Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Bring back the old...

Lots of people have been complaining that WP:FICT was fine "back in the day" and now is a mess. I'd like to propose we bring back an older version that had consensus at the time. I picked what looked like the one that was around the longest without major change, but I'm happy to go with anything that wasn't quickly reverted from this time period...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28fiction%29&oldid=127445527

Thoughts?Hobit (talk)

It will not fly with those asking for notability, at all. (that version existing before secondary sources were added to NOTE, and thus a change had to be done from that). --MASEM 13:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
LIke we've all been saying, the maion problem is with the changes to WP:NOTE, where the discussion seems to have veered off to. If you want to participate, here's the link. I cannot choose which discussion is more relevant, as there are a hyperbolic over 9000 going at once. Sasuke9031 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The point of the rewrite is compromise; the previous version was not a compromise. — Deckiller 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a good one to keep in mind. We need to finish the discussion at NOTE, then we may revisit that version. I imagine the main reason that version was changed is that people felt it couldn't loosen NOTE, so how NOTE can be adjusted needs to be decided first. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all, I was fairly sure this would be the response, but I thought I'd ask... Hobit (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Of course, if we were bringing back this version here ([1]), then I wouldn't mind. After that, I feel it all went downhill. But then again, I've been out of the loop, so I have no clue what zany new guidelines are around :) — Deckiller 11:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • And I'd argue that was the beginning of the problems :-) Hobit (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • As another question, to what extent should we let the main notability revisions continue before proceeding here, i.e. should both discussions occur simultaneously or one before the other and does fictional notability also apply to say video games? --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Given that most of the discussion on NOTE is how fictional works and elements are dealt with, we need to let that be figured out before making any forward progress here, otherwise, it's needless duplication. This guideline would apply to the in-game aspects of any video game; the game itself is the work, and the story/plot/characters and gameplay elements are part of its in-universe aspect. --MASEM 03:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the reply! Looking at that discussion as well, I really wonder if we seriously can get a consensus on fictional notability or if people are just too divided and we should maybe consider some other outside of the box inclusion idea altogether? --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
          • That's one of the ideas being discussed, but the issue is that either the use of sub-articles or the allowance for other inclusion requirements for fiction will go against the GNG. That issue needs to be resolved, though I think it needs a larger audience to be able to overcome the stalemate in discussion. --MASEM 04:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Maybe a bot can be created that will notify everyone who edits? --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Personally, I think a watchlist header message is the better way to get the point across (since we're talking about a long-term approach of WP), in addition to village pump postings and the like. However, the discussion at NOTE still needs to complete to figure out the right questions to be asked. --MASEM 04:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
                • I would like to see the creators of all fiction related articles brought to AfDs notified of these discussions. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • This is pretty much impractical and likely inappropriate; not that you couldn't get a bot to collect such a list, but the size of the set could make this canvasing. That's why we have common boards like the Village Pump that provide a neutral place to notify editors; unfortunately, it's a matter of making editors aware they should be watching those if they have an interest in the direction WP goes. --MASEM 04:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I played around with the idea of taking a few versions of WP:FICT that I was preparing for a possible survey, and just making them subpage essays, and see which ones people cited and talked about in discussion more. I'm not sure if that would actually help, or if there would be a realistic way to track which one got "talked about" more, but it was a thought. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this can be guided by clarifying WP:NOTE. Either WP:NOTE gives a lot of free reign to the specific notability guidelines, or it doesn't. One problem with the RFC here was that there was no common understanding of WP:NOTE. Some thought it was strict, some thought it was loose, and some thought it was complete crap that should be ignored. Some thought notability could be inherited, some thought it couldn't, some thought it could in certain cases. Needless to say, if we actually figure out which one this is, the discussion on WP:FICT kind of falls into place. (And if there's no consensus, that still gives us more information to work with to take this dispute to the next logical step.) Randomran (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical, pt. x

I noted two weeks ago if, by now, there wasn't consensus for the guideline, we should call it a day and mark it as historical - the RFC has been going on for four weeks with about a 5-4 split to reject the current proposed version. In addition, the use of this guideline is almost zero now - most people, myself included, choose to use NOTE and PLOT, which combined, I feel, mirrors (or should mirror) the sentiments of this guideline. Sceptre (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Even though I support the guideline, I think we should know, as a community, when to bow to what we disagree with instead of beating a dead horse - which I think it's got to, now, since it was tagged as disputed nearly a year ago. Sceptre (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As I stated to Kevin earlier, let the RFC ride out - it closes in 2 days; I know no comment is going to change the result, but we still may get useful input; marking it historical before the end of the RFC may preclude that. (and of course, we may get no other comment either). After the 3rd, when it should be closed automatically, historical is perfectly fine. --MASEM 14:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No objections to waiting another 33 hours, but I do feel it is dead. If you think useful comment will be given, go for it, but I doubt it. Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem marking it historical, but after seeing what happened with WP:SPOILER when some timed discussion closed, like, 5 hrs before the end of the allotted time, there was a vocal outcry against this, I'd rather just make sure we follow procedure (yea, I know, it's not an XFD, and there's a snowball's chance that it'll swing to accepted in 33 hrs, just want to avoid any fuel for any further fires that may result.) --MASEM 14:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In response to Sceptre, I don't see how you can tag WP:FICT as historical at all:
  1. This is far too important a subject area for there not to be a guideline;
  2. Fiction is already the subject of one other guideline - WP:WAF;
  3. WP:FICT did have consensus support until recently (January 2008), and we can always revert to that version of the guideline pending future discussions;
  4. There are more than enough editors who would like to see WP:FICT redrafted so that a new version can emerge.
Overall I think this guideline has bright future and this attempt to write it off (without confering with other editors) seems to me to be a hasty proposal that is being rushed into with undue haste and without consideration for the opinions of past contributors.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Marking it historical doesn't preclude a rewrite; my gut, however, is that any rewrite needs to be from the ground up. Also, I will point out that the Jan 08 version did not have consensus (I think if you go back earlier you'll find a few people marking it disputed and a lot of talk page conversation). The last version that was probably with consensus is dated around May 07 and is based on the deletion decision results for minor characters that Hiding drafted. That version would be much more lenient to inclusion of fiction, and probably would collide with current NOTE discussion. Historical is the right way to go while details at NOTE are sorted out. --MASEM 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In my view, WP:NOTE is not going to change radically any time soon: there are no formal change request proposed or pending. I see a lot of dissatisfaction, with WP:FICT, but I don't think that is a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water; if anything I see genuine interest in this guideline. In anycase, I for one am keen to have a rewrite of WP:FICT, and I am sure there are many editors who are keen to see what can be achieved: see Guidance on writing guidelines for some improvements we could start to discuss now. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • NOTE is in the calm before the storm, to a degree. There's still too many questions being asked before a formal proposal can be provided, and I personally think that the matter goes beyond NOTE, as a matter of exactly what type of encyclopedia WP wants to be. --MASEM 15:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sad to see it go down like that, but there is nothing more left to say. I guess we can mark WP:EPISODE (at least its notability part) as historical just the same without extended discussion. The job officially falls to NOTE and PLOT now, and frankly, they were working just as well in AfDs and merge debates in the past six months. – sgeureka t•c 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as people aren't going to act surprised when we do have a new draft ready, fine, but it should be tagged as an essay rather than historical. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagged "historical" per previous discussion and as promised. It could be essay as well as Ned suggestions, but if anything, it is not "rejected", since there is still evidence that people want a FICT guideline. --MASEM 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I reverted to "proposed". I don't think the discssion of the guideline has ceased, and I note that Masem and other editing WP:FICT, so clearly it is still "live". In anycase, one person alone cannot make this decision: if you want to mark it as historical, you really have to start an RFC, so at least all past contributors can make their views known. As I have said before, this is too important a subject area simply to close it down.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm with Gavin. There's still legitimate discussion here, and more importantly at WP:NOTE. If WP:NOTE can be clarified, then that gives us a common starting point for WP:FICT. We could see WP:NOTE clarified by August, which means it's not unreasonable to put a revised version of WP:FICT to an RFC by September. I know this seems painfully slow, but this is a pretty important proposal that cuts through wikipedia. I expect pretty serious discussion, instead of a few editors ramming it through. Randomran (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I think that Failed (formerly Rejected) is a better solution, I can compromise to Historical. But I do reject the premise mentioned above, that it be allowed to be reopened virtually immediately on the whim of a few diehards. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to WP:WAF

