for certain topics to have their own standalone articles, by reason that they:

• have established a tradition in a particular genre ;
• are a major character of a multi-media franchise series;
• element has entered the cultural lexicon (i.e. famous); or
• an actor has won an award for their portrayal of the character.

However, this goes against the consensus in Wikipedia that a topic must be more than merely "established", "major", "famous" or has been "portrayed", but has actually been "noted" in significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Meaures of subjective importance have no place in this guideline because they are based on editorial opinion and should not be confused with the notability of an article topic. Subjective importance is not allowable inclusion criteria in Wikipedia, because these sort of viewpoints are not supported by Wikipedia content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. You know the arguments for both sides. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• It can't go against consensus, it's copied from [[Wikipedia:Notability (films) with the criteria changed to suit fictional elements rather than movies. You've also misunderstood the text if you are stating that these are based on editorial opinion. Please review the text where it states The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources. I'd appreciate it if you could explain how you are misinterpreting that to mean an editor's opinion is a reliable source. Hiding T 09:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to support an argument based on subjective importance that a topic should have its own standalone article using reliable sources but only significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject confer notability. This change represents a major watering down of this guideline and have no place here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. You have stated "only significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject confer notability", which is incorrect, per Wikipedia:Notability. Glad we have that sorted. Hiding T 12:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You will have to explain why that is incorrect, since inclusion criteria based on inclusion criteria which exempt topics than general notability guideline can only be based on subjective importance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No I don't. You have to prove your argument. Your argument was that "only significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject confer notability", and that contradicts Wikipedia:Notability. Hiding T 13:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Hiding is reading the notability guideline too selectively. WP:N says that "Sources for notability purposes should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." Unless one of these sources actually says that a fictional topic is "established", "major", "famous" or has been "portrayed", then all the above criteria are purely subjective, and based on an editors own interpretation of a primary or teriatiary source. This guideline should not be promoting original research as a means to conveying notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines. Thus, there is more than just showing secondary coverage to show that notability is met. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, its seems Gavin may be just as selective at reading the guideline as Hiding.陣内_Jinnai 22:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We make the guidelines. We can make them whatever we please, as long as the general community will not disagree with them. Masem's statement above of the relationship between general and specific guidelines is in my opinion the correct statement, and is very widely accepted. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin is not of the opinion that we decided the rules, and can make them whatever we want. Just a reminder. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case it goes against one of the 5 pillars.陣内_Jinnai 02:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is wishful thinking to assume that this guidline can be used to construct exemptions from the general notability guideline on the basis that fictional topics are somehow more "important" or "culturally significant" than other subject areas in Wikipedia. For starters, inclusion criteria based on subjective importance are not supported by the existing framework of Wikipedia's content policies, and for good reason: they do not provide any form of quality control in respect of topic inclusion. Arbitrary inclusion criteria, such as being a "major character of a multi-media franchise series" has been discredited as being the reason why so many plot only articles, such as Gaius Baltar, have come into existence. Put simply, the inclusion criteria for elements of fiction needs to be stricter than WP:IKNOWIT in order to be taken seriously, because such articles will fail WP:PLOT.
I know that some editors have invested a lot of time and effort composing articles about fictional characters which they think are "important", but despite their enthusiasm they need to set aside idea that this guideline can be used as walled garden in which issues about notability and the wider issue of compliance with Wikipedia content policies can be ignored. This proposal that a particular element of fiction can be deemed to be "important", "established", "major", "famous" without supporting these claims with signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources will not standup to scruitany, and won't provide any defence against plot only articles being nominated for deletion. We have been down this route before with Prong 2 in which article inclusion based on importance was proposed and rejected. We have been down this road before, and we know where it leads: conflict with Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We the editors of Wikipedia decide what is appropriate to be included in Wikipedia, not the guidelines or policies; consensus drives policy, not the other direction, despite how much you insist that. Yes, it is necessary to define lines so that we avoid articles on every Tom, Disk, and Harry, and maintain reasonable objective standards for those - that's the point of the WP:GNG. But we've also agreed, from WP:BIO, WP:BK, and other sub-notability guidelines there are times that the GNG fails to allow for topics that we all recognize, through consensus , that should be included, at least in the short term when references are difficult to find but are very likely not non-existent. Thus, because we control what gets into this work, we are free to create what we believe to be reasonable criteria that allow topics to be added without immediately-available secondary sources when we are reasonably sure that all topics that meet that criteria can eventually grow into quality articles. No one is forcing us to stick to the GNG, save for those that put rules before consensus, which is opposite of what WP overall editing policy is based on. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Gavin removed the section, but I've added it back in per the consensus here and at WP:N. I don't follow Gavin's flawed argument at all, which seems to fall at the first hurdle of ignoring Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Consensus. Further, I'd appreciate it if we could quantify what the benefit of mentioning the article Gaius Baltar is here. The article was created in 2005. This section was added to the proposal five days ago. If we want to cherry pick examples, let me know, I have a few I could choose. There exists a diff where Gavin supports the idea that "subjective importance is supported by policy". It's disingenuous of me to use it since he amended the statement, but if we do allow cherry picking, it would be one of the first examples I'd grab. So we can strike Gaius Baltar from the discussion as having no bearing, and actually debate the substantive issue: Given notability guidance allows us to outline criteria for which a presumption of notability may be made for a topic, and since the criteria added require verifiable evidence in reliable sources, your objections are currently baseless. Whether the article Gaius Baltar meets WP:PLOT is a clean up issue and one which should not concern us here, since there is already a relevant policy, guideline and template in existence to deal with any issues that article may represent. Let's keep the debate focussed on the matter at hand, thanks. Hiding T 09:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the article Gaius Baltar fails WP:PLOT is an indication that it also fails the inclusion criteria for a standalone article in the general notability guideline as well is not just a cleanup issue, it reflects the symmetry between WP:N and WP:NOT: if a topic fails one then it will fail the other and vice versa.
For this reason, this proposal to create new inclusion criteria based on subjective importance won't work: they are basically a licence to create plot only articles devoid significant coverage in form of commentary, criticism or analysis which comes from reliable secondary sources.
Simply claiming an exemption for fictional topics in this way won't work. Clearly Gaius Baltar is an "important" character, but until such time the article is improved it will remain a candidate for merger or deletion. WP:N allows us to outline criteria for which a presumption of notability, but not in such a way as to create exemptions from policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed given that an article can consist solely of plot and yet be about a notable topic. Yes, an editor may intuit that a plot only article is not on a notable topic, but to assert that as a fact the editor would still have to research the case to make sure. And as there is no attempt to make a "new inclusion criteria based on subjective importance", I'm not sure what you are actually arguing against. Perhaps instead of ad hominem, we could actually discuss the text in the page. So we have: The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:. So this gives an objective measure, since reliable sources are needed to support the claim. As to Gaius Baltar, I'll point you to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and Talk:Gaius Baltar, they are better venues for any discussion of the issues regarding that article. Having completed a number of mergers in the past few days, if you need any help with the process of proposing a merge, please ask me at my talk page to save this discussion going off topic. Hiding T 11:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

