Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Hang on

We're investing all this time in an argument, and yet nobody has yet pointed out what award the character of Jaws, the shark in the Jaws movie has actually won. It'd be nice to know the details of the case we're debating over, so is it possible Gavin can let us know? Otherwise, I can't really see what the issue is. Hiding T 15:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I forget that the shark actully won. When it collected her award, did it leave any sound bites we could quote in the article? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But if the shark didn't win anything, how could it collect an award in the first place? I mean, When did you stop beating your wife? (I have edited this statement by adding a wiki-link to the wife beating statement as Gavin feared it may be contentious or reflect badly.) Hiding T 15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dunno if it did, but if a book wins, it certainly can't do that. The author can, yes, but the same can be said about a character.陣内_Jinnai 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't appear that the shark ever won an award.陣内_Jinnai 10:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest we swiftly evaluate who we will engage with on this page then. Let us remember everyone is expected to argue in good faith in an attempt to build a consensus rather than to simply be argumentative. Is it worth requesting comment on a page ban for editors? Hiding T 13:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold your horses. The shark example came out of AFI's 100 Years…100 Heroes and Villains, where it is one of the villains. This list was mentioned above as an "award" (more a distinction, but whatever). Gavin did not make this up. If this is about something else, please ignore me, but I just wanted to point out what looked to me like a simple misunderstanding. Fram (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, glad that's sorted. Hiding T 14:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And looking at sources, there is probably enough reliable sourcing to prove notability of the "shark" character, which kind of proves the point that winning an award is indicative that the sources will likely exist. Although I still think editorially we don't need an article on both the film and the shark. Hiding T 14:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Which leads to probably that for all the criteria we provide, we need to add advice to consider merging singular characters (those that appear in a single book, film, video game, etc.) into a larger article even if they meet one of the suggested FICT criteria - moreso than any other SNG. That's not to say there can't be articles about a character that appears in one movie should there be more notability, but, and considering Gavin's stance, it is sometimes difficult to separate the praise for the character from the praise for the work or its creator or the actor behind the character. I'd still be fine with the general "notable award for character" and allow more articles than would be considered ideal than to have something too limiting. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about, except I'd also had "been shown to be influential in other unrelated elements" with the definition that unrelated be outside the series or outside a series for which the main staff worked on the original (FE: Spinoff series where the main character is based heavily on someone from a previous series).陣内_Jinnai 23:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than "article or no article", how about "how much content"?

(alternate title: Yet Another Stupid Fictional Guideline Proposal)

• User:Nifboy/Organizing articles on fiction

Simply put, I don't think a notability guidelines for fiction would work because notability guidelines tend to look at articles in a vacuum. This is, incidentally, why the GNG also sucks for fiction, and so we get all these merge suggestions that AfD isn't really equipped to handle and admins have kind of rebelled against.

Therefore, I'm floating out a proposal that aims to answer the question of "How much content should we have for an entire series" and let that answer the question of "how many articles" rather than look at each article individually. It's not quite a notability guideline but it borrows a bit from the current draft of FICT. Nifboy (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this fit into the importance of a subject in relation to their parent work anyway?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes? I'm not sure I understand the implications of the question. I originally intended it to just be a rewrite of the "general principles" section of the current proposal, but the end result doesn't (IMO) look anything like a notability guideline. Nifboy (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I wasn't really implying anything Nifboy, just not sure what the difference is between that and what you're suggesting here. Though I do have to say the merge discussions in AfD aren't really so much an issue that the GNG sucks, but more that getting people to discuss it does.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability and Real World Coverage

I've reverted Gavin's changes while they are still under discussion. I did find the added paragraph was more in keeping with WP:WAF. I don;t think we need to re-write WP:WAF on this page, article content isn't covered by notability. The character of Hamlet is notable regardless of whether the article is written "from the perspective of the real world" or in a manner which may "create or uphold the illusion that a fictional topic is real". I think ignoring that logic is rather futile. Also, using an objective criteria such as whether an award has been made is not an example of subjective importance. If it were, by that logic using reliable sources to confer notability would also be an example of subjective importance. And further, given that pages within CAT:CONTENT allow the giving of an award to confer notability, I think it is demonstrably false to argue otherwise. Ignoring these plain facts is not sustainable going forward. Hiding T 21:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you arguement that we don't need a rewrite of WP:WAF, whilst at the same time copying and pasting the preamble from another SNG[1] does not give you a leg to stand on in this instance; "one rule for you, one rule for me" is not good editorial policy. However, as a matter of courtesy I will not revert your amendment in the first instance, and request that we discuss wording that we can compromise on.
The assertion that the following preamble is a rewrite of WP:WAF is not fair, because style and content are two sides of the same coin in relation to fictional topics. To make this point clear, I propose the following rewrite for the preamble:

Special consideration must be given to writing articles about fictional topics because they are inherently not real, and should not attempt to create or uphold the illusion that a fictional topic is real by the omission of real world coverage or by over-reliance on a perspective that is in universe.

Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, are required to provide evidence of their notability from the perspective of the real world in which the work or element of fiction is embedded in the form of significant coverage of the work or element (such as commentary on development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) from reliable secondary sources so that readers can fully understand the subject and appreciate its overall significance.

I am not trying to repeat the advice given in Wikipedia is not plot-only description of fictional works, but rather to show the relationship between that policy and this guideline: if a fictional topic fails WP:PLOT, then it will fail WP:FICT as well. The reasons for this are outlined in more detail at Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works, but this symmetrical relationship is key to understanding why this guideline is soimportant. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My legs look firmly placed on the floor. You'll have to explain the logic you are attempting to present here: That we should not copy other notability guidance in framing this notability guidance. Regarding your argument that we address the content of articles, I refer you to Wikipedia:Notability, which states that The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight. The attempt to link this guidance to WP:PLOT is similarly flawed, because while an article on Hamlet may breach WP:PLOT, it would never breach WP:FICT. I can;t see any point in continuing this conversation given the fundamental flaws in your stated goal. Hiding T 18:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have explained the logic, in fairness. Both articles Hamlet and Prince Hamlet contain more than just plot summary; they also contain significant real world coverage about the work and character in the form of commentary, analysis and criticisim from reliable secondary sources. If a topic fails WP:PLOT, then it will fail WP:N and vice versa, in issue you seem reluctant to recognise. The only reliable defence against an article being nominated for deletion for failing WP:PLOT is evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You haven't explained the logic. You keep stating that if a topic fails WP:PLOT, then it will fail WP:N as if that were a truism, and I have already shown the flaw in that argument, namely that WP:PLOT relates to article content, and WP:N does not. It is all well and good saying the articles Hamlet and Prince Hamlet currently contain more than just plot summary; that ignores the viable possibility that the articles could certainly not contain more than just plot summary and yet still be about notable topics. You're trying to make links that don't exist. I really can;t see any point in continuing this Gavin, because you seem to choose to ignore the rather large fact that WP:N does not apply to article content, while WP:PLOT does. Because if you concede that fact, you'd understand your argument is fatally flawed. Hiding T 09:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Although we are agreed that WP:N is about the inclusion criteria for a standalone article, the requirements of WP:GNG are based on providing evidence of notability based on significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, so the link between inclusion and article content is very clear. If an article's content is entirely comprised of plot, this leads to an article failing WP:PLOT. If an article's content meets WP:GNG, then it is notable. Rememnber, the WP:GNG is a set of inclusion criteria based on an article topic being able to meets Wikipedia's content policies, so it is not possible to write this guideline in isolation from them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But we're in the realm of an SNG, outside of the GNG requirement, just like WP:BIO and the SNGs provide. They only require verifiable evidence of meeting a well-defined criteria to presume notability. That's what we're doing here. Mind you, we have the added complexity of PLOT, that though we can provide the evidence of meeting whatever criteria there is, we still need to reign in the plot section appropriately; one line about a character winning an award against 100k of plot summary won't do. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that WP:N clearly states it does not give guidance on the content of articles, your whole argument runs counter to the very page you cite to support it. As you remain unwilling to concede that point, it is quite clear you have no wish to build a consensus but are simply intent on carrying on an argument. I have no wish to do so. You're attempt to link WP:PLOT and WP:GNG is disingenuous, since they cover separate ground. Given that I have already detailed instances where a notable topic's article content can breach WP:PLOT, I can't see any reason to continue this discussion. Whether you wish to recognise the flaws in your argument is your own affair, but I can't really see the point in continually pointing them out. This is simply another circular argument forming around you. Hiding T 09:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Looking back, there appears to be a tendancy to use WP:FICT as a platform for providing fictional topics with an exemption from Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines, on the grounds that fictional topics that don't demonstrate evidence of notability need to be protected from merger or deletion . Whilst I can understand why some editors would want to provide some protection to topics, the reality is that we can't build a walled garden for fictional topics. The basic rational for article inclusion remains:

It seems to me that the consensus from discussions regarding WP:NOT#PLOT is that balanced coverage of fictional topics is desirable, and that this means that every article should contain at least some real-world coverage from reliable sources in order to avoid duplicating in universe coverage from the primary source. We also know that those sources have to be independent to be compliant with WP:V. Put these requirements together, and I think they meet the inclusion criteria for a standalone article. It is hard to imagine how there could be alternative inclusion criteria that don't fall foul of WP:NOT. For this reason alone, this guideline needs to make real-world coverage the centre of the inclusion criteria. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you don't agree with me Gavin. The thing is, this page and other guidance agrees with me rather than with your interpretations and opinions on how things should be. Not sure how to move on from there, really. Do I need to restate that notability doesn't apply to article content, and therefore this guideline shouldn't make real-world coverage the centre of inclusion criteria? Do I need to point out that what you desire already exists at WP:PLOT, therefore your ideas are redundant and smack of instruction creep? Or can we let the matter rest? Hiding T 15:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It can't rest. It is true that notability does not govern article content, but only in so far as notability has been established. However, the article inclusion criteria in WP:GNG are based on content in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent - this is the form of verifiable evidence that is required to show that a topic is notable.
Within the context of fictional topics, if coverage is not real world (i.e. plot summary), then is not significant, nor is it independent of the primary source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Been here before. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 54 and Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 55. You've never once addressed the basic point that your position is flawed since it is possible for an article on a notable fictional element to consist solely of plot. There's no point cycling through this again. See you on the other side. Hiding T 17:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Hiding is simply twisting these discussions around to fit his purpose. It is true that an article topic can be about the plot of a work, but only so far as the plot has been the subject of significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis about its real world impact and receiption. By contraxt, an article that comprises only of plot summary is little more a regurgitation of the primary source. If an article gives undue weight to trivial detail and is devoid of any real world coverage, then it has not been "noted" by the outside world. Hiding needs to make the distinction between significant coverage from real world perspective and trivial coverage that is pure in universe in this instance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice big heap of ad hominem which avoids addressing the point. Again. Your straw man argument fails to take in to account the difference between badly written articles on notable topics and badly written articles on non-notable topics. I've already made the necessary distinction between significant coverage from real world perspective and trivial coverage that is pure in universe. You'll find you link to it amazingly often. It's WP:PLOT. As I say, we've been here before, see the archives and perhaps answer all the questions you've been posed in them rather than ducking the point once again to attack another editor, scare-monger, launch ad hominem and create straw men. It's tiresome to the point of disruptive. Hiding T 13:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not altogher sure what Hiding is refering to, but I believe he is in agreement that plot only is not only inadmissible as a standalone article in accordance with WP:PLOT, but that also plot only coverage is not admissible as evidence of notability. The reason is of course, that plot only coverage does not contain any significant real world coverage, only a reguritation of the plot, and reguritation or restatement of the plot does not qualify as significant coverage. I have therefore restored the nutshell and introduction and improved upon it[2] based on your suggestion.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've undone your edits since they don't have consensus per this debate and debates held in the archives where other users disagree with your approach. Since you refuse to acknowledge anybody else's point of view, it is clear you are acting with flagrant disregard for WP:CONSENSUS. I am is tired of repeatedly having this same conversation. Since the guidance already calls for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I fail to see how the guidance allows for " plot only coverage" to be admissible as evidence of notability. Your changes are redundant, over-complicate the issue, represent instruction creep and do not have consensus. Hiding T 12:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(Re: Hiding) I think a badly-written article, regardless of the subject's notability, is genuinely improved by putting it into the context of the greater work, i.e. merging it. Midna, a co-protagonist, was merged to a list when her article looked like this, her list entry was expanded a year later, then split back out into her own article. I honestly feel that's one of the best routes to take with badly written fictional articles, even if the subject is notable. Nifboy (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends upon the context, doesn't it. No-one is going to argue that Prince Hamlet is not notable, but if Gavin had his way, we'd delete the article if someone rewrote the page so that it contained only plot summary. Mergers and redirects are editorial decisions that don't really need to be grounded in policy and guidance, because writing an encyclopedia comes first. Whatever we do should improve Wikipedia. That's why we work from IAR and CONSENSUS more than anything else, and we could probably get rid of everything else bar foundation mandates, since what the community decides htrough consensus is what is best for the encyclopedia. Hiding T 12:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned to Hiding earlier in this discussion, both Hamlet and Prince Hamlet contain more than just plot summary; they also contain significant real world coverage about the work and character in the form of commentary, analysis and criticism from reliable secondary sources, so their notability is not in doubt. I have reverted his changes for the following reasons, and invite him to make some constructive suggestions that address the following issues:

1. If anything, the two articles Hamlet and Prince Hamlet demonstrate that notable topics do contain siginficant real world coverage. As far as I am aware, there is not example of an article topic that does not contain siginficant real world coverage, which is the standard by which all articles are judged in terms of the Wikipedia's inclusion criteria;
2. Plot only articles are not encylopedic, because ignore the real world context which all Wikipedia articles provide, so I can't see how saying that plot only articles are notable can be supported. On this point, I am in agreement with Niftyboy that, in the absence of real world coverage, it would be better to merge a plot only article, because real world context is lacking. Whilst Hiding is correct that mergers and redirect are editorial decisions, the purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance that assists with precisely such situations;
3. As regards consensus, the community has indeed in agreement on the wording of WP:PLOT, which states that articles about fictional topics should be treated in "an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works". Although this guideline's purpose is not to repeat WP:PLOT, it can't ignore the prohibition on plot only articles because there there is an indirect link between the prohibition on plot only articles and this guideline. That link is that that plot summary on its own (from any source) does not provide evidence of notability, as it is merely a restatement or is a reguritation of the primary source, and notability can only come from sources which are independent of the primary source.

Simply put, there is symmetry between this guideline and Wikipedia's other content policies, such that if a plot only article like Gaius Baltar fails WP:PLOT, then it won't be notable until either. A plot only article that does not contain any significant coverage in the form of real world commentary, criticism or analysis does not indicate it has been "noted", because plot summary is too close to the primary source to be classed as third party.
I think if Hiding is to make any headway in this discussion, then he will need to provide examples of article topics which he thinks are notable that don't contain any significant real world coverage (if there are any to be found). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that WP:PLOT is not about real-world aspects -only the significance of the character/element beyond just its mere presence in the work. The point is to obtain secondary information about the element. This may be in some cases limited to strictly a critical analysis of the character within the work from reliable literary experts, with very little real world aspects. That would be acceptable. In other words: if a character/element is described in an interpretive manner beyond what is clear by the primary work of fiction, with that interpretation based on reliable experts in secondary sources, then the article is fine. This is not just a simple reiteration of plot with no other details, what WP:PLOT warns against. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I was reading recently that the Jedi religion was the 4th most popular in the last UK census. And that a linguist was raising his baby son to speak Klingon as a native tongue. These real-world aspects are entertaining anecdotes but are incidental to our coverage of fictional topics. They have no bearing on the issue of notability - which is a matter of sources - and so merit no mention here. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If you mean "in this proposed guideline", then ys, they have no place here. If you mean "in articles on the Jedi religion or the impact of Star Wars or something similar", then no, yuou are incorrect. The linguist part is an anecdote and should not be used anywhere, but the census part is very relevant (and widely reported): even if people put "Jedi" in jest (or as a kind of protest), which is of course probable, the fact that they choose "Jedi" and not a religion from another SF or fantasy franchise is telling. Such things are pure "real world coverage" and indicative of notability. Similarly, one person calling her son Obi-Wan is an anecdote, but if the name would become a top-ten name in some country (and some newspaper or other source would link it to Star Wars), it would be another indicator of notability and relevant fact to add to related articles. Fram (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, If a character/element is described in an interpretive manner, then that is significant real world coverage, because it is the commentator who is analying the work or element of fiction from a real world perspective; this is exactly the sort of coverage that confers notability, not just for fiction, but for any topic. I think Colonel Warden has also provided an useful example of real-world coverage and that Fram is right that it does confer notability from a source that is independent from the primary source.
By contrast, if the coverage simply reguritates the primary source, as is the case in the article Gaius Baltar, then there is no inpretation, and there there is no evidence of the character being "noted", for reguritation is not the same inpretation, it is simply a retelling of the original story extracted from the primary source.
Looking at this guideline from the perspective of Wikipedia's other policies such as WP:PLOT and guidelines such as WP:WAF it surely must be obvious to you that real world coverage is the key to understanding whether a fictional topic is notable?
If it is not, then consider my earlier question: where have you seen an example of article topics which you think is notable that is not the subject of significant real world coverage? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personalising the issue. The debate is about whether we should delete articles on notable topics or clean them up. The consensus is that we clean them up, therefore Gavin's position holds no water. Hiding T 22:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've realised: If no-one replies to Gavin, what's the worst that can happen? Hiding T 22:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; the debate is what to do about bad articles, of which there are a number of options other than "send to AfD" and "slap {{cleanup}} on it without any other guidance". Nifboy (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The question still stands: is there an example of article topic which is presumed to be notable, even though it is not the subject of significant real world coverage? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See, that's a silly question because, as far as I'm concerned, and I suspect you share this viewpoint, an article that doesn't pass WP:WAF is almost by definition not a good article. Nifboy (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Its more thatn just a style issue, as the lack of real world content goes deeper that that. An article like Gaius Baltar that is all plot summary does not contain any evidence that its subject is notable because it has been constructed from primary sources, or a reguritation of primary sources. If all the coverage come from one source (the plot of Battlestar Gallatica in this example), what evidence is there the the topic has been "noted"? The answer is none, until such time significant real world coverage is added to the article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning Discussion

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic or if spoilers should be removed by removing all plot summaries from all articles, except for any sentences that can be sourced to secondary sources only.