I still believe the best way to end this is a merge and redirect to WP:WAF. WP:FICT and WP:WAF are covering the same problems, and WP:WAF offers better guidance on fixing the problems. Plot issues are really little more than style problems. Having too much plot should not render and article subject to deletion, which, like it or not, is effectively what the notability subguidelines do, due to their mention in deletion policy.

Tagging as either "failed" or "historical" is less appropriate because the past and current content of the page remains in essence true and supported, just organised/presented poorly, and not oriented to actually being useful. Somebody new to wikipedia looking for guidance on contributing material on a fictional subject would be far better served being redirected to WP:WAF then be finding a sort of useful collection of stuff under a tag that implies the stuff is not longer currently supported. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that WAF is a style guideline and FICT is a notability guideline, and we should try to keep these two aspects separated as much as possible. WAF presently enjoys consensus; merging elements beyond the concept of the GNG to WAF will cause that to become a problem from both sides. I don't see a problem directing people there for what advice WAF presently contains, but to merge concepts is not recommended while all the discussion at NOTE is going on. --MASEM 04:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
As per an old point – there is nothing useful here that is not already in WP:N or belongs better in WP:WAF. Nothing about the GNG (General Notability Guideline) belongs in WP:WAF. It belongs 100% in WP:N. Note that the GNG is not normally helpful in guiding article improvement, which is exactly what WP:WAF does so well. I see nothing obvious that would actually need to be added to WP:WAF, so perhaps I should have just said “redirect” to WP:WAF. In WP:WAF, any references to notability should be linked to WP:N. I disagree that the discussion at WP:N means that this shouldn’t be done. There is nothing to merge back to WP:N. Also, I predict that nothing substantive will come from the current lengthy discussions at WT:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep this page as proposed, historical, or whateve until the discussion at NOTE is finished. My guess is that the discussion at NOTE will not lead to anything in particular about fiction, but will lead to a watchlisted vote on whether sub guies can NOTE. If the result (which I'm pretty sure it will be) is that they can, we can start the next round of discussion here for what FICT really should say. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I see no need for rush, but I'd worry that the discussion at NOTE will continue forever. What does "a watchlisted vote on whether sub guies can NOTE" mean? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, a watchlisted vote on whether sub guies can modify NOTE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
These watchlisted super votes do nothing but demonstrate a lack of community wide consensus, mostly based on a lack of information. I believe that consensus is far more efficiently achieved by sticking with advice from WP:Consensus, and that informed progress is most efficient when small changes are made by agreement of a small group of about only half-a-dozen interested people, taking into account any objections made by anyone. Many-party debates are too unwieldy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what we tried to do with FICT, make changes locally which really did not change how fiction was handled all that much, and you can see what happened. In particular for the issue of how we handle fiction, we can either decide to change it really slowly or get some global consensus and put an end to the entire issue once as for all. --MASEM 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it was destined to fail, not because the method was wrong, but because a notability subguideline is the wrong forum to change how we handle fiction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
We basically need to try every thing we can. Discussing here didnt' work. Discussing at NOTE didn't work. A watchlist vote is the next thing to try. My guess is we'll get a "no consensus." Each of these steps will ultimately be useful when the (I think inevitable) wiki senate finally decides this issue. They can at have something to look at.
I thought I read somewhere in a comment that some sort of body governing content is being discussed even now. Anybody know where? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe this is WP:Ombudsmen Committee, but given that (even being contested) their intent doesn't seem to be to resolve or set large scale guidance, I don't think that will help. Really, beyond appealing to the WP community at large, the only other place to turn for how fiction should be handled is to the Foundation itself as what they believe is appropriate for their project, but that's like going to the Supreme Court to fight a parking ticket. We have steps we have not tried, lets exhaust those first. --MASEM 15:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"the only other place to turn for how fiction should be handled...". Why do you ignore WP:WAF? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant in terms of notability. WAF is a MOS, and issues dealing with how to determine notability for fiction should not be discussed there; that would just lead to that guideline becoming disputed as well. Once notability has been determined or not, WAF is perfectly fine for how to deal with notable and non-notable articles. --MASEM 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"how fiction should be handled" is not a notability question. The notability of fiction is perfectly well dealt with by WP:N. If WP:WAF is followed, notability issues are moot. WP:WAF reflects a better interpretation of the purpose of wikipedia, and is far better at guiding newcomer's efforts in more productive activities. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
We would not have had two ArbCom cases and more than a year and a half of disputes over fiction-related articles if WP:N's application to fiction-related topics was well understood. If every editor used common sense and applied WP:N in the best fashion, we wouldn't need FICT, much less any of the other sub-notability guidelines; however, that case will never happen as long as some editors seek instant gratification. FICT (some version of it) is necessary to specify how notability and WP:PLOT intersect, just as BIO is the intersection of notability and BLP (to some degree). That said, the current discussion at NOTE (to get global consensus on numerous aspects) may lead to FICT being unnecessary if a global consensus agrees that the GNG does apply to all cases everywhere; then notability of fiction can be spelled out in a single sentence in WAF ("See GNG"). Anything less restrictive than that, and we are going to need to spell this out more. --MASEM 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Until it is agreed there are no further proposals going forward. This guideline cannot be tagged as "historical" as a means of gagging discussion; it is a housekeeping template, not a censorship template. Please restore the Proposed template. This attempt to close down discussion is out of order.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What you say is a good argument for the more definitive "Failed" template which acknowledges that while discussion is ongoing, nothing is likely to change. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm with Gavin that discussion is ongoing and there will likely be a consensus at WP:NOTE that can inform how WP:FICT is to be improved. I can't honestly concede that "nothing" is likely to change. Progress is being made. Randomran (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Kevin, these templates were designed as housekeeping tools. If like WP:IMPORTANCE, the discussions here had stopped for a long time, or WP:FICT had been superceded, I could understand the need for tagging the guideline as historical. However, if discussion is on going, and the guideline is still being amended (which it has on an unprecedented scale in the last 3 months alone), then you cannot force it to close. Furthermore, you can't claim consensus to close the discussions if you don't confer with other editors, which in this case would, at the very least, be past contributors. I don't understand why you want this guideline closed - it is no skin off your nose if discussions & proposals continue. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this funny or scary?