An article can't consist solely of plot summary and be notable, as that is a conflict in definition. This goes back to the earlier discussion about flap copy: coverage from a reliable secondary source may not confer notability on its subject matter if that coverage is merely a reguritation of a primary or tertiary source.
A good example of this is the fictional character T-1000 which appears in the film Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Almost all of the coverage about the character from various sources is plot summary (the rest is about the production of the film). Plot summary does not count as evidence of notability, because it is not independent of the primary source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"An article can't consist solely of plot summary and be notable, as that is a conflict in definition." An article isn't notable. An article topic is. Your assertion is therefore ungrounded in policy and guidance and has no bearing here. Hiding T 12:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:PLOT and WP:N cannot be synonymous, otherwise PLOT's presence in policy NOT goes against consensus of WP:N being only a guideline. PLOT is strictly about how plot summaries should be handled in articles, it is not about notability of an article's topic. They appear, on the surface, to support the same result but they need to be handled very differently, otherwise, all the work of trying to find consensus of the last 2 years goes into flames. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Although WP:N is guideline, and not a policy, it is underpinned by other policies, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it".
The problem with plot only articles is that they are a reguritation of the primary source, and don't contain any significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis that you would expect from a reliable secondary source. Even if the plot summary does come a reliable secondary source (such as a capsule review in a newspaper), if there is no commentary, then the topic can't be presumed to be notable. For example, the coverage fictional character T-1000 is comprised of a reguritation of the plot of the film Terminator 2: Judgment Day, so even if the citations are from reliable secodary sources, they are not commenting on the character, as reguritation of the primary source can't be independent.
For all intents and purposes, a article topic that fails WP:PLOT is going to fail WP:V and vice versa. This is why trying to construct exemptions from WP:N for fictional topics won't work.
I know that both Hiding and Masem have a heartfelt desire to loosen the inclusion criteria for fictional topics, but verifable evidence of notability is needed to actually write an encylopedic article, as the commentary from secondary sources provides context to the reader. Without reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of a topic's development, legacy, or critical reception, all you are left with is a work's plot. As you know, plot only articles like Gaius Baltar fail WP:PLOT, so trying to construct exemptions from WP:N for fictional topics is not beneficial in any way. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

