Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 27

We need to PAUSE AND STOP for a moment

We've got too many subthreads going here, and too many changes happening to the guideline right now.

Gavin and Percy, I know I agree with the ultimate goals you present; our fiction coverage on WP is too large and vague against most policies. I completely appreciate the concern, and agree it should be a long-term goal. However, to the best I can recall, you are relatively new to this discussion; we have gone through several iterations and more heated arguments before (probably driving away a few good editors) since last May (since TTN started to purge stuff, and thus this guideline became disputed), and those concerns, that "fancruft" and the like are determental and against policy are understood. However, while this is a true long term goal, the short term goal is to get this guideline stable and accepted. To get that, we need to match the current consensus with respect to fictional elements, and that is basically what this guideline probably contained before Percy brought up a suggestion (sorry, Percy, not trying to call you out, but I know that's when all these new issues started). Yes, that version allows for spinouts, and it allowed for certain other aspects, some that don't meet exactly with policy and guideline. But remember, policy and guidelines are not rules, they are principles; these can only be as strong as consensus allows.

In the future, we may be able to have stronger consensus that proliforation of fiction topics are inappropriate, moving that all off to wikis and the like, which, sure, makes WP in the long run from my point of view, and likely for others as well. But clearly, based on the recent ArbCom cases, numerous AFDs for fictional elements, the fact that editors are questioning WP:PLOT, and the like, means that today we are not going to achieve that.

Thus, I am asking everyone to simply pause and hold off on changes to this guideline. Let us get it back to the state where it was nearly acceptable to all (this being prior to Percy's comments here), which did allow for spinouts. That version is not perfectly in line with policy, but is in line with consensus. With the understanding this is to create a stable base from which to build on that reflects the updated WP:N and the results of the recent ArbCom cases, and that it is not trying to create consensus, we need to let it sit and fine tune it for any issues with consensus as it is today. This at least gives a base FICT that strongly discourages the formation of individual character and episode articles; eg we get log(x) as opposed to x articles. Only once that it has been established should we then move from that base into reducing acceptable fiction articles more (should that still seem acceptable at the time); we may need to make sure other policies and guidelines move along with that for that to occur. (this is another reason why getting an consensus-acceptable base FICT in line is important, as it presently does not require any other policy/guideline changes).

So, all I'm asking is that we revert the guideline back to about a month ago, and consider that as the working FICT under the present WP-Wide consensus. Radical changes from that at this time should not be added unless we talk about it here first, and only should be added if it matches consensus; I would still argue for a MOS-type guideline for fictional element spinouts only to expand what's good or bad about those. We just need to make sure that aspects of that FICT that are not aligned well with existing policy and guideline are noted so that editors are cautioned that reliance on these aspects may not always be accepted, and avoiding such situations is better. This gets us that step change to get the short-term goal, of finding the intermediate path between inclusion and deletion that allows us to eventually reach the longer-term goal. --MASEM 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• What annoys me most is we could solve all of this with the maxim that less is more. To whit: "the project is about covering such topics with an encyclopedic tone, analysing in as much depth as secondary sources allow for all our subjects." Hiding T 14:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Masem. I know you don't want to see your spinout-related work go to waste, but we're actually approaching a consensus here. It's unproductive to throw that away. A blanket exemption for spinouts doesn't have consensus support, so if you're dead set on reverting, it will have to be to 27 January which requires real-world information for notability, or probably even further - before the "judged as part of the parent" debacle began. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be consensus here, but it's not WP-wide consensus. And yes, while blanket exemptions for non-notable spinouts may not have WP-wide consensus, neither does completely banning them either. Trying to set that as a guideline is going to cause a shitstorm from the inclusionists that at best will make this guideline disputed, at worst send WP over the tipping edge that it's been balancing on for a loooong time. The general aspect that merging several non-notable elements to a list is currently accepted practice; exactly how that fits with guidelines and policy is very unclear but given that this is a common result at AFD, we should be codifying that, not creating something new, regardless of which way it goes. --MASEM 14:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I've tried to put forward guidelines that allow the good spinouts - without mentioning the bad ones. The groups of topics section describes the list merge, and the necessary topics section takes care of the rest. So, the three sections we have codify the exact consensus position that you describe, without creating something new. The spinouts section makes a blanket exemption for all possible fictional articles, which is something new, but we can safely remove it. When the inclusionists see that these guidelines actually mean they can keep more articles than before, the "shitstorm" will abate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked through the edit history, and see the great sea-change in this guideline occurs after 27 January with Masem's indtroduction of the section on Summary style approach for sub-articles. I propose that we revert back to the prior version of this guideline. I do not agree with the changes that have been made since then, as they conflict with what had been agreed before that date. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that the Jan 27 change was moving what was being worked in my sandbox for two months prior (User:Masem/wp-fict-proposed) and only moved it to place when those here in WT:FICT thought it was appropriate to make it "live". I will also point out that since the first version of FICT (resulting from the Minor Characters deletion discussion), spinouts of non-notable characters have always been part of this, maybe not exactly in that language, but it was an consensus (I was not there for, I think Hiding was, however) that resulted from a large number of AFD cases. --MASEM 15:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It may have been consensus here, but it's not WP-wide consensus. We can go forwards from where we are, or from the Jan 27 version, but a blanket exemption from spinouts isn't consensual and can't appear in whatever we end up with. I think we're better off going forwards from here, by removing the spinout exemption section; Gavin thinks we're better off going forwards from the Jan 27 version. Which would you prefer? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I will again point out (and this is not a personal attack, it's just stating the case) that until you or Gavin started commenting, the spinout idea was based on a WP unstated standard that we had codified that had consensus from editors of this page, both inclusions, deletionists, and those in between. Now you're asking us to codify something that hasn't been tested in the WP waters and represents a very subtle but significant change to how fiction is approached. Again, I can't stress enough that I completely agree with getting rid of spinouts, I just cannot agree that adding that in right now is the best course of action for WP. If we stick with the version prior to Percy's changes, the worst that could happen is that WP maintains status quo, and the guideline is marked disputed or rejected and we start again, the best is that it is accepted and .. WP pretty much maintains the status quo. I've outlined what could happen if we leap ahead with the more restrictive version and that's a much worse situation. --MASEM 15:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't an "unstated standard" - it's an all-out exemption for absolutely all fictional articles of any topic or quality. To say that it "had consensus from editors of this page, both inclusions, deletionists, and those in between" is to say there were no deletionists or in-betweeners here. If you want to reflect consensus and/or reach a compromise, then do one of those things. Giving a blanket exemption from notability does neither. If we keep the exemption for spinouts, the best that could happen is that WP maintains status quo, and the guideline is marked disputed or rejected and we start again, and the worst is that the fannish inclusionists realise what's happened and spam WP with articles on every facial tic of every pet of every character in every fanfic in every fictional setting - because under the spinout excemption, they're permitted to do so. They're cautioned that that may be contested, but they're not told it's not permitted. I know you've put a lot of work into this - and if we imagine that every editor behaves reasonably, then the guidelines might look like they do reflect the consensus. But not all editors do behave reasonabley, and if we say that all spinouts are potentially acceptable, then we will get all those spinouts. The exemption is not consensual and it's not a compromise and it cannot stay. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the comment storms make it quite hard to take a weekend off from this dicussion. I can understand the desire to revert back to a point before the introduction of Masem's sandbox content. The problem i see with this is, once it is reverted, discussion and attempt to reach concensus stops. New opinions by contributors like Gavin collins don't occur, because new editors don't see the offending content. [break]

That's an excellent point. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I confess, I haven't read all the comments of this weekend, but in scanning the new content, I haven't seen any signifigant new arguments against the proposal, though I and others have made numerous arguments for it. (I aknowledge Percy Snoodle has made fine arguments against the wording in the past, specifically in response to my questions, and I believe those arguments continue to hold up) Perhaps at this time it would be a good idea to summarize the back and forth discussion and create a list of arguments for and against this change. I mean a live list of points that is updated as the discussion continues. Otherwise, as new people enter into this discussion, it is getting waaay too hard to read this backlog. WP Guidelines on upkeep of discussion pages state that creating Summaries is a good and helpful action for long discussions. A lot of this content is redundant restating of justifications or votes (that are perfectly reasonable) ammounting to "I also do/don't like it". Perhaps it would even be a good idea to put such a list in a FAQ type subpage. Does anyone wish to take a stab at such a NPOV overview? Else I think I'll try to do so in a day or so (...Oh, and if this has already happened, and I've just forgotten about it, I'll just get to feel stupid for a bit.) -Verdatum (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. I probably shouldn't be the person to try it, though :-) Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So I've started to draft such a summary at User:Verdatum/FICT_FAQ. If it is met with approval, or I improve it to a point that I am satisfied, then I'm considering moving it to Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/FAQ and adding a banner on this page linking to it. As it stands, it is lacking some arguments and is unintentionally suffering from the Straw man fallacy, as it's hard to do NPOV on my own when I'm admittedly biased. Comments, edits, whatever would be appreciated. -Verdatum (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks very good for a first draft. It lacks the "The topic of a spinout articles is the subtopic, not the parent topic" rebuttal to "Articles and topics are not the same", other than that it looks fair to me. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I second Masem's proposal to go make the last "nearly acceptable" guideline version the new WP:FICT and let discussion and other finetuning take place like we're currently doing. After the first arbcom case in November, then the second case in Jan/Feb, and the many months of the disputed/proposed state of WP:FICT, it has been getting really tiresome to see that the moment it seems we have something steady, new strong opinions (both from inclusionists and deletionists) make agreement nearly impossible. There is no consensus at the moment to make either strong opinion the "winner", so the best we can do now is live with the middle ground and work from there. I am sure we will have a better idea after a few months of editing with this WP:FICT, and we can still make the guideline slightly more inclusionist or deletionist as need be, slowly making adjustments as wikiwide consensus adjusts. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The disagreement between Masem and me isn't based on particularly different interpretations of consensus; it's based on different interpretations of the guidelines used to express those. We've been working incrementally towards a set of guidelines which reflect that consensus, but without a loophole that includes each and every possible fictional article. I think Masem may have reacted a little too strongly when it became apparent that we might do that without his spinouts section, which is understandable given how much effort he's put in, but I still think our best possible approach is to work from what we have. How far back do you propose to go? The January 27 guidelines contained the loophole, so reverting to them won't make the dispute go away. Percy Snoodle (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • As I've stated before, spinouts in nature have been part of FICT since its creation; it is not my idea to have them in there (I agree that ultimately they are probably not a good thing to include) but as Sgeureka has pointed out, this is a necessary allowance that reflects current operating procedure [break]
      • I disagree - current procedure includes some spinouts, not all spinouts. It's not current procedure to say "spinouts are part of the parent, keep them all" - it's to say "some spinouts are good, keep those". Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • (even if it goes against policy, but at times remember to ignore all rules if it makes WP better) and is a point of agreement between inclusionists and deletionists; [break]
      • Again, no, it isn't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • remove it (again, remember that the preceding accepted version of FICT, roughly about here included spinouts) and you'll never get this accepted, so spinouts will still happen.
      • Some spinouts will still happen. Why not work out which ones and why, and say that? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Force it, and you'll have a massive departure of people from the project, which ultimately may get us to a better quality encyclopedia, but it is a very bad route to get there. Again, I emphasis that guidelines should be the last place that dictate common practices, and should only be written to reflect them, transforming them when consensus is there for that aspect. [break]
      • Yes, let's do that. Let's not add a blanket exemption for all spinouts; that's not common practise, it's not consensus, it's not a compromise, it's not beneficial at all. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The reason I'm pushing the version that was around say around March 1st is that it accounted for more recent changes (major characters are no long considered "notable" off the bat, so separate articles are discouraged, though lists are fine), the outcome of both ArbCom cases, and the change in wording that the notability guidelines (the addition of secondary sources that was added mid-last year); it better measured current practices without trying to introduce new guidelines, even if current practices are bad. --MASEM 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Current practises are not what you're saying they are. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • We have the reduced pokemon lists, we have articles like List of characters in the StarFox series and List of Mario series characters. Now, I'm not saying those are in the greatest shape in terms of prose, but I know those lists are in the present form because TTN and others worked with other editors to merge individual articles into the single lists. Are these lists notable? Certainly not, yet these lists are accepted as spinouts from the main work. [break]
          • They're accepted, yes - but I don't see evidence that they're "judged as part of the parent". They're within a hair's breadth of notability, and they're beneficial. That's why they stay - because they are acceptable for what they are, not for what some other article is. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The spinout wording is not a blanket exception for any non-notable fictional article as you claim. [break]
          • As long as it only balances "may be acceptable" with "may be contested", yes it is. That is a blanket exemption. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • It strongly urged them to be restricted to "lists" and that singular items are typically not spun out (unless they have notability) though as Nydas has pointed out, we cannot restrict singular element spinouts entirely.
          • I don't propose to "restrict singular element spinouts entirely". I propose to explain which singular elements are acceptable, and why. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • If we agree that a secondary guideline on exactly what non-notable spinouts are appropriate and what certainly aren't, then we can change the language to state that "Spinout articles of non-notable aspects of a work of fiction may be appropriate if the main articles grows too larger as per WP:SS, however, such spinouts are only considered appropriate under certain limited situations as described in WP:FICTSPIN. If the non-notable content does not meet these situations, it is likely better to transwiki the content and trim what remains to avoid creating an inappropriate spinout." Then FICTSPIN can go into the limited cases we know are acceptable, what cases clearly aren't acceptable, and describe other aspects of spinout writing. --MASEM 13:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
          • That's better, because it says "only" - but it undermines that by saying "considered" and "likely". There has to be a firm line below which articles are unacceptable; that line can be a long way down if that's where consensus lies, but the more ambiguity we leave the more AFDs will turn into an admin lottery. I don't think this article should have its own spinout, though. Notability guidelines for fictional spinouts belong here; notability guidelines for spinouts in general belong elsewhere. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
            • ...to put that another way: If you can come up with a list of cases in WP:FICTSPIN as you describe; then those should be our guidelines. There's no need to invent some general rule about spinouts that doesn't have consensus support, then restrict it by explaining when it does and doesn't apply. However, this is probably a good way forward. Let's start a discussion about what those cases are. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done to Ursasapien, for finding a version of the page without the spinouts loophole. That must have taken quite some digging. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If we carry on