See here. Hilarious but also scary in some ways. Found it in the Signpost. Crossposted to WT:WAF. Carcharoth (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This came up in WP:VG a while back. Basically, we agreed that it used bad examples to try to prove its point. For example, they compared all the Call of Duty games to the one page at World War II when actually there's actually several several pages relating to WWII as supporting articles. --MASEM 12:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a lot of obvious bull - to get a list like that, you have to either miss or willfully ignore the fact that sticking everything about a huge topic into one article is an awful way to organize information. For example, to laugh at the way the article on poker is shorter than the article on the Pokemon trading card game you have to ignore the List of poker related topics and all fifty-seven other poker-related articles it leads to. To answer, it's funny for those who don't take Wikipedia as Serious Business, but I expect we're all mature enough to realize it has no place in our decisions.

(I tried to list the reasons why, but that turned out to be a day's worth of work, so let's leave this dead horse lie. If you disagree, leave a message on my talk and I'll get back to you within an unreasonable amount of time. --Kizor 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC))
Whenever someone wants to make fun of Wikipedia, they write a similar article. No big deal; very unscientific. Gary King (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

proposed, historical, essay

I think this is still a proposed guideline. Because A) it is still a serious proposal (if flawed) and B) we need soemthing here. It isn't historical per se as nothing has really been agreed to. And I don't think it is just an essay either. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bold resolution

Fully protecting the page because of this absolutely pitiful edit war over whether is is proposed, historical, or an essay. All parties should comment here; User:Kevin Murray and others are skating towards blockville. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

David, to call it pitiful is a bit degrading to the efforts here at compromise. Please read the RfC above and months of work to find closure. Ned offered a compromise in essay tagging and I am willing to support him rather than push for the rejected tag, which I think more clearly meets policy. Rather than trying to spank someone for supporting closure, I think that we need to look at the bigger picture. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I don't think the discussion is over, and there's still a lot of ongoing efforts to find a compromise. Just that a lot of the discussion has taken place at WT:N, with most parties agreeing that an RFC on the notability guidelines should be the next step. If that doesn't reveal some kind of progress, I definitely think it's fair to call this proposal rejected. But in the meantime, I still think it's a legitimate proposal that only needs a little more discussion to find a fair agreement. Randomran (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the discussion or desire for compromise is pitiful, but the edit warring is. Obviously, there is not consensus over your actions, Kevin; rather than continually reinstating your edits, you should have taken it to the talk page as Hobit did. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
David, this discussion has gone on for about a year, and we've had an RfC for about 2 months. Hobit has had a say as have others. With out bold action this just festers. I think that an admin or other authority needs to step in, evaluate the RfC and implement the policies at WP:Policies and guidelines. I'm not a party to the dispute in content, my involvement has only been to implement policy to end this perenial proposal. Wide consensus created the policy; we should not need local consensus to implement it. As an unbiased elected leader in the project you might just make the decision based on the discussion and history. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Random, at some point you have to seek closure and move-on -- Ned has made the gesture toward compromise and closure. [WP:Policies and guidelines]] wisely describes a failed policy as one which can't reach consensus after a reasonable period of time even if discussion is ongoing. Without closure you just get a form of forum shopping where diehards inflict policy on the rest of us by hanging on the longest and claiming consensus when the majority is burned-out etc. We have the failed proposal provision to end this type of thing. WP is so endangered by bogging down in a mire of rule sets. This is a writers’ project, but it seems to attract control-freaks, rule-writers, hall-monitor personalities, and other seeking some authority, that don't contribute other than rule-waving. I know that you are serious about the project, and share my goal of further inclusion, but an unmanageable system of rules will choke inclusion more than provide it. We are so on track at WP:N recently, let's fix the problem for everyone, not just by subject in cabals. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree, because I think this proposal is under construction with further discussion about how to improve it. But I understand your concern about forum shopping and someone trying to ram this through as is. Let's see what others say about what to do with this proposal. Worse comes to worst, I know we'll be working on a new WP:FICT proposal in a month or two. The only question is how much it will look like this one. Randomran (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Random, the RfC indicated a failure --what more do you need? I'd be willing to tag it euphamistically as a Essay, but your comments about starting a new proposal immeditely leads me to believe that this really should be deleted and salted. If you couldn't succeed in mandating issolated rules on fiction in the past, how will you succeeed in the future. I have no opinon on the content of this guideline; I just observed that the proposal has failed and it's time to implement policy. No one can stop you from expressing your opinion as an essay, but some one should step in to implement policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem in making this an essay. In regards to Randomran's wish to start a new proposal, more power to you, but make sure it is significantly different from the current version of FICT or is vindicated by consensus elsewhere before you bring it here. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a little difficult to say this is definitely rejected when people are still arguing what it should say, or historical when the disagreements are still active in multiple AfDs. It may be that the attempt to work them out here is best started over some other way, but it's not as if everything necessary had reached closure. I see it rather as temporary mutual exhaustion, with the disputes certain to resume when either the previous people recover or new ones join in the mêlée. The practical way of dealing with it is to call it "essay" which can mean anything. And then everyone should be not exactly satisfied, but not overly dissatisfied. For now. DGG (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the essay thing, but I guess that's why it's compromise. I would ideally like some kind of history of WP:FICT (as discussed on Kevin's talk page) if that's acceptable to folks. Hobit (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I am most convinced with those arguing to mark it as a historical as it is a failed guideline. The edit-warring over how to label it just further demonstrates the lack of consensus on notability of fictional topics. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a truly lame edit war, guys. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAME anyone? Sasuke9031 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of the lameness that I've seen is tedious or beurocratic type, brought about as a result of an evolving guideline, and an attempt to discribe the current concensus that could quite possibly be in-vain. WP:LAME is supposed to be funny, since this isn't a main-body article, I wouldn't submit this one unless it can be described in a way that is particularly hilarious. I can't imagine any way to do this; but if someone else can, throw it up and see if it sticks. -Verdatum (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Under the overly idealistic "rules" and customs of WP we call this an edit war, but in real life reasonable compromise can evolve from the hard-steel of mutual bold action, but perpetually festering sores develop in politically correct fantasy worlds. Finally we seem to have a solution rather than a circle jerk. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take on this: Right now, we are not proposing this version (the RFC is well over, and at least myself, waiting to figure out what comes of the pending WP:N re-evaluation), so "proposed" is not appropriate. "Essay" isn't quite right because it is not written like an essay. Obvious "disputed" is not appropriate (you can't dispute something that wasn't established first). This leaves "rejected" and "historical" and given that I believe that most editors want some type of definition for fictional notability and that we are going to readdress it once WP:N is settled, "historical" seems to be the right tag. --MASEM 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