<Note: edit conflict. Gavin has edited his post directly above since I composed this) Since we already have Wikipedia:Verifiability, there's no need to rewrite it, is there? Unless you are suggesting that every policy be merged into one. I could support such a proposition, but wouldn't really want to do the donkey work. And since the page states that reliable sources are needed: The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:, I think we've covered the reliable sourcing issue. You keep trying to make this about exemptions from WP:N and subjective criteria, even though such things have no relevance. I think it's best if we drop this line of thought until someone other than Gavin raises the issue since we're going around in circles, here. To sum up, I think it is best if we can all agree that WP:N states that A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines. Given the page actually states that, anyone who tries to argue the opposite can effectively be ignored, yes? Hiding T 14:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The statement that "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist" is clearly an exemption from WP:GNG based on subjective importance, for if you leave out the need for significant coverage/secondary sourcing/ indpendence from the primary source, then for all intents and purposes, you are left with plot summary only article which will fail WP:PLOT. A topic can be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guidelines, but not if those criteria are in conflict with Wikipedia's content policies.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Circle. It isn't a given that a plot only article which fails plot will fail notability, especially given that notability applies to an article topic, not article content. It's also not clear how the requirement for reliable sources makes something subjective. However, if that is true, that would make the notability guideline itself based on subjective importance, which is interesting. Anyway, I think you've expressed your opinion well enough Gavin, even to the point of making it sound like you are expressing facts. Best to avoid this circular argument. To sum up, I think it is best if we can all agree that WP:N states that A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines. Given the page actually states that, anyone who tries to argue the opposite can effectively be ignored, yes? Hiding T 15:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply creating exemptions and calling them inclusion criteria does not make them valid if they conflict with Wikipedia's content polices, and this issue cannot be ignored in fairness. I can understand why you might wish to expand upon the inclusion criteria for fictional topics, but creating exemptions from existing content polices is not acceptable. Furthermore, giving the impression that these exemptions are "consensus" when they give rise to articles such T-1000 will not prevent them from being merged or deleted. Any criteria based on an editorial opinion about a topic's "importance" cannot be proven or disproven - without evidence of notability, it is possible to present any topic under the sun as suitable for inclusion based on artibitrary arguements, which is what this section is based on. Only significant coverage from reliable secondary sources can provide evidence of notability for fictional topics, everything else is more or less a matter of personal opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Then either please go tell the other sub-notability guidelines like WP:BIO, WP:BK and WP:NF that they are wrong and get rid of those policies which are doing exactly the same things that we are trying to establish here, or realize that you're trying to impose what you believe is true against a much-stronger consensus in the complete opposite direction. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember, I am not trying to impose anything, it is just that I have a longer memory of all the other proposals which attempted to create exemptions from WP:GNG for fictional topics based on subjective importance, and which failed for the same reasons that subjective importance does not carry any weight in Wikipedia.
Some of the other SNG's attempt to use other criteria for inclusion, but they all require verifiable evidence that these criteria are not just arbitrary editorial opinions. To some extent, SNG's have more wiggle room to create more criteria because their subject matters are observable real world phenomena which can be observed, studied and recorded in various ways. However, fictional elements such as characters are inherently not real and so their suitability for inclusion can only be guaged by whether or not they are the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the primary source. The criteria for inclusion listed above don't work, because whether a character is important or not can't be proven in the real sense unless there is significant coverage to back this up.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Gavin: "I have a longer memory of all the other proposals". Please. Hiding T 12:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Awards

(outdent)Yes Gavin, but when we tried to do just that, such as awards, you come in and claim none of those can show notability here even though they can elsewhere. It's a clear sign that you have some kind of agenda. Furthmore, I question how much of the community is really on your side. IMO it appears your position is an extreme minority opinion and you are trying to inflate its importance through being quite vocal. With a few select excaptions, you have been on the opposing side by yourself. You have opposed (although some others here have done so to a lesser extent) any and all attempts to show notability through other means blanketing all other means as "subjective", even items like awards for episodes and characters.
Finally your arguments on WP:PLOT and WP:N violate WP:IMPERFECT in that you are looking only at an articles present form; not its potential and as such threaten the very core foundation upon which Wikipedia is founded, that an article can be built over time.陣内_Jinnai 19:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Awards are a perfect illustration that fictional elements are inherently not real. This is not an extreme minority view, it is common sense view that has been discussed previously: you can't give an award to a fictional character because they simply don't exist. Sure there are award ceremonies for fictional characters (e.g. AFI's 100 Years…100 Heroes and Villains), but you have to recognise that the idea behind these awards is a type of literary trope, in which the real award winners are the actors and writers who bring these characters to life, not the characters per se. In fact, the idea behind this award is a excuse for a television programme whose real purpose was to actually celebrate the films in which the characters featured.
The fact that the the Shark in Jaws is number 18 in the Villains list would illustrates the problem which all proposals of subjective importance run up against: even if you were to agree that the Shark in Jaws was entitled to its own article, what sort of article could you fashion from the sources available? Since the Shark was made by the special effects team for just one or two scenes, you would not have much content to use, other than plot summary. This illustrates my argument: using subjective criteria such as awards would result in the creation of a content fork for the real subject matter of Shark coverage, namely the production of the film itself. Please forgive me if I seem so negative about these criteria, but they just don't stand up to close scruitany, they are just excuses for which editors use to justify plot only articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because they are fictional doesn't mean they cannot be awarded. Anyone can award anything they want and as long as its a notable award within the field it doesn't matter. To take the Shark example, all this is doing is showing notabiliy, plain and simple. But to continue, you could first off add creator commentary. That isn't in-universe info. You could add appearances in other media that aren't directly tied to that character. That is also not in-universe info. You could also write about the influences the character has had within the franchise. That is also not in-universe. Yes, the reception section will be a bit sparse, but there are other ways to show real-world impact for characters than reception. Even then you could have a reception/cultural impact if one source comments on that aspect.陣内_Jinnai 08:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But characters can get a "life" outside of their creators, actors, whatever, transcending their origins. Characters like Tintin are treated as being "real", as existing outside the Tintin comics, like in Frederic Tuten's Tintin in the New World. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is based entirely on this concept. To argue that characters can't receive awards because they aren't real is to ignore the reality many iconic characters have achieved over the years and even centuries. Of course an award for best character is a pat on the back for the writer or the actor, but an award for best book is also a pat on the back for the writer. Yes, a book is a physical object, but the award is not for that bound bunch of papers in your hand, but for the immaterial content of it. Movie awards are not for the pellicule (celluloid), but for the immaterial aspect. So I agree that if an award is notable, the character that has been honoured with the award has a fair claim to notability as well. Characters and teams that receive one of the yearly Eagle Awards are notable, those that are only nominated have a minor but as such insuffficient claim to notability. Fram (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an award may indicate that character is notable, but whether notability is confered upon the character, the actor, the film, or its writer is determined by whether one or more these parties is the subject of significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that is independent, not by virtue that it inherits notability. In the example given above, my guess is that the subject of the coverage relating to the award for the shark is actually about the film (or the making of the film) as an animatronics shark is only likely to get a trivial mention in passing. Without significant coverage, a topic can't have said to be notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not according to every SNG out there. Remember notability isn't the final test Gavin, just a basic test. It is just above articles deleted for WP:SPEEDY violations. Even something that passes the GNG may still be merged for numerous reasons down the line. On the other hand, it may not, even articles which shockingly do not pass the GNG guideline, but rather other guidelines/politices. That's what this guideline is about - setting a base point below which articles should not be created and if they are should be merged/deleted.陣内_Jinnai 10:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I don't believe that you apply "inherited" correctly here. When a character wins an award, it becomes notable. No notability is inherited. You would be correct if I would argue that when a team wins an award, every member becomes notable: that would be inherited notability, and that was not argued. An award confers notability, just like significant coverage does. The coverage of the award may or may not focus on the character, but that is irrelevant. "An X is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards[...] 1. The X has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one." This is straight from another accepted notability guideline. Replace X by character, and there you are. No additional coverage is needed (although it is of course better if it exists). Fram (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a general misunderstanding about the distinction between "fame", which is a measure of subjective importance, and "notability" which must be supported by sources which contain commentary (hence, have been actually "noted"). An award automatically confers a measure of "fame", and I think we are all agreed can be inherited by anyone or anything related to a famous character or work of fiction, on account of fame being transmitted by association. The shark in the film Jaws is definitely famous, but it is not notable on its own, award or no award.
Notability is in someways closely associated with fame, but fame cannot be a substitute for being the subject of significant coverage. Fame on its own is not an accepted currency when it comes to meeting Wikipedia's content policies which all require significant coverage to function. For this reason, notability can't be inherited in the same way fame can, because it has to be backed up by verifable evidence in every case; a fictional topic can't be notable if it has not been "noted" in accordance with WP:GNG. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely wrong. One of the possible indications (and the most common one) is coverage, but the GNG clearly states: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." An award is "published peer recognition" (just like citations are for other types of subjects), and even if you want to dispute this, it is one of the "other factors" listed in SNGs. There is no need for sources with commentary to have notability as defined on Wikipedia. An award is verifiable evidence of notability, as long as the award itself is considered distinctive enough. Fram (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