I'd appreciate it if people could have a look at this revision and see whether they think it will exclude any important articles or article types. I'm keen to reach a point where we've matched the consensus for what to include, without making a big mistake in how to include it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please go back to Masem's version if you havent already. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, I immediately reverted - I just want to know what articles that would exclude, that Masem's include, and which we want to include. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I propose that we go back to the last version of this guideline when it was not disputed. I feel this would be an appropriate baseline to start from, and would also have the benefit of providing a version of the guideline that was agreed upon, at least at one point in time. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Whoah, way to resuscitate a thread... going back to a version that demonstrably lacks consensus now is no improvement over what we have. The current situation is a trainwreck, and we need to get out of it, but that's not how to do it. The way to do it is for people with extreme views to abandon their entrenchment and seek compromise, and as far as I can see everyone in the discussion is now prepared to do that except you, Gavin. You seem to be adamant that the way to help wikipedia is to near-as-dammit eliminate all articles on fictional elements, and seem to have developed a habit of what I can only describe (while staying within AGF) is misunderstanding a number of policies as combining to support your view, when no-one else can see that interpretation. Is it not clear that such elimination doesn't enjoy consensus? SamBC(talk) 10:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I attempted to do this on April 1st. Believe me, you have to go way back to find an undisputed version of WP:FICT! Ursasapien (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• To use SamBC analogy of a train wreck, I think this is a good idea since removing the wreck from the tracks would be a good idea for starters. I am happy to go back a long way, if that what it takes, because if no consensus has been reached in all this time, then going back to brass tacks makes more sense than using the current version which is disuputed (and in my view, contraversial). I propose that we have an RFC to see if there is general agreement to revert this guideline to the version which last had general acceptance.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, why don't you simply put a straw poll at the bottom of this talk page? Do you think an RFC would have wider participation? I think it would be a great idea to ask the question, "Is there general agreement to revert this guideline to the version which last had general acceptance?" However, you need to define "the last version which had general acceptance." I think this version was not changed for 16 days. That may be the most stable version we have had. Nevertheless, do not be suprised if the answer to the question is a resounding "No!" Ursasapien (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, that version is an excellent description of the common practice found among ground-level editors writing articles. It's not a description of current best or AfD practice, but it's worth bearing that version in mind when considering where the opinions of the established but non-meta fiction editors lie, or what the reality in most fictional topic sets is. --erachima talk 08:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Some specific suggestions to straw poll

Please indicate, with reasoning, your approval, disapproval, or other view on the below points. Feel free to add more, of course, but the idea is that each point is fairly independent, or where one depends entirely on another it's formatted as a subsection of it, as you will see below. SamBC(talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT should be silent on the question of basic, single-topic spinouts

• Agree As I've stated before, I think these should be handled separately, as currently by WP:SPINOUT, and possibly by some new, separate guideline. SamBC(talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. Is an issue not at all restricted to fiction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree as I think this is a style issue which is already covered by WP:WAF. This guideline should stick to its purpose: Defining notability for fiction.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - per the above, basically. It's too risky to promote the style guidelines into notability guidelines; and if we do, it shouldn't be restricted to fiction. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree More or less, WP:FICTION has always been about sub/spinout articles. It's where WP:PLOT and WP:FICT get tangled, and why WP:FICT should not be seen as just a notability guideline. This is a guideline for dealing with sub-topics in a fictional work. I don't care if you call it a style guideline, notability guideline, or whatever. Most of you here are getting way too hung up on the petty differences between "guidelines". -- Ned Scott 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's not supposed to be a notability guideline, then that changes the terms of discussion that seem to have been understood while I've been involved in this discussion. Stuff other than notability surely belong in WP:WAF, right? Why include style issues specific to fiction in two separate places? SamBC(talk) 09:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• There's always going to be some overlap, but I wouldn't be opposed to looking at reorganizing such things. What's being asked here, that WP:FICT not say anything about sub-articles, isn't a reorganization, it's an assassination attempt on the guideline by a recent group that disagrees with it. -- Ned Scott 02:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Also, consensus in the discussion here, which is all we can use for now, has been swinging recently in the direction of not talking about spinouts per se, instead some of us consider that some of what have so far been called spinouts should be thought of as notable in themselves, and others reason, reasonably, that having a notability guideline saying that some non-notable things are okay is a bit, well, cognitive dissonance inducing. SamBC(talk) 09:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• We don't throw out old consensus because it's not happening right now. The logic and reasoning behind the past consensus hasn't changed, either. -- Ned Scott 01:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree This is the best place for it. It's a good place for the guideline and discussion of it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - Most spinouts are going to be governed by the notability guideline for fiction. I don't see many cases where we have so much real world content (provided by non-independent sources) for a particular section that we have to spin that out on its own; though there will be some cases and I think that would be an exception to this guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree per Ned Scott. For a long time, WP:FICT said that all fictional elements, even notable ones, should be covered in the main article until encyclopedic treatment calls for a spinout. WP:N already deals with the main article (TV show, movie, video game), and this automatically makes WP:FICT about spinouts (basic lists, aggregate lists and single elements). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see where you're coming from in an everything-but-the-work-is-a-spinout sense. I understand spinout to mean "a section promoted into an article for reasons of size"; do you think WP:FICT should be silent about those? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In practice, SIZE is often used as an excuse to create even more room for plot retelling than actually adding real-world info. And as long as this continues to be the case, FICT should not be silent on spinouts, but create an artificial limit by demanding sufficient real-world info (this is naturally limited in availability and effort) to justify plot depth (which is unlimited). If a fiction-related article does not or cannot comply to this inclusion criterion after some time has been given to rectify this, a (trim&)merge or deletion of the article is called for to recreate the balance (on the work's topic level) that is mentioned in WP:WAF. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, so we agree with each other; but I call it 'agree' and you call it 'disagree'.  :-) Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT should not make specific guidance about basic list articles

NB: this does not include fuller aggregates

• Agree for largely the same reasons as spinouts above. SamBC(talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree, again because I think this is a style issue, covered in WP:LISTS. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree in the short term. Lists and list-like articles give a definite benefit to WP, and this is especially the case for fictional topics. I am sympathetic to the view that we should deal with lists at a higher level, and in the long term I'd like to see it done that way, but in the short term I think we do need to show that there are notable list and list-like fictional articles which are not currently covered by WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note also that WP:PEOPLE has a section on lists, so it's not the case that specific notability guidelines shouldn't talk about lists. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree This is the best place for it. It's a good place for the guideline and discussion of it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Undecided, depends on what is meant with "specific". Common sense, case-by-case decisions and the occasional AfD may be more helpful in the short term than giving a fixed sample of what is encyclopedic and what is not. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT should be silent on the question of "aggregate" articles

• Undecided this concept is not well-developed more broadly, and perhaps it should be, rather than limited to fiction topics. SamBC(talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Sound dangerously like original research. Who says these two articles should be grouped together? Sometimes it is obvious. Are there examples of non-obvious cases? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree based on the view that an "aggregate" is actually an article with a list embedded in it, and therefore the content of aggregates is a style issue which is already covered by WP:LISTS and WP:WAF.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree in the short term and agree in the long term, as for basic lists. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree This is the best place for it. It's a good place for the guideline and discussion of it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Undecided in the short term, depends on the wording. We don't know ourselves where we're heading at the moment, even though I have my personal visions for how to deal with fiction articles in the future. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT should give general guidance on criteria other than those in WP:N that may determine notability of fictional elements and topics

NB: This assumes that consensus can be reached on some, and doesn't rely on or imply that the guideline should say nothing else.

• Agree This is what notability guidelines generally do.
• Agree to a certain extent; it depends what you understand 'coverage' to mean. The suggestions below make this clearer. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree in principle, so long as the criteria is based on a reasoned methodology, not just opinion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree WP:PLOT, while not exactly a notability issue, is tangled with WP:FICT. Other considerations also apply, which is the whole point of having a topic-specific guideline. -- Ned Scott 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree to an extent, but the guidelines should be focused on "No subject is exempt from sourcing requirements about the subject itself. If this cannot be met, there cannot be a full article on the subject, this guideline should not be used to argue to keep articles when it is not actually possible to provide significant secondary source material for them. However, here are some circumstances under which acceptable sourcing is more likely to be found..." That way, we don't get a cruftpile, and it's made clear this is not an exemption from notability for anything, but still provides useful guidance. Verifiability is already clear enough what we do when we don't have published secondary sources—we do not write the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Published secondary sources are not sufficient to pass WP:N, as certain types of sources are generally excluded even when they are secondary and reliable, for example directories (a business being in a directory does not contribute in any way to notablity, but can provide verifiable information). Further, WP:V does not require "published secondary sources", it requires "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The word "secondary" doesn't even appear in WP:V. Between WP:V and WP:NOR it is, in fact, possible to produce an article entirely from primary sources, it just wouldn't be a very interesting article and would only be acceptable as a stub, pretty much. I never understand why so many editors keep insisting that WP:V requires secondary sources... this is why it is possible to write articles that meet WP:V and WP:NOR and not WP:N – otherwise there'd be no need for them to exist separately. It's also why it makes sense for specific notability guidelines (like WP:BK and WP:PROF) to say that topics can be notable without requiring significant coverage. They also provide handy examples of case where we do accept what is, effectively, inherited notability. SamBC(talk) 17:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree just like any sub NOTE guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Masem's "1.5 sources" concept doesn't work for WP:N, and I have seen no-one reject a fiction spinout for lacking notability when the article demonstrates 1.5 sources in sufficient quantity (I am intentionally vague). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for criteria to discuss/straw-poll:

Topics that are a major element of several (at least 3?) notable subjects are notable

This has at least the practical benefit of preventing redundancy from details appearing in all of the original articles. This does tackle some of what we have been considering spinouts, but would now be considering notable in themselves.

This could also perhaps be made more general and/or tighter, I'm open to discussing it. SamBC(talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree, especially as I suggested it. SamBC(talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Good idea here. DGG (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Seems OK. But is it redundant in practice? If it is really the major element in in notable subjects, then surely the references for those subjects already cover the "topic"? Is there a case where this is not true? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the idea Sambc is trying to hit is that, for many contemporary fictional works, the work itself is notable, but even the major characters lack sources. For example, MST3K is notable, but a major character, Tom Servo really isn't, using the requirement of sourcing. However, since Tom is a major character of a ten-season show, and a movie, and has primary-sourced development information, it is quite possible that an encyclopedic approach can be written about the character (the current article is a bit lacking). --MASEM 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't redundant, because sources that state that an element is 'major' could be found in otherwise trivial mentions, in articles dedicated to the parent work, or in first-party sources. Those are currently excluded by the usual interpretations of WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree but only if such articles are required to assert that they are a 'major element' with citations to reliable sources; I'm against leaving this decision down to the opinion of individual editors. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think there should be some allowance for common sense; there are cases where saying that an element is a major element of something is effectively equivalent to saying the sky is blue. Otherwise, yes, I would agree. Just remember that some primary sources are reliable. SamBC(talk) 10:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That's true, but we'll get a lot of editors claiming that. Perhaps we should just say that the assertion of notability has to be verifiable; the advice at WP:V is that things that are "challenged or likely to be challenged" should be sourced, which seems in line with common sense. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • To avoid misunderstanding, it may be worth paraphrasing WP:V, like saying "the status of the element as a major component of a notable work, if challenged or likely to be challenged, should be confirmed by one or more reliable sources". If the author said in an interview that "this is a major element of the book", for example, that would be a primary source, but still patently reliable. SamBC(talk) 10:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Precisely. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree Strongly on the basis that notability of a fictional element is not inherited nor can it be inferered from overarching notable subjects, even if that element features in multiple subjects. Fictional characters who are the subject of notable books, films or games must be the subject of real-world coverage from reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability in their own right; any assertion otherwise is purely POV. For example, James Bond is a notable fictional character, but whether Quiller is notable is a matter of opinion. I think only evidence can seperate the wheat from the chaff, since notability has to be proven outside the canon of work in which the character features, and being an element in multiple notable subjects is not proof of real-world notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Gavin, remember that we're supposed to do whatever makes the encyclopaedia better. Take a hypothetical case where 3 separate notable things (say two distinct series of books and one separate TV series) have the same setting; whether there's sufficient real-world coverage to satisfy WP:N regarding that setting or not, it's reasonable to mention it in each of those 3 articles. However, that now means that we have redundant information and the information isn't organised as well as it could be. Put all of that material in one article, and there's no information that wouldn't have been in wikipedia otherwise, but it's organised more intuitively. SamBC(talk) 11:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, you assert things as if they are objective facts, when they are in fact your own opinion. SamBC(talk) 11:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note if we were to use this, I would also expect to include explanatory notes saying, for example, that the Lord of the Rings books, radio series, animated movie, and live-action movies count as one thing for the purposes of counting "several", as they are adaptations, and "The Hitch-hikers' Guide To The Galaxy", "The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe", etc etc, count as one thing, as they are a cohesive series. SamBC(talk) 11:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree Although I agree with the sentiment, if the topic lacks notability pr. WP:NOTE there is very little we can say about the topic. Basing articles purely on primary sources is never a good thing. That said, when a topic is part of several separate subjects then I feel that WP:PLOT might not apply. Taemyr (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • An article can fail WP:N and still have reliable source, otherwise we wouldn't have any use for WP:BIO, WP:BK, WP:PROF, etc etc. Sources that are appropriate per WP:N are far more restricted than source that are permitted for sourcing article information per WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. SamBC(talk) 19:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, lets look at that. WP:BIO advises that topics meeting the additional criteria but failing to meet the general criteria should be merged into a larger article. Ie. in general such articles can not stand on their own. WP:Prof includes the following disclaimer It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject.. So again the guideline states that such articles can not stand on their own. In the case of books there are cases where WP:BK implies that articles should be written, criteria 2, 3 and to a lesser degree criteria 5 does not necessarily imply criteria 1. In these cases I personally do not feel that such articles should be creates, preferring instead a rd to the object causing the criteria. Ie. I reliable independent sources does not exist then we should rd to the award when the book passes criteria 2, the film if it passes criteria 3 and the author if it passes 5. Taemyr (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, given the wording of WP:N, that makes the criteria in WP:BIO the most vague of guidance without actual effect on what is considered notable; the disclaimer if WP:PROF is essentially saying that WP:V still applies, given that sources sufficient to write a verifiable, OR-free article are not necessarily sufficient to satisfy WP:N. And are you suggesting that you disagree with WP:BK, and therefore it should be ignored (for the purposes of this discussion, at least)? SamBC(talk) 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe, since we might risk original research, unless I'm understanding this incorrectly. -- Ned Scott 00:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We'd require either common sense (which isn't the same as OR) or reliable sources that the element is a major component of something else, as indicated in the exchange between myself and Percy near the top of this point. SamBC(talk) 09:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree, real-world sourcing counts, repeated use in fictional works does not. We do this, we risk having the common old "cameo" used to justify keeping cruft. It's got significant real world sourcing or it does not, and really, that is the end of the story. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Why should that be the end of the story for fictional elements, but not for other topics? Of course WP:V and WP:NOR hold, but WP:N is not a corollary of either or both of these policies. If it were, the extra ways of demonstrating notability for specific kinds of topic would be meaningless. And we wouldn't have all of the olympic-medal-winner stubs. Probably not so many species stubs, either. SamBC(talk) 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree wording can rule out cameos. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree in the long term, mainly per Seraphimblade. The courthouse with its clock tower in Back To The Future makes significant appearances in all three movies but isn't even worth a redirect. The Triforce is very in-universe-important in almost each Zelda game, but there is simply no real-world information available, and it is currently proposed for a merge (probably to help with making Zelda a Featured Topic). Walter Harriman has appeared in over 100 episodes of Stargate SG-1, has appeared in several episodes of Stargate Atlantis and has appeared in the movie Stargate: The Ark of Truth and still isn't worth more than a section in an aggregate article. Demonstrating notability instead of blanket-inheriting it is the way for developing a proper encyclopedic article. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree strongly repeated use in fictional sources counts as does inherited notability. Basing articles on primary sources is consistent with encyclopedic tradition. And all of the above are indeed worthy of articles on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth exploring, broadly, possible non-coverage based criteria for notability of fictional elements