An article move and a historical tag may be most appropriate. Discussion is ongoing, but discussion of this wording has all but ceased, as far as I can tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly - once we're ready to restart discussion, moving this to a historical archive makes sense. --MASEM 05:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This tagging dispute has gone on far too long. If it's gonna be an issue, let's just tag it historical and get it done with. Randomran (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It's an active document, it's not historical. When you tag something as historical you give people the impression that you're done with the page. Essay is the closest description, and the only real argument against it seems to be that it isn't written like a normal essay. To that I say: so what. It's advice, it doesn't have consensus yet, but some people still look to it. That's an essay. On Wikipedia we often take terms and stretch their meaning, and we certainly do that with "essay".
I'm still wondering it if might not be a bad idea to take other versions of WP:FICT and also mark those as essays (see User:Ned Scott/FICT). Any user can make a page (as long as it's not disruptive and is related to Wikipedia) and slap an essay tag on it.
Randomran, don't worry, we're not done with the page, we're just putting a tag on it for the sake of tag-compulsion. I'm reluctant to remove the proposed tag as well, for much of the same reason I don't like the historical tag. People treat it like you're done with the page, and then get mad when you eventually do make a new proposal. However, it's pretty well documented on the talk page here that there still is an active interest in WP:FICT and possible future proposals, so hopefully that won't be the case. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
My initial reaction to seeing a change of this document to an essay was in opposition; what with the guideline predating WP:N and being a major argument used in Xfd discussions. But thinking about it, I agree it is the right thing to do. The more I observe discussion both here and in Xfds, the more I see that this document is attempting to influence consensus, not reflect it. The document, as it stands at any given time, is merely one group's belief of how fictional topics should be handled. To me, this says, "essay". It's not written in an 'essay' format, but that isn't what essay has come to mean in this context. If the document is an essay, it can then be modified to give justifications for positions, and split apart to allow for contrasting but still valid positions to coexist for referential use in other discussions. Naturally, that is just one possible direction, and it would be a slow and arduous process. But, for whatever direction it takes, the first step is to aknowledge the document as a position, and stop asserting it as concensus, through reclassification as an essay. If some form of the document ever reaches concensus in the future, it can be proposed as a guideline then, but I'm certain that will take months at least. -Verdatum (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Essay on its own is horribly incorrect. This was guideline for over a year before consensus faltered. Textbook historical. Not rejected, not essay-on-its-own, historical. I see no reason at all why {{historical}} must be the only tag on a page other than its wording ("Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear.", emphasis mine). Why not offshoot it into Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/new, tag that as proposed, leave this as historical and work out wording agreeable by all, before re-merging it back in? Sceptre (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"This was guideline for over a year", but it was also a very criticized and guideline, here (look at the Archives, how many page heve 30+ archive of talk?) and in many other places (deletion page, talk pages of projects and articles, Village Pump, also in the ML i remember some discussion about it, etc.).
The many and many pages that were written before and after this Notability guideline is started, and that don't follow these rules, show that the occasional editors and the "NS0 only" editors (that are many more than the editor that have a "comunity life") don't share what it say (we call it "general consensus expressed by facts and not words" )...
And when the RFC bring here more editors than usual, the guideline was clearly rejected here too.--213.140.15.164 (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The guideline has not been rejected per se. There has not been any RFC which proposed mothballing WP:FICT, so any claims of concensus that this proposal is finished with is based purely on conjecture. I for one wish to see this guideline rewritten, and regardless of what tag is attached to it, it is still a proposed guideline until an RFC is raised proposing the contary. Attempts to mark this as a historical essay are simply attempts to stifle discussion. Unless we go through the formal process of closing this proposal down, attempts to sideline WP:FICT are totally out of order. What is not stated is what motivated this edit war: it seems to me that some editors have a hidden agenda to hijack Wikipedia policies and guidelines in total disregard to the concerns of other editors.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Actually, I'd say rather that people were trying to MAKE this a rewritten guideline for just under a year (starting in August 2007)... but it was disputed from the start. It never had consensus that I saw. The consensus version from June of 2005 held largely unchanged through July 2007. --CBD 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
As I recall, the primary impetus for that rewrite was that this was being called a notability guideline, when it well predated the proposal of the WP:GNG and didn't really address it. It predated the writing and, later, growing support of User:Uncle G/On notability, the prototype for WP:N. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have always considered this a debate about 'depth of coverage' rather than 'notability'. There can be no question that 'Pokemon' is notable. Our notability guidelines have always said that it is therefor correct to have an article on Pokemon, and further the guidelines have always said that notability requirements do not apply to each individual detail about the topic discussed on the page. The problem comes from the conflict between the good article design philosophy that 'if a page gets too long you should split it out to sub-pages' and the idea (starting about a year ago) that such sub-pages need to establish notability independent of the main article. That creates this conflict where material which is fine in a primary article suddenly becomes unacceptable if split out... effectively limiting the depth of coverage about topics in direct contradiction of m:Wikipedia is not paper. --CBD 13:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
But in line with the idea that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate. A question that went unanswered for a long time was, "Well, how are we supposed to discriminate?" Uncle G's compromise followed the logic of WP:V, that we discriminate the same way we write: by following the lead of the sources.
I don't think that WP:GNG is holy writ, but when we discard it as a check on sprawling fiction detail, with what will we replace it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Spinoff articles