I am posting this here because there are attempts to say sections, specifically plot, need to have secondary sources according to WP:N.陣内_Jinnai 06:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. This is being brought back again, after hundreds of hours of discussions a couple years ago? Unbelievable and inefficient. I will not even comment on the part about removing plot summaries. — Deckiller 12:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would not worry about removal of summaries. The main discussion was about bring back spoiler warnings (I don't think we need that either though) which then got sidetracked into a plot removal section. There was little support for the plot removal idea and and I think that there was only one person suggesting the idea. There may have been a few more but the point is that the idea got little suppport. Long story short, not happening.--70.24.182.60 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC Awards for fictional elements

Are awards for fictional elements, most notably characters, able to indicate the likelyhood of notability of said element? Currently a majority of the of Wikipedians discussing this at WP:FICT believe in certain circumstances it can while the minority believes they cannot.

The evidence given for their use is that other SNGs that use awards as a viable note to show the notability for the article as long as the award was from a reliable source noted in the industry for its prominence and the award is not intended as a joke. On the other side, at least one wikipedian claims this item is a literary literary trope since an element cannot receive the award and therefore is an award to the author. In addition there exists no RS body that universally well known enough to make such an award confer the same level of ability to pass as say a Literary award would for a book. The anti-award side specifically mentions needing to have an offline news organization or peer review of such an award. The example given in the previous discussion, IGN, as a possible reliable source by the pro-award side cited it as meeting such a criteria, but the other side says it is a questionable source since it is dedicated to the promotion of video games and other entertainment, but publishes both its own and third party promotional content without distinguishing between the two. That statement has been disputed as IGN is believed by the pro-award side as being no different in its conduct than any other news organization. For the item being a troup and thus not being able to accept an award itself, comparisons by the pro-award side have been compared to awarding a movie or book instead of the author itself and that this is no different from that since a book or movie cannot accept an award.陣内_Jinnai 02:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If the item has won an award, it is more likely that it has been covered by reliable sources in depth. Therefore, I would say that a claim that an item has been the recipient of a significant award is an assertion of notability sufficient to present speedy deletion. However, to sustain an article on the topic, it must also be true that the subject of the article has actually been the subject of significant, in depth coverage in reliable sources. If that is not true, we cannot write a full article on the subject, whatever awards it has won. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If we are using the same logic that the other SNG use, once a topic has passed the SNG's criteria, it technically can remain indefinitely as a stub or short article (for example, there are probably around 10,000 articles on professional international soccer players based on the criteria in WP:ATHLETE that likely will remain if you brought them up at AFD. Now, I very much doubt that there are 10,000 fiction awards that will do the same, but the idea still remains: once it is shown that the fictional topic has been given an award, the topic presumable remains notable. One can suggest editorial moves to merge it to something else, but outright delete through perceived lack of notability would not be consistent with how other SNG-passing articles are handled. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I may have missed it in the above, but are we making a presumption about the notability of the awards in question? For example, the local comic book shops has multiple monthly awards given, based upon popular voting.

I ask this, because citing awards has been contentious in the past. - jc37 16:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The only mention of "award" in the proposed guidance is where an actor has won an award for the portrayal of the character, that can generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist. So I fail to understand the storm in the tea cup we are currently witnessing. I think people are currently arguing to protect positions rather than over anything in the guidance. Hiding T 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jc37 - yes the presumption is that at the very least it must be a notable award in a niche industry. The award from your local comic book store wouldn't be notable, unless your local comic book store became famous well beyond your locality for its awards enough that those in the comic book industry took serious note and/or it was covered and commented on by national press. IE, the award itself must be from a WP:RS of at least industry notability.陣内_Jinnai 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh man, this brings back memories of arguing with Phil over the use of the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. I think that we should treat awards like any other kind of review: Scoured for usable prose, integrated into the reception with attribution, and if, at the end of the day, all we've got is a tiny blurb declaring the character to have the "worst. voice actor. ever" then we should probably show it the door. It seems silly to give one piece of reception a higher priority than another simply because one is an "award". Nifboy (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Nifboy; a single award for any piece of a work (be it a character, the musical score, the writing, etc) is not enough to justify notability for that aspect of the work. If there is significant coverage of that aspect in numerous independent sources (not just a mention in 2 newspapers that X won this award, but coverage on why it won), then the aspect meets the notability criteria. Even so, if only a stub article is likely to ever be created, coverage of this aspect should be merged back into the parent article (although this cannot be proscribed by this guideline). Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum: I do believe that the presence of an award for an aspect of a work contributes to the work itself meeting the notability guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Beg to differ. Multiple SNGs would disagree with you there. The use of an award is an indicator that there is critical commentary about that awarded item (assuming it meets the above criteria, including what i mentioned to Jc37) or that it will shortly do so - ie, the subject is presumed to be notable. We make the same assumption when an item has say 2 independant RSes making non-trivial comments on it; that is we pressume the subject is notable. If nothing else appears, then it might not be notable.陣内_Jinnai 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Well all the SNGs that I know of specify that it has to be a "major" award, and I very much do not want to play the game of "how major of an award gives us a pass at AfD?" I'd rather treat an award as a source, and evaluate it like one, instead of pretending that a superlative (or worse, a ranking or "nomination") with a name attached to it is better than the same opinion as expressed by a reviewer or staff member or academic. Nifboy (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I would very much expect that if we have a SNG that say "winning a major award is presumption of notability", that the issue of whether the award is "major" or not will be debated at AFD should it be in contention. Now, if it becomes clear that a lot of people are trying to squeak by articles on awards that are, by consensus through AFD or other channels, proven to be insignificant, then we may have to spell out what the acceptable awards are or the like, or possibly even remove this clause. However, to assume that the case beforehand is assuming bad faith, as I would hope most editors recognize the difference between a character award given by a vetted group of literary academic experts and one given by "Awesome Jim!'s Awesome Blog!". --MASEM (t) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
        • It is less an issue of bad faith and more an issue that turning an AfD into a discussion of how "major" an award it got is completely missing the point, which is: Do we have reliable sources, and if not, where can we get some? If the award is a reliable source, it's a source and it should go in the article along with all the other sources. If it's not, it should go. Nifboy (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I am not saying that sources should eventually be added, but what the SNGs, and what we are attempting to do here, is to establish a basic line in the sand that, even if it is only one non-primary source to affirm the granting of the award, that the topic is notable, and only our non-existent WP:DEADLINE is necessary to fill in the rest of the sources that should be existing because of the award. Let's assume we have an unequivocally reliable source that has given an award to a character. The most likely the initial article about this character will be a lot of primary-source material, and a mention of the award, with other sources more difficult to acquire given the volunteer nature of WP or the recentness of the character. Without this presumption in the SNG, that article would be AFD bait due to lack of secondary sources. But like the other SNG's, adding this criterion would allow the character to be presumed notable, as to allow time for more secondary sources to be acquired or to appear, without fear of AFD deletion. Now, I would say that if years pass and nothing is changes to improve it, then by all means, merging and other steps are quite reasonable. But meeting this criteria should affirm in the near term that the topic is notable. This is the goal of all the other SNGs - providing a means of including topics that likely would meet the GNG once it is shown that the criteria is passed. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
            • That's just it though: I don't want to give articles that are bad in the short term a long-term safe harbor, essentially encouraging them to remain bad articles indefinitely. I am especially unconcerned for the short-term safety of articles in a class that, 99% of the time, has a parent article already covering the subject in a broader context. Nifboy (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
              • I agree in spirit, but (un)fortunately, WP has a practice from the other SNGs that we allow articles on topics that barely or don't even pass the GNG as long as they've passed an SNG criteria. See, for example, the first article I pulled off from Category:English footballers (a 10,000-strong category!), Ben Abbey. Clearly fails the GNG, but passes WP:ATHLETE. All that is being asked here is that if we allow this practice from other SNGs that we can allow the same for fiction elements. Otherwise, you create a systematic bias that harms the work more than helps. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The criteria were established for cases where the GNG either doesnt work at all or is considered inapplicable--some are broader than the GNG, some are narrower, some are just different. For some types of articles, the actual effective guidelines are one of the parts of NOT. My own personal feeling is we could best resolve this by establishing NGs for every type of article that took account of the type of subject and sourcing, while still requiring V as an overriding principle. Therules, after all, are whatever we collectively want them to be. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) DGG has it right, which is why I was so disappointed this incarnation of FICT devotes its first half to a generic laundry list of reasons we might want to keep an article, and gives no real guidance as to the merge/split/list decision that is unique to fictional entities. Nifboy (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, on reflection, the whole thing seems redundant with the "Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria" section. Award = important work, titular character = important character, etc. I don't think we have to maintain the pretense of pretending sources exist just to save an article at AfD. Nifboy (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

From DGG The criteria were established for cases where the GNG either doesnt work at all or is considered inapplicable... and that's exactly why we are here. There are people that claim that the GNG is insufficient for coverage of fiction from an encyclopedic level because many elements of fiction simply do not get the level of coverage that more academic topics get, and yet would be stupid to exclude from a work that exudes to be part of the collected sum of human knowledge. Now, I'm giving benefit of the doubt that we're not talking about full-fledged fan guides, detailing every character and episode in exacting detail, as that level is completely at odds with how other fields are handled and the implication of notability (among other guidelines). If we're going to allow articles that demonstrate meeting objective (as shown through verifiable sources) criteria that imply the likeliness of secondary coverage in the future from other SNGs, then there's no reason we can't allow the exact same approach for fictional elements. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically that's it. While I personally think very specific types of creator commentart, ie stuff that doesn't require paying extra $$, could work for showing the potential notability for fictional elements in the same way as other paths, I realize that for a lot of people they might not see that (my basis is that if they aren't making money off of it, talking about it won't generate that much hype in almost any case for the series as a whole or even for the product merchandise; people will either like that element or not and it won'r really increase popularity of it, though it might increase the chance of some more independant commentary or even peer review.
Instead what this RfC is about is seeing whether certain norms and practices other SNGs apply can be applied to elements of a fictional work outside episodes (which even Gavin seemed to admit there was at least one award for episodes); specifically awards for characters. However, as you can see if you scan this arhived section as well as some other sections on this page we have discussed other items as well.陣内_Jinnai 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Seraphimblade and Nifboy that awards are no different from any other source, in that they have to be evaluated in terms of the significance of coverage, the reliability and independence of the source. The reason is that treating awards as axiomatic proof of notability does not stand up to close examination in the case of those given to fictional characters; they can't be taken as prima facie evidence of notability since they are a form of journalistic or literary trope, and the term "award" in this context is different from its usual meaning. Since an award is usually given to recognise the endevours of real world people, you have to ask why the award has been given, and there are many reasons, such as (but not limited to):

1. honouring the creator of the character;
2. as the basis for a poll to attract publicity for a product such a film, book or game;
3. as a journalistic device used as a basis for an article or televsion programme.

In each of these instances, it may not be the fictional character that is the subject of the award. The key therefore, is to examine the sources to see who or what is the subject, and whether the coverage is significant, reliable and independently sourced. Like mock awards, they have to be taken with a Pinch of salt, and that means they don't confer notability automatically as this guideline is suggesting. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Slightly off-topic: T-Rex echoes my thoughts on the phrase "Award-winning". Nifboy (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this webcomic highlights the fact awards to fictional characters should be taken with a pinch of salt. All evidence put forward to date now supports the view that awards to fictional characters are no different from any other source admissible as evidence of notability: the coverage of the award has to be significant, from a reliable source that is indpendent of the characters creators and promoters, otherwise this guideline will be allowing trivial coverage and questionable sources to be used to justify the inclusion of article topics that should be treated as part of more notable works of fiction. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really Gavin. It just means we have to have some clear benchmarks for what is an award that could be used to show notability.陣内_Jinnai 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide me of an example of an award of sufficient weight and importance that it would create a presumption of notability where there wouldn't be substantial independent coverage of the award? If there wasn't substantial independent coverage of the award, why would you believe that receiving the award created the presumption?—Kww(talk) 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Already done so with the awards at Anime Expo. Some of those characters have articles of their own because they clearly pass the GNG, but other do not. As Anime Expo is the central convention to anime in the US, E3 comparsions have been done by more than just myself, the industry supports these awards and the convention itself is not obscure it is my opinion they would suffice. They aren't as prevelent as a Grammy or Oscar in the media, but their level of scrutiny and support by the relevant industry would be the on the same level of such an award.陣内_Jinnai 02:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We have been through all of these arguments before under the discussion Fictional Awards, and the Anime Expo is a particularly bad example of a trade award; the coverage of the SPJA Industry Award Recipients is just to thin and trivial to be taken seriously as evidence of notability, because we don't know who or why this award was made. Perhaps there is more coverage elsewhere, but the mere statement that the winner of "Category 08: Best Male Character is "L" [3] is trivial to say the least. No one could ever be convinced that these examples provide a shred of evidence of notability.
The problem with this approach is that where the award itself is not notable ("Category 08: Best Male Character") or is not independent (e.g. its a trade awards, given to and award by the same trade association members), and the source itself is not published or reliable. Using such a source is basically to provide an exemption from the requirement of WP:V, which says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it".
In answer to Jinnai, I think you are grapsing at straws at the bottom of a barrel - awards to fictional characters is just too subjective to be taken sereiously, and in the case fo the awards made at the Anime Expo, they can only be regarded as trival coverage from questionable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please go tell all the other sub-notability guidelines that they are flawed because of your logic, which all have similar clauses such as notability inferred by winning an award as part of their presumed notability. Or you need to understand that the idea of the sub-notability guidelines is to presume that the verification of meeting specific criteria is an indication that there will likely be more secondary sources that can be generated about a topic even if the article presently does not have them. In this case, a notable industry award is likely a good criteria since if it's being awarded something by the industry, it must have some intrinsic property that has or will be talked about to explain further. But importantly, this is not meant to be the end-all of establishing the topic's article at the end of the day; if much time passes (on the order of months and years) and there's no appearance of sources, then we can start questioning the need of a separate article and merging. Now, there is the side question of whether an award is a truly an notable industry award (a question of being a reliable source), but that's a different issue than the notability one (that is, once the award is confirmed to be an appropriate industry award, then the question of notability should not be challenged). --MASEM (t) 14:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the difference is, there are awards in other media that everyone agreed we're going to want 100% coverage of eventually, so the clause got written in and accepted years ago. I don't think it's as applicable here, where there isn't a real strong case for any one award to be "Oh yeah, we definitely want those". Nifboy (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, the inclusion criteria of other SNG's are not necessarily applicable to fiction, which is why there are subject specific notability guidelines in the first place. Fictional topics are not inherently real by definition, and awards to fictional characters are a form of literary or journalistic trope, which means we can't apply the same inclusion criteria to fictional topics that apply to real world ones.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but there is not a single award made to fictional characters that is actually notable in the same way there are notable awards for films or books. This should provide you an good indication as to why Niftyboy is correct when he says awards are not applicable here - there is just no good examples to prove him wrong. Awards to fictional characters are examples of promotional, literary or journalistic devices and are no different from any other form of coverage, and should be judged purely in terms of whether the coverage is significant, reliable and independent. Suggesting that a literary trope confers notability without examining those sources is just not plausible. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a topic is tangible or not, if it is part of the human knowledge and shown not to be indiscriminate, we should be including it. This goes for fictional characters as much as scientific theories that have yet to be proven out, philosophical concepts, and the like - they are all aspects of human thought. And you may refuse to accept the two exampls of notable, reliable awards that have been given out to characters, but they exist and are a valid metric. I'll throw another example of specific TV episodes winning things like BAFTA and Nebula awards as well as another possibility. You're impossing a higher standard than for people or other things to fiction topics just because they aren't real, but that's not any threshold level for inclusion on WP, which aims to cover all human knowledge. --MASEM (t) 11:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the medium with the message. If a television series or episode wins award, it is because it exists in the real world, and there is someone there to recieve it. An award made to a fictional character has to be taken with a Pinch of salt, because some of those "awards" were never intended to be "given" nor "received", they are simply promotional, journalistic or literary devices used for some other purpose other than being an award. Suggesting that a literary trope confer notability without examining those sources is just not plausible. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if they aren't real, such awards are means of "noting" the fictional element. Which is what we want from WP:N and this. Now, you may believe that these are simply promotion, but the same can be said for any other major award like the Oscars or Emmys. As long as the source is reliable and a trusted expert in the area, and are independent of the publishers of the fiction, then there's no problem. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I would like to agree with Masem that in an ideal world they could be means of "noting" the fictional element, the problem is none of do in practise because these awards are not accompanied by significant coverage about the characters themselves. There is not a single instance of an award to fictional characters that is accompanied by significant coverage. In fact, all of the examples in all of our discussions (sharks, spandex covered super heroes) are the subject of coverage is either trivial or promotional. The more serious awards, such as Eagle awards actually honour the creator of the characters, not the characters themselves. The example the award made at the Anime-expo simply saying that the character has won "Category 08: Best Male Character" is not credible in any way - there is no coverage of the character, the award let alone why the award was made.
Sooner or later Masem is going to have to acknowledge that awards to fictional characters have to be judged in exactly the same way as any other source. And the reason is simple, there are no notable or significant awards made to fictional characters. These awards are a promotional, journalistic or literary device that a superfical veneer for some other purpose other than honouring the characters they are given to. And to prove it, there is not a single instance of an award that is the subject of significiant coverage from a reliable and indpendent source. There is no evidence to support the idealised view that awards impart any notability on fictional characters in the real world. Sooner or later Masem is going to have concede that these awards are a form of literary trope that do not confer notability on their own.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. We cover non-real human ideas that have be noted. Just because it is a fictional character as opposed to a scientific theory or proposed business plan makes no difference - there still needs to be noted coverage of that idea to be included in the first place. Presuming that fiction, simply because they are more imaginative than practical, cannot be noted in the same way those others topics are is a bias you are applying to the area. And yes, there will certain practical ideas that are more noted than others: Just like Superman (the character) is more noted than, say, a random Pokemon character, things like Quantum theory and Supply and demand are more notable than a grad student's personal thesis or a random CEO's business strategy.