An award is indeed "published peer recognition" as you suggest, but I think you will agree that there is a presumption that the recipient of the award actually exists. Because fictional characters don't have peers per se, I put it back to you that awards given to them are nothing but a fiction themselves; they are merely a device or a construct by which peer recognition is given to an actor, a film or book, or its writer/creator. This is a fine point, I know, but I am trying to presuade you that recognising an award to a fictional character is a literary trope. Once you have recognised this, a new world on knowledge will open up to you. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Books do not have peers either Gavin, so giving an award to a book would also fall under that definition as its essentially a construct by which peer recognition is given to the author or equivalent.陣内_Jinnai 20:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course fictional characters are fictional and have no peers. But that does not mean that real, physical experts in the field can confer notability to such characters through awards and other means. Now, there is a fine line between the character itself and the aspects of the character put into it by itself creator or its actor, as, for example, an Emmy award is not given to the character but the actor that portrayed it, that's something to be aware of. But this does not preclude notable awards being given to fictional characters by real-life people. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"peers" in this context mean people or organizations carrying some authority in the field, and nothing more. The purpose of having the word there is to explain that the notability for anyone or anything can be only in the field involved, and that it does not have to be written about or achieve notability for the newspaper reading public in general. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Peers exist for real people, I agree, but the issue here is that that fictional characters are inherently not real, so that begs the question "who is acting as a peer for whom?".
Since peer to peer recognition must be between people who do exist, I think we must conclude that an award made to a fictional character is given to one or more people involved in the creation of the character, rather than the character itself. For example, I can't imagine a situation where the Animatronic Shark from Jaws is going to step up to receive an award from the AFI.
The only way a fictional character can obtain notability from an award is if it is the recipient of substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the the creators following the award. A certain amount of fame can be inherited from such awards, but notability is not automatically confered because a character can't actually receive an award. Such awards are tropes, designed to honour the characters creators or the work of fiction in which they appeared. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You can repeat yourself for as long as you want, but you are obviously the only one in this discussion to have this opinion. If it makes you happy, replace "peer" by "expert". Your other arguments are equally applicable to films or books, and I hope that you won't argue that a film that receives e.g. the oscar for best foreign movie is not already notable just for that award. Fram (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but if I am so wrong, then why isn't the Shark in Jaws notable for having won an award? And I hope that you won't argue that the fictional character is the same as the film. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Straw man argument. Are you asking why haven't we got an article, or why does Gavin Collins think the Shark in Jaws isn't notable even though it has won an award? Hiding T 12:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll fill in the answers, actually:

1. Why haven't we got an article on the Shark in Jaws:

• We have it was at Jaws (shark). It's been merged into Jaws (film series) until such time as someone splits it out.