The problem IMO is that m:Wikipedia_is_not_paper#Organization is incompatible with a notability requested for every "article/page" instead for every "topic", because the indipendent articles/pages are only the consequence of "These can start out as section headings and be broken out into separate pages as the main article becomes too long. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information, full of railroad timetables and comprehensive lists. But any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible.". If a subject is encyclopedic (= notable), then it should be covered, splitting it in section and then in sub-page, when the depth of the coverage make a single page too long and unreadable. The "page for every Simpsons character and "separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia" should be written because The Simpsons is notable/encyclopedic as a subject, and there is a big amount of primary and secondary source that can supply info for write all those sub-pages (instead of a single unslplitted page of some Mbyte of size), not because everey character and episodes follow a Notability guideline. IMHO.--Yoggysot (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yog, you are very right, but this goes way beyond just articles on fiction. There is no clear guidance for when to split, and no "protection" for off-shoot articles. My only concern is that off-shoots may become havens for POV etc., but that is another matter. The advantage of web-based media is the ability to link to detail and keep documents tight and succinct. How about a special status and tag telling page patrollers the origin of the off-shoot (by consensus etc.) to keep the off-shoots out of AfD etc.? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's been tried. See Template:Subarticle, Template:Spinout, and to a lesser extent, Template:Summary in as well as their associated talkpages. None are widely used, and none are particularly understood to be a flag meaning Consider Notability is not content before proposing deletion for this article for the sole reason of "Non-notable". Regardless, I think it's technically outside the scope of WP:FICT since any article can have spun-out articles, it just happens to be particularly common for fictional topics. -Verdatum (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Because they will go to AfD/CSD/PROD anyway, and rightly so. If a parent article has a lot of information on something, and we don't have a significant amount of secondary source material on that particular thing, it's time to trim, not to dump the excess elsewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
In it.wiki we have a template [2], to put in talk page (also for respect of the GFDL, linking the source and the source history), to tell that the page was previously a too long section of other page, and we use also the local version of {{Main}} in the page, but there isn't any explicit rules that prevent these page to be proposed for deletion. The deletion proposal of sub page (without the deletion of the main page) are very rare, so 99% of the time if a spit seem to be excessive (ie the spitted page is less than a stub) there is only a re-merge proposal in the talk page, usually avoided if there are proof that the subpage can be further expanded. --Yoggysot (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is probably not the place to resolve this, but it has been a good place to start the discussion. I seems that people have created labels first, rather than documenting policy/process first, then develop the label to describe and link to the policy/process. Should this be proposed at WP:N or MOS? Or elsewhere? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The issue of spinoff articles (do they need to be notable or not, etc.) is part of a larger request for input in formulation at WT:N. I believe there's also a proposed example of a page heirarchy system, example built in subpages features but not necessarily tied to that, as well. (Phil Shaffer I believe is the one with that). --MASEM 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(redent) I may be able to help as well. What do we want it ot say/look like? Something at the top that says "X is a part of the topic Y"? Maybe in a smaller font than normal? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Abandon this bad idea

WP:FICT should be abandoned as a bad idea, as creep of that unhealthy (but possibly necessary) notability concept. Exploring notability (whether the article should be allowed/disallowed) does very little to help in writting good articles or improving existing articles. If an article should be deleted despite interested editors trying to maintain it, the WP:N "do suitable sources exist" should suffice. If there is interest in improving the article, then editors should be directed to WP:WAF, and not be confused by this.

As it stands, WP:FICT has caused more problems than guidance. This is not because it needs refinement, but because the concept is inherently confused. Could interested contributors to this proposal please explain who they think the intended audience is? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You might be more interested in the WP:N talk page if you want to talk about notability in general. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have long sinse contributed to WT:N on this subject. Current consensus is to maintain the problematic status quo. My point here is that there is no need and no benefit in extending the concept to fiction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
More to AMIB's point, there are questions we are raising at WP:N and preparing for larger discussion that may allow for specific demonstration of notability outside of the requirement of secondary sources. If this approach doesn't have consensus, and the GNG is considered absolute, there's there's nothing more that FICT can say, and I agree that WAF can deal with it. But if GNG is not that case, then FICT needs to outline the non-GNG cases in regards to fiction. Right now, however, we should be doing nothing with this (thus the marking of historical or essay or whatever) and wait out WP:N. --MASEM 11:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Unable to make meaningful progess at WT:N, several wikipedians relatively new to the page propose seeking project wide contributions to a questionaire in a broadly defined RFC. I have little doubt in my prediction that this will not lead to any useful advance. Perhaps I will be wrong, and I am not trying to stop them, but it looks like an endless process, and deciding to do nothing here until an endless process elsewhere answers a question that multiple interested wikipedians have failed to answer, well, that is just a convoluted excuse to do nothing. Of course the GNG covers fiction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It is clearly to discuss the application of wikipedia notability guidelines to fiction. Now, I have said it, what do you hope to gain by closing down a guideline? I don't understand why you are so keen to go down this path. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The application of wikipedia notability is to determine, yes or no, whether a subject passes the test and should be kept or deleted. If yes, the status quo is vindicated, and no one is going to bother to try to improve the article. If no, the article is deleted, and that’s the end of that subject. Once the question settles on “notability”, the impetus for stylistic improvement is lost. Notability guidelines do not help in the improvement of articles. There are a lot of weak fiction articles on wikipedia. I want to see them improved, not vindicated (stabilized and stagnated), not deleted. If the subject is hopeless with respect to sourcing, and should be deleted, WP:N suffices. For improvement, WP:WAF is far more useful. If ever a new editor interested in contributing to an existing fiction article finds himself pointed here rather than WP:WAF, then he has been poorly guided. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ITT some scrub whines that his favorite filler character in some anime got merged StardustDragon 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 08:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What is "ITT"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
ITT. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's proper purpose is to deal with the conflict between WP:N and WAF. WAF would have us break articles out of a main article to provide the depth of coverage that is appropriate. Folks read WP:N to say that each of those spin-out articles need to meet some kind of strict reading of WP:N. So we have a conflict. And the goal of WP:FICT, (again in my opinion) is to provide some kind of a guideline about when to stop. For example, I tend to believe that for mid-significance TV series (which is subjective but number of RS give an indication) it makes sense to have a season summary and a character list as separate pages even if WP:N doesn't support those articles per se. And for more significant things, more breakout articles make sense. And I think generally the majority would agree with something close to that. But WP:N doesn't. Thus WP:FICT needs to exist. Hobit (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hobit, I agree with your assessment of the problem, but I don't see a whole new guidline, especially one that is subject specific as the solution. There is a proposal at the Pump-proposals dealing with spinoffs in general. We need to solve the problem globally not locally. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that would be the preferred solution in an ideal world. And further, it might just work. But my sense is that a lot of this will be area-specific guidelines (episode lists for example). Also we hit things like WP:PROF where there frankly isn't a whole lot of secondary sources that exist. Certainly not to the degree I think most people think things should become notable. Hobit (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I too see the spinout vs WP:N issue as unresolved. But I don't think undermining WP:N with things like this is a good way to establish a solution. WP:PROF is also based on shoddy foundations, in my opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no vs. about it. We can have whatever version and intrpretation of WP:N we please--it is not something given to us as part of the the founding principles of WP. To the extent we have a "constitution", that isnt part of it, just a interpretative guideline that we can change and adapt whenever we like. what's the purpose of the guideline? to have a standard of importance for articles. One could perhaps best ask at a fundamental level whether we should even have a standard of importance for articles, as distinct from content,and whether it should just need a style convention for how to divide up the material. (to me the whole concept of hypertext and databases is that this is not the inevitable unit.) But that's a separate discussion. Assuming we want to be conventional and old-fashioned, and want to have some degree of consistency in what gets a separate article, for the actually plausible reason that people do use this as an indication of the importance of the subject as well as a convenient working unit, the standard for works of fiction and their components can be whatever we generally think will help the encyclopedia--the question is what we want to define as appropriately significant for a separate article. And this in turn depends on how important we think fiction is. The major characters of notable works have the same intrinsic importance as the most important buildings in a city, they're the units out of which the city is built, and people know and look for them. In a different dimension, this apples also to the episodes in a story, they're the different periods in the history of a region. As for the two RS=N criterion, why should we think it applies--its just the default and left over from a time when we didnt know what we wanted for topics we didnt know how to handle. We have some experience now. All the emphasis on this is due to confusion to what is a real fundamental principle, V. But the principle of V isn't the details of sources, just that there be some reliable enough for the purpose at hand.
In short, I see those wanting to apply 2RS=N to fiction as either confused about what comes first, the encyclopedia or the rules, or as deliberately trying to reduce the detail of our coverage of fiction. I think each motive applies to some of those in the argument--at least, some people have specifically declared their purpose as reducing the coverage depth of this subject. Those we want rather to keep it at as high a level as reasonable will want whatever wording we can adopt that will give the desired result. At present, it seems the clearest expression of this is to think of the detailed parts as subarticles. But thats not the real question, but rather the desired depth of coverage. And here I think the rule for all topics is very simple--as much as any reasonable person might expect in a modern online encyclopedia. If there's a topic any significant group of people working here want to cover, we should cover it, at as much depth as desired and feasible. Those who think the coverage should be less should always defer, just as I defer to people who think professional wrestlers or gamblers have a place in either the encyclopedia or society. The really fundamental principle isthat of providing information. DGG (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a case to be made that our level of detail of fictional coverage is somewhat excessive.
There is no dispute that there is a necessary level of fictional coverage, and an excessive level. Superman is necessary, The freaked out guy from the cover of Action Comics #1 (seriously, check out the dude on the bottom left) is not. Since no standards whatsoever allows Freaked out guy etc. and Superman's hair and so on, we can discard going without any standard out of hand.
So, what standard do we use? To date, the only standard for inclusion/exclusion to see any sort of general consensus (other than "show of hands at VFD" which nobody ever really liked I don't think) for heterogenous subjects is WP:N. WP:N isn't holy writ, by any means, but I haven't seen anyone else draw a line between Cat and AMIB's cat that saw general consensus.
Moreover, nobody has suggested any way to not write an article on a fictional subject that isn't pure, 100% plot summary (or OR or game guide) without reliable sources. WP:POKE died for the sin of trying to write articles with no sources because of some abstract idea of "reader interest" and "importance," and it just wasn't (and still isn't!) workable.
The reason we got "Show of hands at VFD" because there was no frame for discussion. "Notable" used to mean "I think it's important enough for an article." When Uncle G wrote his essay and it started to get some traction, VFD started having something to discuss. We now had a standard for inclusion and exclusion, and somthing to discuss, as well as a clear goal to achieve to save an article from AFD. WP:N is not just why decently-written bad articles get deleted, but also how badly-written articles on good subjects get saved. WP:ARS would be aimless (or deleted as votestacking) without a clear goal to aim for when trying to rescue an article.
Plus, having no standards (or "are people interested in it?" as a standard) doesn't scale, because the internet is full of BATSHIT INSANE WEIRDOS. I can picture Superman's hair and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman's hair and how that would go. How do you foster useful discussion when the debate is "This is silly and unbecoming for an encyclopedia" vs. "Well, you don't have to read it"?
I don't want to go back to this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
See [3] and [4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.166.70 (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