And just like fiction topics can receive awards (though as you do point out, these sometimes are directed more to the creator or portrayer), these other human ideas can win awards or be noted through similar "top" distinctions - I know, for example, that these top 10 technologies of the year/decade that often appear in PC World or Popular Mechanics or other, in addition to physical hardware technology and software products, include software concepts - again, intangible, human ideas. They are often credited to the creator, but again, it's not the creator's name being listed, it is the concept. Again, the idea that a made-up human idea can win an award is not limited to fiction.

But step back to the point we're trying to make here. We are arguing that if a fiction element (likely in tandem with its creator or portrayer) wins a notable award from a reliable, expert source, we want to presume that this will lead to finding many other secondary sources to expand the article - maybe not immediately, but in time - just as the other SNGs like BIO presume. Even if you argue that such awards are "tropes", the fact that a reliable, expert source has noted them means that there is likely going to be other coverage about those elements. Even if the award is more tied to the creator or actor, further research on those real people will likely lead to statements about inspiration or how they acted out the character, all which are appropriate for future expansion. Of course, this requires understanding when such awards are notable verses trivial ("Top 10 video game characters of all time" vs "Top 10 hottest female video game characters" is an example of notable vs trivial) and this would probably be an discussion that would occur if someone uses a trivial award to try to justify an article. It is always better to add more secondary sources to an article than just one that is allowed by the SNGs in order to avoid deletion, but we're a volunteer project, and that sources are always appearing on such topics. It is certainly safe to presume that showing a reliable source that meets an SNGs criteria (in this case, the one we want for fictional awards) that in time, there will likely be a better article. If none appear after much time (on the order of months and years) then there's more of a challenge to its notability, but it is an allowable first pass - the whole point of the SNGs and WP's mission.

The one thing that we have to remember is how WAF comes into play in all this. An article on a fictional character that has been shown to win a major award, but then has 99% plot reiteration without secondary sources is obviously a problem. But that's not an issue for WP:FICT to deal with - we're simply taking about what can be given its own article. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is just no evidence to support Masem's views, as all of the examples provided in these discussions in this and previous discussions have shown. Firstly, there is no evidence to support the view that any of the awards made to fictional characters are notable in themselves. Secondly, there is no evidence that the awards impart any evidence of notability through coverage of the award itself or following the award. No evidence, no go. It is now time to remove this section. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fiction-related non-flag test case of WP:MOSICON at TfD

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

Re: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons): Inline-in-prose use of icons is being tested in a TfD on the use of templates to insert strings of "Stargate" symbols into articles on the TV shows. We mostly see the MOSICON guideline applied with regard to flags; its application to non-flag icons is likely to be of interest to editors here, as notability issues are raised a bit (mainly in the form of bogus arguments that trip over WP:AADD, but still may be relevant to you). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Real World Coverage

My view of the state of things is that certainly there is agreement that RW-related information is always desirable. There is also agreement that the overall Wikipedia coverage of a work of fiction must contain non-plot information, and that this can include --and in fact should include -- production, development, and creation information, as well as reception and criticism. But the key issue is that there is not agreement on whether there need be RW-related informations to articles on individual aspects of fiction when the overall coverage has this information--though of course there should if it is available. Without settling that issue, I am trying to get agreement on at least the compromise, that the requirement for RW-related information does not apply to combination articles on such things as characters and setting, as long as the overall coverage of the fiction have this information. DGG' ( talk ) 19:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, I think it does need RW-info, but that info can come from non-trivial creation/production info and not necessarily reception/impact, though if it exists, it is desirable.陣内_Jinnai 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• The requirement for real world coverage from reliable secondary sources is the key to establishing notability for ficitional topics; I just can't emphaise this point more. The reason is (which no one has refuted) is that any source which reproduces or regurgitates the primary source is not independent of the primary source. For an article topic to be truely notable, it has to have actually been noted in the sense that it has been the subject of significant coverage int the form of commentary, criticism or analysis from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the primary source.
  The reason why this requirement is so important is that WP:NOT#PLOT strictly prohibits plot only articles. Even if you could find a reliable secondary source that regurgitated the the plot summary, the article topic based on such a source would not be allowable. For example, even if all of the plot summary in the article Gaius Baltar could be attributed to a reliable secondary source, it would not be permissible to have article about him.
  Simply put, plot only article are not allowable in accordance with WP:NOT, but they do not qualify for standalone articles because they do not provide any evidence of notability, and furthermore they don't compy with WP:WAF. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Combinations and groups of articles about a fictional work

I think everyone agrees with Gavin that we want wider coverage than a plot summary. The treatment of any creative work should always include material about at least its production and authorship and reception --and naïve articles without them should get that immediately added. The problems come with the application: I consider that this applies to the work level, to the group of articles /subarticles/sections/paragraphs about a work or a group of works. There is, for example, no point repeating it for each character. That does however not mean we cannot present a reasonable amount of details about each character arranged however is convenient; I do not think we need any secondary information to do this, though certainly if it available we should do so. A proper discussion of a work includes a full description of all the elements. But we're writing an encyclopedia, not a stand-alone monograph, and articles refer to each other. The more we argue on how to divide them, the less time & energy we have to improve them and add the sort of material that takes actual research, not all of which can be done on Google. If people with all views simply accepted combination articles on characters and setting in all cases, we could actually accomplish it. If we merely argue about just what is "worthy" of a separate article, we cannot make progress. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are of the view that every element in a work of fiction should be discussed in depth and in detail. I can see where you are coming from: if an article topic, such as a work of fiction like the TV series Battlestar Galactica is to be featured in Wikipedia, then coverage of that topic should not omit important details, or any other information that may provide the reader with an understanding of topic or the context about it as a TV production or a work of fiction. So far, I think you views are quite reasonable.
However, I think the point you are making tends to gloss over the horrendous problems which the absense of secondary information gives rise to. For articles such as Battlestar Galactica, you can see that certain aspects of the coverage, such as the section Theological references, and the related spinoff article Religious and mythological references in Battlestar Galactica are little more than an excuse for original research. Other spinoff articles like Gaius Baltar are just plot summary, whilst the article Battlestar Galactica (ship) is simply a content fork.
For this reason, I strongly oppose the proposal you are making from a practical standpoint. The idea that fictional topics should be exempt from notability guideline in some way is not workable, because it enables articles to be created that are not in accordance with Wikipedia content policies. Any combination articles on characters and settings must be based on secondary sources, otherwise quality will suffer. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe its that we want to "every element in a work of fiction should be discussed in depth and in detail". It is that "every element in a work of fiction should be discussed", period. Per UNDUE, when looking at non-notable elements, we should show mention recurring characters and briefly describe their main interaction with the lead characters (within a list of characters), or we should describe the basic events that occur in non-notable episodes within episode lists, but we should not try to be constructing thesis on every single appearance of such characters or a scene-by-scene review of the episode. We need to be appropriately complete to the consensus-determined level of detail, but can only go beyond that when there's evidence that there's secondary sources that going into more detail.

Remember, as long as no interpretation is done from the primary source, there is no original research. Yes, that is an issue with all fiction-based articles as it is very very easy to slip in one's own theories and the like. But that's also true for any other area (particularly in academics where students may be posting their own, unvetted work). It is not a reason to dismiss fiction articles that are present for the sake of completion of coverage of the topic, just that editors need to remain vigilant to OR.

And remember, all this types of spinoff articles, the topic - the work itself - has been shown to be notable, and it is presumed that if the show is only weakly notable (say, a show canned after 2 episodes), there is much less justification to have these spin offs since they can be contained within the parent article, or even include this information if even needed. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As Masem says, I do not think anyone wants to have every element in a work of fiction should be discussed in depth. Rather, every element should be discussed, as appropriate. In many case, this will just be an entry in a list. We would have some sort of guideline, broad or narrow, for what is reasonable-- MASEM & I separately proposed some, & using them there would much more rarely be an article on a particular character--as long as it was agreed that the sections on characters would be of adequate length. I'm reluctant to use Gavin's example as I do not know the work, but I'd think the article on Gaius Balter would be clearer at half the length, and I accomplished this for the section "Vice-Presidency" by more compact writing--and omission of detail -- and I hope I got it right. Shorter, yes, but not a mere single paragraph for the whole description of the character. The article on Mythological references... has some sources for opinions, but collocating lists of name seem pretty obvious, & not SYN. As for the articles on the ships, it would be easy to combine most of them; there seems some duplicate coverage. so there's plenty of room for compromise--and the compromise need not just be an unsatisfactory fallback, but one that would improve the encyclopedia. The way to have time for rewriting is to reduce the time needed for arguing. There are thousands of older notable fictional works still uncovered or covered only as a stub or a redirect, that need to be developed, or even started. For example, each novel of Balzac is notable , and many are famous--but not even the frWP has yet gotten to doing an adequate job with them. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are reluctant to use my examples. As it stands, articles such as Gaius Baltar don't meet Wikipedia's content polices, not do lists of episodes or characters. The inclusion criteria for stanalone articles based on notability are very simple, and exist for a purpose (compliance with Wikipedia's content policies). What you and Masem are proposing is moving away from notability to inclusion criteria based on subjective importance, which is not supported by any of Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Your proposal to allow the dumping non-notable topics into lists is very subjective, because it conflicts with WP:NOT#DIR which says "Wikipedia is not a directory of...persons (real or fictional)", which by analogy, means that Wikipedia is not a directory for fictional elements, including lists of characters and episodes. As far as I am concerned there is no argument: the proposal you are making is strictly prohibited, while at the same time it is clear that you are simply trying to construct an exemption from notabiltiy for fictional elements for which there is insufficient coverage to write article that comprised soley of plot, such as Gaius Baltar. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You're misreading those policies or omitting certain works. Notability (and NOT:PLOT) applies to a topic; sub-articles of that topic have had their notability established by the main one (but that's not to say that there's considerations when those sub-articles should be created - they don't just get a free ride from that). It is not subjective importance when it is a consensus-derived decision to make and maintain such articles. And the NOT:DIR section you quote includes the test "loosely-associated topics" which implies list with no relationship; lists of characters and episodes are related because they are elements of the same work, and thus not a violation. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I have a middle position here. "If people with all views simply accepted combination articles on characters and setting in all cases, we could actually accomplish it." (DGG, above): no. Not, never, in all cases. Certainly not for settings, often not for characters either. Many works of fiction (the vast majority in fact) are barely notable, and while an article for the work of fiction is acceptable, separate articles for the characters and for the settings would be severe overkill. A very short mention of the two or three main characters and the general setting in the main article would be more than sufficient. In most cases, separate articles are WP:UNDUE. However, even the tiny minority of works of fiction sufficiently notable to have a separate list of characters (and in more special cases locations) still runs in the thousands. Even if it is impossible to make the list of characters confirm to WP:N, a separate list is acceptable for truly notable works of fiction where the reliably sourced out-of-universe information alone (not the plot summary, which can be made as long or as short as you want) creates a main article of sufficient length. E.g. while [[Places in Harry Potter|this] is to me acceptable, this is overkill and should be deleted. I don't see why every element should be mentioned, or many elements should be discussed, for works that have received little attention in general and barely none for their plot or locations. Fram (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the same idea of DGG and myself. Basically, I consider it an "outside-in" approach - you should always start with the work of fiction, and only, only when length hampers you, should you create list articles; it should never be the case that you create the list article before you've done enough work on the main article to determine if you have enough space. And that space is likely going to depend on how culturally important/critically received the work is, which itself it likely determined by how long a show has run for, how many people have viewed the work, etc. That's the upper-end, the lower end is somewhere between WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:PLOT - even in a culturally critical work, every single-shot character is not important, and we should only cover them to the weight of impact they give; should this be, for example, over the course of a single episode, then they should only be mentioned there and not gathered into a list or the like. But a lead character or oft-recurring? Sure. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean in terms of inclusion criteria? Does that mean that a list of characters is entitled to its own standalone list article if there is not enough space in the main article? What is a "single-shot" character? This is not a workable set of inclusion criteria, this is effective an exemption from WP:N that you are describing. "Weight of impact" is just another way of saying that a character has subjective importance.
Lets be clear by what this proposal means in terms of practical application. Since the article Religious and mythological references in Battlestar Galactica clearly has "Weight of impact", it should have its own article in Masem's view. But since the article demonstrates no evidence of notability, it is not supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Personally, d I don't understand how his proposal to exempt this type of low quality article from WP:N in anyway inproves the coverage of fictional topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A list of lead or recurring characters are appropriate in discussing a work of fiction (presuming this cannot be made into prose due to numbers); segmenting that to a separate list is appropriate per WP:SIZE and WP:SS. Single-shot characters are those that appear once or twice, may have a name associated with them but otherwise have minimum impact on the plot.

But the point you're missing is that while we should be allowing appropriate splits from articles on fictional works with significant impact per summary style, those splits still also have to be appropriate and avoid UNDUE, PLOT, and all other aspects. A list of characters is not going to do that, but the mythology article you point out is a problem as it goes in to a lot of OR (while it has two sources that point to its connect to a real religon, the rest appears all OR and SYNTH based on those statements.)

The way to look at this better is to consider if we were a printed work with an infinite page limit. An article about a work that otherwise meets all other content policy may be several pages long under the single topic, describing the work, its development, its critical reception, its legacy, and going into the characters, settings, and episodes to a point where it is both sufficiently complete and appropriately balanced per UNDUE. We want that same approach to be used in a print version - where they'd all be under one topic heading - to apply to the electronic version, where we have SIZE issues due to that format. None of that information can be lost but it is clearly too large for a single electronic page. We also have the considerations that the most general information about that fictional work - the development, reception, and legacy - are more important to the causal reader than the characters or episodes. Thus, per summary style, the split naturally occurs at breaking out lists of characters and lists of episodes. Now, take the example of Battlestar Galactica. In the infinite printed version where all policies otherwise apply, that Mythology section would not exist - or at least not in that much detail, I can see a section in reception that talks about the comparison of the BSG mythos to Mormonism per the sources, but not a breakdown of every possible allusion. Same would be true in the electronic version.

And no, that doesn't mean list of characters or episodes get off scott free from all other policies. It is quite possible to engage in OR and SYNTH in describing characters, or approach them from a NPOV issue as well. And if the main article is not large by SIZE, a separate character list article may be inappropriate to start with (hence why we should support outside-in approaches and split off only when necessary, not prematurely "just because"). But again, if we were an infinite print version, the same issues can arise there as well.

Nothing on WP is objective, since we are consensus driven. We can set lines where people should stay inside, but if there's good reason to step out of them, then we should do so if it improves the work (WP:IAR). With fiction, it is understanding that our goal should be completeness of coverage, both of the real-world and the fictional aspects, since these are part of our culture just as past texts have been. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are using the need for completeness as just another subjective argument for over riding the requirement for notability, which is an argument which runs against the consensus at this time that the inclusion criteria for a standalone article is significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the primary source. This is not going to change, because a workable alternative has not been developed. If you can think of a set of inclusion criteria that is better than WP:GNG, bring it on by all means. However, proposing an exemption from GNG based on "appropriate splits" (whatever than means) is not a credible alternative. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement of notability; the only requirement of what we include and don't include is how discriminate the material is. Once a topic has determined to be notable, then what we include under that material is guided by content policies, not inclusion ones (But again, within reason; we're talking appropriate support articles broken out in a heirarchial fashion per summary style, not the case of given every subtopic its own page). --MASEM (t) 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Only in the mind of Masem is there is no requirement of notability. The fact remains that an article topic that fails the notabililty guideline will also fail WP:NOT and vice versa, so justifying the inclusion of random stuff on the basis that it is part of a "heirarchial" group or category is not supported by Wikipedia content policies in any shape or form. Notability is a requirement from both the perspective of Wikipedia content policies (it demonstrates compliance), but also from a practical standpoint (secondary sources are needed to write decent articles).
I think that both Masem and DGG need to break out of the mindset in which policies and guidelines are simply abstractions that can be moulded to fit a particular viewpoint, or selectively ignored. In this context, we have to focus this guideline on how best to express the inclusion criteria for fictional topics on the one hand, but at the same time take into account the fact that plot only articles are not allowable. Articles like Gaius Baltar may be part of a larger heirarchy or category of topics related to Battlestar Gallatica, but impartical edit would notice straight away that its content conflicts with Wikipedia's content policies, and we can't ignore that or pretend that this problem does not exist. Heirarchies are not a viable basis for inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that both Masem and DGG need to break out of the mindset in which policies and guidelines are simply abstractions that can be moulded to fit a particular viewpoint, or selectively ignored. Do you even understand what consensus or WP:IAR means to how we build our policies and guidelines? They are abstractions of best current practice determined by consensus. There are no rules, WP is not a bureaucracy , and all that. There are only two hard rules on WP, both set by the Foundation, and that is how we are to deal with BLP, and how we are to deal with non-free content. Everything else is up to the whim of consensus, even if it is glacial changes.