• Agree, it's worth exploring pretty much anything. SamBC(talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree, because I understand "coverage" to mean information found in sources which are dedicated to the element in question, so this includes things like award winners. If 'coverage' just means 'sourced information', then I disagree. Experience shows us that assertions of notability for fictional elements are likely to be challenged; per WP:V, we need sources to back them up. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I'm talking about things like a lot of the criteria in WP:BK and WP:PROF, for example (from WP:BK):
    • The book has won a major literary award.
    • The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
    • The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
    • The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.
  • And (from WP:PROF):
    • The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.
    • The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1].
    • The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.
  • These are, of course, examples; I don't think that any of them can or should necessarily be directly adapted for WP:FICT. SamBC(talk) 12:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Part of the point, of course, is that these things (in the examples) can often be sourced with fewer sources than WP:N might require, or sources that WP:N would reject (like directories and listings). SamBC(talk) 12:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Undecided as in principle it is a good idea, but in practise examples of non-coverage based criteria from WP:BK, WP:MOVIE or WP:BIO are related to real-world books, films or people, whereas fictional elements are not real-world, so I am not sure if there any real-world criteria that might apply. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's possible to have a real-world book with fictional subject matter. For example, a text analysing the use of some character in some Shakespeare play. Just as real-world awards or similar status can be given to fictional characters. SamBC(talk) 14:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That would be an example of real-world coverage from a reliable secondary source. What we are looking for is an non-coverage evidence of notability, such as an award for "Best Fictional Character 2008". However I don't think there is such an award, and I can't think of any non-coverage examples that actually apply to fictional elements. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, to prove by contradiction that they do exist, albeit not specifically an award, how about AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains, which came up in another discussion we're having, elsewhere. Then there's my actual specific suggestion as well, which is non-coverage based. To take another possibly-hypothetical, say an RPG supplement were entirely about a given location, although that location were covered and mentioned outside of that supplement, and the supplement were to win an Origins Award – I would consider that an indication of the notability of the location itself, as there's generally little than can be written about such a supplement that isn't really about the location. This is without actively looking, which I think we would have to do before concluding that things don't exist. Taking a bit more of a look around, actually, I found that GameSpy's 2004 PC awards included "level of the year" (for a game level, which strikes me as a fictional element) and a "best character" award [1]. How's that for enough to reason that it's worth allowing for them, or at least considering it? SamBC(talk) 15:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • My view is that awards on their own are not evidence of notability. The fact that the The Shark in Jaws is number 18 in the Villains list would tend to suggest that only as a last resort would I use this award as evidence of notability. As for the example from GameSpy's 2004 PC awards you gave, "The Best Use of Spandex" is an award that is too tongue in cheek to be taken seriously. It's hard to think of a non-coverage based criteria for notability that meets my exacting standards.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Common sense still applies; just because one award on the same page is silly, doesn't mean all the others are. Look through all the rest of the awards on that site, they're generally fine. "Best use of spandex" is a silly title, but the award is being given in seriousness to the character creation system in a game. Also, your exacting standards would also then remove a lot of criteria from WP:BK and WP:PROF, yes? Given that they have consensus, how about we agree to use them as a yardstick? SamBC(talk) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
            • As I stated, they relate to real-world subjects, and I don't think they can be applied to fictional topics, but if you can come up with a really good example in the course of this discussion, then I will change my mind. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
              • So can that be taken as "it might be worth exploring, so explore away, but we're not assuming we'll find anything"? SamBC(talk) 19:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree, elements of fictional topic should not be given any kind of blanket criteria to allow a bunch of plot filled articles. If there is no significant real-world coverage of the topic, it shouldn't have an article, period. Despite frequent claims that "OMG, think of the size" there are several character lists existing now that show very well that sub-articles are NOT necessary just because of size when there is no real world coverage, even for lengthier series.AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you believe this solely about fictional elements (and articles thereon), or do you object to the guidelines at WP:BK and WP:PROF? Nothing is being suggested here that doesn't follow the intent (or even actual structure) of existing guidelines. SamBC(talk) 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe it solely about fictional elements. Book and Prof are real world topics, and the criteria are not true exceptions but items that speak of notability that those unfamiliar with the topic may not be aware of. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It is clear from the text of WP:N that it does not seek to define notability, rather that notability is not easily definable, and that coverage in third-party reliable sources is a universal criterion that is sufficient but not necessary to demonstrate notability for the purposes of wikipedia; otherwise it wouldn't says to satisfy WP:N or a more specific guideline. As the guidelines are written, an academic who does not meet the catch-all of WP:N will still be deemed to be notable if they have "published a significant and well-known academic work"; this could even be seen as precedent for notability guidelines making exceptions to "notability it not inherited", as the academic is "inheriting" the notability of their work. Of course, that isn't really what's happening, but it is an example of a relationship with notable (or otherwise significant) topics endowing a topic with notability. SamBC(talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree, and yes, disagree as well with any criteria from WP:BK, WP:PROF, or anything else that encourages writing articles based on "inherited" notability. Notability is verifiable. Have independent reliable sources chosen to write a significant amount about the topic itself? (Not about a parent topic, I live in the universe, in the Milky Way, in the solar system, on the planet Earth, in the United States of America, in Denver, Colorado, and am a human, all of which are unquestionably notable topics, and none of which make me notable.) To be notable, significant source material would have to exist about me, not about things related to me (not even if they mentioned me in passing while covering those things.) They don't, so I'm not. If I become so at some point in the future, it would be verifiably true that I am, because someone can point to those sources. Same for fictional elements. Is a fictional character covered independently, or solely in the context of mentions when it is the work, not the character, being covered? If the former, and there is a significant quantity of independent reliable material which does so, we should have an article on the character. If not, we should follow our sources' example, and mention the character briefly in context of the entire work. In no case should we do differently than the sources do, and if what they do is not to write much, we should and must follow that lead. End of story. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Worth exploring.. though I find it odd we're having a straw poll on this. Consensus can't force anyone to not explore an idea. -- Ned Scott 00:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Undecided based on the wording. We have been exploring other ways for demonstrating notability here for ages, and although a lot of it was ultimately rejected, there were still a few jewels here and there. So, yes to exploring, but no to demanding that we absolutely need to work towards finding non-coverage based criteria for notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree per no compelling reason not to. Articles based on inherited notability are fine. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth exploring non-standard coverage-based criteria for notability of fictional elements

Such as a greater or lesser degree of coverage in non-standard literature. SamBC(talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree, it's worth exploring pretty much anything. SamBC(talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - this could also include 'necessary' or 'major elements'; describing an element as such could be a trivial mention, but it's worth including. It could also include secondary but first-party information, such as supporting magazines and director's commentaries Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree as the examples given by Percy are not independent of the subject matter, and fail WP:RS, and tend to provide coverage that has an in universe perspective.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you disagree with just my examples, or the idea in general? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There's precedent for other coverage-based things in other specialised notability guidelines, as well as non-coverage based ones. Look at WP:BK and WP:PROF. Do you have a problem with those guidelines as well, or do you just have an axe to grind about fiction? SamBC(talk) 11:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe the example given by Percy is not good, but although there is a precedent for other coverage based sources being used as evidence of notability, usually that coverage is related to real-world subjects (such as real books, films or a famous people). I can't think of real-world coverage for, say, a fictional character like James Bond, as he doesn't exist in the real-world. Coverage of fictional characters tends to be in universe, and is cannot be used as evidence of notability. For example, there may be losts of coverage about how Bond likes his martinis "shaken not stirred" in lots of magazines, but this type of coverage is a regurgitation of primary sources, and is not real-world.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • A magazine published by the makers of the Bond films might also contain behind-the-scenes coverage of the making of a film, or coverage of similar works of fiction that the Bond books have influenced, or coverage of the real-world people and places that inspired Fleming to write the Bond novels... all that is real-world, secondary coverage; but it's first-party. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • To add to the explanation in case anyone is confused by all this, or unclear on the difference between first/third party and primary/secondary in sourcing, here's a bit of a summary:
        • An actual film or book, used as a source about the film or book – primary, first-party
        • Raw documentary footage filmed by a documentary maker independent of what they are documenting – primary, third-party
        • A book on the meaning and/or production of a bond movie, published by the makers of the movie (written by people with nothing to do with the movie) – secondary, first-party
        • An essay/paper analysing the meaning of a bond movie, written (and preferably published) independently of the film makers and so on – secondary, third-party
      • If people disagree with those assessments, we've got bigger problems in this discussion... SamBC(talk) 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Not myself, but I will say that there will be people that challenge that the third case of a book describing the production and meaning of the movie by the people that made it is primary. (This falls into the 1.5 source case easily). Even if the producers are analyzing their work as per the job most secondary sources do, some feel that because there's no sort of wall between the work and its creators, any analysis is primary. In other words, commentary and interviews are, to some, not considered adequete real-world sources to solely establish a work's notability (arguably true, as this does lead down the path of SELF-PUB) --MASEM 14:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
          • That's why I said "published" by them; the assumption was meant to be that the authors are distinct from people who worked on the film. I'll clarify that. What's more important about what you just said is that it's the first-party status of it that makes it no good for WP:N, rather than there being any importance to the fact, in and of itself, that it's secondary. SamBC(talk) 14:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I know what you mean, however, some people will see that the type of information being published is primary, unless those writing it are adding their own assertions and analysis on top of it, at which point it does become secondary. Basically, my point is that "commentary and interviews" are not well established consensus-wise as a primary or secondary source, and any discussion from this point needs to take that into account, that the use of commentary and interviews, while sufficient for verification (in light of SELFPUB) is not sufficient for notability as a general rule of (lack of) consensus. --MASEM 15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Oh, I can agree with that, although consensus may be found for it in some limited, specialised case, such as the statements made in this source being used to verify that something meets some non-coverage based criteria, but that then is more about the previous section than this one. SamBC(talk) 15:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
              • As long as we're writing articles about works of fiction, not releases of works of fiction, the commentaries will we secondary to the work. The SELFPUB concern is an important one, which is why first-party, secondary sources should never be used to establish notability for a work; but they can be used to show that an element is a 'major' one within an existing notable work. A self-publicist couldn't exploit that on their own, because independent secondary sources would be required to show that the parent works are notable. However, a tighter constraint may be desirable; perhaps an independent source should be reqired too, so we end up with a situation where one independent source and one dependent source count as multiple sources, and thereby establish notability, whereas two dependent sources don't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Once it's been regurgitated it's a secondary source (by definition), and is real world if the context of the work is real world. An example might be an academic work analysing the significance to the character of that drink choice, or the change between books and film (I've heard tell, not checked) of "stirred, not shaken" to "shaken, not stirred", and why that change was made. Of course, the latter example wouldn't speak to notability of the character, but the first would. Conversely, the Star Trek "technical manuals", at least when I looked at them, would not constitute a real-world source (except for the occasional explanatory footnote and the foreword/afterword) because they themselves are written in an "in-universe" context. I think perhaps your definition of "real-world" might be considerably narrower than most people's, Gavin. Perhaps that's something worth pursuing in this guideline as well. I trust that, if the general view is for a wider interpretation than yours, you will bow to the popular view for wikipedia purposes, just as I would if the general view is for a very narrow interpretation? SamBC(talk) 13:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I might do if you can prove that non-standard coverage is about the fictional element, and not the overarching subject, but I am not sure that you can. For instance I disagree with the criteria Percy gives; in addition to being first-party sources which he identify as not being reliable sources, these coverage examples relate to the films, the books and the author from which Bond is derived, but the coverage is not about the fictional character per se. Looking at the article James Bond, I see lots of similar coverage, but only the real-world content from reliable sources such as this is evidence of notbaility of the fictional character outside the context of the books, films and articles about martinis. The problem with this non-standard coverage approach is that most well-known fictional characters get lots of first-party and in universe coverage, and although this counts as evidence of "fame", "importance", or "popularity", this is not the same as notability, a distinction that WP:NOTE makes clear. I disagree that I am taking a "narrow" view, rather I would say that WP:WAF guidance on why an in universe perspective is problematical is important here. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, let's take the Bond example first, shall we? Looking purely for academic coverage, Bond (the character) is a subject of a fair amount of scholarly work; the book "Bond and Beyond: The Political Career of a Popular Hero", perhaps? Or in the Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Personalization in Future (… something), we have a paper entitled "Celebrity Recommender" which talks about Bond directly as a fictional celebrity. How about the location "middle earth", as featured in Tolkein's works? Well, there's several third-party secondary source books about it, such as "The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth" and "The Atlas of Middle-Earth", although it looks like they have a primarily in-universe perspective. However, in terms of learned publications, we have "World Creation as Colonization" by EM Hoeim, which takes Middle Earth as a case study, which indicates that it is worthy of notability. Or "A Preliminary Landscape Analysis of Middle-Earth During Its Third Age" by JD Porteous. There are also some amount the cultural metaphors of the setting and their real-world relevance, but these are harder to identify and there's none I found on a quick search that I am 100% confident about. Of course, whether these are non-standard is more awkward, but they do address the issue of what you seem to be disagreeing with, which is fictional elements having real-world coverage. I read your earlier disagreement as being about, well, any source on the fictional elements. I base this reading on the statement "I can't think of real-world coverage for, say, a fictional character like James Bond, as he doesn't exist in the real-world. Coverage of fictional characters tends to be in universe, and is cannot be used as evidence of notability. For example, there may be losts of coverage about how Bond likes his martinis "shaken not stirred" in lots of magazines, but this type of coverage … is not real-world." SamBC(talk) 14:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I think I am being misunderstood here and perhaps it is because I have not been clear: when I said coverage, I mean't non-standard coverage. What I should have said is that "I can't think of real-world coverage that is non-standard for a fictional character that is evidence of notability, because I am not sure such criteria actually exists". However, I agree there is standard real-world coverage from reliable secondary sources which is evidence that James Bond is notable per se such as this. Although I can't think of any criteria for non-standard coverage for fictional characters, maybe you can think of an example, and if so, let us know. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I just don't like to assume that something doesn't exist just because I've never heard of it. This is what is meant by "explore". Is it worth exploring to see if we can find any, and then decide if they're worth using, is the meaning of this question. Does that help clarify things? SamBC(talk) 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
              • I don't think so. My gut feel is that non-standard coverage will tend to be in universe, and I have seen so many claims of notability used in AfD debates for stock characters that I would rather not go down that route.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree, not worth exploring at all. There is already enough issues here without opening up yet another can of worms and opening the door for even more fancruft. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So, you object to any specific notability guidelines for fictional elements at all? After all, they can't effectively be more restrictive than WP:N, as that gives articles a choice of satisfying it or a more specific guidelines. Also, are you aware that you're throwing around a word which is noted as being considered offensive? You are, after all, effectively characterising any and all articles on fictional elements as fancruft, which is noted as being uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. SamBC(talk) 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course not. There needs to be specific notability guidelines for fictional elements, that's why we have WP:FICT. They may not be able to be more restrictive, but they certainly shouldn't be less restrictive either. As for the use of fancruft, it is what it is. It isn't being uncivil or assuming bad faith at all. I work almost entirely with fictional articles and elements, thank you, and I have seen some great GA and FA character and episode articles. They are the exception, though, not the norm and it shouldn't be encouraged to just make them because someone loves a character or its the main character of a series if it can't be taken to those levels. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think you'll find that anyone in this debate wants a free reign like that, even if there's a theory that Masem's proposal would allow it. We want to find a way to allow those things that are allowed without recourse to IAR, and to avoid losing articles that do add value to the encyclopaedia on a technicality, whilst ensuring that we don't get hideous sprawl of every fictional character, location, etc. You seem to be opposing the idea of any more specific guidelines on the basis that they might lead to an unwelcome welcoming of sprawl or cruft; how about instead engaging to make sure that we get useful guidelines and criteria that don't do that? SamBC(talk) 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Regarding the use of fancruft, I don't personally think that most swearwords are offensive, but I understand that some people take them as such. It would seem polite, civil in fact, to treat other words like that as well, when we have evidence that people find them offensive. SamBC(talk) 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • "Fancruft" is a term that refers to content. It is not uncivil to comment, even strongly, on content. It is prohibited to attack its contributor. There is a tremendous difference between "This article is excessive detail about a fictional series" (which "fancruft" is shorthand for) and making a negative comment about a person. One could, alternatively, call it a spade. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
          • That's like saying "you're work is crap, no offense to you personally, just your work." That's how I take it, and others as well. It's offensive. It matters how it's perceived, not how it's intended. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree mainly, but any source, as always, should be evaluated case by case. This certainly can be done. Is it written by professionals? Fact-checked or peer-reviewed by professionals? Not self-published? Widely regarded or cited (at least within its field) as an authoritative and trustworthy source? One "no" to any of these indicates at least "possibly use with caution and never as the sole source," two or more very likely indicates "don't use at all." Primary source material can, as always, be used sparingly and with caution, and never as the sole or main source for any article, but only as a supplement to significant independent source material. We should seek to reinforce that practice, not to change it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree worth exploring. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree that this is a worthwhile pursuit, but it should not prevent us from moving forward. I think this could be an RfC in and of itsself. Ursasapien (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Undecided based on the wording (same as the last point). We have been exploring other ways for demonstrating notability here for ages, and although a lot of it was ultimately rejected, there were still a few jewels here and there. So, yes to exploring, but no to demanding that we absolutely need to work towards finding non-coverage based criteria for notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree absolutely worth exploring. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fictional elements need no notability criteria other than the "General notability guideline" aka "Criterion of last resort" at WP:N