2. Why does Gavin Collins think the Shark in Jaws isn't notable even though it has won an award:

• Because he doesn't like it. Hiding T 13:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite like the film Jaws, actually and most editors would agree that the AFI award was fully justified. However, this is not not a straw man argument, because this was once the subject of a real article, as Hiding has kindly pointed out. Jaws (Shark) even had its won fictional character infobox, but I think was a common sense decision to merge the article with a more notable article topic. This illustrates that awards to fictional characters don't confer any notability because they are a fictional device, in the same way that parody or imitation fictional work does not confer notability on the original. Only significant coverage from reliable secondary soruces that are independent of the article topic can provide evidence that a fictional element is notable.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What it shows is that someone merged it. You can make it seem to mean more than that, but it doesn't make it so. And you can;t base an argument on one example, however much you try. As everyone here has pointed out, you've expressed your opinion, and people don't see the situation as you do. Given that, the processes we have in place already deal with the issues you raise, as can be seen by the example given. You may wish it were the case that "Only significant coverage from reliable secondary soruces that are independent of the article topic can provide evidence that a fictional element is notable", but luckily we decide things on Wikipedia by consensus rather than editorial fiat, so what you would wish for can help us build a consensus, but can't by itself define it. I can't really see any scope to continue this line of the conversation, if it is only going to consist of you continuing to push your point of view. Hiding T 14:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And if we want to look at other faulty arguments based on flawed deductions, it would be a flaw to suggest we don't have articles on any of the topics listed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles because they aren't notable enough. Hiding T 14:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Your conclusion in no way follows from the facts. Notable subjects for which there is not enough encyclopedic information (yet) to produce more than a stub, and for which a logical merge location exists, are merged all the time. Hamlets are merged to their municipalities, band members to their bands, authors to their work (e.g. authors who have only produced one notable work). This does not indicate that these merged subjects are not notable on their own. And while unrelated to the awards section here, I don't agree that pardoy or imitation does not confer notability either. Parody and imitation are prime examples of citations by peers (and yes, in this case even the strict interpretation of peers can apply). The fact that the pirates in the Asterix comics are a parody/pastiche/hommage of the main characters in Redbeard (comics) does make these characters notable. Of course, this notability by citation (in whatever form) depends on the extent of the citation and the notability of the citer, just like notability by award depends on the notability of the award and its exclusivity (if the 100 villains award was a yearly event, i.e. the 100 villains of 2008 and so on, then it would give much less notability to the recipients). Fram (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to see the Shark in Jaws listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles anytime soon. The question still stands, if a fictional character is inherently not real, then who is the award been given to, and why? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's given to the fictional character, obviously. Remember, not all awards are associated with a physical object, some are just in title only. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not, because fictional characters are...fictional. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If a historical fiction work set in the aftermath of world where the American Revolution was lost and has George Washington in it, he most certainly was a real person. An award could certainly be given to the character. It's no different than giving it to the book.陣内_Jinnai 22:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we all agree that a film can't accept an award but does win one? Why are we talking about the shark in Jaws anyway? Has anyone got a cite on the shark winning an award? Hiding T 19:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point about awards to fictional characters being a trope, and therefore not suitable as inclusion criteria for ficitonal topics. As a literary genre, I think they are rare compared real-world awards; aside from a few television programes and magazine articles, we are talking about a very rare event. The example from GameSpy's 2004 PC awards comes to mind: "The Best Use of Spandex" is an award that is too tongue in cheek to be taken seriously. It's hard to think of a non-coverage based criteria for notability that is so subjective because it defies common sense as much as awards to fictional characters. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We need to distinguish "pointless" top-ten lists and awards, and the like that are simply done to drive viewers to a site, as the above example as the type I would throw out first if trying to judge notability. On the other hand, when you have something like this award give to the character (not actor) from a notable source as part of its professional reporting (end of the year awards), that's a bit more assertive. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with The Best Use of Spandex as an example of what we don't want. However, Top Ten: Videogame Characters by 1UP is not in the same league. You can't whitewash all awards based on pointless ones.陣内_Jinnai 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the "Top Ten: Videogame Characters" is a knockout reason for not using awards given to fictional characters as evidence of notability. This award clearly illustrates the point that I have been making all along: this "award" is clearly a literary/journalistic construct. Likewise with the IGN awards citeded by Masem - these are not awards per se, these are simply opinion pieces created as part of a web forum poll, designed to garner response from the website readership.
The authors of these articles are not known ("staff writer"), so it only goes to show that virtually anyone can write a similar article and call it an "award". If anyone can construct an award for a fictional character, this example proves that awards cannot automatically confer notability on their subject matter. Award coverage is the same as any other coverage: it must be signifcant, reliable, independent and from a secondary source for notability to be established. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

All awards - not just these, and not just those pertaining to fiction - are based on the opinion of an expert or panel of experts or polling of experts. As long as the source of the award is reliable (some moreso than others) then there's little award's importance. In both cases above, IGN is a notable, highly reliable source for video games and other pop culture stuff. While there are fluff pieces on it at times, when they give out their end of the year award, then that is a meaningful data point, and can be applied to assert notability towards whatever won it. (Personally, I don't think we can assert that appearances on top-ten lists is an "award". It's a worthy data point to add to notability, but it would not be a criteria to assert notability). --MASEM (t) 13:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I previously mentioned the Eagle Award (comics), which have categories like "favourite comics character". These awards get independent media attention and are e.g. in 2008 described by the Birmingham Mail: "prestigious Eagle Awards - the BAFTAs of the comic world". This is a clearly notable award, and it is awarded to characters. Fram (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think you may be wasting your time. Gavin is attempting to describe some things as unsuitable based on subjective criteria, namely that Gavin doesn't like them, and not liking something isn't a good reason on Wikipedia, is it? What's the decision making method on Wikipedia? Oh, consensus. Let's not forget that policy tells us "An argumentative approach rarely convinces others." Hiding T 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. The last example provided by Fram is probably the final nail in the coffin for this approach. Earlier in this discussion we agreed that awards are generally given as a token of peer recognition, but since fictional characters don't exist in reality, they are not the ones being recognised in reality. Note the example given in the article Eagle Award (comics) regarding the awards given to...