Now be aware, I am talking about hierarchy of articles when we break out lists of characters, etc. from a main topic, but I am not supporting the idea that individual elements merit their own articles via the same logic - I agree with you (I suspect most do as well) that individual characters or episodes need demonstration of notability before they get their own article. (if there are other conditions beyond the GNG when we can consider an element notable, we're still working that out). The breakout of individual elements without notability from lists (embedded or standalone) does not follow from summary style because you are creating a new topic and without notability, it doesn't merit an article. But when we're still talking about a list of characters or the like that have been broken out due to size issues, this still follows summary style in a hierarchal nature, and is not necessary if it has notability or not (it is improved if such can be added, but for purposes of complete conversion it is not). --MASEM (t) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you to a large degree, but for two things: I don't believe a local consensus or application of IAR may overrule a global policy or consensus, and I do believe that summary style should be used sparingly for groups of subjects with dubious notability. It's the best solution to split the articles about the Dark Tower graphic novels from the gneral Stephen King's Dark Tower article, for length reasons and because they are independently notable. It is on the other hand often not the best solution to split a list of characters (etc.) from the main article, even when length reasons seem to dictate so. In many cases, trimming, removing excessive detail, is the better solution. You haev not argued against this, but your post seemed to imply that splitting character lists e.a. is the best or even the only solution. Fram (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On the IAR issue - sure, local consensus cannot completely conflict with the larger consensus, but often we find that when people IAR, we find better way to adjust policy/guidelines to consider the issues that led to IAR (if, in fact, it truly improved the encyclopedia). The point I'm making with that is that there is no objectivity on WP, else we'd have no talk pages, no xFD, or the like. On the other methods to avoid splits - sure, trimming is completely appropriate (implicit is that things like WP:WAF/WP:PLOT are still being applied to the content). And as generally, the more notable a work is, the more sources there exist and the more than can be written outside of the plot/characters, the more likely a split is necessary, but the reverse is also true, that for a work with limited notability, if a split seems to be needed, there needs to be a check of the level of detail given to the plot/characters because it is likely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Masem & I are not arguing for local consensus to over-ride general consensus, but to make an exception, as we do in various ways for various categories of articles. WP:N is a guideline that specifically says it applies only if there is not other accepted guideline, and we are arguing that in practice there ought to be one. We follow the general guideline if we have local consrnsus and the community at large accepts it--and not otherwise. I strongly agree that no project can defy general consensus--we have one encyclopedia--but any group can propose a limited change in interpretation, and it is judged not just by formal rule-making but by practical acceptance. We can agree here on whatever we choose if we think it's a viable compromise, and the community has the right to say otherwise. The best accepted of the special guidelines, WP:PROF, holds because the community has followed it 100% at AfD for 2 years now. High schools, though not a formal guideline, comes in at 95% for 18 months. Fram, who makes the rules? Who decides how to apply them? DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fram that a local consensus or application of IAR may not be used to overrule a global policy, as that would be to create an editorial walled garden in which the inclusion criteria conflict with the generally accepted policy. In particular, I object to the creation of articles about characters or episodes that comprise only of plot (such as Gaius Baltar), or lists of characters or episodes that comprise only of plot (List of Star Wars creatures comes to mind). If I have not grasped what this proposal adds up to, it is because Masem and DGG have not provided any examples of how this would work in practise. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) I know I'm not, nor do I believe DGG is either (but can't speak for him) talking about any allowances for singular character or episode articles that don't demonstrate notability (either through the GNG or, if any, proposed SNG-like criteria that assure the article will have sources in the future and is more than just plot). But the list of such elements without sources is very different, against that it is a long standing allowance (FICT was based on Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters from 2005) and consensus-derived practice, and a completely reasonable application of Summary style, particularly given that the details of a the primary part of the work are less important to the general reader and thus would/should be the first things broken out to avoid WP:SIZE.

Again, I refer back to the idea if we had no effective size limit, or the idea of a infinite amount of space for an article in a paper version, but with all other content policies in place. An article about a TV show (and lets stick with Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) for the example, not that this should be necessarily considered a good example) that retains the spirit of the rest of WP policies in this hypothetical would still contain everything in the main article presently that asserts the show is notable -the development, reception, and impact sections among everything else was there. But that excessively long article would also include the content of List of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) episodes somewhere in that article and the appropriate section from List of Battlestar Galactica characters to summarize the episodes and the characters for the work in place of the current character section. I would also suspect that Religious and mythological references in Battlestar Galactica (if it were better sourced and less OR-y) would also be a section, likely under themes, and that many of the articles on the disambig page Battlestar Galactica (disambiguation) in the grouping block about the reimaged series (eg the initial miniseries and the various webepisodes and TV movie) would also be included in this article. As a complete whole with the development and reception sections, these create an single, long article that completely covers the work, shows its notability, and summarizes the work appropriately. Now, it is important to note that under this approach, the contents of an article like Gaius Baltar or Kara Thrace would not be included in the overall BSG article for two reasons: one, because of everything else around it in the article, a plot-only reiteration of events is a waste of time (both examples articles are crufty and overly duplicates story info), and that it creates undue coverage of one aspect of the work. Under this infinite page scheme, those characters or episodes that have more to be said about them (they are clearly notable like Superman or Mario) would be covered in a separate article in detail, but with a short blurb in the large main article in line with the other character descriptions. The same would apply to episodes or anything other aspects that are notable themselves.

This is not meant that every single fictional detail of the work would be included. The inclusion within the large article of the characters and episodes is still meant to be a summary of the work and not a detailed analysis. A list of every character that has appeared on screen for more than a second is unacceptable in this situation. In the large article, these lists (particularly the episodes for a long-running series) may be a large part of the overall article but it should not be because we are padding them with every possible character ever mentioned.

So now we have a long article that is completely self-contained about a tv show - it has its real-world aspects - the development and reception sections, alongside brief descriptions of characters within the show and lists of episodes from the show. This would be considered to be a appropriate summarized but complete overview of the show aimed to serve, first and foremost, the general reader as well as, as a secondary goal, a viewer of the show. Without the character or episode elements (presuming in this infinite work, they would not exist anywhere else), the article would not be complete and comprehensive. Under WP's general breadth of coverage (due to not being a traditional encyclopedia) and following all other content guidelines, this would be an acceptable article save for one thing - it is too frakkin' long.

And that is where we take WP:SIZE and summary size enter into the mix - the only thing that separates this hypothetical case from what we actually do on WP. We can't cut down on text without losing completeness, so the next choice is to split off sections of the article per summary style. That advice suggests starting with splitting off of details that are less serving to the general reader and not part of a general overview of the work, and in this case it clearly would be the sections that are lists of characters and list of episodes.

I know someone's going to scream about notability here, but it is important to remember that notability applies to a topic, not to an article. (A topic must be notable to have an article, but every article does not need a notable topic). Because of how this split occurs, this is not creating a new topic, but instead a subarticle under the main topic. A list of characters does have potential to be its own topic as in the case of many of the Final Fantasy character lists, but in the general case, the extraction of a list of characters from a larger article on a notable work into a separate article is not creating that new topic.

In this splitting from the singular large article to including these lists, nothing has changed about the work's completeness and comprehension, we have simply made the material accessible within the electronic format that WP is aimed to serve. Again, since we're still not talking about having the content of articles like Gaius Baltar contained within the larger work, that article would not be considered as part of this subarticle split - the topic of Gaius Baltar needs to be shown to be notable on its own.

I am aware that there are content problems with these lists, and that too many editors are quick on the draw to create these lists before seeing what can be self-contained in the main article on the work. Not every work needs such lists, and there are limits to what such lists should be covering (again, a list of every character that appears for one second or more is completely inappropriate), which some editors do not consider. But it is understanding that if space was not a limitation, these lists would be self-contained in the main article to complete its summarized coverage of the work.

The only thing in my analysis above to justify list articles is starting from the presumption that these lists of characters and episodes are necessary to include as part of the complete summary of a work of fiction. If we were to ask this question at large, I would suspect that the consensus would agree with that, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. If it were the case that global consensus considers these to be unnecessary as part of a complete summary of a work, then I could accept the fact that the standalone lists are a problem (to wit, as the list of characters or episodes would not be considered essential, they would be UNDUE whether inside a larger article or as standalone, and would fail the rest of the analysis above); but I am pretty sure that consensus would be on the side of seeing this information as critical to the coverage of a fictional work.

There are still issues in crafting any advice about such lists. There is still going to be exaggerated interpretations of any guidelines we create, as well as potential walled gardens for certain genres or works themselves that will want an excessive amount of detailed lists of every character ever. But we need to separate out editor behavior from the philosophical approach we want here; we need to create guidelines that match what global consensus is. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, broadly, about using the one-big-article approach and using that to reduce redundancy. On the subject of character/episode lists, I consider them as a reorganization of the plot summary when an ordinary prose summary becomes too large or unwieldy. So I think the necessity of a list of characters is dependent on the nature of the work. Final Fantasy XII is extremely character-driven; Final Fantasy (video game) isn't. Nifboy (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The comprehensive or one-big-article approach cannot be supported by Wikipedia, because it is based is an underlying assumption that elements of fiction are standalone topics in their own right, but only if they are viewed from a perspective that is in universe. Put this another way, this approach is based on the mistaken view that individual elements of fiction are not subject to WP:UNDUE because they are considered to possess "subject importance". For example, Gaius Baltar is just one of many important characters in the television series Battlestar Galactica, but giving more coverage to the characters than the series itself makes no sense. I would say that coverage given to all the characters, episodes and other elements of the series probably exceeds the coverage given to the series itself by a factor of at least 50:1, even though virtually all of the commentary, criticism and analysis is focused on the series as a whole.
The problem with subjective importance is that it is not recognised by any of Wikipedia content policies, and should not be employed in this guideline. I myself dislike the use of subjective importance, because it is used as a justification for plot only articles: the arguement goes that if a character is "important" then it should have its own standalone article, or included as sub-topic within an stand alone article or list article, regardless of its notability. Masem acknowledges that "excessive amount of detailed lists" might arise under this proposal, but such excess would be a natural consequence of being over reliant on an in universe perspectve that attaches subjective importance to every fictional element.
When it comes to deciding which fictional elements are "important", notability is the only true indicator that a fictional element is a standalone topic or a sub-topic in its own right. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You missed the point. In the comprehensive, one-big-article approach, you would not be including the same amount of text that Gaius Baltar has presently within the overarching article, but instead just a paragraph or two. (if there is that much more to talk about him, then either it is duplicating plot, going too far excessively into plot, or starts going into the area where secondary sources become necessary ). Nor in the break-out of the one-big-article into multiple summary articles per WP:SS/WP:SIZE would Gaius be placed into its own article, but simply into a list of other characters (presuming the continued lack of notability).

It is completely possible in the comprehensive approach that the amount of detail about the plot (including characters and episodes that are otherwise not notable themselves) will, word-for-word, exceed how much there is about the real-world aspects (development and reception). For example, The Simpsons are on season 20, with > 400 episodes completed. A comprehensive discussion that briefly introduces the characters and covers each episode in a manner appropriate per all other content policies is clearly going to have a lot more plot-type content relative to real-world content. Mind you, with each continued season, I would expect that the real-world content to also grow by a small amount (either due to reviews of each season, or a DVD set release reviews, or general journalistic commentary on the length) - in otherwords, there is still an appropriate balance between these, but there's no magic number or ratio, just that its clear that the article is comprehensive in both the real-world areas as it is in plot areas. On the other hand, if I have a show that's lasted 10 seasons on network television that's been fully expanded in an appropriate manner to cover characters and episodes, but only has a real-world section that would be more appropriate for a show that lasted less than a season, there is an UNDUE problem. If the show really only had that much real-world coverage, then likely the plot is not that important and several plot elements can be reduced; otherwise the section needs to be built up on sources to match. And again, this applies to the theorhetical single comprehensive article and to the summary-style heirarchy approach. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, I don't think I have misunderstood Masem's proposal. Although Gaius Baltar is a long article, once an article topic has been established as having met the inclusion criteria for a standalone article, there is little can be done to limit what can be written about it in accordance with WP:NNC. The same applies to lists: once they are started, there appears to be no limit to the number of non-notable characters or amount of plot summary that can be added, e.g. List of Star Wars creatures comes to mind.
Using the Simpsons as an example of how this would work is misleading, for they are very much in a world of their own in terms of notability; the Simpsons as characters are subject to a broad range of reliable secondary sources that provide evidence that, as sub-topics, they are notable in their own right. However, just because one set of characters are notable, does not mean that allowing standalone article for non-notable characters of lesser known works, so the "one-big-article fits all" is not applicable to all fictional topics.
The reason why too many plot only articles are being written is that this guideline does not make real world coverage a prerequisite for inclusion. If we adopt the comprehensive approach to fictional topics that Masem is advocating, this allows editors to justify the inclusion of standalone articles using subjective importance to fictional characters by relying on a perspective that is in universe, rather than notability. Since we can't limit what is written in an article, the result will be that undue weight will be given to fictional elements that are not notable, and this will provide a licence for plot only articles.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To address the last point, I've stated this several times: this approach does not support the allowance for standalong single character or episode articles that lack notability. A unlimited-space comprehensive article is going to briefly summarize these elements. In the summary-style approach, you would not break out these individual summaries into articles, but only the list of them, keeping the same brief summary of the character or episode. When you talk about standalone articles, you still need notability (or what is considered to be notable at AFD if it goes that way). And yes, we're still fleshing out FICT to deal with those cases. But stressing again: there is no allowance per this approach and through summary style to support culling out one singular character or episode into its own article and presuming it is using the notability of the work itself to justify it being its own article.

But back to the main point: notability applies to topics - not to individual articles. If it presumed that consensus considers the comprehensive coverage of a work of fiction to include brief summaries of all characters (even if they have their own article due to notability), and that there is a need to reduce an article's size, the moving of this list of characters to a new article has not necessarily introduced a new topic for which notability needs to be demonstrated (however, verification is still a requirement). It may be possible that the new list can be a notable topic (again, some of the Final Fantasy character lists), but if not, it still is a subarticle under the topic of the work of fiction that it was pulled out from. Nothing in terms of notability has changed if this list is self-contained within the article on the work or outside it. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I understood the first time, and I am against your approach because you are proposing the the comprehensive coverage of all fictional elements in relation to their "importance" from a perspective that is in universe. However this approach conflicts with WP:UNDUE, because in order to understand a work of fiction, there is no need to go into the plot at element level in comprehensive detail when it can be summarised to obtain balanced coverage of the topic that provides the reader with both a real world and in universe view of the work.
Instead of lists of non-notable characters and episodes (an approach that contravenes WP:NOT#DIR by the way), we simply leave out the irrevant detail. Perhaps if Characters of Final Fantasy XII is a notable topic in its own right, then it would be appropriate to have a seperate article, but if it is not, then you have to ask, well why have a seperate article if directories of fictional characters are prohited? I don't buy into the principle of comprensive coverage, because in the absence of notability, standalone articles and article lists fall outside the scope of Wikipedia in both their scope (as directories of non-notable characters) and in terms of content (plot only).--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has determined that our coverage of fictional works that the inclusion of brief character details and inclusion of brief episode synopses are part of the comprehensive coverage of fictional works when they are appropriate; because this is considered appropriate, this is not considered UNDUE. Going beyond this (having a non-notable article of the length and depth that the Gaius article presents for every character of a work, for example) would be. So we know where the line is set for what the coverage should be. Again, this is a consensus driven concern, and this is based on what I perceive the consensus to be at.

I refuse to talk about any issues of standalone single-character/episode articles because as I have said, this approach does not allow for these unless they have shown notability. It is not a point we disagree about.

There is nothing in WP:NOT#DIR that prevents a list of fictional characters. They are not loosely associated, which is the only clause that is possibly pertinent to this discussion. This "loosely associated" phrase is applied more to when a non-intrinsic categorization is attempted for either real or fictional people. For example, "List of people living in California" would be violating NOT#DIR. "List of US Presidents", on the other hand, would not be. In the same manner, a list of characters from a fictional work are connected by being from the work, but also will have interrelations with themselves that can be explained here. On the other hand, "List of fictional characters that wear blue" would be a loose association. And because there's plenty of apparent consensus support for lists of characters from a fictional work, then that's how we need to interpret the application of WP:NOT#DIR to these. So that's not an issue.