I would note that a corollary of this is that WP:FICT is somewhat unecessary, if it is also silent on spinouts etc. SamBC(talk) 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can you explain this heading; There is no reference to "criteria of last resort" at WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it's not the first time I've used that term, nor the first time I've seen it used. That's inference from the fact that WP:N can be used to indicate notability of any subject, but if a subject satisfies a more specific guideline (an appropriate one), it doesn't have to satisfy the coverage criterion in WP:N; thus those criteria are a "last resort" if the subject either doesn't have a more specific guideline, or doesn't meet it. The same thing is meant where people say that the coverage requirement in WP:N is "sufficient but not necessary" to demonstrate notability. SamBC(talk) 14:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've renamed the section to avoid further confusion. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Can you give examples of what you mean. I suspect you may have already proposed this above, except this proposal is couched in negative terms rather than positive ones, and I am concerned that you are needlessly extending the debate.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I'm trying to figure out, unambiguously, what people actually think. Some comments above imply that the people making them might agree with this statement, so I'm trying to clearly and unambiguously find out what they think. This could be paraphrased as "there are no conceivable ways of demonstrating notability for fictional elements other than the coverage criteria of WP:N", but that has different subtextual implications and what's above seemed to me to say it better. Does that make it clearer? SamBC(talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will accept what you say, if only because it is a belt and braces way of getting all the issues into the open, but it does appear this debate is being drawn out into lots of little strands that are very long, like eating very stringy spaghetti.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is my experience that, when a debate has gotten complex and tangled, it can be beneficial to unravel those strands whatever their length, rather than try to figure out where they go without such. In this case it seems to have highlighted as basic point that makes most other discussion largely pointless at this stage, as I intent to explain below. SamBC(talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree current practice on wikipedia indicates that some topics on fictitious subjects merit articles without necessarily passing WP:N, so we should try to identify what sensible criteria describe both the current cases (or the best of them) and reasonable, logical practice. SamBC(talk) 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree, although most of the sensible criteria I've seen could be considered to be 'interpretations' of the GNC rather than additions to them Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree as most of the only examples of criteria I can think of relate back directly to GNC rather than any addition or exemption from them. For example, a fictional character may have a visual or graphic representation that is notable. The evidence that Tintin and Snowy are notable in fictional terms outside their books is doubtful, but there is real-world evidence to suggest that they are (very) notable because their image has attracted extensive real-world coverage. I think this is where the guidelines are weak and need to be strengthened; there are a lot of fictional characters which are covered by extensive plot summaries when in fact their notability is derived from their graphic design. In this case, editors should dispense with the fictional elements elating to such characters, such as plot, and focus on more what really makes them notable. For this reason, I think the examples given in WP:FICT are downright bad and misleading. For instance, Characters of Kingdom Hearts is too focused on fictional elements like the relationships between characters(most of which is fancruft, in my view), when in fact it is the visual appeal to a young audience of such fictional characters that makes them notable. WP:FICT needs to steer editors away from writting plot summaries about stock characters as if they had literary significance, and get them to focus on what really makes them notable: their design or emotional appeal.Sometimes there is real-world evidence of notability from reliable secondary sources about a fictional character, but that evidence is not concerned with the character in literature or in fictional terms, and it should be objective of this guideline to make this clear, rather than providing exemptions from GNC to accomodate in universe plot summaries that have no bearing on the notability of a particular fictional element. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree, and Gavin Collins says it exceptionally well. I would add that some characters (Buffy Summers, Superman, Darth Vader) are studied as literary figures. However, in these cases too, an article should still be written from an out-of-universe perspective, detailing the work that has been done with the characters and why they are significant to the real world, not to their fictional universe. That doesn't mean a brief plot summary wouldn't be appropriate for context, because of course it is, but it should be brief and should not be the main focus of the article. If an article focuses mainly or solely on the in-universe significance of a fictional element, and significant sourcing cannot be found to explain the out-of-universe significance of the element, it is not significant to the real world and should be transwikied and/or merged. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree The general guideline is not strict enough. Taemyr (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree WP:PLOT-type concerns are not covered in general notability guidelines. -- Ned Scott 00:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. WP:PLOT involves style issues, not notability requirements. It should be sufficient that if a fiction-related topic is covered in reliable, independent sources it is considered notable. Alternatively, I could see establishing exception criteria like WP:PROF does (i.e. if a topic concerns an award winning show it is automatically notable), but I do not see consensus leading that way. Ursasapien (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Who cares that it involves some style issues? WP:FICT was never meant to only be a notability guideline. It wasn't until some editors felt the need to categorize guidelines that we even made such a distinction. WP:PLOT might be part style, but it's also part inclusion criteria. -- Ned Scott 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Don't get testy. I care that WP:FICT involves style issues, which I think have nothing to do with inclusion criteria. I think WP:PLOT was never meant to be an inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not simply a reiteration of fiction but it most certainly can contain plots from works of fiction. We should look for objective inclusion criteria, not "absence of" criteria. Ursasapien (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's IN WP:NOT, how could you think it has nothing to do with inclusion criteria? It's talking about it in a different way, like with depth of coverage, yes, but it can still be seen as an inclusion criteria. And regardless of that, it still misses my point that the difference between notability guideline and style guideline was an artificial separation made so we could categorize guidelines. It's not so we could segregate them. -- Ned Scott 09:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose one could say that ALL policies and guidelines are inclusion criteria then. However, the distinction between notability and style is nothing to trivialize. WP:FICT should not be some sloppy catch-all for inclusion of fiction related topics. It should say "a fiction-related topic is considered notable when X" and then full stop. Ursasapien (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:FICT isn't a sloppy catch-all, and no, it should not be only a notability guideline. WP:FICT, at it's heart, is a way to guide the editor on when it was appropriate to make an article about a character or element. No matter how much you want to beat around the bush, no matter how you try to segregate the issues, that IS WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Although I agree that guidance should be helpful, I don't know who gave you the power to define what WP:FICT is all about. It used to say it was a notability guideline. If it is a not a notability guideline, then this statement was misleading. I think, if you want guidance regarding "when it was appropriate to make an article about a character or element" you ought to create a seperate guideline. WP:FICT should be a general fiction-related notability guideline that should help editors determine whether a fiction-related topic (book, movie, video game, character, episode, meme, or any other fiction-related topic) is consider to be notable. Ursasapien (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry, isn't that what notability (on wikipedia) is? Aside from the issue of spinouts, the discussion of which seems to lead to arguments more often than not. A notable topic is a topic which merits an article; spinouts in fiction are not fundamentally different from in any other case, apart from their frequent stretching of the concept and misuse ("frequent" and "misuse" in terms of how some editors see it, anyway). SamBC(talk) 10:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's a notability/inclusion criteria that involves depth of coverage, because sub/spinout articles can be created without independent notability. -- Ned Scott 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• ...and that's why it's in error. Including spinout articles without independent notability doesn't have consensus support. Even if it did, the topic of the page is "Notability (fiction)" not "Inclusion (fiction)" or "Style (fiction)", so the inclusion of non-notable articles is a matter for discussion elsewhere. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Including spinout articles without independent notability doesn't have consensus support" actually, it does. To what extent is up to debate. And, on Wikipedia, notability = inclusion criteria. -- Ned Scott 10:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• If notability = inclusion criteria then to say we should include non-notable articles, spinout or otherwise, is a total non-sequitur. There is not consensus support for including non-notable spinouts; that would be like having consensus support for dry water. There is some consensus support that some spinouts are notable; there is debate as to the extent of that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• But what you say is a good argument for renaming the page, which I would not object to. In the past I've even said we needed to get away from the word "notability", because the way we used the word was.. not quite accurate. -- Ned Scott 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• People use it as a synonym for coverage, because they confuse the notability guideline with the concept of notability; they forget that it's a real-world concept with a meaning somewhere between importance and interest. Lacking inportance or interest is a good reason to delete an article, which is why it's one of many deletion criteria. Trying to identify topics with that real-world notability is a large job in itself; we don't need to add other things to our plate here. Finally, WP:DEL talks about the notability guidelines; if we decide that this guideline should be about somnething vaguer, then WP:DEL#REASON will ignore us, and fictional articles will fall back on plain old WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with Ned that, in practice, including spinout articles without independent notability has a fairly widespread consensus among editors of fiction-related topics. Ursasapien (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd dispute that; I'd say that there's a widespread consensus that some spinout articles that don't demonstrate independent notability under the GNC of WP:N are themselves notable. The crucial part of what you say is 'independent' - the topics are notable, in a dependent way; we should identify how that comes to pass and include dependent notability guidelines as WP:BK and WP:PROF do. We shouldn't make some sweeping generalisation that includes every possible spinout, when only some of them are notable (= includable). Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The difficulty is that views vary, even in that group, as to which topics should be spun out. Another difficulty is that there are indications that, when the wider community (beyond editors of fiction-related topics) actually pay attention, the consensus is much narrower than might be thought from looking at fiction-related conduct and articles. SamBC(talk) 10:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"I'd say that there's a widespread consensus that some spinout articles that don't demonstrate independent notability under the GNC of WP:N are themselves notable." That is what we are saying, at least that is what I'm saying. -- Ned Scott 11:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're saying it in a different way that's easy to understand to mean something else. A topic can be notable without meeting WP:N's GNC, as indicated by the content of WP:BK and WP:PROF; coverage and notability are not the same thing, hence we say "notable topics that don't mean the GNC" rather than "non-notable spinouts". It may also reduce the knee-jerk response of some editors when it's suggested that non-notable topics be allowed. SamBC(talk) 11:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the past comments on the matter, including my own, I would have thought that it would be clear by now. But as long as we're now on the same page about this, that's what matters. -- Ned Scott 11:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Notability is never inherited. If an article contains excessive detail about a fictional element which is not in itself notable, it's time to trim, not time to split. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Several criteria in WP:BK and WP:PROF are effectively cases of inherited notability; they are exceptions to notability not being inherited, which indicates that it is not an absolute. Further, notability is specifically stated as not limiting the content of an article, only the existence of them. Various guidelines and policies are then somewhat contradictory as to whether spinouts are still then handled, notability-wise, as sections of the "parent" article. SamBC(talk) 18:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's not an issue of notability period, but of independent notability. -- Ned Scott 02:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Notability is often inherited. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree per Seraphimblade (why did you agree?). Just because a fictional element is known to have significant coverage from third-party sources somewhere (i.e. it passes WP:N), doesn't mean that it gets its own article to explore its in-universe significance in the cruftiest detail. This character article version should be trimmed and eventually proposed to be merged for lacking almost any kind of real-world information and notability – unless the article is rewritten to demonstrate notability. Not giving each fictional element its own article doesn't mean it cannot be covered at all on wikipedia – it just means that it has to comply to some basic criteria in its own article, i.e. a balanced demonstration of real-world information in the article. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

General notability guideline is too weak when applied to fictional elements.