..Alan Moore, who not only won "favourite writer in both the US and UK categories," but had his work win for favourite comic book, supporting character and new title in the US, and character, continuing story and "character worthy of own title" in the UK.

It seems to me that the coverage for this award clearly indicates that the peer recognition went to Alan Moore, not the characters: notability is not automatically confered because a character can't actually receive an award. Such awards are tropes, designed to honour the character's creators or the work of fiction in which they appeared. I conclude with a useful rule of thumb for ficitonal characters, and that is "Notability follows the coverage of the award, not the award itself." --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess you better remove all those award clauses from all of those other SNGs right now Gavin. You seem to be hell bent on making an exception to fictional elements that other SNGs don't have.陣内_Jinnai 18:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, when a book wins an award, people will congratulate the author, and it will make both the book and the author notable. I don't see the difference here, apart from the fact that for long-running comic book characters, the "author" may be a very unclear concept, with many people working on the same character. That doesn't make the award or the character any less notable though. Anyway, it still seems clear that from this relatively small sample of people, everyone but Gavin agrees that if an award is notable and selective, the winners (fictional or real) are notable as well. I don't think it makes much sense if the four of us continue discussing this, as the positions seem quite fixed by now. Fram (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another one The Fictional 100: ranking most influential characters by Lucy Pollard-Gott, PhD - some already have articles, but as this is a scholarly analysis on their influence one source should be enough to show notability as other sources would have directly or indirectly derived their status from them.陣内_Jinnai 18:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the source of this list, but I would have thought that the original source (Lucy Pollard-Gott), might qualify as significant coverage from a reliable and indepedent secondary source. This is another example supports the maxim "Notability follows the coverage of the award, not the award itself". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The book has yet to be released. It should be sometime soon and this is a preview of her book. My point however is made; the award shows the potential notability of the subject in the same way an Literary award does. We allow those to signal notability and such by extension so should we allow awards for awards for characters for the exact same reason. The item above it not a list of awards but clearly shows that characters who have recived awards are likely to have commentary on them in the future, which is the purpose of allowing awards to confer notability.

Therefore, in conclusion:

1. Non-joke awards by reliable sources known for their reputation in the industry should be considered as a sign of notability, even if that is all there is
2. Elements that been shown to be influential to other elements outside their franchise or related author/illustator/etc's work should be considered notable even if only 1 independant RS, especially if it is documented by scholarly work because of its influence on other works is substantial impact.陣内_Jinnai 10:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the award may indicate that a character is notable, but the problem with this approach is that what may or may not to be true is, in actuality, a matter of mere speculation, and is not supported unless significant coverage from reliable secondary soruces is cited. The argument is similar to that used in AFD debates: if only we could look into a crystal ball, then we could establish whether a topic is notable or not. However, this approach runs contrary to established practise, as Wikipedia's content policies rely on verifiability, rather than what may or may not believed to be the truth, now or in the future.
As I said above, "For fictional characters, notability follows the coverage of the award, not the award itself", as verifiable evidence that sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already is required to establish notability, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Or put it another way, a topic can only be presumed to be notable if it has actually been "noted", otherwise the inclusion criteria for standalone topics would be based on measures of subjective importance that rely on speculation, hearsay and personal belief in what is the truth. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And we're arguing in circles again. Many of the other SNGs utilizes evidence of winning a notable award as sufficient demonstration of notability, and this is an accepted practice. There's no reason for fictional elements to be treated differently, or otherwise we need to go and correct all the other SNGs. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If we are arguing in circles, it is because you are not willing to address the issues raised above, and even if you disagree with me, you will have to concede that there is now a strong body of evidence to support the view that fictional characters are inherently not real, and that awards of this type are literary tropes, and hence it is not possible to infer notability from awards source unless it is backed up by signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources to identify who is the de facto receipient. We have crossed this ground before, and the common sense view prevailed in previous discussions. Since then nothing has changed: Simply saying an award infers notability on a fictional character is, like the rest of the criteria in this section, an example of subjective importance, and is not supported by any of Wikipedia content policies.
If you are willing to address these issues in the wording of the guideline, then perhaps we can agree on a compromise. But ignoring logic and evidence is not sustainable going forward. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fictional elements are as real as concepts like "accounting", "mathematics", "quantum physics", "religion" and the like. They are not tangible elements, but instead ideas created by one or more people. The only difference, from an encyclopedic point of view, is that fictional elements are generally not given the same level of coverage from reliable sources as other intellectual concepts. Beyond that for purposes of notability, there is no reason to treat these concepts differently. Hanging fiction on the claim is it inherently not real is trivializing it for no purpose given that we clearly cover other topics that are inherently not real either. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin - all coverage by individual reliable sources does is indicate the possibility that the element may be notable in the same way an award or its impact does. It may be determined that even with multiple indendpendant RSes an article for an element may not be notable just as with a non-joke awards or some impact may not be notable.陣内_Jinnai 21:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, I agree with you that fictional elements are as real as other abasract concepts, but by the same token you are going to have to concede that an award to a fictional character is also an abstraction, and for this reason can't be treated as evidence of notability unless it is supported by real world coverage. In the fields of maths, physics and economics, awards are made to people, not to abstract concepts. Awards "given" to fictional elements are seldom made outside the world of arts journalism or entertainment, as it is not possible to sustain the literary trope on which they are based unless there is some form of journalistic or fictional link between the award and its receipient that make it seem as if the character has "received" the award.
In answer to Jinnai, the proposal that we base the inclusion criteria on the possibility that the element may be notable is questionable in the context of real world subjects, let alone fictional subjects The problem with this approach is that where the award is not notable ("Book of the Week") or is not independent (e.g. trade awards suchas Origins Awards for role playing game manufacturers), such inclusion criteria are in reality exemptions from WP:NRVE. Awards to fictional characters cannot take the place of significant coverage.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if the fictional element is not real. If there is a (1) reliable, (2) notable body of experts that is giving out (3) a notable award to a fictional element, then that fictional element likely is going to be notable through other means that can be demonstrated, because by meeting those three requirements, it means that fictional element is pretty much not going to be obscured, and is going to have been discussed at some length in other reliable sources. Those sources may not be immediately available, but, like the other SNGs, we presume that the award is a very strong indicator they exist. It does not matter if there is no real, physical entity that is receiving, all that matters is that the winning an award that meets all 3 of those points I noted is more than likely going to lead to more sources that are obscure now or that will appear in the future, and thus going to lead to an encyclopedic article about that fictional element. That's how all the other SNGs operate, and there's no reason the same can't be assumed here. Mind you, I do believe there are very few awards that are given specifically and exclusively to the fictional element; most are to the physical person that created, designed, built, or portrayed it. But we should not exclude this as a possible case when they do exist. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So far you have not come up with an example of an award to a fictional character that actually meets (1), (2) and (3) which is why assurance that "means that fictional element is pretty much not going to be obscured" does not hold true when compared with the examples discussed above. I am glad that you acknowledge that most awards are to the physical person that created, designed, built, or portrayed a fictional character, and if you we can compromise on a form of wording that reflects this, then I would consider this point in the guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have give one example: IGN Character of the Year for Vic Mackey. (1) IGN is a proven reliable source, and (2) they are certainly notable and (3) their editor "X of the Year" awards are recognized througout the industry as meriting. Now is the character itself gotten coverage in secondary sources (as the current article is crap). Yes, the character has: [5]. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have as well. Anime Expo which is considered the E3 of anime, Awards for 2009 lists multiple awards, including character awards. To further demostrate, they seperate voice actor awards from the characters.陣内_Jinnai 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out to Masem earlier, "IGN Character of the Year for Vic Mackey" is not really an award at all. From the persepective of Wikipedia, IGN is not a "proven" reliable source. The author of this "article" is not disclosed, and you should note that this webpage has not been published - it can be altered or withdrawn without notice, and is just not reliable. It is merely a piece of journalism created as part of a web forum poll, designed to garner response from the website readership. If you accept this as evidence of notability, you would accept anything.
In response to Jinnai, the coverage of the SPJA Industry Award Recipients is just to thin to be taken seriously as evidence of notability. Perhaps there is more coverage elsewhere, but the mere statement that the winner of "Category 08: Best Male Character is "L" is trivial to say the least. No one could ever be convinced that these examples provide a shred of evidence of notability. I think you are grapsing at straws at the bottom of a barrel. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong, Gavin. First, we accept web sources all the time even though things can change. There's a reason we have "accessdate" and "archiveurl" parameters in the {{cite web}} template. The standards for reliability for online sources is higher than for print sources, but being online does not equate to "completely unreliable". IGN is a business, with paid staff members. These awards are not a result of online polling, but instead what the editorial staff has picked. (It should be noted that IGN also does a Reader's Choice, which is a poll. But these are not that, these are IGN's picks). There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the IGN award for the character as proof of notability of that character. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Gavin, the awards do not need to be covered by such prominsce as a Grammy or Nobel Prize. Anime Expo is clearly the industry's choice in NA for releasing upcoming content and new info. Therfore coverage of Anime Expo itself within the industry noting prominate awards on themselves as they are saying these people are reliable and important and they are backed by the industry and commentators itself. Just because you haven't heard of the award doesn't mean it isn't notable or important.陣内_Jinnai 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is not authored, published, its not reliable as it won't have been peer reviewed. Checkout all the dead links all over Wikipedia and you will realise that webcontent that has not been formally published are questionable sources and not admissible as evidence of notablility.
These examples also illustrate an issue which was address earlier in our discussions. If awards represent peer recoginition of achievement, then how can an award to a fictional character be used as evidence of notability if it is not know who is making the award. The idea that "IGN is a business, with paid staff members" is not a substitute for knowing who is actually responsible for writing this article - the provenance of this award is questionable to say the least. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. Gavin, that is not how reliable sources work on WP. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read the questionable sources section in WP:V, you will see that it is. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, Bullshit. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. (That statement, for any source, I agree). I've pointed out that IGN is a company, they have an editorial staff, so there is editorial oversight, and they are reliable in that other sources use IGN as a fact source and if they are wrong, they will publish corrected statements. IGN is not reporting any "extremist" views, and if they report on rumors, they will usually acknowledge it as a rumor and treat is in that manner, but this is rarely the core of their reporting. That leaves "promotional in nature", but IGN is not promoting itself, it is reporting, generically, on a range of media, so it cannot be considered that, and "personal opinions" is necessary for any source that is doing reviews and critique, but when they cover news, it is not based on personal opinion but instead fact checking.