So given that within an article unbounded by size that we would want to include and do allow for appropriate summarized lists of characters and lists of episodes, there is no issues with anything other policy or guideline if these lists are split out to separate lists (not singular standalone articles!) per WP:SS if necessary to reduce the size of the main article. These lists should be seen as supporting articles of the main topic. If the list can become standalone through notability, great, but that is not a requirement from any policy or guideline perspective. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of brief character details and inclusion of brief episode synopses is not suppoorted by any policy or guideline that I know of, in fact they are prohibited by WP:NOT#DIR, their trivial and irrelevant detail is frowned apon by WP:UNDUE, whilst coverage that comprises of only plot, whether it is contained in a standalone article or list, is strictly prohibited by WP:NOT#PLOT. On the last point, I don't understand how this proposal can suceed, if it give rise to coverage of fictional topics that is not balanced between plot summary on the one hand, and real world commentary, criticism and analysis that provides context to reader on the other. Barebone lists of characters, or barebone lists of episodes givesto much weight to trivial detail, but no real understanding of the elements place in the real world.
The reason why characters and episodes without evidence of notability have been merged into lists is a response to deletion debates. I would not describe this process as "consensus", I would describe it as "expendiency".
We have covered this ground before Masem, and I sense a strong feeling of deja vu. We have disussed lists of characters and episodes before under a different guise ("aggregates", as they were then refered to), but the issues were the same then as now. Wikipedia does not allow standalone articles or list without evidence of notability, whether individually or collectively, and prohibits the inclusion of articles and lists that comprise soley of plot. My objections are the same now as they are then: lists should not be used as a dump for characters and episodes that are not notable in themselves, as that would be perpetuate the situation where coverage of non-notable plot summaries about characters and episodes exceed the coverage of notable works by a factor of 50:1 as is the case with Gaius Baltar example given above. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You keep reiterating the same points and refuse to move towards a consensus, that's why we keep coming back here. Remember we had a big RFC on a proposed version of FICT 2 years agoish?, in which something that resembled the idea of what I talk about above was proposed (I would have to dig for exactly what version was tagged...). In the end there, the results basically broke down at 25% didn't like it because it didn't go far enough to limit fiction articles, 25% didn't like it because it was too restrictive towards fiction, and the other 50% didn't have a problem with that. While we didn't pass it because a net 50% disagreed with it, it is clear where the mostly likely point of consensus sits. You keep trying to pull FICT away from that point, but we can't do that - consensus drives policy, not the reverse. You may love to have a completely objective measure for every possible way to handle fiction, but WP does not operate by objective measures; it is a meeting of the minds to subjectively determine what is appropriate for the work.

When you call list of characters and episodes "trivial", that may be your opinion but I know there are others, including non-WP editors that are experts in the area of contemporary arts and literature, that would considers these essential to discussing a work of fiction, and their summary coverage is certainly not UNDUE. There are two this to consider: 1) WP is not limited by space and 2) we can craft reasonable guidelines (but still subjective) that allows for those aspects to be covered within the context of the work of fiction itself while still considering the concerns of notability and other guidelines to make sure these don't become fan guides. Given that, I'd much rather edge on over-inclusion of information that consensus has shown to be acceptable most of the time, than to disclude it because of the potential for abuse in areas of notability and plot-only coverage. There is no harm by including these though maintain vigilance to make sure they don't grow beyond their means, while there is harm by outright occlusion because we are failing to cover it. (There is harm if we let fiction topics go unfettered ala the early days of WP, because we do lose our professionalism that way, so there is a need to be put some limits on this.).

And I continue to point out that WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT are directed at the topic. An article is not the same as a topic. When we understand that a topic may need to be split across several articles to provide proper coverage within WP:SIZE concerns, it makes sense why these two p/gs are directed at the topic-level land not the article-level. Again, this is not to mean that when breaking down a fictional show that is too large, we can freely create individual articles for every character and episode. Both WP:N and UNDUE come in to say that approach is inappropriate. But breaking out a list of characters or a list of episodes when they are considered as part of the necessary coverage of a fictional work (by consensus) and are the most basic details we should split off makes the most sense to satisfy the various desires across numerous WP editors. Which is why this idea is still sound and makes the most sense that trying to restrict these further by harsh objective application of policy. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Guidelines supporting, and detailing the use of, character sections and episode synopses:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Characters: Discusses both with character lists and without. Also, "If the character section grows long, please reconsider the amount of detail or number of characters included. Beyond that, a separate page, named List of (series) characters, may be appropriate."
• #Media, same guideline: "For sections on anime series/OVAs, manga, and novels, include the appropriate list of episodes or volumes and chapters. If a given list is long compared to the rest of the article, consider splitting it out..." Also refers to:
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Episode listing
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines: "If necessary, the section should have subheadings for the story's setting, characters, and story."

I'm utterly unconvinced that character lists within articles without big-N Notability are somehow violating policy because I see them as a reorganization of plot information; an aid to understanding the plot, not a cancerous outgrowth you paint it as. Nifboy (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that many editors have invested a lot of time and effort in creating lists of characters and episodes in the belief that Wikipedia should cover every single one of them, but without evidence of notability, such list still fail WP:NOT#DIR, and their content still fails WP:NOT#PLOT. WP:N covers individual topics, or groups of topics in a list, as WP:GNG is the inclusion criteria for both standalone articles and article lists: they are both articles, only the format is different. The consensus is that plot only summaries on their own are not suitable for inclusion,whether they come in in the form of lists articles or standalone articles. There is a good reason for this: they are not the subject of significant real world coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the primary source. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is not a list of everything, it is an encylopedia of notable topics. There is just no support for the inclusion of listcruft in any form. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we've officially hit the point where we're no longer talking to each other, but rather at each other. We have multiple different consensuses, something ArbCom pointed out two years ago. The entire point of this page is to reconcile those different viewpoints, not to insist that there is one true consensus (that WP:WAF is god and all articles that don't abide must be summarily deleted) and the rest should be ignored; the end result is that most of the former participants on this talk page have taken to ignoring you in turn, leaving this page in stalemate. Nifboy (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we are definitely at that point. The thing is right now, with FICT in its essay state, there has been no edit warring over fictional material for many many months (I realize TTN or Pixelface haven't been active for 4 months but there's others that are just as vigilant). In other words, there seems to be no urge to change FICT from what it reads right now or how it is actually handled in the rest of the work. But there are editors like Gavin that want to continue to change FICT to be something different (and in Gavin's case, a much tighter interpretation of policy than what practice presently is, but the same could be said for someone that wants to open it up). It is important to note that I'd rather not tip the careful balance we have, and keep FICT as it is and maintain the status quo, than to try to struggle to craft a new guideline, RFC it, and reinflame the issues. It seems completely reasonable to leave it be in this state of flux (and letting WP:N drive what is notable), pending any major insight on how to make FICT work perfectly that will have consensus. I know we're reiterating arguments, and there's no fresh blood but this is to prevent changing FICT without good reason to do so. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Things have slowed down a lot, in both directions. I wonder if the granularity of fiction articles is decreasing or increasing? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Nifboy, I think you are aware that WP:PLOT prohibits plot only articles, so it is me who is at loss to understand why anyone thinks that plot only articles which come in the form of lists are different. Perhaps we need to go back to WT:NOT and clarify this matter, rather than continue to talk past each other. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, well, here, let me start over. I think we're all in agreement that character lists, both inside and outside the work's article, are unnecessary in cases where there isn't any criticism or other not-plot to justify it. What I've noticed, and I thought Masem was talking about, is a redundancy problem. A well-maintained character list tends to keep each character's plot info to a minimum amount of redundancy with the work's plot article (per WP:AVOIDSPLIT). However, once a character is split out the plot information regarding that character swells to "fill" its newfound article, often repeating a lot of the plot in the work's article. I think we disagree as to whether the split-out character's complete repeat of the plot is a bad thing, which Masem's "one-big-article" view was an attempt to explain. Nifboy (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT does not prohibit plot-only articles, only topics covered in a plot-only fashion. Topics are not the same as articles. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Masem's statement is entirely disingenous, and would be refuted immediately at WT:NOT. At the end of the day, I can't stop you from believing that plot only articles are legitimate encyclopedic content, but it is not the generally accepted elsehwere, such as WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. This guideline can't as platform for creating exemptions from existing policy and guidelines based on a purely subjective viewpoint.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not disingenuous. It is based on knowing what the difference is between "topic" and "article" within an electronic encyclopedia that has a watchful mind on size constraints. But I'm not saying that any plot-only article is welcome either. There is a balance that is based on subjective consensus determination that's been well-established and presently exists in an unwritten fashion that needs either simply to be left alone or documented appropriately. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Giving undue weight to non-notable characters is not an article size issue, that too is disingenous. The existing policies and guidelines just do not support Masem's view. There is no need to break out the plot to accomodate every character and episode. Articles about fictional topics are should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a dump for plot summary for non-notable topics.
The problem with invoking WP:SIZE is that there is no limit to the number of characters and episodes that a work of fiction can be divided into, as evidenced by List of Star Wars creatures, and there is no limit to the amount of plot summary that can be used to give weight to these characters if WP:PLOT is ignored. I can't see how this approach can be justified, as low quality lists like this have no encyclopedic content, and are simply magnets for original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Every article on WP is a magnet for original research, so calling out fiction on this is missing the overall bane of an open editing system. But remember, we're here to summarize wikt:notable human knowledge, not just things that are notable. Even if there are no direct secondary sources to describe a character, it still may be wikt:notable enough that we want to include. Characters from Star Wars is a perfect example of a fictional franchise that has established itself significantly in the culture, so characters from it are likely to be wikt:notable and appropriate to include even without secondary sources. Of course, without secondary sources, they aren't notable and thus it is inappropriate to give them a separate article, but a summary of all these notable-but-not-notable characters would be completely appropriate within a large article about Star Wars and by extension in a supporting list to fit size constraints. And because these are wikt:notable, it is not undue weight to cover them, though there are issues with writing their summaries appropriate (per WP:WAF) that is a content-driven issue, not inclusion-driven. We can't simply block the inclusion of certain types of articles simply because of the perceived editing issues that a subset of them may have.

Yes, there has to be a limit of how and when such lists are appropriate. I've never said that any and every list is allowed. We've tried to make allowances and guidelines for when such lists are likely to be appropriate, but that requires accepting that these lists are sometimes allowed, based on where our consensus sits right now on the issue (per the last RFCs on both WP:N and WP:FICT). Refusing to acknowledge that there are limited cases where such lists are appropriate is not working towards the consensus viewpoint. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Again I disagree with you. Notability as it is used in Wikipedia is narrower that the dictionary defintion of wikt:notable, because of the need for external verification by way of significant reliable secondary source that are independent of the primary source. Lists containing only plot summary are not externally verifiable in this way, and in any case, they are prohibited by WP:NOT. Evidence of notability is not negociable, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built on reliable secondary sources, both in terms of article content and its internal policies and guidelines that enable it to function. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the same argument about "multiple sources" on WP:N. Yes, WP:N is a subset of wikt:notable topics. We want, on WP, to include all wikt:notable topics (though this does not necessarily mean every one gets an article, just that we include them). WP:N's definition based on secondary sources does a great job at capturing 99% or more of what is witk:notable but does not completely capture that, which is why our inclusion criteria is more than just WP:N, it includes what the SNGs give. And these SNGs are not avoiding evidence of demonstrating wikt:notable info, just not necessarily secondary sources. (eg if a film wins an award to presume notable for a standalone article, then we evidence of that award being given, not just an unsourced statement to be taken on faith). In the same vein, we can consider some lists of characters and other fictional elements to be wikt:notable with some rather limited guidelines - I'm not attempting to list them all now, but for one, the work needs to be culturally significant and long-running before the association of characters with the work could be considered wikt:notable. (This is, if you really want to argue that every article has to be notable, but to me, WP:SS provides enough appropriate advice already.)

WP:N is a good tool to keep indiscriminate information out of WP, and it is readily necessary for works about fiction and elements therein. But it is only a tool in as far as consensus lets us take. The first several years of WP's growth told us how much such a tool is needed (as users created articles point blank on any character ever), while the last several have told us how far we can only take it as a tool. The balance point is what we have now, and we need to consider any attempt to rewrite FICT in that light. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My short version of the above, is that we should include content in proportion to importance, and how we divide it up into articles is secondary. But at the current stage of the internet--and considering the increasing use of devices with smaller, not larger, display areas, we probably should re-emphasize the practical need to avoid excessively long or excessively complex articles. If one supports the material being present, then it should be divided as convenient to the reader, not according to concepts of what would make a standalone article as if it were a totally independent topic. It's the same principle as that for some very long lists, we divide it into two or three alphabetical or chronological list articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, how do you decide which fictional elements are important, and which are not? A good starting point is whether a fictional element is notable. If it is, it can feature in its own standalone article. If it is not, then it can be included in another article, but the quantity of coverage is limited by WP:UNDUE. This general approach is both common sense and widely accepted.
The alternative, subjective importance, is not workable. Without external sources to act as a reference point, it is not possible to say whether a topic or a group of topics should have their own standalone article or list, let alone determine whether its content exceeds the boundries of WP:UNDUE or conflicts with WP:NOT. Editorial opinion on its own cannot be used determine whether an article or list should be included in Wikipedia, because no one can agree on what is "important" or "discriminate" without reference to external sources.
In answer to Masem and DGG, including every fictional element in Wikipedia makes no sense, since works of fiction can be summarised instead of atomised. Splitting an article into minute detail simply avoids having to decide which coverage is relevant to the readers understanding of the over arching work. Your approach would change how fiction is dealt with by giving precedence to fictional elements within a work of fiction, rather than balancing in universe coverage with real world commentary, criticism and analysis. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You've just identified the major problem we're faced here:

The problem is, how do you decide which fictional elements are important, and which are not? A good starting point is whether a fictional element is notable. If it is, it can feature in its own standalone article. If it is not, then it can be included in another article, but the quantity of coverage is limited by WP:UNDUE.

Everything you say is true there, and no one (I believe) is taking issue with that. But the issue is the second part: if the character is not notable, then yes, lets stick a non-UNDUE summary of the character in a different article, the most appropriate place being the "Characters" section on the main article on the work of fiction. Now what if that main article is already 100k long just from development and reception information alone? (it is easily possible for more popular works) It has to be split due to WP:SIZE. WP:SS suggests the first split attempt would likely be the Characters section, details that we have just stated are appropriate to include somewhere even if they are not notable, but are the least general part of the article. But then you've stated that these lists are inappropriate. You can't have it both ways. You also can't assert that a collection of non-UNDUE summaries of characters from a work is suddenly UNDUE; if you are appropriately summarizing each one, and the work includes a lot of characters, the collection is not UNDUE even if it seems a lot more text than compared to the real-world aspects. Mind you, this list can become UNDUE if every mundane character is included, which should be a judgement factor of when to trim down the lists, but not to get rid of them.

Mind you, half the problem with have now is that the list of character articles tend to be too wordy (per WP:WAF) and don't really need to be split out. I would figure several list of character articles that are non-notable alone can be reduced in size by simple WAF application and moved back into the key article. This is not true for all such lists, but a good portion of them. We need to encourage the first thing you said - putting non-notable characters into an existing article - and only worrying about a list article when it is clear it is needed per WP:SIZE. We need to discourage the off-the-bat creation of list of characters articles where the main article remains underdeveloped and under any critical size limit. But it stills comes to recognize that the way to deal with non-notable characters is to incorporate them into a larger article and to use WP:SIZE and WP:SS as guidelines as to when the list of characters may need a split. (Same goes for every other fictional element too). --MASEM (t) 19:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But why stick a non-notable characters in a non-UNDUE summary in a different article if the only coverage is plot summary that does not provide the reader with any real world context? If an article topic is not notable and its content fails WP:PLOT, that indicates to me that giving undue weight to the character is not going to result in anything but low quality, such as List of Star Wars creatures. I can't see any benfit to adding content that is not encyclopedic in the name of subjective improtance, which is why I object to this departure from the existing framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you just said we should put a non-UNDUE summary of non-notable character in a larger article, but if the main article is already beyond 100k, per WP:SIZE we need to use a supporting list article for this. That list article, despite maybe itself being non-notable and all plot, has some value that you have just asserted. This is why it is important to stress that an article is not the same as a topic, and that a topic may actually be covered over multiple articles - it is the collection of those articles that are a topic. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It still does not explain why you can't summarise the the plot and remove the fine detial. Content, such as the the long plot summary given to Gaius Baltar can be summarised into just one or two sentences in the article about the series itself, ideally with some real world commentary about the character. I can understand where you are coming from in the sense that this is not enough in your view, but I am sensing that you view Wikipedia as an opportunity to immerse the reader in the plot, rather than inform them about the work and its context.
On this issue I fear we will never be reconciled, but I think my view is supported by both WP:PLOT and WP:WAF which promote balanced coverage, rather than all encompasing immersion. It would be almost impossible to understand, say, long lists of chemical compounds, because at elemental level, the the lack of context does not help the reader to understand the subject matter of chemistry. By analogy, the same is true of fictional elements. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Gaius can probably be summarized into one or two sentences (well, more likely a shorter paragraph, but at least no more than 10% of what the standalone article says). So can every other character from BSG. Let's say that's 250 ASCII characters for each character at best (and that's a really really short description); that gets us 10k for every 40 characters in the work (and something like BSG or the Simpsons will have more than this). That's a lot already under our 100k size limit, and for a critically acclaimed show like BSG, it easily will not fit. And again, I'm being very generous towards how much trimming can actually be done on these articles.

The approach is not dimishing what informing it is doing to the general reader which I agree needs to be first and foremost when writing about fiction. However, I disagree calling the other aspects as "immersion". We want to keep to a level of "inform" but at the point where we are informing the more specific reader who may have an interest in the show and wants to learn more, as opposed to the general reader who need to learn what the show is. The current state of the Gaius article is aimed at "immersion" which is aimed at the fanatic reader and attempts to document every aspect of the show, which I agree with you is inappropriate. On the other hand, each of the blurbs in something like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is at a level to inform the more specific reader, still being potentially useful to the general reader.

It is important to note that for this specific readership approach, this is not always appropriate for every work and every character in that work. A barely notable TV show can probably cover its characters (all of them) in a simple prose paragraph, if this is even needed at all. Many movie plots can introduce the characters in the plot of the work without additional comment. This is likely where UNDUE best fits into the picture.