That is General notability guideline is by itself insufficient for inclusion when dealing with fictional elements. In addition to significant coverage by reliable sources we should require coverage of real world impact.

• Agree Since any content included in wikipedia should be sourced and primarily cover real world significance. Taemyr (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree, we should not exclude properly sourced material if there are genuinely independent and reliable sources on a subject in a significant quantity. In practice, it would be a very rare case that such reliable and independent source material would exist in significant quantities without covering real-world significance and impact (or at least significance to its field, which is a form of real-world significance.) Unreliable or primary sources of course might solely cover the fictional aspects, but we should not, of course, be basing articles on those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree' because WP:N doesn't mention the need for "real-world" significance. That's the only strengthening I see a need for, and can be solved by providing an interpretation of the GNC as we have been. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree. Seraphimblade makes a good point. Before jumping to this conclusion, someone should present an example of a topic that could be sourced by multiple, reliable sources but that none of these sources would contain any "real world" information. Besides, being written about in the real world demonstrates that the work of fiction has had an impact on the real world. On top of all that, a sub-guideline should not be more restrictive than their parent. If anything, I think WP:N is too restrictive when applied blindly to fictional elements. Ursasapien (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:N is a general guideline, not our parent guideline. If a more specific guideline is more restrictive then it's because of unique circumstances regarding that group of articles. -- Ned Scott 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for an example or explanation of how a subject could be written about in multiple, reliable, independent sources and still not demonstrate that it had real world impact. Ursasapien (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's nice, but what does it have to do with what I just said to you? Maybe thinking about this as "weak" and "strong" is the wrong way to go about it. I don't consider these things to be more or less restrictive, I consider them to be different. You can't expect the general notability guideline to handle every situation. One size does not fit all. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that we can come up with specific criteria that demonstrate notability for fiction related topics. I do not agree with the heading of this section that states the general guideline is too "weak." I firmly believe that one criteria that definitively demonstrates notability is multiple, independent, reliable sources. Ursasapien (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, well, in that case I guess I actually agree with you. -- Ned Scott 10:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Mu – if this is described as a notability guideline, it can't effectively give narrower definitions of notability than WP:N, because any article can satisfy WP:N instead of a more specific guideline. If we're not talking about a notability guideline, then the whole discussion is on different terms. Alternatively, we could try to get WP:N changed to allow a specific guideline to restrict the interpretation of WP:N. SamBC(talk) 09:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:N doesn't have higher authority than WP:FICT does. That's not how it works here. WP:FICT predates WP:N as a guideline anyways. -- Ned Scott 09:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• The actual use of notability guidelines, when they are tested, is at deletion (or lack of); this is because WP:N violation is listed as a reason for deletion. Violation of specific notability guidelines isn't. However, meeting a specific notability guideline is defined by WP:N as meeting WP:N itself, therefore avoiding that reason for deletion. That's my reasoning, anyway. In terms of predating, that's something of a read herring as WP:FICT doesn't have consensus, and in it's early days it wasn't the same sort of guideline at all. The early purpose of it, as far as I can tell, is now covered by WP:WAF. SamBC(talk) 10:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Then you have a very poor understanding of WP:FICT and WP:WAF. -- Ned Scott 10:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, WAF seems to cover all the things your suggesting that FICT should cover other than notability. One guideline to talk about style issues and content (WAF), one about inclusion criteria (FICT); what's wrong with that? It might not be what WP:FICT was once about, but does that really matter? The present and future are of greater concern than the past; the only use of the past in this instance is to learn from it. SamBC(talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Except that WAF doesn't cover all of those things. (and for those of you who are new, I'm not opposed to reorganizing the guidelines and possibly having WAF take up such things, or some other guideline, etc etc) And this isn't about what WP:FICT was "once" about, this is what it's always been about. -- Ned Scott 10:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just to note that, if I were to answer this question on the assumption that it is valid, I would disagree; articles have to include real world coverage, which means that requirement is effectively there anyway. It does not, however, speak to the notability of the topic. It's also worth noting that listings magazines would never give a TV show notability, for example, as they are the sort of directory that is generally excluded from indicating notability (but not excluded from providing verifiability and avoiding OR). SamBC(talk) 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

First of I do think we can define WP:FICT to be stronger than WP:NOTE if consensus runs that way. This is because polices and guidelines is intentended as a description of established consensus. But it's always the consensus that is what is important. Secondly, although this is really nitpicking, you will note that the proposal does not state that we are redefining what notability is, it says that the general criteria for notability is a too wide inclusion criteria when applied to fictional elements. Taemyr (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've figured out how to say what I've been trying to say: if we define it as a specialised notability guideline, then people can (easily) later wikilawyer that their work doesn't need to meet it, as that's what WP:N says. If we don't call it a specialised notability guideline, then that's great and there's no problem with it, if there's consensus. It's also worth noting that this idea doesn't contradict the idea of having other criteria that are in some way more permissive, in some specialised way, and now I've realised that, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree. SamBC(talk) 15:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree, very strongly particularly with the point made by Percy Snoodle that WP:N doesn't mention the need for "real-world" significance. I don't think Ursasapien will find a single fictional element that has a real-world impact that does not have real-world coverage from reliable sources, for the reason I state above: sometimes real-world evidence of notability about a fictional element is derived from reliable sources which are not concerned with the character in fictional terms. For instance a fictional character may be notable in terms of non-fictional characteristics such as graphic design (e.g. the drawings of Tintin and Snowy), the medium in which they are presented (e.g video games in the case of Pokémon) , their symbolism (e.g. Excalibur), or their commercial application (e.g. advertising in the case of Bibendum). In my view, WP:FICT should be very focused on real-world coverage, as clearly there is tendency amoungst editors to place undue reliance on an in universe perspective, particularly plot summaries.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• In universe perspective is a style issue. It has nothing to do with notability. A topic is considered to be "of note" if it has been written about by independent, reliable sources. Notability=real world impact. Ursasapien (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Real-world/In-universe perspective of the article content is a style issue, and is covered at WP:WAF. Real-world/in-universe perspective of allowable coverage is a notability issue, and should be covered here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Real world impact/relevance is a content issue, not a style issue. You cannot create real world relevance with style, you have to add it as additional content. -- Ned Scott 11:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• And out-of-universe perspective isn't the same thing as real world relevance/impact. -- Ned Scott 11:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Fine - but the perspective of the sources that establish notability, is a notability issue. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• In my view the relationship between WP:WAF and WP:FICT is actually very close, and I believe this is at the core of the debate you are reading on this page. In fairness to you, an in universe perspective is a style issue for real world subjects like famous people, since coverage tends to focus on real-world events, like achievement in sports, politics & academia, so it is easier to distinguish in universe coverage from real world coverage.
  Where I disagree with you about notability and style being seperate issues is when it comes to articles on fictional subjects. Since fictional elements can be covered from both a real-world and an in universe perspective, it is more difficult to distinguish between primary and secondary sources in plot summaries. For instance, it is possible to create a synthesis of fictional coverage from secondary sources, and without providing evidence of notability (of which Characters of Kingdom Hearts is an example). When fictional elements are described from an in universe perspective, it is therefores more than a style issue, as it is a symptom not only of a lack of real-world coverage, but also a lack of real-world coverage from reliable sources which is key to establishing notability and avoiding original research.
  WP:NOT#PLOT straddles these issues by saying that Wikipedia is not depositry for plot summaries, which is another way of saying that articles on fictional elements are not allowed if they comprised of synethesis written from an in universe perspective. In my view, WP:FICT should be very focused on real-world coverage, because WP:NOT#PLOT already proscribes plot summaries, and WP:OR proscribes synthesis of fictional coverage. If the need for real-world content is not dealt with in a comprehensive fashion WP:FICT, then it will become an irrelevant guideline, since WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SYNTH effectively proscribe in universe coverage for fictional subjects. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it's already been demonstrated that general consensus holds that coverage in (a particular subset of) reliable sources is sufficient, but not necessary to demonstrate notability. Original research can also be avoided without having secondary sources, which I bring up again because people keep seeming to imply that it is. Your interpretation of NOT#PLOT also seems a tad... narrow. Summarising a source is not the same as synthesis, it's what we're supposed to do. Synthesis, in the sense forbidden by WP:NOR, is taking points from sources and combining them to make a point that wasn't in the source. You can summarise something without analysing it,so the persistent references to WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH are red herrings... SamBC(talk) 14:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree it just shows that our NOTE guidelines don't work for everything. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree As can be seen with almost any article about fiction elements, there is a strong tendency to violate WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR right from the get-go. And all too often, when these policy violations are aimed to be removed, leaving a mergeable stub behind, one can hear the words "but the article topic is notable (per google) and thus fulfills the article-level inclusion critera, so the article-content-level style criteria and anyone wishing to enforce them can be safely ignored because even AfD is powerless". This is a terrible basis for improving the encyclopedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I have to make a public apology to Sambc - I did not mean to even remove that edit (it is completely legit), but I must have accidentally clicked on the rollback link instead of going back to watchlist or something. I fully apologize for that. --MASEM 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted :) SamBC(talk) 19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Head count

This section seems a bit difficult to follow, as such I have counted what seems to be the current opinion — G.A.S 07:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:FICT should be silent on the question of basic, single-topic spinouts (4/4/0)
2. WP:FICT should not make specific guidance about basic list articles (2/2/1)
3. WP:FICT should be silent on the question of "aggregate" articles (1/2/3)
4. WP:FICT should give general guidance on criteria other than those in WP:N (7/0/0)
   1. Topics that are a major element of several (at least 3?) notable subjects are notable (5/3/2)
5. It's worth exploring, broadly, possible non-coverage based criteria for notability of fictional elements (4/2/2)
6. It's worth exploring non-standard coverage-based criteria for notability of fictional elements (5/3/1)
7. Fictional elements need no notability criteria other than the "General notability guideline" aka "Criterion of last resort" at WP:N (3/6/1)
8. General notability guideline is too weak when applied to fictional elements. (4/4/0)

Inheritable Notability with actors and characters

This is a question that i have come across but i wanted to have some community input. If an actor/actress is nominated for an award for a role. Can that nomination be used to help show notability of a character? Seddon69 (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

By itself, no, it isn't enough to show notability for the creation of a character article. It speaks to the series and should be included there. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with AnmaFinotera. Some actor played the role very well once – big whoop (in terms of wikipedia notability). SamBC(talk) 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with AnmaFinotera. The Oscar for best actor this year went to Daniel Day-Lewis, and by convention, the award is said to have been won by the film (There Will Be Blood), but notability for the fictional character Daniel Plainview is unproven. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

KK thank you just wanted to clear something up :) Seddon69 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that nomination can be used to help show notability of a character. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What's going on now, I'm too lazy to read it all

I was following this page pretty well for a while but all these new threads are getting a bit long. What's the state of the discussion? Thanks, Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an RFC (above) for you to read and comment upon. It will probably be open for another 25 days so you have lots of time to read, digest and comment.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A pretty problem…

I think the above discussions have made something clear which creates a fairly major problem to achieving consensus. It would seem that there are two pretty much disjoint sets of editors with almost contradictory views; one group believes that fictional elements require a specialised handling of notability akin to WP:BK and WP:PROF, while the other believes that a guideline is needed in order to reinforce how narrowly WP:N should be read, with specific reference to fictional elements. These views are, I believe, incompatible, although it seems that some editors (including myself) hold a position that is in sympathy with both sides to some degree.

No meaningful proposal can be drafted that will have consensus support of both groups, and there is not wide enough participation here to discern an overall consensus of the wider community. Nor is either group a sufficiently small minority to be dismissed for now as being unlikely to represent a sizeable proportion of the wider community. I can see two options to move forward.

1. Attempt to discern wider community consensus on this point, without having any specific texts as examples or proposals of each "camp". This could be done immediately, but I get the feeling it would attract less participation and be harder for people to figure their way through without solid proposals.
2. Each "camp" separately put together distinct proposals, and each proposal will be put together through discussion based on the a priori assumption that that basic view is correct (in the sense of representing wider community view). These proposals would then be presented to the wider community and opinion canvassed broadly, with the condition that they be presented simultaneously to ensure a fair hearing. A neutral party can flip a coin to see which one gets linked first in the post to the Village Pump ;) The big downside of this is, of course, that it may end up that one proposal is completely wasted. However, I feel it would end up having an easier time determining broader community consensus, and the wider community may form a compromise by merging the two to some degree.