In other words, your arguement is still bullshit. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I agree with Masem. You are not reading what it says or if you are, are coming for an skewed interpretation that I am 100% sure would be considered extremist. If you want we could get an RfC on this particular issue if you don't believe me or ask in WP:N.陣内_Jinnai 19:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to me, you have not provided any evidence to support your view. The problem is that if the source is not published and you don't know who the author of IGN article is, it cannot be deemed to be even remotely reliable - I think you will find this view will be endoresed if you were to take this issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can dismiss my comments out of hand, but the fact is the IGN site is, in its own words "a video games and entertainment portal" that has a user agreement which makes it clear that they view themselves as merely the providers not the originators of content, and that contributors must take responsibility for coverage added to the site. There is also a revealing case study as to how their "editorial" policy works which shows their inclusion criteria are based on marketing objectives. Surely now it must be obvious to you that they are a marketing operation, not a reliable secondary source? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you feel like IGN is a poor source, there are several Wikiprojects that would completely disagree with you, and it is definitely not a skewed definition of a reliable source. First, for one, we do not require RS to identify authors - the publisher/work, yes, but not authors. Most Associate Press, Reuters, and other news wire releases, as well as most press releases, are authorless but we consider those reliable, so its assurance of the publisher at issue, not the anonymity of the writer. For IGN, they have a staff page. Second - yes, IGN does allow user content on its site, as well as the several other sites listed in that page - that said, reader content is appropriately distinguished from paid IGN editor content (reader reviews are delegated to a specific subdomain, readerreviews.ign.com , for example). And in terms of marketting, it is in no way different than sources that are ad-driven like Variety, Entertainment Weekly, and Rolling Stone - maybe more due to being an online-only source, but there is nothing weird about that. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Same with awards presented at Anime Expo by SPJA because of the convention's notability.陣内_Jinnai 15:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To compare IGN to APA, Reuters or Variety is entirely misleading, and the existence of a staff page does not diminish the the fact that IGN is a "a video games and entertainment portal" whose purpose is to "Stimulate excitement and raise awareness". It is clear that IGN fits the Questionable sources category. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a questionable source. Now you're just clearly on the extreme end. IGN is listed as a clear RS by multiple wikiprojects.陣内_Jinnai 19:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

IGN fits the description of a questionable source on account of its promotional business model, so this should not be news to you. WP:MOVIE says that sites like Rotten Tomatoes do not provide evidence of notability, which disallows listings in comprehensive film guides, press releases or trivial sources. IGN and rotten tomatoes may provide valuable information by way of links to reviews, articles, and media references, but they are not allowable by themselves unless it is clear precisely whom the coverage orginates from. Their film reviews might be classed as tertiary sources at best, but the rest of their content probably originates from the public relations office to the games which they are promoting. The fact remains, they are not classed as reliable news source in the same way, say, their sister website Fox News is.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a questionable source. It is listed as a central foundation source to such projects as WP:VG. If you clearly believe it is a questionable source, bring it up in the appropriate place and prepare to come heavily armed to defend your accusations. What you've cited could be said for any number of publications like Newsweek or New York Times because I can tell you a number of their info originates in the same exact manner you describe. Sure their are a few fluff pieces on their, and sure they may post reviews to promote something, but guess what Gavin...so does every major publication be it Wall Street Journal or local paper or the NBC evening news. They area ll profit driven and all have cut stuff or edited stuff when pressure is on them at times. I know this for a fact as i have done research papers for this.陣内_Jinnai 23:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that many believe IGN to be reliable source, but the evidence is against you - their own website explains their editorial objective as being promotional - see the case study I pointed out to you earlier. This is evidence, not hearsay, that they are promotional in character, not reliable. You have to admit that if IGN's inclusion criteria, authorship and citation policy are promotional, then they are not as strict as Wikipedia's, so as a rule of thumb it can't be classed as reliable source, unless they cite their sources in their articles. I think it is reasonable to agree with me on this point: it is not possible to distiguish the fluff and promotions from the good stuff without stating what the source of coverage is. IGN might be characterised as a source of primary or tertiary coverage, but it is not a reliable secondary source per se.
Lets face it, awards to fictional characters are "made up" awards, and the only way to understand whether they are fluff, promotional or serious in purpose is to gather evidence that they confer notability by citing reliable secondary source that are independent of the characters' creators, distributers and promoters. I think you have to agree with me that awards to fictional characters can't tbe taken as prima facie evidence of notability, as their serious intent has to be taken with a Pinch of salt. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A line

Why are you all continually rehashing this point? Consensus is not unanimity. Do you all believe you have all stated your views? I certainly do. I therefore suggest one and all agree to disagree. Consensus is not reached through argumentative approaches such as those above. Hiding T 18:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. It's clear from discussion here and other similar SNGs that notable non-joke awards in the industry can show notability the same way multiple independant RSes can show notability. Gavin disagrees, but he is the only one here who does and imo has show some extremist tendencies in how he defines sources, such as IGN. I also think documented evidence of influence is also enough to add as well and are used by other SNGs. Those should be added as alternate ways of showing notability. However, to compensate for this we need to clearly define what is a notable award and a non-joke award and what influences would be allowed.陣内_Jinnai 19:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)