We cannot be quick to dismiss information that you personally may not find much use. Yes, a list of characters from a work is likely of little use to the general reader but I've already identified that the more specific reader could find a use. In the same manner, and speaking from experience, while you may find a list of chemical compounds to be useless, I could find great value in having that. Each piece of information on WP has different value to every reader. Our approach to avoid indiscriminate info is to make sure we are only inclusion information that is valuable to more than just a handful of readers while staying aware of what other things WP is not (NOR, NPOV, etc.) --MASEM (t) 21:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is that this sounds like immersing that informing the reader. You will have to run an RFC on this issue to get some more feedback, because my interpretation of polices and guidlines on plot only articles, giving undue weight, over-reliance on an in universe persepctive suggest to me that this approach is just to subjective to work, and will be a licence for listcruft.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We've already run 2 RFCs (FICT and WP:N) that confirm this is consensus. I would not want to subject the community to another RFC unless with had something more solid as a guideline for FICT. If we want to leave it an essay, that seems to be the best solution at the moment. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the RFC's did not endorse "aggregates" or any other type of article that would be exempt from notability, but if you can provide a link showing what you mean, that would be helpful. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, A.4 and A.2.1 to start. Mind you, it is not just a numbers game, it is looking at the comments and considering all the concerns, which comes back here to support what we've been saying that it is certainly that not every list of characters gets a free pass but is an acceptable allowance in certain cases. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

List of D.Gray-man chapters

I haven't followed the apparently heavily circular debate here doing to my absence, and the above is a bit tl;dr, but what exactly is wrong with say the way WP:MOS-AM currently handles the issue? Let's say you have an anime series. It runs for 20+ episodes, which is a bit long for a plot summary in the article, so create episode list. Random episode becomes notable for some cultural phenomenon (i.e. the Pokemon seizure episode) and that one gets an article, but rest don't have any sourcing, so the episode list is sufficient. A 20+ episode anime with no other medium (usually not the case, but for the sake of the example) probably doesn't need a character list, so the characters are restricted to the corresponding section in the article. End.

Second scenario: you have an ongoing manga series with over ten volumes, which means that it's probably pretty successful. You split out a chapter list (i.e. List of D.Gray-man chapters) to handle the extended plot. Series is long, so you have lots of characters, so character list is correspondingly created. The main character has received quite a bit of commentary in reviews, so that character and the other ones who have sourcing get articles. More volumes are released, as the story is ongoing, so the character list starts to get really, really long (i.e. List of Naruto characters), so you split out another list to list the antagonists, of which there are probably quite a bit at this point (i.e. List of Naruto antagonists). Any other equivalent split that fits the series (i.e. List of Soul Reapers in Bleach) would be correspondingly fine. Along the way, the manga gets adapted into an anime, so you have to make an episode list, but seeing how long the manga is lasting, you have to create individual lists per season (i.e. List of Bleach episodes (season 1), List of Bleach episodes (season 2), etc.) or the overall episode list (i.e. List of Bleach episodes) will be absolutely gargantuan. Similarly, you start to get video games based on the series, which can start in the article (especially for Japanese-based games with little-to-no sourcing), but as you have a long series, you get lots of video games, so you need a separate list also (i.e. List of Bleach video games; notice the trend yet?). So basically, the process goes --> develop information in article --> information gets too long for article, so make list --> one list becomes way too long, so break part off into smaller list(s). At any step of the way, if adequate sourcing exists for a single piece of media (i.e. an episode, character, video game, etc.), then it gets its own article too.

Third scenario: you have a manga series that only released two volumes before folding (or whatever the minimum requirement for WP:BK). It's really short, so no chapter or character lists are necessary and any other media can be restricted to the main article. End.

I would wager that these three scenarios encompass a fair amount of the overall picture on fictional works. Thoughts? WP:ANIME has handled this issue very well in my opinion, and with a few exceptions (*cough* Gundam *cough*), it's been fairly straightforward. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I can't comment on all the articles provided as examples, but having examined List of D.Gray-man chapters, I am unclear of what is the rationale for its inclusion. Unless I am mistaken, notability has for its subject matter has not been established, because all of the article's content has been taken from one website (i.e. it is self-published) and attribution for its content (i.e. its authorship) is not provided. It seems to me that this article title includes the term "list" in its title in order to evade having to comply with WP:N. Maybe I am missing something, but is this article nothing more than a list of non-notable characters with some plot summary, sourced from on press releases from the franchise creators? This looks like a bad case of WP:AVOIDSPLIT to me.
  WP:BK says that "It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability", and this principle has been ignored here. It seems to me as the level of detail increases, so too does the likelyhood that an article or list will fail WP:PLOT. The example you have given shows that spinning off characters into list in the name of comprehensive coverage results in giving undue weight to in universe details. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

episodes and chapters are a slightly different problem. The real problem with episodes is finding a balance between the over-expansive fansite-style summaries that tend to be found in individual articles, and the over-brief teaser-style TV-guide like summaries that tend to be found in lists. They both are non- encyclopedic. What the do have in common with characters etc. is that the length will depend on 1. The importance of the work itself 2. the importance in the work 3. the complexity necessary to describe it 4. available material 5 special individual notability.

Those 5 factors (or 4 if one wants to use no.5 as justifying an individual article), are what ought to determine the extent of coverage of all fictional elements. The division of these into articles is a secondary matter, the extent of coverage is the important part. It is not true that we have no way of determining. There are several good ways: the best when it works is general common sense and editorial judgment, which is not quite extinct among those working on these articles--where people differ in evaluating it, we'd need a compromise. We can also have guidelines: the principal characters will include at least the main protagonist & antagonist, and will get relatively extended coverage. The ones getting at least a mention in a list will include all named characters who actually say anything relevant to the plot. (these are just examples, but I think fairly clear ones at both ends). MASEM proposed a number of formulas. Gavin, it was primarily you who prevented consent to them, and I still do not understand why. The only reason I have is that you do not want to compromise, but are holding out for the minimal coverage possible, (It can't be just that you consider the GNG as universally applicable for we have offered to n accommodate that view, by still requiring it for separate articles bout individual characters, episodes, etc.). If you are holding out for the minimum coverage possible, andare unwilling to compromise on that, please say so, and we'll know where we stand. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Chapter, character and Episode lists do not fall under notability guidelines. Indivisual articles do. They still fall under WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:V though.陣内_Jinnai 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jinnai, what differentiates a list from an article, in the sense you are using it? How does a combination article about , say 12 characters, fit into this? Not all the characters have to be notable, or they could have separate articles. The particular comcination is a device for grouping material. How would you deal with material such as this? DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have to challenge you both. Nowhere in any policy or guideline is there anything to support Jinnai's view that lists are exempt from WP:N. Even if it did, I think Jinnai would have to admit that the List of D.Gray-man chapters is an article in all but name. DGG's view that if one character is notable, then you can ignore WP:UNDUE is not supported by any policy or guideline either; in fact WP:NCC advises against such an approach. I think Jinnai, DGG and Masem are going to have to admit sooner or later that the articles like List of D.Gray-man chapters is in a three way conflict with WP:N, WP:UNDUE and WP:PLOT. These are insurmountable problems, not areas where compromise maybe possible. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Only a topic is required to be notable, not an article. If a list is clearly a breakout to support a topic that is notable, and that otherwise could not be included in the main article(s) about that topic due to WP:SIZE, then it is appropriate to be split, as long as its understood that the overall content of the main article(s) and their split need to still balance plot-vs-real world. By the way, this article is not all plot - it contains several real-world facts - release dates and ISBN numbers - which we do want to see, so I really have cannot see any PLOT issue with this one case. Consensus has shown (from existance of articles to AFDs to the above RFCs) that there are some lists that are appropriate in this manner. Not all, nor at the minutae level, but there is tolerance for these types of lists as necessary parts of coverage for fiction. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And for that matter there are no insurmountable issues except libel and copyright. As for the foundational principles, neither NOT PLOT nor WP:N are among them, and NPOV = UNDUE does not apply, for it refers to POV. In fact, WP:N is not even policy, and NOT PLOT is probably the most disputed WP policy in existence. Anything reasonable can be exempt from WP:N -- not only do all guideline imply exceptions, but WP:N goes even further and states it explicitly. But all of that is totally besides the point--we are here discussing what the rules ought to be--for who else but us makes them? Notability (Fiction) can prescribe whatever consensus wants it to say, for we can adjust other apparently conflicting policies also.

Gavin, you are apparently saying you intend to omit the names and descriptions of minor characters, if they do not have their own independent notability , because there is no place within the rules to put them? Do i read you right.? In that case I ask you whether you intend to fight forever? Everyone else is prepared to compromise on this issue. MASEM, based on discussions with the general run of wikipedians interested in editing, I think consensus has changed, and we can think about another RFC soon--not quite now, while the BLP issue is running. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus has not changed, in fairness, and ignoring existing policies and guidelines is not the way forward. The term Plot Summary is just that, it is a summary, not an exposition of detail. I understand that what you are suggesting is to extend the coverage of minor characters and episodes for the sake of completeness, but this goes against existing policies and guidelines, even if you don't think they are disputed. The fact remains, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed; we need to give balanced coverage of fictional topics, and focusing on fictional elements in this way is to give undue weight to the elements of the work, rather than the notable work itself. There is no need to provide details of every element of fiction: they can be included in the plot summary.
A plot summary is not a recap. It should not cover every scene and every moment and every character of a story. A website like Television Without Pity is a great resource, but we're not doing the same thing they are, and we shouldn't follow their lead on summaries. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jinnai, what differentiates a list from an article, in the sense you are using it? How does a combination article about , say 12 characters, fit into this? ... How would you deal with material such as this?

Basically it the is that the core of the page being a list giving each element it's appropriate weight (without ever going into major detail), even if its a list that primarily uses prose rather than charts and tables; it is still a list. Comparatilively Bert and Ernie page is an article because it treats both characters as a whole detailing them both on the same level and both in extreme detail including lots of real-world information. A list of characters doe not do so and in fact does not need to give real-world information on every character (though if it does not, there needs to be a clear reason for listing them). Nor is it required to show notability because its understood that those characters could (probably) not stand on their own as articles or if they were split out, it would remove any real-world info from that page. That they still must have non-plot info and must conform to WP:V is still agreed upon. The difference is even more clear when you consider lists of episodes and the like; those have had a longstanding tradition of not even being considered articles and we even have different procedures for nominating our best of them.

Clearly if there are pages that can gain feature content as lists without showing notability inside them (but still have real-world information) it is clear that consensus is against treating lists as requiring to conform to WP:N if the main article does not.陣内_Jinnai 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "giving each element it's appropriate weight" is the problem here. Giving precedence to elements of fiction that are not notable in themselves over and above the work of fiction is not the way to give them appropriate weight. Unless an element of fiction is a notable in itself, it is merely a sub-topic of the book, film or television series from which it is derived. Moving these characters and episodes into seperate articles and lists is a classic example of WP:AVOIDSPLIT; adding plot summary to these lists contravenes WP:PLOT. It may be common practise to create such lists of characters and episodes, but there is no policy or guideline that supports this approach. List of D.Gray-man chapters fails WP:N because neither the list nor its subject matter are in any way notable.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:AVOIDSPLIT. It does not absolutely invalidate these lists as you claim it does, but only throws major caution that you should not create these willy-nilly until you've tried trimming and anything else and the only solution is then to split out. That's exactly the type of advice we've been pushing for on WP:FICT, that these lists are not something that should be created just because they can, but only in the act of trying to meet WP:SIZE goals. When they are created, they are not suddenly a new topic (I've proved this before), and thus topic-based policies like WP:N and WP:PLOT , which have already applied to the article before it was split, are still met here. Mind you, this is working under the presumption that the list does not suddenly grow when it has suddenly has space to breathe outside of the main article; WAF still applies, and this does lead to UNDUE if the expansion happens without restraint. So let's put to rest that these separate lists themselves are a problem and focus on what is probably the issue which is to what degree we cover elements of a fictional work in order to be comprehensive but not UNDUE - as when these lists do start covering trivial elements that imbalance the overall coverage of the work, then it appears that other policies and guidelines are being violated as well. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It may not invalidate lists, but it does say avoid unnecessary splits if the subject matter is not notable. As this guideline says:

"The consensus at Wikipedia is that articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details or trivial coverage. This means that while a book or television series may be the subject of non-trivial real-world coverage, care should be taken when creating separate articles about individual characters or episodes by providing evidence that the subject matter is notable in its own right, and that the new article does not comprise nothing more than a plot summary"

This is more or less what WP:BK says on the matter. We should not be splitting characters into their own article just to increase the level of coverage given to the elements of the plot. We use a consise plot summary to cover characters and other elements, not lists. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not invalidating our proposed approach, but only begs the question of where the level of coverage for non-notable fictional characters should stop. If it is determinend that the coverage for a work should include brief summaries of its non-notable characters, then a list makes sense, and only as a separate list if it can't fit into the main work. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The coverage for non-notable fictional characters needs to go in the plot summary of article about the notablable work in accordance with WP:UNDUE, and potentially that might mean omitting minor characters, events and episodes in order to preserve the balance between real world coverage and the plot summary. If it is not worth mentioning in the main article, then to continue the plot summary in a list goes against both WP:UNDUE and WP:PLOT. Elements of fiction should be included within a concise plot summary, unless there is evidence to suggest a particular character or episode is sufficiently notable for inclusion in its own standalone article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, that is your opinion of what is UNDUE, which is a highly subject guideline; to others, an article on a work of fiction that has minimal plot may be UNDUE towards the real-world factors. This is why the question comes down to what I'm getting at with the RFC suggestion below: we cannot tell what is UNDUE until we determine, as a WP-wide whole, what is the desired type of coverage we want to give works of fiction on WP. Because we are more than a traditional encyclopedia, we can freely chose what model we can follow and do not have to be stuck with traditional approaches, but that model needs to be consistent within fiction and with all other field, which is why the discussion has to be across all of WP to gain the right input. Until that question of what level of coverage of fiction is appropriate or undue, it is impossible to state if these types of lists even violate UNDUE. And no, PLOT does not specific limit plot and all characters to a plot summary, it says to keep the amount of plot information for a topic in balance with the real-world aspects and avoid plot-only or -heavy coverage of a fictional work. But again this relies on understanding what is UNDUE for fiction, which requires knowing where the consensus is on that. We cannot presume much about these lists at this point, beyond that the only possible contention with them is WP:UNDUE. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything is subjective is not an excuse for ignoring WP:UNDUE. If the coverage of fictional elements in the article List of D.Gray-man chapters runs into 4,500 words, and the over arching article D.Gray-man is only 1,800, this is a classic example of the fictional elements being given more coverage of the work itself. Why should there be more coverage about the characters, than the work? The consensus you speak of is just your subjective viewpoint; the fact remains that the list of characters contains nothing but plot summary, a concise version of which is already in the main article. The list not only runs contrary to WP:UNDUE, but it also runs contary to the generally accepted principle that works of fiction should be the subject of balanced coverage between the plot and the real world reception. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason why no ratio is suggested for when something is UNDUE, because that ratio may be completely different in one situation than another. It may be that what we consider appropriate coverage for fiction with respect to the importance of the work itself would allow for 4500 words on the list of magna chapters while only 1800 words exist for the work itself. A more concrete example is The Simspons, clearly a defining cultural work that we would track every episode in a list, if not individually. While the amount of content for the series as a whole does not increase with time, the amount of material about the episodes will continue to increase, and the ratio of fictional aspects to real-world stuff will always continue to increase. But this is an acceptable result given that we know we want to provide a list of every Simpsons episode due to the nature of the work. UNDUE here needs to apply to how comprehensive is the coverage of both aspects of the work, and the significance of the work, and not just flat out size or word count comparisons. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you think WP:UNDUE does not apply in this situation. Its not just that the ratio of fictional characters to the fictional work is 5:2, it is the fact that the plot summary already includes details fo the characters in the main article. Whilst many of the Simpsons characters and episodes are notable in their own right, this is not the case with these "Chapters". This article exists in clear contravention of WP:N, WP:UNDUE and WP:PLOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem that a work of fiction may have 2.5 times as much info about the fictional aspect as the main work, if that work merits that much coverage. For The Simpsons or, lets say, Battlestar Galactica, yes. For something like a tv show canceled in its first season or a single feature-length direct-to-video movie, heck no. It all depends, and it is a matter of just looking at the whole of the coverage in consideration with what WPians want in terms of comprehensive fiction coverage, to make that assessment.

And I need to point this out again, but there is data in here that we would normally include for any printed work, that being the various ISBN numbers of the published chapters. That's certainly not against any policy, and in fact a strongly encouraged element. The actual amount of "plot" devoted to this is, oh, what, 2-3 lines for each ISBN number? That is a far cry from violating PLOT and UNDUE if we were to take the article out of context and not consider it as supporting the main topic, and even less so with that consideration. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

ISBN is not relevant to our discussion since it provides no evidence of notability, as it does not constitute significant coverage and it comes from the primary source itself. The issues of notability, lack of balanced coverage and undue weight given to elements of fiction have not been addressed. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again you are missing the point. Lists don't need to show notability-that's why they are lists. They need to have real-world information which is what release dates and the like are. They also need to not have detailed informationn on every tiny aspect. This is why GNG does nor WP:FICT do not cover lists. It's true, there are a couple people out there that would like them to, but there are also people out there than think every character deserves there own article if WP:SIZE is an issue. Lists create a viable merge point so WP:PRESERVE isn't ignored by deletions for articles lacking notability yet whose content is relevant to the work for those looking for more than the 3-line synopsis (especially on longer-running and/or more complicated works) and WP:SIZE would become an issue. Real-world info =/= notability though as you yourself have pointed out many times before and lists just require real-world info.陣内_Jinnai 19:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Arb. Break: if we do another RFC...