Although I've tried to present the two options equally, I think it's fairly obvious that I favour the second option. What do people think? Do people agree that it's becoming necessary to do one or the other, and if so, which would be preferable? I would suggest that people try to make the decision without assuming that their own view is correct; to quote a popular saying in my faith, "consider that you may be mistaken". SamBC(talk) 19:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• It concerns me that that proposal will unduly polarise matters, and doesn't reflect all the positions. I consider myself to be in the 'specialised handling' group you describe, but my main issues here are with other positions in that camp who want a specialised handling that is inclusionist to a disastrous degree. I'd hate to find myself in a position where I couldn't contribute to the debate at all because neither the inclusionist nor deletionist camps had any place for moderates. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think that is a fair summary at all, but your proposal has merit. My view is:

1. The changes to WP:FICT since January 27th were introduced surreptitiously, and mark a radical departure from the consensus that existed before that date. In order to start from a level playing field, these changes need to be rolled back in the first instance;
2. The current RFC needs to close at the end of 30 days, and its conclusions (if any) drawn upon, and WP:FICT ammended accordingly. Whether or not it is found that non-notable spinouts of fictional elements are appropriate will be helpful in writing the next draft, so I am not keen to drop this, since this should have happend prior to January 27th, not after the event;
3. When we have a level playing field, and the process of the current RFC has been acted upon, then I agree that your proposal to draft alternative proposals could be a good way forward.

Lastly, "it is in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken" was a saying of Oliver Cromwell (as quoted by Jacob Bronowski in the The Ascent of Man). --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To discard the trivial first, what I quoted is what appears in BYM's Advices & Queries. To get on to the more important, what I've noted is that, spinout issue aside (as that needn't even be a concern of the text of WP:FICT, and most expressed opinion above suggests it shouldn't be), there's an essential dichotomy here that is impossible to actually overcome with a small group discussion. The RFC is essentially independent of this, as we're talking about the issue aside from spinouts; we're talking about what is notable. SamBC(talk) 20:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree as well that you can't decouple the problems with spinouts from notability of fictional works and elements; that's the entire crux of the issue. We can immediate sweep aside any article on fiction that has secondary sources as meeting general criteria, but that leaves basically articles with some or weak notability-through-coverage display, and articles without any notability-through-coverage. Either 1) we decide on rules that make some instances of these articles notable through another means besides coverage or 2) classify some (or none) of these are acceptable outside the concept of notable, eg as being valid spinout articles, in which case a separate spinout guideline can be written for non-notable-by-coverage spinouts. Whether we take 1 or 2 or a combination is a factor of how the RFC pans out; again I point out the question does not ask about notability, but more directly if these types of articles without secondary sources are appropriate. If the consensus agrees that at least some are, we can determine if that is through notability by another means besides coverage, or that they merit a special status and thus likely need the second guideline. Thus, where FICT goes beyond restating NOTE's coverage requirement is strongly dependent on that RFC and related discussion. --MASEM 20:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Masem, I know you put a lot of work into the spinouts section, but the poll above does show that it's not supported here. The issue of good spinouts is one we should discuss here, but an exemption from notability for spinouts in general has been discussed and largely rejected. If you think a general exemption for spinouts is that important, perhaps you should try to get WP:FICTSPIN accepted separately; but you should expect any guideline that includes an article for each and every trivial detail of every possible fictional element to meet with heavy resistance, at the least. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• In my view you are both mudding the waters; the changes since January 27th are far from trivial, they are a revolutionary, and there is no milestone to mark their passing into concensus. As far as I can see, you are POV pushing points 1 and 2 as if they are the only acceptable alternatives, which they are not, and this latest proposal may be an attempt to avoid my first point, namely we should start from a level playing field and roll back to January 27th first.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree that the Jan 27th changes were revolutionary. I've pointed out before that what I moved in from my sandbox was only after about 2 or 3 months of discussion on WT:FICT (see, for example /Archive 14 to about /Archive 18 from the archives; any major point titled "Draft #X" is based on the sandbox edit), that itself extending from a previous sandbox edit from elsewhere around August. After the 27th, I think (sorry, it's been a long time) made a broad announcement for review of the new guideline in VPP and WP:P and fiction related projects; until the middle of March, no one had pointed out anything with it. No one slipped this in, and nor was it meant to be radical from what current practice is. --MASEM 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, before they were made, some fictional articles on Wikipedia failed to meet WP:FICT; afterwards, none did. That's pretty sweeping. It may be that they were developed over a long period of time, but that doesn't mean that they didn't have a huge effect Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I still do not see how you can possibly say that the new WP:FICT would mean that all articles on fiction-related topics were notable. This is simply not supported by the text or practice (at AFD and elsewhere). Secondly, I strongly object to Gavin's assertion that this change was surreptitious. There were months of discussion and calls for comments at the Village Pump and elsewhere. It pains me that we were so close to detente and a few have come in late to stir the pot. Why not simply go with the April 5, 2005 version? It was simple and created before some editors made "sweeping changes" to editorial policy. Ursasapien (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Because any article can be claimed to be a "spinout" of a notable article, the "treat spinouts as a section of their parent" makes all articles notable. By the April 5 version, do you mean the one you reverted the page to on April 1 this year? That version has more consensus support, but lacks the "real-world" interpretation of the GNC's coverage requirement, so that would need to be added, and the third criterion needs more explanation. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One can only claim an article to be a spinout if it has a section (or some type of link) in the parent article. April 5, 2005 was the first attempt to make this a guideline. You seem to be claiming consensus for older versions of this guideline. I believe they had consensus at that point in time, but none of the older versions currently have consensus. That is why they were changed. The January 27 version had consensus, but now it does not. Believe me, rolling back the guideline will do nothing to improve consensus or guidance. Ursasapien (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That definition of spinouts was discussed, but not present in the guideline. I'm not so much claiming complete consensus support for the old version as claiming absence of consensus support for the current one. I applaud Masem's efforts in trying to create a compromise on which the inclusion of spinouts, but the current spinout advice isn't one; it's a loophole in notability that allows an article on every possible fictional topic. I agree, though, that the best way is forward: we should work out how to identify the desirable spinouts, and make that our guidelines. While doing so, we need to remember that different fictional works merit different depths of coverage. We can't say "episodes are generally acceptable" or "episodes are generally unacceptable"; we need to look for objective evidence of some kind. That objective evidence may or may not come in the form of significant real-world coverage of the element in question. I'd like to particularly applaud SamBC's efforts to work out what it might be by asking us more detailed questions. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(←)It should be clear, RFC aside, that there is never going to be language in FICT that will satisfy everyone. Policy provides two different reads (at not just at what wording is used, but at the spirit of the policies) that may or may not allow for spinouts; we've argued this point forever and moreso in the past few weeks. Inclusionists demand that they be included because of some aspects, deletionists require they be removed. The problem is, and that is part of the RFC question, is that we have not decided, community wise, how part of the first pillar should be read with respect to works of fiction: is part of Wikipedia, being a combination of general and speciality encyclopedias, mean that we should also be a encyclopedia of the contents of works of fiction? This is not just a question about spinouts: this is aimed at exactly how we treat to contents of a work of fiction. Right now, taking a hard approach and enforcing the general notability criterion, preventing any non-notable spinouts, we make it a game and/or challenge to editors to find two little tidbits of information so they can have an article on a fictional character. But while that meets policy, is that the spirit of Wikipedia? If it is a challenge for many works to demonstrate notability of the major characters (individual or whole) of a group, should we simply limit what we cover for fiction regardless of sources. That is, since I can't fully develop an article for all characters on Spongebob Squarepants, should that also mean that I should not develop the same for Othello? There is a bias (in both good and bad ways) that sticking hard to the sourcing requirement creates; our classical works get good coverage through academic sources, but then also do shows that have large numbers of Internet-using fans behind them such as Star Trek or Star Wars, leaving a large chunk of works, contemporary literature and older television shows for example, without anyway to develop further. By saying that a work of fiction should have exactly one article, that being about the work, and that no characters or other fictional elements at all beyond those that have transcended their original work (such as Superman) should ever get articles; in other words, we completely block coverage of fictional elements even if they have some notability aspects. This is extreme, but this is also a possible route that I can see being taken depending on exactly how WP deals with fiction. Of course, it could be the case that notability is held absolute over the systematic bias, thus there's another possible result there. --MASEM 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If the question is how to interpret the first pillar, we should ask that directly. That is to say, we should ask, at one or more major venues (linked to a separate page) "does the mention of 'specialist encyclopaedias' include encyclopaedias on fictional subjects, to any degree?". That question shouldn't be based here, because it's much broader than that, although it does inform how we handle that issue. If you meant the RFC to answer that question, I don't think it worked, because that isn't the question it asked. SamBC(talk) 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• No it wasn't the question at the RFC, but I am well aware of that. AT the time, there was more an issue about spinouts and notability and the like, so it made sense, but its becoming very clear over the responses there and the last few days that the much larger question is pretty much what you propose: how is first pillar to be interpreted wrt to fictional works. The problem is, asking that type of question, one which basically directs WP down one course or another, I've never seen asked; I've seen WP respond as a whole when its path changes (eg how bios of living people are handled), writing policy and guidelines to mirror the direction WP shifts, and of course if there are mandates from the Foundation we have to follow, we go that way, but I've never seen that type of question asked, only that there are slow cycles of changes as the population of editors and their general approaches change. In other words, I don't believe it is the WP-way to get the userbase to make a change of editing direction on a dime due to the posing of the question; we can only follow the larger trends. --MASEM 14:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case you may instead ask the question "How are we already interpreting the first pillar?" The problem then becomes that the interpretation isn't consistent, and there's tension with various policies, and some editors who take the view that "only real world issues are ever relevant". I think that perhaps the editors who take that attitude (including those who have, over the last couple of years, added more to guidelines and policy to support (which is fine)) are forgetting about that pillar, or not thought of fiction-covering encyclopaedias when they see "specialist encyclopaedias"; to be fair, before this debate, I never thought of that, but it now makes sense to me. What occurs to me is that, perhaps, the true virtue of things like WP:NOT#PLOT and the real-world coverage bits of WP:WAF is that they prevent excessive sprawl and fiction content taking over wikipedia, which it easily would if it were help on an equal basis. Here we come to the crux, I think: "elements of … specialist encyclopaedias". Elements of. What we really need, however we can do it, is to define to what extent wikipedia embodies that sort of specialist work; once that is done, WP:NOT#PLOT and those elements of WP:WAF are almost (almost, mind you) redundant. So we're never going to be as detailed on any fictional stuff as the "Star Trek Encyclopaedia", but nor are we going to completely eliminate that sort of content, as there is demonstrably no consensus to do so (it all exists and has plenty of people working on it, for starters). Now, I don't know how we would go about drafting them, but the way I see it we need three separate guidelines/policies:
    1. A notability guideline (if, and I believer there are, there are criteria to put in it that would allow stuff beyond the GNC in WP:N.
    2. A proper spinout guideline, probably specifically addressing fiction.
    3. A guideline or policy establishing to what extent we cover fiction like a specialist work.
  • The last of these would actually inform the others, and may benefit from being policy. It might cover other specialist issues as well, of course. But how on earth to go about writing it? It ought to reflect current practice or current best practice, but that's somewhat inconsistent. I don't know, but if anyone has any idea where to start, I'm up for it. SamBC(talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue in that breakout that WAF is the guideline that states what our approach to treating fictional works should be, though as it is now, it is more a MOS than a guideline. However, I doubt this would ever be policy since it affects a very limited subset of WP articles (only those on fiction). The thing is, achieving any consensus towards the degree that fiction-driven encyclopedias are incorporated to the first pillar will be near impossible; even though it's a !vote for consensus, the number of voices will be staggering. Obviously the first one is what FICT should be, and I do agree a spinout guideline for fictional articles is highly recommended. --MASEM 15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now, WP:WAF is part of the manual of style, with the corollary that strict adherence to it (even with common-sense exceptions etc) is only required in order to become a featured article. People who run around pages insisting that they completely conform to MOS usually don't get very far. Perhaps it's even worth separating that into two parts, with a separate MOSFIC and WAF, with the first being to do with formatting and things (if that's needed) and the other being about what's worth talking about, like my point 3 above. I agree it's unlikely to happen. However, considering the "specialist encyclopaedia" question more broadly might work, and if it does will probably help. SamBC(talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• We need more than that - almost everyone who's read WP:5 will say 'yes' to that question. The real question is what sort of specialist fictional encylopedia do we want to include - the sort which details fiction together with its real-world significance, or the sort which lists the minutiae of trivial fictional details? Both have their place; but is Wikipedia a place for the latter? Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An opposite, but extreme case, is the allowance of all aspects of a fictional universe without bounds, ignoring notability issues. I probably don't have to go into why that is bad, though I will add that there's also a bias created here, because obviously shows with lots of fans will have large bodies of articles, while not only less popular works as well as older, classical works, would be buried by that. This could be a route that WP takes with respect to fiction, but I don't see it happening, at least, nowhere as likely as the previous case.

There's probably several intermediate levels between these extremes of how WP as a whole handles fiction. However, there is no clear indication right now of how it should be done, the only thing that would seem to be obvious is that 1) the treatment of the elements of a work of fiction should be as unbiased as possible regardless of the type, influence, nature, length, etc., of the work itself and 2) the treatment of elements of a work of fiction should follow established policies and guidelines whenever possible. These two goals are at odds with each other (aka, it's the inclusionists vs deletionists standpoints), and I don't think WP is ready to decide how, in general practice, it wants to handle fiction. WP:FICT can be the battleground, but we cannot decide this direction here, as this is a much larger issue than just how notability is handled. Clearly, though, the current approach on WP is that some coverage of fictional elements are appropriate (when and where may depend, however, on several issues).