DGG,

I don’t see any point in talking about the founding principles, but if you do, the issue is WP:NOR. Should wikipedians be creating stuff that has not been published elsewhere?

Where you talk about “a standard of importance for articles” I think it is more important to talk about wikipedia’s reputation for reliability. Wikipedia cannot be reliable in terms of its original content. It can only be as good as its sources. This is why I think inclusion criteria should be grounded in criteria based on sources. Additionally, content guidelines should always point readers (newcomers) to the importance of contributing using proper sources. Good sources will help the encyclopedia. Fan-generated fiction commentary will not help the encyclopedia.

Repeatedly, in various places, you are repeating “2RS=N”. I think this is unhelpful. It is a poor reading of WP:N, a misrepresentation of it. A reliable source is not the same as a secondary source. Very frequently we see articles deleted due to “lack of notability” despite an abundance of reliable sources. The issues of “depth of coverage” and “independence” cannot be overlooked.

When you say “we didn’t know what we wanted for topics we didn’t know how to handle. We have some experience now.” It sounds like you are advocating an acceptance of the expert editors. This is not what we do. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It should not be an expert only zone. Relying on experienced editors is to admit that the guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance. We do not want expert-written rules. We need simple rules that everyone can understand. For example: We write about what others have already written about. In terms of detail, we are guided by our sources. I do not want to reduce the detail of our coverage of fiction. I want to improve the quality of what we already have. That’w why I want to advocate for WP:WAF, which is focused on improvement, not wikipedia guidelines, which do not serve to encourage improvement.