While I agree with DGG that possibly another RFC may help following the mess with BLPs, I still believe, based on the general lack of any antagonism in the area beyond our policy-wanking here, the consensus remains stable on the issue. Which itself may be a helpful point to try to cement what current practice is while no one is at each others throats.

Given that, the most useful RFC based on what we've stated is three-parted, specifically aimed at "To what degree does WP cover the non-notable aspects of a work of fiction?" or "What is consider to be the proper level of coverage of a work of fiction on WP?"

1. We open up for "Statement by..." suggestions with endorsements and discussions (no opposition) to draw in ideas and themes. This needs to ignore the specifics of policy and guidelines, in order to allow for any necessary brainstorming that may lead to better ideas.
2. We build several approaches from these, then open those up for support and opposition !voting. Again, this should be ignoring the details of policy/guideline for the time being, though !votes can certain caution "This will never fly against WP:V" or the like.
3. With the best method(s) of fiction coverage determined, we then tackle the question: does any other policy/guideline need to be altered in light of this? By this point, I'm pretty sure we'd know which policy/guidelines would be affected and would be contacting those people if not already involved to get their input into this.

And no, I'm not expecting a massive policy change here (like,throwing V out the window); the solution I believe is best is one that is based on current policy/guidelines, but just doesn't jive with it if you interpret them a different way. We're talking likely the alteration of one word or the addition of footnotes for explanation and clarification in existing policy to put the final consensus-derived solution into place. (A solution that would involve a mass change to policy would likely fail within step 2 above).

The reason to focus on what degree fiction should be covered is then that necessitates how we have to fit it in and/or alter existing policy/guidelines to make it work. Every attempt at FICT in the past has come at it "here's policy, so here's what FICT should be" and has failed in part due to that; FICT and present policy is a square peg in a round hole. But by addressing what shape we want fiction to be covered in first, the remaining steps should be relatively smooth to complete.

And of course, we need to make sure this is a widely announced RFC to attract all WPians. One that only draws in those that are strongly vetted in fiction will skew the results to an unusable approach (that is, we'll likely only have solutions in #2 that get shot down in opposes when that stage starts). --MASEM (t) 14:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think that's a good idea in theory, but don't know how it'll fly, especially #1, once the RfC goes live. We could possibly add an edit commentary for anyone adding to the page in addition to spelling out how we'd like the RfC to be conducted so that there is double the reinforcement.陣内_Jinnai 23:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think ignoring existing policy is a good idea. If your proposal departs from them (and I have indicated to you where your current proposal conflict with existing policy), then the RFC should be honest about this, and explain why these changes would be of benefit. user:Phil Sandifer was honest in this regard, and I admire him for this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the point of the above is to brainstorm ideas in step #1 without considering policy in order to find a best solution, and present them as such in #2. Now, if the resulting ideas from #1 that go into #2 require a major policy shift that is unlikely going to happen (eg "WP:FICT can freely ignore WP:V"), those ideas will likely be shot down in the #2 polling. Which is why I'd expect any change that passes all the way through #3 will be small and minor such as specific clarification to policy. This is a prime example of how consensus is meant to drive policy, and not the reverse. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think if you are honest about departures from existing policy, then we can deal with those issues seperately. If not, then your brainstorming will end up with proposals that are not feasible. I like to think you could be honest about this, so I am keeping my fingers crossed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, once again you are ignoring something fundimental. Except for WP:BLP and WP:Nonfree policies are driven from the bottom up. Just because something is, doesn't mean it always has been and always will be. That's where your thoughts on policy and guidelines are flawed. They are made with goals in mind, to help make Wikipedia a better and more useful encyclopedia, but those ideas something fail when the theories of how things work hit reality. Then stuff changes and its not always new stuff. Sometimes higher level policies/guidelines do, but at the same time there must be a compelling reason to do so. For fictional elements, there has been a clear and compelling reason.
A brainstorming session is something that is designed to ignore all the rules and conventions. That how brainstorming works in businesses and other institutions. After ideas come out then you can start to ground them in reality. Then finally you can take the ideas that are still good and you adapt them and the elements around it to fit the idea.陣内_Jinnai 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure "bottom up" is the best way I'd describe how guidelines are made. It's really more "lead by example", and I will continue to cite Torchic's FA demotion as the reason we don't have five hundred Pokemon articles anymore. Projects like those devoted to Square Enix and Halo have been exemplary in actually doing the research and using that to drive content inclusion. So I can't really get behind developing a set of simplified heuristics that get away from that. Nifboy (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Nifboy's description of guideline writing is correct - it needs to be balanced between what editors want and what editors need in terms of guidance. One of driving forces behind article creation for commercial company articles seems to be the desire for self-promotion and giving undue weight to routine business news, yet this approach to article inclusion that allows spam type articles runs contrary with the need for Wikipedia to be independent and endorsement free. "Bottom up" in this context means scraping the bottom of the pork barrel, and I would not recomend endorsing this approach if it brings us into conflict with existing framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is why I think we need to honest about what editors want and editors need to create new articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the approach I describe towards this RFC is meant to establish what we're actually trying to do with fiction; it is a square peg in round hole problem with us trying to fit what one subset wants into a limited area that another subset wants. Brainstorming on step one ignores any pre-established notions so that solutions for steps 2 and 3 can be developed that likely will make that peg fit the hole - whether due to rounding off the peg (limiting what we cover in fiction), widening the hole (acknowledging that some coverage of fiction requires looser interpretations of some policies or guidelines), or even approaching the problem from a different angle (maybe everything already fits, just a matter of wording and agreement). We won't know which is the right solution until we explore a solution space that is larger than the preconcieved notion - the entire point of brainstorming. And again, the result of brainstorming won't be used without any filter or further confirmation from wide consensus. Even if someone suggests that we drop WP:V to allow original research on fiction, a valid idea to throw out in brainstorming, it likely will fail miserably by step 2 since it against WP's basic principles. Knowing where the middle of the issue is here based on the last RFC, most people involve have a clear concept of WP's mission, and I don't see that mission being threatened by a brainstorming session and with ideas and proposals that have to be vetted by the entire community. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think if you ignore the problems which your proposal entails, its acceptance will be in doubt from the onset. If you start out saying "This is the proposal in terms of content" as well as "here are the problems in terms of content policy" then other editors will try to solve both sides of the equation for you. If you deny there is a problem (or half deny there is a problem at all), then editors like me are going to remind you, rather than work with you to find a solution. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And if we don't, we'll continue to be hear 5 years from now arguing because people aren't allowed to brainstorm ideas that might be able to think outside the box and yet at the end of the day accomplish the same mission goals that enough people on both sides can live with.

The idea in the first session is what is called in business circles as a "yes session"; if you cannot say something positive about the proposal, don't say anything. This is because being negative, you immediately shut down the possibility that someone with a good kernel of an idea, that just needs refinement might never post because the first thing out of everyone's mouth will be "This violates X, Y and Z" and never try to develop it further.陣内_Jinnai 22:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally in business, that does not include saying "yes" to breaking the law, or in our context, going against the existing framework of Wikipedia's content policies. Just because dealing in crack is profitable, that does not mean we have to become crack dealers. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I concede that it does not constitute usually acts that knowingly break laws, but those sessions usually do ignore company policies, except "core" policies, because that's their intent; to see if the company's policy needs to be tweaked to be more fine-tuned. At most this would mean it could not violate WP:FAIRUSE and WP:BLP) which were created because of laws. The only other thing would be to our "core" mission statement (and not the subheadings under them as those are a means to an end):

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
• Wikipedia is free content
• Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules

If you want to say those are the limits, then that's fine.

Remember this would just be for phase 1. After that you could tear into someone's proposal because of other problems.陣内_Jinnai 01:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nutshell...

...should read: "If a fictional topic has received coverage in reliable sources that are verify the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for either a stand-alone article or at worst a redirect to another article." This way we eliminate the weasel and subjective words like "significant" or anti-encyclopedic ones like "independent" that are ususally strained beyond reason, such as when a published game guide containg interviews or development information or encyclopedia is dismissed. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind such a nutshell if there was guidance in the body as to where the line is between "stand-alone article" and "redirect to another article", which is where I think the grand majority of argument is. Otherwise the proposed nutshell just seems to say "If sources, do whatever," which, while agreeable, doesn't seem genuinely helpful. Nifboy (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that it is clear that we follow WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, i.e. that anything that is not made up or legally damaging is at worst kept in the edit history of a redirect for convenience should additional sources become available and as really, a redirect should bother no one. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked it a little (in particular removing "at worst") and stuck it in for now. It's not perfect but I think it's better than either of the previous versions. Nifboy (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked it for grammar. We're not looking to verify the subject. Hiding T 15:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just not sustainable. The version as it currently stands says:

If a fictional topic has received verifiable coverage in reliable sources, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria, either as a stand-alone article or as a redirect to another article.

But this ignores WP:NOT which says that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Since plot summaries on their own are not suitable, this nutshell omits three important ingredients for a work or element of fiction to be notable, namely that it has to be the subject of real world significant coverage, that the source must be a secondary source, and that the secondary source must be independent of the creators or promoters of the primary source.
As I read it, this nutshell as it being proposed is basically giving plot only articles a free pass for inclusion.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you except for the part in the nutshell about redirects; I think it's actually neutral in that regard. One of my big concerns is that this proposal would be used to shut down merge proposals for articles just because they have one or two tiny tidbits of real-world information. That kind of article is still, IMO, a bad article because of WP:WAF. Nifboy (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, either you are wiki-lawyering or the people who would argue that this guidance allows an exemption from WP:NOT or WP:WAF are wiki-lawyering. I don't see why we should edit policies and guidance to deal with wikipedians who should be issued a trout slap. Now if you can pin-point the exact sentence which states categorically that editors can ignore WP:NOT, I'll hold back on your trout slap. A direct quotation from the proposal containing the word "ignore" will do. Hiding T 11:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had the same objection Gavin does. Without making clear that our other policies apply here, there will be constant traveling in circles, with things going to AfD, defenders citing the policy, not the talk page intents and expectations, and crappy, unimportant things being retained. This version, as with so many, is the inclusionist's wet dream. Because Pokemon's been published, we can have 1000+ individual articles on Pokemon again, according to your proposal. ThuranX (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How so, because I can't see it. Given that the proposal uses the GNG as it's very basis, that problem would also exist in the GNG. Per the proposal: As with all subjects, an element should satisfy the general notability guideline. As to the travelling circus, given that exists already, I can;t see how this proposal, which iterates how the GNG applies to fiction, will change things. perhaps more trout slaps are required. Hiding T 14:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't get rid of the word "independent", that's not a weasel word and actually has clear objective meaning with regards to sourcing, and is necessitated by WP:V weight of third-party sources. I will say that "significant coverage" can be replaced by "non-trivial coverage", though still would have emphasis that articles showing any coverage less than significant will likely be deleted (though not always, and thus why we can weaken the language a bit in the lede). --MASEM (t) 14:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Hiding, he should be forgiven that in universe coverage of fictional topics can be used as evidence of notability, for nowhere in any of Wikipedia's policies does it support the statement made in WP:WAF that "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference". The problem is that WP:V talks about "reliable, third-party sources", whilst WP:GNG takes about "signficant coverage" that is "independent" from such sources, but whether the sources or coverage should be real world or in universe is not explicitly stated, which is probably why the confusion about this issue arises.
It would therefore take a very keen mind to realise that all of Wikipedia's content policies are pitched towards real world content, and that only a very narrow reading of these policies would lead to the conclusion that plot summary on its own is allowable as evidence of notability simply because it is verifiable, as this ignores the fact that in universe coverage on its own is not significiant or independent of the primary source.
I agree with ThranX that we are going around and around in circles, and the only way to make progress towards agreeing on a sensible draft is to acknowledge that real world coverage is the basis of notability for fictional topics. Plot summary needs to be accompanied by real world coverage, as the real world is their primary frame of reference for every other subject matter in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The policies you require are WP:PSTS and WP:PLOT, both of which explicitly state what is required, for example the no original research policy states "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." What Wikipedia is not states, in direct contradiction of your assertion, that "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works". We don't need to rewrite those policies, they exist already. If you want to write guidance which will "acknowledge that real world coverage is the basis of notability for fictional topics", first answer why WP:WAF and WP:PLOT don't already do the job? And anyone who doesn't understand policy just needs it explained to them. If they still don't understand it, simply continue to explain it. Just like I do with you. Eventually you may find you resort to the odd trout slap. You may even want to contemplate an RFC on the user in question if they continue to dispute the policy beyond the point of good faith, because WP:CONSENSUS maintains that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Disruptive editors are those whose "edits are largely confined to talk-pages", who "repeatedly disregard other editors' questions" and who "prevent other editors from reaching consensus". Hiding T 17:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, we don't need WP:N because WP:V already does the job. What I'm looking for out of this proposal is essentially an affirmation that, yes, WP:WAF applies to article inclusion as well as article content, because WP:WAF makes for good articles. Nifboy (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that Hiding has now acknowledged that independent sourcing is a necessary inclusion criteria for fictional topics[4], as it is always good to know that we can agree on something. However, his choice of words is unfortunate, because they are not quite as clear as they could be:

I fear the term "published independently the work itself" is not as clear as the original version which said "that are independent of the subject". Could I suggest we revert to the wording that was there before as the orginal wording was primarily based on the nutshell used at WP:N? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Real world" coverage is not necessary in spinout articles, which can be plot based so long as the main article has out of universe information. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be just a restatement of the exception you take to WP:PLOT.--Chaser (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I don;t consider consider the two wordings of that phrase essentially different; the problem is whether printed material in support of a show or game or handbooks to it prepared by the game publisher are RSs enough to prove notability by the GNG, which I think depends on the specific material in each case. In practice, we always end up quibbling over the exact degree of independence of these sources. I notice, interestingly enough that both versions say "presumed notable"; they neither say it actually proves notability or that there are no other ways of doing it. That of course is the correct meaning of the GNG, often forgotten--it merely offers a convenient alternative which for people of good will, is often enough to settle the question one way or another. Experience shows that people of good will towards another do not commonly show it in discussions of this topic. (The question a Nobody raises is another matter, and, after years of discussion, remains unsettled. I can't assert there is settled consensus for either view of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG as there is not a clear line for everything as to what defines independance. There are certainly things that aren't independant, a movie trailer for a movie where the commentator claims its the 'greatest film of the year" and a scholarly review of the movie 50 years later is generally considered far enough removed that there is no influence. However, beyond those extremes there is a lot of fine print that needs to be looked at.陣内_Jinnai 23:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to DGG, I don't think anyone can understand the difference between the two wordings until you apply it to examples. Although Jinnai is correct that there is not a clear line for everything as to what defines independence, I think the phrase "published independently " and "independent of the subject" mean two different things:

1. Published independently simply means that a fictional element has appeared in more than one publication, but that the author or promoter of the fictional work could be the author. A good example of this is the article Takhisis, who is a fictional character from the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. The article has three sources, each of which are part of the creative team empolyed by Wizards of the Coast who are the publishers of Dungeons & Dragons, and who provide promotional material to websites such as Dragonlance Nexus and publications such as Dragon (magazine) under licence.
2. Independent of the subject means that sources which are not connect in any way to the creators, publishers and promoters of a fictional work. Sources that are not independent are excluded as evidence of notability by WP:GNG.