So coming back around to spinouts and all this, the point of spinouts is that they allow goal #1 to be met, at times at odds with goal #2: they are a way for works that probably lack any coverage to at least provide some information on the fictional elements, and with some restrain as to not taunt complete dismissal of policies. We can warn editors left and right that spinouts should always seek notability, that certain details of material should not be spun out or present at all, and a whole bunch of other red flags, but we can't prevent specific spinouts from being created (FICT is a bunch of words, not code). At some point, we must assume good faith] that editors will not abuse spinouts; the temptation and lack of software restrictions may allow one to create a hundred spinoffs in an hour, but we should be promoting the development of well-intended spinouts that match with agreed-upon ways material can be spunoff such that the resulting article will not raise red flags with other editors. This is why I feel we need to agree that spinouts right now are a touchy subject, but we need to allow their concept to be put into production mode as to understand how they are used. If they are abused outright, then its a toy we can't have, and then we'll strike it. However, I believe that most editors will understand and appreciate the touchiness of the subject, and will limit spinouts to the most appropriate material, ideally using off-site wiki to augment article information. That gets us to a point that reflect how WP's current handling of anything within a work of fiction is done, in that we allow some coverage though prefer it to be backed up with notable real world coverage; if the whole of WP shifts towards one of the postulated positions above, it is easy to adapt from the structures that spinouts have given us (some may be stricken , some may be expanded). --MASEM 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors are already abusing the spinouts section; assuming good faith won't put the genie back in the bottle. That we can't seem to agree on which are the good spinouts isn't a reason to throw our hands up and say that they're all welcome. WP:WAF is sufficient to get spinouts 'into production', but we need notability guidelines to keep the 'production quality' high. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that it is the fact that fiction articles were allowed to grow pre-2005 unchecked (as statements by Jimbo and WP:PAPER easily allowed for it), and now we're dealing with the aftermath, trying to stuff that genie in the bottle. It is difficult to judge the line between spinouts created due to their allowance in FICT (well before the recent version), and non-notable fictional element articles created back before considerations like WP:IINFO and WP:PLOT. --MASEM 14:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

When editors quote that section of WP:FICT in AFDs, it's pretty easy to tell which the cause is. You're right that the symptom is the same, though. A return to unchecked growth, which an exemption for spinouts gives us, is something we need to avoid. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

draft page

draft page, use it, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/draft. I understand there are people who dispute what's on WP:FICT right now, but making more changes without discussion doesn't make it better. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The slow edit war is senseless. I hope Percy will comment here and the two of you will work this out. Ursasapien (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How it seems to me: Ned went away for a while and missed the debate. He came back, was startled to see changes, and unilaterally reverted them. That's a fair enough mistake to make in the circumstances, given the volume of the debate, but he shouldn't be removing parts of the article that are still referred to in discussions; and it's not as if the rest of the article has more consensus support than the bits he removed. How does Ned see it? Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, it appears to be a WP:LEW over trivial wording in the nutshell (which should actually summarize the guideline) of a disputed former/proposed guideline. I agree SamBC above that we have two poles, strongly deletionist to strongly inclusionist, that are diametrically opposed to each other. Editors here fall at various points along that spectrum. With the help of Masem (who is somewhat of a centrist) we had reached what seemed to be an uneasy compromise. Now things are in an uproar again. The best thing to do is to "stop digging" or stop making sweeping changes to the guideline until we can work something else out. Ursasapien (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree that the poles are inclusionist and deletionist; I get the feeling that some who advocate special handling are generally more deletionist than inclusionist (like me, for instance), but don't feel that all topics on fictional elements should be deleted except for those that have become major real-world influences. After all, wikipedia is supposed to encompass general encyclopaedias, and some aspects of almanacs and specialist encyclopaedias. However, I'm heartened to see that someone is calmly and reasonably agreeing with my assessment, it reassures me that I'm not being dense. SamBC(talk) 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the debate and have seen inadequate input from the greater community, and little to no effort to get input from the greater community. Besides that eyesore of a "nutshell", there's not a lot that I dislike, but I'm tired of people using the argument that "WP:FICT is always changing and never stable" as a way to debunk it. Heaven forbid we take the effort to demonstrate a consensus for a change. -- Ned Scott 09:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with your first point that making changes without discussion doesn't make it better, but currently there is an active RFC taking place. Until this is complete, I think we should not be reviewing more alternatives until this process is complete. Even if there is 100% approval for your new draft, what is the point in reviewing it now while we have not completed the existing debates? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand you. I don't have a draft. The draft subpage is a copy of what I had reverted. -- Ned Scott 09:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Given that the straw poll above seems to suggest that spinouts should be handled separately, and the RFC is about spinouts (given the background), I don't see why the two interfere to any great extent. SamBC(talk) 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• The straw poll above is insufficient to support handling spinouts separately. Given this guidelines history, you'll need more than the small group that are active on this talk page to come to any real consensus. On a side note, have you people gone mad? WP:FICT is almost entirely about spinout articles. -- Ned Scott 09:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus here seems to be developing that it shouldn't be about spinouts. SamBC(talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's not how it works. Micro-consensus does not trump a larger consensus. Calling what you have now a consensus is absurd. -- Ned Scott 10:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• What demonstration is there that there is now large consensus about any particular form of this page? We never have the entire community comment on any issue. And some of us are trying to base our arguments about what the meaning of the guideline(s) should be on what is actually done across the encyclopaedia. SamBC(talk) 10:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Last time messages were sent out to just about every fiction-related WikiProject, to the village pump, to the {{fiction notice}} template, and using the {{RFC}} template. Obviously not every person in the community will come and comment, but they're given a far better chance at knowing a discussion is going on, and we waited a lot longer than a week before calling anything a consensus. Not only that, but we've even bad more people involved in this direct talk page than who are currently active. -- Ned Scott 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Given that it's still a proposal, I don't understand why anyone would rely on it being stable. SamBC(talk) 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ned, can you give me an example of someone debunking WP:FICT? Essentially, we have no fiction-specific guidance at this point, and Wikipedia hasn't fallen apart. Articles are still created and deleted at the usual rate. I really think we ought to make an effort to be descriptive regarding what we, who edit articles pertaining to fiction, have learned works best. Then everything else will fall in place. The rules do not make things better in and of themselves. Regardless of all the rest, it is ridiculous to edit war over a proposal anyway. Ursasapien (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• As stated several times already, this is a guideline, not just a proposal. What tag is or isn't on there doesn't make something automatically true or not. The wording is being proposed, but the core concepts, which haven't changed, have consensus, just as it has for a long time now. -- Ned Scott 09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's been marked as a proposal for some time, and there does seem to be consensus that there isn't consensus over what it says. SamBC(talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Did you seriously not even read what I just wrote? -- Ned Scott 10:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• My apologies, that was inappropriate for me to say. -- Ned Scott 10:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I did, and my point (that you seem to have missed) is that if there's broad consensus for anything here, why were there not objections to it being marked as proposal? The principle of BRD would seem to suggest that the fact it got left that way means that it reflects consensus. Unless, that is, you're suggesting that no-one really refers to it, in which case it would seem to be a "stale" guideline. Unless, that is, you feel that it reflected such a permeating consensus that no-one ever needed to refer to it, which would seem to be contradicted by a lot of current events on-wiki. I also don't appreciate people suggesting, by word or tone, that I am somehow stupid. It's not entirely civil. Apology accepted. SamBC(talk) 10:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• We marked it as both as a way to let people know that things were still being discussed, but a general idea had support. I'm sorry I've gotten a bit heated here, it's just that it's long since been a fear that the entire page would be ignored because we simply needed to work out the kinks. -- Ned Scott 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ursa: except that there are those who wish to police fiction articles (laudable enough) to trim the "cruft" (laudable enough), and I get the feeling that they feel that one reason they haven't been able to do this to the extent they like is because guidelines are vague and individual article consensus sometimes go against their wishes. I don't mean this pejoratively, I'm just calling it as I see it; I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that behaviour or those motives. I'm just saying that it makes it hard to base it on what works for seasoned editors working on fiction articles. SamBC(talk) 10:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I will come out and say that editors "who wish to police fiction articles to trim the cruft" need to find a better hobby. Improving the encyclopedia by editing articles to the point that they are more encyclopedic is a laudalbe goal. Self-appointed wiki-police that seek to make rigid laws that they can club other editors over the head with is despicable. IMHO we should seek to describe best practices in our guidance and then point editors to it saying, "Hey this really works well!" Ursasapien (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. BTW, I just read an estimate that about a quarter of Wikipedia is devoted to policy-cruft like this now. "When you're in a hole, stop digging." Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can it be better presented, most likely. Is it "policy cruft"? No. It's guidance that many editors are looking for. -- Ned Scott 11:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I simply thought it would be better to get further input before making large changes to the main page itself. I'm not dead set on that, nor I'm not going to fight over it. It's not a big deal, and I'm sorry if people got that impression from me. -- Ned Scott 10:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, and I hesitate to say this in case it is taken as unfriendly, as that isn't how it is meant or how I feel… your attitude of contradicting current discussion and so on could be taken as indicating ownership issues, although I don't expect that you actually feel that way. Your clarification here is useful in indicating that that isn't the case. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that interpretation. SamBC(talk) 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Real world information

After seeing this comment, I think we need to make a bigger mention and tighten the definition of what information is deemed as "real world". The name of the actor who played a character is obviously not the kind of real world information we're talking about. If editors believe that this is what we mean, we really need to have an exact paragraph explaining what information does qualify. We need to make it clearer so it can't be wikilawyered misrepresented or cause confusion. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 10:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say WP:PLOT already does so. The name of an actor is real-world information; but it's not "real-world context and sourced analysis". Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

With your second point that's exactly it. What I mean is that some users are equating "real world information" as "real world context and sourced analysis" and justifying that real world information like the actor's name is enough to create an article. Not necessarily shown in the diff above but I have seen it used before i.e. an infobox contains "real world information" and therefore that is enough for an article. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 10:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful regarding the term "wikilawyer". This is can be taken as a perjorative word like "fancruft". Nevertheless, I believe that a topic that is substantially covered by reliable, independent sources, of essence, demonstrates real world impact. This, to me is enough. We should not try to put the bar any higher. Ursasapien (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A mere listing of actors' names isn't "substantial", though. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have made it clearer. What I mean is that what real world information is might not be clearly defined enough as people are still confused as to what that actually is. We have to make it clear for newer users too who might not be familiar with all the debates that have happened. I've struck that and reworded. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 10:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and Percy that the actor's name or the TV Guide listing is not enough. However, I think it is hard to define what is enough, as this may vary from subject to subject. I think we will paint ourselves into a corner if we try. I think we just keep repeating the mantra "real world context and sourced analysis" and newbies will get it. If not, bring it to WP:FRN. Everyone should know where Peregrine Fisher stands on the subject. (and can't we all just compromise and say "list of characters" and "list of episodes" are okay. Ursasapien (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about it being hard to define. Perhaps it would be easier to define what doesn't qualify as "real world information" and to define the difference between what is "real world information" and "real world context and sourced analysis"? Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 11:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seaphim makes a good point (because I've seen plenty of articles created with those reasonings), but so does Ursasapien; this guideline doesn't actually use the term "real-world information" anywhere on the page. It's either "real-world coverage" or "real-world context". It even basically describes it in a general idea for people reading.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think this discussion has got off to a confused start by using the example of actors or TV listings which don't relate to fictional characters per se, but to films or television programmes in which they feature; perhaps this distinction is an important point to address in this guideline. Other guidelines such as WP:MOVIE#General principles provide examples of what content is deemed to be trivial and cannot be used as evidence of notability, such as actors or TV listings, so I agree with Seraphim Whipp, this guideline is missing a definition of what information is deemed as real-world coverage. I think we should start a new section for attempts at composing such a definition. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that the top of the second section lists what is some real world-type information. Mind you, this isn't calling it analysis, and I think that we don't call it analysis because we're not always looking for analysized discussion, though this certainly is strong information. Information like viewing and sales figures, nearly always acceptable for notability, could be considered "analysis" in that the reporting agency for the numbers has done something with them, but it's not the same vein as a critical review or the like.

I think the standard that we've always gone by is non-trivial information; that is, information that is not available readily from common sources. Things like release dates, cast and crew lists, production codes, etc, which can be learned either by rewatching/reading the original source or through IMDB or similar sites, are useful data, but because every work has these, they don't demonstrate notability. In other words, the information for real world aspects of a work in order to satisfy both PLOT and NOTE, is the type of sourced information that is unique for that work. (This, mind you, points at the fact that at some level, one can argue the present PLOT is stating notability guidelines at the policy level, which I will say can be a bit worrisome; PLOT should probably defer to FICT for what are "real world context and sourced analysis" that is appropriate.) --MASEM 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that a summary of your key points (sourced information unique to the work qualifies as "real world context"; production codes and the like don't) would make a great addition. Quoted directly, something like this:

Release dates, cast and crew lists, production codes, etc, which can be learned either by rewatching/reading the original source or through IMDB or similar sites, are useful data, but because every work has these, they don't demonstrate notability. In other words, the information for real world aspects of a work in order to satisfy both PLOT and NOTE, is the type of sourced information that is unique for that work.

It needs perfecting, but I really think something like that would clear up confusion that some editors have. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 13:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm referring to how fictional subjects should be covered and what material is deemed suitable to create a topic from. This discussion was about defining the type of stuff "real world context and sourced analysis" refers to. I'm completely confused by the discussion that's developed below. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 15:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Fiction

I think perhaps that Masem and Seraphim Whipp may be confusing fiction with their real-world representations in films, books etc. The the top of the second section shares this confusion, since the notability of a work or element of fiction is covered by WP:FICT, but not the real-world medium of distribution (books, movies, and games) whose notability is covered by their respective guideline (WP:BK, WP:MOVIE and WP:TOY respectively). I think you are muddying the waters again, and this is evidence that this whole section really needs to go, as it underlying assumption that medium is the message is a fallacy.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• For some mediums likes books and movies, there are other notability guidelines and yes, these need to be added when talking about "works" of fiction, and in that any notability gained through those for the works should trump any issues relating to its notability towards FICT (that said, reading those guidelines, and their notability criteria, I cannot see a case where if those criteria are met that FICT is not also met, simply due to the general notability requirement of secondary sources). But I point out that those other notability guidelines don't make a distinction between non-fiction and fiction, and not every form of media distribution has such guidelines (tv shows and episodes, video games (apparently covered in TOY, I did not know that, but still, there's a general catchall here), etc.) so we still need, at a basic level, what to do for fictional works that lack other notability guidance due to their medium. Note, however, the section still applies to fictional elements: you need non-trivial real-world perspective to talk about those, and thus that section is still needed as well. --MASEM 13:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Again you are confusing fiction with the medium of distribution. From a notability standpoint, they are seperate, in the same way a book does not necessarily inherit notability from a film adaptation, nor does a fictional character inherit notability from its source, author or publisher. Other guidelines, such music (opera), films, books, or TV programmes don't have to distinguish between fictional or non-fictional subeject matter, because they deal with media that exists in the real-world. WP:FICT makes this clear right at the start:

For articles about books and films, rather than fictional elements therein, refer to Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (films).