We should not be attempting to cover as much as any reasonable person might expect in a modern online encyclopedia, that would mean chasing illusions. The really fundamental principle is not of providing just any information, but of providing reliable information, and reliability, in the absence of expert contributors, comes from drawing on reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  • First of all, it's not OR if it comes from a primary source. And plot summary does. Now you can add opinions, but true summary doesn't. Does anyone think Cliffnotes is producing anything resembling OR? And if 10,000,000 people watch a show and 500,000 of them write a blog about it, it has been written about by others and is darn likely notable in any non wikipedia sense you could name. WP:N does a horrible job in some areas. Academics is one (very few academics are covered by the press, yet they can have significant impacts). Bleeding edge engineering can be another (is there a good secondary source on using tags to implement a Reorder Buffer? The work is about 10 years old now and a part of any good conversation about the future of microprocessors, but it isn't something any press is likely to cover and I don't think any textbook authors have done more than make an aside about it.) People who know the area know what's important. If we were a real encyclopedia with real paid writers, the editor would defer to area specialists about what to have articles on and how much depth to go into. We should do something similar. Hobit (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • From what I remember, CliffsNotes provides modern translations of old texts and analysis of the work. So to answer your question, yes, I believe CliffsNotes produces original research. Pagrashtak 15:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hobit, basing something entirely on a primary source runs against WP:NOR/WP:PSTS. WP:NOT#PLOT covers the extreme case. However, the useful answer to plot summary questions is found in WP:WAF.
If 500,000 write a blog on the same thing, and there is no coverage published in any reliable source …. Your premise is vanishingly unlikely to occur.
There is an excessive tendancy to try to write about living academics. Most of them probably don’t even want to be the subject of a biography. It’s the work that is significant. It is very easy to write an article about significant work. It’s easy to find sources covering new discoveries. It’s hard to find sources discussing the academics who made the discoveries. This tells us that we should cover the discoveries, not the discoverors. By all means, name the discoverors in the articles abut the discoveries. If the same academic is then mentioned in multiple articles, you can justify an article on that academic as a navigation aid, without reference to WP:N or a subguideline.
Bleeding edge engineering is not the sort of thing I would expect in an encyclopedia. It almost comes under WP:NOT#NEWS. You mentioned some thing. You tell me some people know its important, but for whatever reason, not reliable source covers it. Coverage of this thing fails WP:V, and for good reason.
We are a real encylopedia, the best ever. But the weakests point in its reputation is that it contains unreliable coverage of obscure subjects. The solution to this is to require a strong connection between content and reliable sources. The more obscure the subject, the less eyes look over it, the more important it is to require source-based content.
If you can find any other encyclopedia that covers your thing, then you’ve probably got yourself a pass to write about it. We should not let editors, even those who claim expertise, write original material on any topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about academics, but when it comes to fiction, we're talking about the least obscure, with the most eyes. We've deleted fiction articles in the top 100 of all wikipedia, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
One was List of Akatsuki members.[5] Looks like they have since restored it and redirected it, probably for GFDL reasons. I thought 2 Girls 1 Cup had been deleted, but I was wrong. In general, check out things like South Park episodes. Super Fun Time is an example.[6] They're some of the most edited.[7] They usually survive deletion,[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Keller! The Musical] but it isn't because they meet NOTE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
With regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Keller! The Musical, it survived deletion because independent secondary sources were added [8]. People may not have been referencing WP:N directly, but the question of sufficiently independent secondary sources of sufficient coverage underlay the good keep/delete arguments in a great many AfDs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm an inclusionist who would let that article live regardless, and I'm not asking for someone to AfD it. That said, the refs are not enough to establish notability. If finding South Park articles that have been kept despite lack of sourcing will bring someone over to my side, just ask and I'll look for one. There are probably hundreds of other show's episode articles that have been kept that way, although they may not all have as many eyeballs and edits as South Park episodes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem in those cases is that the AfDs boil down to voting democracy--where tons of South Park fan editors (plus the standard inclusionists that vote "Keep" on all fiction related pages)--and the closing Admins should really be paying attention to the arguments and not the number of people coming in to say "it's important because it's a South Park episode", which isn't an actual reason at all. South Park isn't the only series of articles that tends to suffer from that type of reaction from editors who are also fans of a given show/film/book. Wikipedia is not an open ended book that needs to contain EVERY SINGLE LAST topic in the world. On the other hand, Wikipedia is also not for just the SUPER NOTABLE topics either. There should always be a middle ground that helps determine what probably shouldn't be here, and what probably should.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's tough to get consensus on WP:FICT, but we need a clear policy so that RC patrollers know what to mark for deletion. A good model is WP:BAND, which has some bright-line standards that are easy to enforce. We need something similar for WP:FICT. --John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple problems with BAND being used as a template. First, it deals with real people and not fictional ones. Most shows don't win awards, or set records, but just have a general fanbase that keeps them on the air for several years - they probably deserve a page though. On the other hand, if an episode of a show breaks a ratings record, but does nothing else (isn't viewed by critics and there is no real world information on the episode itself), does it really warrant an entire page that has nothing but a plot and then a single line saying, "it break record X"? It's an extremely large loophole to be providing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, though I've not watched TV-drama DVDs, they may contain informaion about the production of a particular episode (I knew that when I had read Prison Break episode articles). If one can find such information from official press releases, DVDs and encyclopedias, then an episode may be created, even when there's no "reliable" secondary source, since the TV-drama audience usually don't buy or rent drama DVDs; they just watch dramas on TV, and they may be eager to understand how a particular episode is made. Restricting episode articles whose production information can be verified by using official DVDs but having no secondary sources (and can not be found forever) is clearly cruel and can let many fans disappointed (msot people come to Wikipedia are to consult informaton about current events, popular culture or information technology-related articles), and they do not violate WP:NOT (not only contain plot summaries and cast), WP:NPOV (do not neglect any major POVs), WP:V (they all can be verified by using DVD having the episodes), and WP:NOR (do not contain original analysis or interpretation, and unpublished first-person accounts). --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make them notable, and doesn't warrant a separate page unless there is so much real world information that they need to be separated. If you've ever listened to a commentary track on an episode before, there isn't typically that much stuff there. Many times you get little anecdotes about the episode that aren't really that encyclopedic. This is why we would have season pages (as List form or Article form, based on the amount of info available). When there is real world information available for an episode, but it isn't a lot of encyclopedic information, and there are no independent, secondary sources, that's when you have a page like Smallville (season 1). If the page is majority plot summary, then they do violate PLOT. WP:PLOT isn't just for having "only" a plot summary, but when the page is overwhelmed with plot information so much so that it is actually the primary information on the page. Having a bunch of half-assed articles, that fail notability guidelines because the only thing published about them was a couple of sentences about their production, is not better than having a single page that contains ALL that information together and written in a way that it is coherent and flows.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • With respect to WP:NOR. WP:NOR, WP:V and NPOV are policies, and therefore general' WP:RS, and the rule of primary and secondary sources are guidelines, some parts of which are more accepted than others. For descriptions of plot, its accept that the work itself as a source are ordinarily acceptable, and some would argue usually preferred, though they do need to be much more specifically cited. than they customarily are.But it's the synthesis of materials into a new and original conclusion that is OR, the collection of obvious material is not. If one writes a school college paper on a fiction, where unlike WP,OR is expected and required, the plot summary and description of characters in the beginning is not the OR part, nut rather the social or psychological or literary interpretation that follows. A teacher would normally return a paper limited to such description as "shows no originality"--at least any time after primary school. The purpose of Wikipedia is to gather and present verifiable information, and presenting plot summaries of notable fiction in reasonable detail is part of what we should be doing.

Now, I would be the first to agree that in general the level of our coverage of fiction is terrible. the writing is jejune, the citing is inadequate, the need to look for sources is often ignored altogether. There are far too many articles which only give plot description when they could at last talk about the publication and reception, and thus provide some basis for thinking the work notable. Certainly some descriptions are in too much detail. And some are too brief for understanding.

The purpose of going back to principles, is that we are in a position to establish new guidelines if we choose, and also the interpretation of all policies. We can do more: alter the wording of policies if there is consensus, and even adopt new ones. all of these things are possible, and they happen. They happen because people want to clarify or change the nature of the encyclopedia in details or specifics, or defend the existing nature against challenges. We can have whatever rules for content we want to have. We're a wiki. The discussion here is not about what someone or something forces us to do. but about what we want to do and how we want to do it. Everything here is open to change if there is consensus to do so. We make our own rules as we go along, and we do so both in formal wording & interpretation, and how we actually apply them. There is no point in having a statement of a guideline if the general consensus in practice is to ignore it. DGG (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with DGG in the assessment of the situation. But we may differ in the response. I think most the concerns should be addressed at the Manual of Style, when dealing with content. I think that inclusion requires meeting WP:N. If there is no reference discussing the topic then there should be no inclusion. I believe in a low standard for inclusion, but a consistent one for all topics across the board.
The issue is what constitutes adequate recognition in several ways: (1) stature of the source (publication, medium, author), (2) depth of coverage, and (3) number of sources. I see it as a three dimensional sliding scale, with a slight bias (tie breaker) allowed by two additional factors (A) validity of the questions being answered by our article, and (B) availability of verifiable primary source material. It is a matter of training and application of logical and consistent guidelines, not trying to write code for every possible situation. Good sense applied by good people! --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hobit, basing something entirely on a primary source runs against WP:NOR/WP:PSTS. WP:NOT#PLOT covers the extreme case. However, the useful answer to plot summary questions is found in WP:WAF.