Simply put, the change in the wording represents a watering down of requirement for independence stated in WP:V, which specifically disallows self-published sources outlined in example 1. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we please get rid of thr current nutshell? It mixes two largely unrelated things in one sentence which can mean anything and nothing. The criteria for redirects have nothing to do with the criteria for articles. For an article, you need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For a redirect, you basically need a mention in the target article. If it is not mentioned in the target, a redirect is useless (ignoring redirects from misspellings and so on). If it is mentioned in the target article, then it should be verified and passing UNDUE and whatever else is needed there. To include a redirect in the nutshell can only serve to muddy the waters: the current nutshell completely omits the "significant" part, and only requires verifiability, which is not an acceptable notability guideline. Fram (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Amended. Hiding T 16:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Amended, yes. Corrected no. This is the latest version amended by Hiding:

This version still has two glaring differences with previous versions, namely that there is no requirement for "significant coverage", and secondly there is no requirement for "reliable sources that are Independent of the subject", rather than "reliable sources published independently". These ommissions need to be corrected, so that the nutsheel is brought into line with WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:N is not policy, and the version above accurately reflects current consensus on how fiction topics are handled. There is no need for changing to fit WP:N (otherwise, there is no need for WP:FICT). --MASEM (t) 11:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not policy, its true, but what is not clear is why WP:FICT is departing from an established guideline on notability. If we offer an exemption from the requirements for "significant coverage" and sources that are "secondary" and "independent", this ignores established practice by allowing trivial coverage and questionable sources to admitted as evidence of notability. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but why would we want to depart from established practise? I am starting to agree with ThuranX, this guideline was becoming an "inclusionist's wet dream". I have changed the nutshell to read as follows:

All of the SNGs start from this point. We just have agree on what other inclusion criteria we need to add to this, not what changes can be made to water it down. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A number of SNGs don't even have a nutshell, and only one links to WP:V through the term "independent", so let's not make demonstrably false assertions that "All of the SNGs start from this point." It gets us nowhere. There's no real standard, and sadly WP:V makes no mention of independent in the context you are attempting here, so it is better if we do not claim something not supported by the policy. I suggest you make the required change at WP:V and get it accepted by the community before you attempt to make this page state that WP:V says something it doesn't. Hiding T 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

These are not valid reasons for watering down the nutshell. If Hiding wish esto deviate from the nutshell in WP:N, I don't understand why not explain teh reasons for this, and what benefit it would bring to this guideline - the diferrences between to the two are hard to reconcile. It seems to me that this is the only way for everybody to understand why Hiding has removed the requirement for secondary sourcing and diluted the requirement for indpendent sourcing with this edit]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have not removed the requirement for secondary sourcing, nor have I diluted the requirement for independent sourcing with this edit]. And please refrain from personalising the issue. The text still quite clearly contains the words "secondary" and "independent". Please restate the objection such that it addresses the change, which merely added a clearer link to the verifiability policy. Hiding T 23:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Independent" is overkill. For spinoff and sub-articles, something like a published strategy guide (not GameFaqs, but an actual purchaseable book) is more than sufficient. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's debatable. Hiding T 23:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with removing the nutshell and linking to WP:V. Gavin, you must admit that people consider for fiction the use of "independnat" differently than you do. Therefore trying to force your ideas on what the consensus of others want when you cannot point to a policy that dictates it is tantamount to streamrolling your opinion. Here, we are simply stating what WP:V says matters. Now if you think what WP:V says isn't clear enough, do as was suggested and implement it so you can get it changed.陣内_Jinnai 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, WP:V says close to the top "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Third-party = independent. A book published by the same company as the one creating a game, or written by the same author as of an original series, is not a "third-party source". Fram (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Jinnai, sooner or later you are going to have to acknowledge that notability can only be confered by significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself, and the reason is that the alternative are just not acceptable to the virtually every editor in Wikipedia (and probably including yourself):

Requirement: Significant Coverage, Alternative: Trivial Coverage

Requirement: Reliable Sources, Alternative: Questionable Sources

Requirement: Secondary Sources ,Alternative: Primary or Tertiary Sources

Requirement: Independent Sources, Alternative: Promotional Sources

There is just no way that we can water down these basic requirements, because the alternatives are of just so low quality that they would make a mockery of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything can be skewed with a biased point-of-view when you pair things up. FE: Here's an alternate:

Requirement: Significant Coverage, Alternative: Non-trivial sources

Requirement: Independent Sources, Alternative: Non-promotional Commentary Sources

(The other 2 i agree with, though the definitions you use for questionable sources are so far removed they are fringe).陣内_Jinnai 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that notability is not a requirement (it is not policy), and as more inclusionists people have pointed out, notability harms the ability to cover most fiction to a reasonably comprehensive level without crossing the line to being fan guides. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

They have not 'pointed it out' they have asserted their opinion. In my opinion, the GNG gives us the ability to cover all fiction to a "reasonably comprehensive level", and nothing more is needed. I'm willing to work on a compromise, with e.g. lists of episodes, characters, ... for important series or works were each individual episode or character lacks the necessary notability, but there is sufficient material and sufficient notability for the parent subject, including out-of-universe one, to warrant such a list. But to debate such compromise, we should make the distinction between the opinions of both sides and actual facts, and your statement was opinion, not fact. Fram (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The GNG gives us the ability to cover it (provided we accept a broad definition of RS for electronic media), but we have been letting it dictate the manner of dealing with the material, which is not appropriate use of a notability guideline. And some have been using it to restrict the amount of content, which is totally inappropriate. But I at least am willing to accept that it would be better to settle the issue, and have adequate coverage, than have things covered in what I and MASEM and many of us consider a natural and proper manner--but only as long as the coverage in sufficiently complete. We should certainly be willing to accept that in general we do not make separate articles for characters and episodes and the like--and I think almost everyone is. We should even accept that as the general rule for most characters and most episodes, etc., even if the item does manage to technically meet the GNG--I'm not really happy with some of the contortions some people have been going to here. The question is then however handle them. We should accept combination articles. We should not accept bare lists. I think the extent of the material would naturally depend on a/ the importance of the work, b/ the importance of the episode or character , etc. in the work and c/ the complexity of what it is necessary to say to give adequate information.

As examples, we should accept that all but a few of the characters in War and Peace be in combination articles, but there are several dozen characters there that I would think merit several hundred words of description each, some of which will necessarily be a repeat of materials in other sections. And we should expect a list to include every single named character and key ones not specifically named, with at least a one sentence description of their role in the story. I would expect a good deal more than is given in List of characters in War and Peace--especially the ones who are real people also need more than a cross-reference to the real person, but a description of that person's role in the story and a comparison with the historical person. (Deliberately, a work of the greatest importance & greatest complexity--it would be less than that for more usual novels). This would apply to all' genres of fiction -- even films, where the workgroup is trying to enforce guideline that prevent character sections, instead describing even complicated characters in one or two sentences in the list of actors. We should accept for a complex setting, like even War of the Rings, that every location have only a section or a place on a list--but we should expect literally every location named in the fiction or the maps, and something said about all of them. (again, a deliberately complex and important example--this would not apply in full to most fiction) An example of what I mean by sufficient coverage in a combination article is List of Middle-earth wars and battles. In short, I don't care where it is, as long as we have enough. I would word the Guideline, Notability and coverage guideline for fiction, to make it clear that in this case we are dealing with both. And I would expect the subsequent cleanup to expand inadequate coverage, as well as combine needly separate articles. Masem? Fram? Gavin? DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with this idea - that we should first be asking how we cover articles under specific topics, with the minds eye of indiscriminate, unverifiable, information, and make sure we cover topics as comprehensively as these tasks allow. Where notability as in the GNG comes in is to deal with topics that fall outside these areas where we have defined what comprehensive coverage should be. For fiction, once a work is shown notable, it is perfectly reasonable that the coverage of that work will include the characters (if it is necessary - sometimes this isn't with a well-written summary) and episode lists, with the understanding that we only break out individual elements when they approach or surpass the GNG requirements. But this means that part of coverage that may be split off due to size may not be explicitly under the GNG but appropriate for comprehensive coverage. In how this applies here: I would generally agree we should be describing the holistic approach to what content for a work a fiction should be include, combining elements of WAF and GNG appropriately. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I also generally agree with this idea, but the actual implementation is where often the problems arise. People sometimes split of articles because the main article becomes too long, instead of considering the possibility that they have just gone into too much detail and should be removing (in-universe, plot, excessive detail) parts of the article. I don't know if it is possible to create a guideline that indicates what a good balance would be, which would make excessive detail articles unacceptable without providing a basis for the removal of more high-level articles. We don't need a day-by-day description of Neighbours, even though it is watched by million of people. But we do need one or more articles describing the main events and plotlines, with possible subarticles for very notable episodes (if any). I have no idea how to put this into a guideline, but the nutshell we had earlier this week was too loose, not restrictive enough, and could be easily misused by those people wanting to keep nearly everything (and this is not aimed at Hiding, Masem or DGG at all, for all clarity: you have a sometimes different opinion, but not an extreme one). Fram (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm attempting to write just such a draft at User:Nifboy/Organizing articles on fiction. Is that a decent starting point for a new proposed WP:FICT? Nifboy (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem lies with particularly complex works or long-running non-simplistic works (usually these become more complex as well). Even if you don't put massive detail into it, the complexity of the story may be too much for a reasonably sized section or set of sub-sections.
However, I don't think that should be a license to spinout, but some way needs to be done to satisfy that there is a reasonable presumption of notability while at the same time not forcing the concepts of WP:GNG without regard to the implication of harm that it could have on Wikipedia's goal: to be an exhaustive excyclopedia that isn't a collection of trivial info. As it stands now, the GNG harms that intent because of way scholars review historical fictional works and the way most reviewers (let alone scholars) do not make more than passing comments on characters, even lead characters of influential media like Monkey D. Luffy.
Perhaps what we need to do is better define what consitutes non-trivial/significant converge and how much removed (and in what context) must be done to meet "independent" because their are conflicting ideas for both.陣内_Jinnai 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Jinnai's approach might be putting the cart before the horse: we need to establish the notability of the topic before we split it from the main article, not legislate what article content is allowable/not allowable after the split is made. The reason I say this is that Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content; once notability has been established, editors are more or less free to choose on the amount of in universe coverage within the bounds of Wikipedia style guidelines, such as WP:WAF.
I can see why DGG and Jinnai are suggesting that complexity of a story may be too much for a reasonably sized section or set of sub-sections, but then we get to the point where WP:UNDUE becomes applicable: at what point does a lot of detail become too much detail? On this question I am with Fram: "People sometimes split of articles because the main article becomes too long, instead of considering the possibility that they have just gone into too much detail and should be removing (in-universe, plot, excessive detail) parts of the article." --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The measurement of UNDUE is going to change based on the type of work and length of work, as Jinnai has pointed out. A single movie with no sequels or tie in media should not have a separate list of characters or an in-depth analysis of its plot - unless it is very clear that there is significant number of sources to support these articles. On the other hand, a TV show with 20 years behind it, in order to provide complete but indiscriminate coverage while meeting SIZE and style guidelines, is likely going to need separate episode lists and possible a list of characters; but, in the same manner, separate episode or individual character articles need sourcing to support. Understanding when and where both list and individual article breakouts need to be done is something that probably needs to be defined better, with the approach that these should not be needed until necessary (as opposed to how many newer editors tend to work, that "oh, any new show immediately needs a list of characters and list of episodes). That is, encourage the outside-in approach to determining when more detailed articles as opposed to inside-out. That said, there's still also guidelines for how not only individual element articles need to be written (and when they should be, by notability), but for the list items to avoid fancruft, plot-heavy information. That's why there is a balance here of content and article divisions.

But that still points out that UNDUE is not something that can be measured easily. Again, the example of a tv show with 20 seasons where no individual character or episode is notable alone but has a list of characters and 20 season (list of episodes) articles means that there's 22 articles on that show, only one that is the one that approaches it from the secondary viewpoint, yet the other 21 articles are not UNDUE - they are necessary for proper coverage of a TV show. Of course, that probably applies to your standard 26-shows-a-season series; when you start taking soaps, then a list of episodes is likely UNDUE. Any guideline that is going to talk about writing fiction is going to have to acknowledge that each form of media has a different approach, and even within the same media there are different approaches, all to balance issues of comprehensive coverage vs notability, UNDUE, and other content policies and guidelines. And that, to me, would be a much better exercise at the present, after which we can say, "ok, now what possible cases not covered by the GNG can we presume notability of fictional elements for FICT", considering that we have outlined how to do potential coverage of each individual fiction element in the main or supporting list articles. It may be that there is no need for further criteria - if, say, taking the award criteria suggested, instead of splitting off a separate character article which only has one award listed beyond plot-reiteration, that award can be mentioned alongside the character in the list of characters section of the main article or supporting list. Only when the GNG is then clearly passed should the split be made. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)\

before I start my main answer, you've added something new and unprecedented to notability determinations: a "significant number of sources"--there is no such requirement anywhere is Wikipedia. The number of sources to make something notable under the GNG is simply "multiple", we we ordinarily interpret as two good independent substantial RSs, not some vague and higher number--in fact we often accept just one if it is particularly trustworthy for reliability, as a NYT Obituary. Where "significant'" comes in, is that the coverage by the source must be significant, not just incidental. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MASEM, if you want that as a guideline, don;t call it UNDUE,which has a specific and well established meaning relating to NPOV problems. What you are thinking of is a new content guideline, applicable to all articles, about what I will call for the moment APPROPRIATE EXTENT or perhaps APPROPRIATE DETAIL. I agree we should have such a guideline, and I agree somewhat about the general direction it should take but I probably disagree about many of the specifics, The consideration you ignore, and that I think most important, is the intrinsic importance of the work being discussed, Tolstoy, for example,wrote many novels. Some of them are considered historically or critically or artistically the most important, and they should be discussed in the most detail. (this can be determined by various ways, such as the amount of criticism or the judgment of authorities.) All works of reference normally do this--because an encyclopedia is intended to be useful to the reader, and the important things are what the reader will normally want the most detail about. A single movie or book or whatever with no sequels should have a separate character section if it is important, because that's information the reader wants to know,presented in a way that makes it understandable (In many cases, more so than a sequential description of the plot) the plot). The length of the section depends on the number of characters, the number of significant characters, the importance of characterization to the work, the availability of specific sources, and the importance of the work itself. You add , and I agree that we need add, an additional dimension--the number of films, books in series, episodes or whatever,. This is relevant also. It is particularly relevant when discussing characters or settings--for in serial works, many of the characters or setting repeat and can best be discussed separately from the individual shows. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by Complex was simply how much space it would take to handle, due to the complexity of the action or the number of characters or whatever. Some famous shows or fictions have basically very simple plots and only a few characters. But in more generality, the amount of detail in some parts of the article would also depend on the amount of sourcing: there are probably several hundred full length books on the academic analysis of various aspects of Jane Austen;s novels. When we do a section on critical reception, we would probably want to include mention of a great many of them. There is nothing at all in UNDUE that limits the amount of detail--in fact, it says all significant viewpoints must be covered. UNDUE is about the proportion. The other rule of course is NOT PAPER. I see no more reason to limit the amount of detail in the covering of the most important fiction any more than the amount of detail in our articles on other similarly important subjects. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be several hundred books or papers on Jane Austen, in which case there would be evidence to allow the the article to be split into spinoff articles that demontrate notability in accordance with WP:GNG. However, I would not support the apporach whereby we ignore WP:AVOIDSPLIT and alow articles to be split without significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. I could not support such an approach, not only because that would be basically to provide an exemption from WP:GNG, but also because it would give licence to plot only articles.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I am willing to accept combination articles, covering multiple episodes or characters , etc. instead of individual ones in almsot all cases, if the material is sufficient. I've said above what I consider sufficient material--as much as it takes for a full description appropriate to importance of work, importance of item, and complexity--which for a major character in an ordinarily important novel would normally be multiple paragraphs, and in a major novel would be the same length as a current character articles; and that plot in all fiction articles be treated with similar detail, as appropriate by the same factors. Can you accept this approach? If so, we can discuss details. If not, then you are opposed to the covering of fiction in what I think most people here consider adequate detail & I will continue to advocate for separate articles as the only hope for it. Personally, I don't consider the GNG relevant to fictional elements one way or another, and I see no consensus that it should be , but I am willing to accept even that as the criterion for individual articles if you will accept my concept of full content appropriate to NOT PAPER. I've tried to say this many times: any arrangement will do if the content is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Sufficient" coverage is just another for type of subjective importance; its not supported by Wikipedia's content polices, whereas significant coverage from reliable secondary source is. What is "adequate" in terms of quantity or quality is a matter of personal judgement - how long is a piece of string? Unless you have some sort of common starting point (like verifiable evidence), then you will never be able to agree on what is "sufficient" content. You may not recognise WP:GNG as being relevant to fictional topics, but that begs the question, do you think subjective importance is better? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a common starting point for what "sufficient" content is: it is called "consensus". --MASEM (t) 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just as consensus says what the actual level is for "significant" , it can do that for "sufficient". We cannot avoid having consensus as our basic criterion for doing anything, because that's the basis by which we make the rules and the exceptions. If there's consensus, we can do anything. Without it, we can do nothing. Let me ask you again, Gavin, will you accept the basic idea of my accepting fewer articles than I would like if you will accept more extensive content than you would? ("me" and "you" are of course shorthand for those who think as we do, assuming that each of us represent the opposite positions) If so,we can probably work out some compromise. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to DGG, you already know that it is generally accpeted that articles about ficitional topics should not consist of plot only, so I can say for sure it is the consensus that, no matter how much "significant" or "sufficient" plot summary there is, plot summary on its own it is not allowable as a standalone article topic. We are both in agreement that there should be more coverage of fictional topics, but I don't want to see plot only articles since a reguritation of the primary source does not confer notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. The wording remains debated, whether it applies to each article, or only to the sum of the Wikipedia articles covering the work. What's more plot ≠ characters and ≠ setting, though they are related. I agree even a combination article on characters should discuss outside references and so on as available. We do of course agree that primary sources do not confer notability according to the GNG; where we differ is whether notability is a requirement for such combination articles. I am saying not, for the notability refers only to stand alone articles on a character or the like. It is intrinsically impossible for combination articles to be notable , for if they were, they would make separate articles individually. There is no policy in Wikipedia that articles must be notable for all types of articles; the only actual policy is WP:V, & primary sources can do that. We are not going to convince each other--are you interested in compromise? DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there's consensus that WP:WAF is a good guideline, and therefore a plot-only article, failing WP:WAF, is a bad article. The discussion here is where the point is that an article (either alone or in combination) becomes so unacceptably bad that it would be best to not have it. I agree with DGG that consensus is emphatically not "if it's plot only kill it with fire", which is how Gavin's position sounds, but I do agree with Gavin that we should be heading in the direction of providing real-world information where we can and not providing a permanent safe haven where we cannot. Nifboy (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The non-plot information can come from non-trivial production, development and creation information though.陣内_Jinnai 04:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is intrinsically impossible for combination articles to be notable, then it is clear that we should not have articles on those topics. The is a guideline that says articles must be notable for all types of articles, and that is WP:N. Special pleading for an exemption for fictional topics won't fly. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Coming back here, just to note that I and I think everyone involved in this completely agree that RW information is important and should be added when possible. There is also no question that it needs to be included in the coverage of a work of fiction. the question is whether it needs to be included in a spinofff article or article section. When it comes to that, I think it is Gavin vs everybody else. similarly the wide acceptance of combination articles makes it clear that there is no guideline against them, even when the individual things they talk about are less notable than would justify an individual article. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find it is not just Gavin vs everyone else. Consider the huge discussions on this talk page, the fact that spinoff articles do get deleted at AfD quite regularly, and the existence of the section of WP:FICT that states quite clearly that the subject needs to be notable in its own right. There is much, much more opposition to your viewpoint than you're claiming. Reyk _YO! 23:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)