Well, you're right. The policy says that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found on a specific topic, it should not have an article (The Japanese edition has similar statement as well) . However, there are a few exceptions, such as a certain fictional character appearing on more than one fiction, or articles about the fiction are quite long (without violating WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR) thus needing splitting. And WP:IAR applies to these situations (though this core "policy" was initially established to let novices and rule-loathers can pleasantly maintain articles, it has been interpreted that in certain circumstances guidelines and policies except the 5 pillars can be neglected, see Category:Wikipedia supplemental essays and the Wikipedia guideline template). --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't be splitting up articles that have long (and nothing but) plot descriptions of their character. If the only thing you can find to split is just a summary of a given instance in that character's fictional history, then maybe what should be down is a trimming of that fictional history. I don't know how many times I've come across an article on a fictional character (one that spans multiple mediums), and it was detailed to the point of mentioning everything that happened to the character in every appear they have had (every comic book series, every film, every television episodes, etc). Wikipedia should provide an overview of what happens to the character in their fictional universe, and let the reader go read the details of every issue/episode/etc for themselves. Plot information about a character should be used in context to the real world information about the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that some editors are laboring under an erroneous impression of what notability requires. Yes, GNG requires multiple, nontrivial secondary sources to confirm notability; beyond that, however, there is a large amount of leeway on using primary sources (as long as we follow NOR) such as books, or developer/author information such as "Making of" and other source tied to the subject directly; see Master Chief (Halo). Obviously, we should keep to NOR and PLOT to hem in excessive use of primary sources, but beyond the requisite demonstration of notability, editors have a lot of room to expand the article with whatever reliable sources there are.
That said: I believe the common thread in arguments for a supplement to NOTE (besides the crazy brigands who seem utterly mystified that we have to have notability at all) is that there are occasions when multiple third-party sources (i.e., definition of notability under GNG) are not satisfied, but the topic/character/element in question is critical to the understanding of the work as a whole (not just fanboy "But in episode 3, chapter 5 of the manga" type stuff). The question is: what then? Generally, merging the content or moving it is the best option, especially to avoid cruft and trivia (for example, the important factions Forerunner and UNSC in the Halo universe were merged into Factions of Halo as unlike the Covenant or Flood they did not meet GNG.) or creating lists (of episodes, or characters, etc.) but occasionally stand-alone articles are necessary. I believe FICT should address only these cases. A small guideline which does not supplant N, merely extends it, and does not seem redundant with WAF, but augments it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
David, the GNC does not specifically require "multiple" sources. However it states that these are preferred. This was carefully worded in the compromise rewrite about 18 months back. It is possible but not likely that a single prominent source can establish notability, especially if the facts are verifiable through reliable primary sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
From WP:N: "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." --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I've got multiple sources that establish a minor notability for lesser characters in the Halo series (343 Guilty Spark, for instance), but it was a much better idea to merge it in the main characters list. There's plenty of elasticity in the policies and guidelines regarded herein; but my point is that it will be easier to forge a new FICT if we avoid treading on WAF and just address when technically "non-notable" elements can have their own pages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that the statement in WP:NOR "Topics which do not have 3rd reliable sources should not have their own articles" should have "generally" between "sources" and "should" to solve the problem, as if articles about fictional works and lists of characters of fictional works are too full, do not violate WP:NOT and three core content policies and there's no or little possibility to trim the articles (occurs common in Japanese Wikipedia), then we can split sections about main ficitonal characters, places, events, etc. into articles, even if we can only find primary sources (fictional works, official data books and creators' notes, etc.) to support them. There are too many One Piece character or group articles in English Wikipedia, whose Japanese edition do not exit, however. And the article List of One Piece characters is so small that most One Piece character and group articles should be merged into this list (so far there hasn't been any reliable 3rd sources in them is another reason). --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC) 04:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC) corrected

Backdoor inclusions for non-independently notable subjects

Idea: Non notable subjects (eg. minor characters) should be allowed to have their own article (or at least dab page/soft redirect) IF they are subject to coverage in multiple articles on independently notable subjects. This is also justifiable by arguments favouring "navigational aids". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I followed that. The important part is "coverage" and not "significant coverage" right? Otherwise they'd be notable anyways? I'd still say that when reasonable, these minor characters should share a page but otherwise agree. Hobit (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not a thoroughly considered idea, but... The assumption is that there is no single best page for the minro character to share. I'm imagining a recurring minor character, never subject to independent coverage, but which is significant in multiple other articles. This minor character might not be coverered by any independent source, but coverage is required for completeness of coverage of multiple other subjects (each of independently demonstrated notability, to prevent this becoming a chain without end). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the hope would be that there is some overlap with other minor characters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faline is a good example I think. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe, it's not a bad idea, but I think it would be redundant to a better solution of solving when to spin-off from the parent article for all topics. Why just solve the problem for fiction and not for history, science etc.? --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. My language was intended to be generalisable: "Non notable subjects should be allowed to have their own article (or at least dab page/soft redirect) IF they are subject to coverage in multiple articles on independently notable subjects." Where should such a general proposal be made? I'd have though WP:SPINOUT, which goes to Wikipedia:Splitting, but I'm not quite sure what that about is about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Since we use the term notability instead of inclusion, then maybe at WP:N. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think we should have the same standards for fictional summary spin-offs as we do for real-world spin-offs. That being said, I support sub/spin articles that don't have multiple independent sources as long as they're more than just plot (as in, they would have significant real world information/context). The logic being that we're biased to the real world. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that fiction need to be treated any more firmly, except that our coverage of the fiction needs to be real-universe coverage. It's the in-universe stuff that prone to endless spawling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree we want something that does not favor/penalize fiction compared to any other topic, but there are two factors we need to consider here:
  • Those that often edit articles on fictional works and in-universe details are verbose but more importantly very large in number. Yes, I'm sure there are verbose math and history and war/military editors, but the shear numbers of those editing fiction compared to other fields makes fiction a special case.
  • We have to keep in mind that discussion of fiction treads on the concepts of derivative works and non-free (as in speech) uses - this is not saying we are in any copyright problems, but that simply the more we talk about a work of fiction's in-universe approach without balance of out-of-universe content, the more unjustified non-free content we are creating.
For these reasons along, how fiction is treated (in both notability and style) need to be metered differently from other fields - but we should still strive to normalize the approach with the rest of WP in as much as we can do. --MASEM 14:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should base topic structure on non-free content issues. One giant article or two half size articles is the same amount of NF contnent. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to say that topic structure or notability, etc, is limited by non-free issues, but the degree to which we cover things needs to be. Ignoring any issues with differences between primary and secondary sources, we can probably write a biography on Homer Simpson as large (if not larger) than that of, say John F. Kennedy, sticking to an encyclopedic manner in both cases. However, to go to the same lengths for the fictional character does impact the free content mission. This is why encouraging lists of fictional elements, in which content is generally limited in the first place without losing coverage of the elements, is a necessary consideration over having several separate articles. --MASEM 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)/Archive_36&oldid=1136057613"