Please be clear, that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) covers the notability of events, characters, places, and other elements in a work of fiction, not the media in which they are presented.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly the case. WP:FICT covers works of fiction, as well as the fictional elements therein; WP:BK, WP:TOY and similar cover works in specific media. If a story only appears in a book, then the story and the book are effectively a single topic. We don't make it clear under what circumstances they should have only a single article, and under what circumstances they deserve separate coverage; perhaps we should. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that a book, meeting WP:BK, that happens to be a novel, can't have an article that actually talks about the contents (ie the story), only about the binding, publishing, figures etc? Come off it! If, on the other hand, you mean that a character, setting, etc etc isn't notable simply because the story (be it novel, film, whatever) they appear in is notable, I don't think anyone here will disagree with you. SamBC(talk) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, even if we did consider this to include the works of fiction as well as elements (which may be worthwhile, I'm not sure), it's no problem that some items would be covered by two guidelines; in that case, they only have to satisfy one to demonstrate notability, per WP:N. For example, any academic can satisfy WP:BIO or WP:PROF; similarly for athletes, or even more so for anyone who's been both an academic and and athlete. There's no contradiction or problem here, they can demonstrate notability as an athlete, as an academic, as a person, or using the GNC, and any one of those will do. SamBC(talk) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps I am not making myself clear: WP:BK governs the notability of a book which can be comprised one or more works of fiction, such as the collection of short stories The Lady of the Barge, but WP:FICT governs the notability of fictional works of which it is comprised, such as The Monkey's Paw. The notability of one is seperate from the other. I should therefore clarify my position by saying that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) covers the notability of individual stories, episodes, characters, places, and other elements in a work of fiction. Sambc's point about the binding is a red herring: the packaging of books falls outside this discussion. However, I disagree with his point that books, films and fictional characters inherit notabaility automatically from each other, and I have given the example before of Quiller, whose notability outside the books and film in which he features is debatable using WP:FICT as the governing guideline. I think we need to make a clear distinction that WP:FICT does not supercede WP:BK or WP:MOVIE, and vice versa. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't supercede; it complements them. WP:FICT covers all works of fiction, as well as their elements, no matter the medium. WP:BK et al provide more specific guidelines for specific media. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(←)While I disagree that FICT shouldn't cover some aspects of media notability, I do see now and agree that the way the guideline is written that the lead into the second section is a little off in that it impresses that it will be talking about fictional elements but starts with media first. I've basically renamed that section to make sure it's addressing media, then added a new section with a lead that approaches what I had listed in the previous section, that is, what is the real world coverage for elements of fiction. --MASEM 15:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Um, I said that notability isn't inherited: "If, on the other hand, you mean that a character, setting, etc etc isn't notable simply because the story (be it novel, film, whatever) they appear in is notable, I don't think anyone here will disagree with you."
• Do you disagree that an acedemic who was an athlete can have an article if they satisfy any one of WP:BIO, WP:PROF, or whatever the one for athletes is? SamBC(talk) 15:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I beleive that Roger Bannister could meet that requirement, as he was the first man to run the Four-minute mile. However, note that both articles assert notability of their subject matter seperately. In the real-world everthing is connected but in Wikipedia, the real-world in broken up into discrete chunks, each of which must demonstrate notability as a prerequisite for inclusion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pushing the definition of Fiction one step further

Not presuming that anything I have said or proposed to date is deemed to have been accepted, I would like to make a formal proposal to extend the application of WP:FICT as follows:

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) covers the notability of individual stories, episodes, characters, places, and other elements in a work of fiction, including the use of plot summaries to describe those elements.

By this I mean that WP:FICT not only covers the article Jedi, but would also govern the use of plot summary to describe the fictional elements within the article (a lot of which is has no evidence of notablity at all). The effect of this extension of the WP:FICT remit is that plot summaries, including those used in articles about films, books and games will fall under this guideline. At the moment, WP:NOT#PLOT proscribes the type of article that is entirely comprised of plot summary, but what is sorely needed is for this guideline to govern the use of plot summary where the article is slightly less than 100% plot summary, as there are articles on notable topics like Jedi are being used as coatracks for plot summaries on fictional elements, such as Jedi#Dark_Nest for which there is no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been argued that what you are looking for is in WP:WAF, a manual of style. Once there is some aspect of notability shown, it's how to balance the rest of the article around it, and thus while we address depth of coverage here, the approach to such articles is what WAF describes. And yes, WAF already states that articles written primarily about or in in-universe style are not appropriate and need to be trimmed. However, it is not notability's job, since technically notability does not limit what is covered in an article. (from WP:N) --MASEM 16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read WP:N, it makes clear that the contents of an article don't need to demonstrate notability, only the topic of the article. Those sort of coatrack issues are more to do with undue weight, and with style. SamBC(talk) 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree, as an over reliance on an in universe perspective in plot summaries is a key indicator that a fictional topic has no real-world coverage from reliable sources, and therefore lacks evidence of notability.
  I think I addressed this issue before in my opposition to "aggregates", but from another angle. Previously I have stated my opposition to aggregates on the grounds they are actually lists of fictional elements embeded in article whose notability is unproven. However, my position has changed slightly, as I now recognise that plot summaries dealing with fictional elments that are not notable are common in articles whose overarching subject is notable (e.g. Jedi#Dark_Nest), and I propose that plot summary should only be used to describe fictional elements of proven notability. What I am proposing goes beyond the style issues of WP:WAF; I propose that WP:FICT should identfiy those notable elements for which plot summaries are appropriate, and how to deal with plot summaries about topics that are of unproven notability where plot summary is used to pad out articles with inappropriate fancruft, even if the plot summary cites reliable sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Then you're disagreeing with what the notability guideline says. Let's be clear; once a topic is notable (ie, the article on it demonstrates that it meets either WP:N's GNC or a relevant specific guideline), then there is no notability issue whatever the content beyond that. There is relevancy, there is undue weight, there's even WP:NOT#PLOT, but notability is no longer an issue. Sections of article do not need to demonstrate notability. That doesn't mean that a huge section on a non-notable topic is fine, it just means that there is not problem vis-a-vis the wikipedia understanding of "notability". This misunderstanding or clash of language, if such it is, might explain some of the seemingly unresolvable disagreements you've had, Gavin. Those sections are a problem, but there isn't really any specific guideline that you can spank them with, and I don't think this one ever will be, because it's not a problem unique or specific to fictional topics; that's just where you've seen it most. I think the logic you could apply to them, although people would disagree (including me, in part), would be:
    1. Disproportionately long sections should be spun out
    2. If this section were spun out, it would be deletable as non-notable
       • Therefore it cannot be spun out
    3. Therefore it must be trimmed, such that it is not disproportionately long
  • The point where people will disagree is point 2, because various guidelines and policy can easily be read as permitting spinouts, and there's no convincing reason I've seen to consider that reading as invalid, apart from it being blatantly silly. At the same time, allowing no spinouts of that sort is also silly, according to many editors who have joined this discussion, hence the attempt to find some middle ground.SamBC(talk) 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • PS: For the record, I'd like to say that I am very nearly comfortable with that logic, but I think the conclusion it reaches is, by common sense, wrong; I just can't put my finger on why. I think maybe we should work out what the conclusion should be, and the reasoning for it, put it in an essay and buck for its promotion. Most importantly, it should not be restricted to fictional topics. It might be possible to add it somewhere else instead, but adding it somewhere stable may be more difficult than proposing it separately and then getting a reference to it in a stable guideline/policy. SamBC(talk) 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion, allow spinouts of non-notable subjects if there is an article on a notable subject in wikipedia and the spinout article is needed for a proper understanding of the content presented in the notable article. If this condition is not met then delete or trim as needed. Taemyr (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have several responses to the points made above:

1. In response to SamBC and his points about "once a topic is notable...then there is no notability issue whatever the content beyond that" cannot be the case, and the example cited (Jedi#Dark_Nest) demonstrates the fact that although the various guidelines and policy can easily be read as permitting spinouts, I think we are already agreed that spinouts have to be of proven notablity. However, what I think SamBC is missing from his analysis is something that I thought we were already agreed upon, namely that WP:FICT deals with fictional topics at the elemental level, and Sambc may have forgotten that Dark Nest is seperate element from the overarching subject, and its notability should be examined and considered seperately from the overarching subject.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
   • WP:NOTE states that notability only governs the existence of an article, not their content. There are plenty of other policies and guidelines that can be enforced in situations such as you describe, there's no need to claim that fictional topics have a completely different handling of notability (for content rather than existence), the problems you describe are already violations of policy and guidelines. SamBC(talk) 11:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Although Taemyr suggests that spinouts are needed for a proper understanding of the subject, I think he means to a say a real-world understanding of the subject, not an in universe plot summary. Once you recognise that the article (Jedi) is being used a coatrack for the unnotable fictional element Dark Nest, it becomes easier to understand why the article is so long and contains so little real-world content; basically its gone off topic, and it has gone off topic in order to accomodate fictional elements of unproven notability. The principle here is very simple; fictional subjects should not be spunout with coverage of non-notable fictional elements, because the only coverage available for these elements is plot summary which places undue reliance on a perspective that is in universe. This principle is verified by the fact that in universe plot summary is a key indicator that the element (such as Dark Nest) lacks real-world coverage from reliable secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
   • That doesn't need notability as a weapon, it's already an issue for WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:UNDUE. SamBC(talk) 11:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
3. To go back to my earlier point about why the definition of WP:FICT needs to be extended is because currently it is not entirely logical as SamBC suggests; it suggests that spinout articles are permissable even though their content (plot summary) is considered a serious style issue. Dark Nest is an example of an in universe plot summary that could be removed from the article on the grounds it contravenes WP:NOT#PLOT or completely rewritten on the grounds it fails WP:WAF. What I am proposing is that WP:FICT should be extended to cover this type of coatrack article by amending the definition slightly to say the following:

   Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) covers the notability of individual stories, episodes, characters, places, and other elements in a work of fiction, including plot summary used to describe the relationship between those fictional elements.

   • This guideline needs fixing, no-one disagrees with that. The current version has no consensus whatsoever, IMO. It's staying the way it is because no-one can agree how to change it. If I weren't so busy, I'd write something from scratch elsewhere as a starting point, but I have a lot of work to be doing. SamBC(talk) 11:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
4. What I am saying here is that WP:FICT is silent on plot summaries, not because this is a style issue dealt with by WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT, but because plot summaries have not been recognised a means of describing the relationship between plot elements. An analogy would be organic chemistry: it would be silly to have a definition of a chemical compound that did not take into account the relationships (bonds) between elements, as well as the elements themselves.I hope that SamBC can see the common sense of this proposal.

I hope everyone now sees why the defintion of WP:FICT has to be extended and refined; plot summaries should be used to describe the relationships between fictional elements from a real-world perspective, not only because this is a style issue, but also because those relationships are of unproven notability if undue reliance is placed on in universe coverrage.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to extend the concept of notability for fiction well beyond what it means for other topics. WP:UNDUE extends from policy WP:NPOV, and we also have the stipulation from WP:PLOT that concise plot descriptions are appropriate with notable topics. When the in-universe aspects of an article or a spinout (if we allow them) go beyond the appropriate balance and length we have policies to fall back on that state that this approach is not good. Now, mind you, reiterating them to some extent in FICT and moreso in WAF to explain that long, drawn out details are not acceptable in the lack of notable information is fine, but there is no need to create new rules, redefinining what the already complex world of notability means on WP, and can only go off what we have, just taking a more active approach to cut out crufty details. FICT as a guideline should come down to basically say what aspects of fiction should be covered, but to what level it is covered better with existing policy. --MASEM 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT also says that plot summaries shouldn't outweigh the real-world details, as I read it. SamBC(talk) 11:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already covered in more appropriate P's and G's. Jedi just needs work, and your addition to FICT will not accomplish it.- Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• In response to --Masem, I think WP:UNDUE relates to real-world coverage, not in universe coverage. I agree with him that WP:FICT as a guideline should come down to basically say what aspects of fiction should be covered, and clearly plot summary is one of those key aspect of fiction that should be addressed by the guideline. Essentially, plot summary should describe the relationship between fictional elements from a real-world perspective, as plot summary which places undue reliance on an in universe perspective is a key indicator that the notability of a fictional element is unproven. As Peregrine Fisher points out, Jedi#Dark_Nest needs work to remove the in universe perspective and replace it with real-world content that will demonstrate the notability of this fictional element.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not what Peregrine Fisher said, he said it needs work, not as specific as you claim. There is no need for Dark Nest to demonstrate notability if it remains as a section of Jedi; however, it may be unreasonably long for its place in the topic, and may contain excessive plot summary. You also seem to be constructing new restrictions on what plot summary is without basis in policy, guidelines, or consensus, just your own views. SamBC(talk) 11:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • UNDUE covers any bias, though normally aimed at POV issues, it is also can apply if one specific aspect of an article is given more treatment than another relative to the amount of sourcing available; in this specific case, I am sure there are some editors that really really like a show that they want to go into every detail of the show's case, and then add or two lines of real world stuff to justify that. That is a violation of UNDUE and PLOT. (And yes, the countercase is true too: a person that avoids mentioning any plot details while discussing a work of fiction's notability for whatever reason (including avoiding spoilers) is violating at least UNDUE, not so much PLOT). That's what I mean: we have two policies that already guide the fact that loading up articles with in-universe material is not acceptable, we can reiterate that in WAF and here, but we need nothing new for that. --MASEM 13:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have to disagree with you; the section Jedi#Dark_Nest is not just an example of excessive plot summary that fails WP:NOT#PLOT, its an element of fiction that fails WP:NOTE as well, but this guideline fails to spell this out. In universe plot summary is a symptom that a fictional element is of unproven notability, so in my view it is important to bring plot into the definiton of the guideline, otherwise editors will have to look to WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF for guidance on fictional topics, when in fact is should be WP:FICT that should be providing that guidance that ties in with these other guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You'd be talking about extending notability entirely; sections don't have to demonstrate notability. A topic doesn't have to be notable to be mentioned, it has to be notable to have an article. Notability does not limit content. That is the status quo, with consensus for quite some time. SamBC(talk) 15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NNC does not limit content about a notable topic, but WP:NOT#PLOT does. The defintion of WP:FICT needs to be extended so that it can deal with the middle ground.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A thought about how to better deal with some fictional articles

Please see here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is a reasonable proposal to suggest that fancruft be transwikied, but flawed for one reason: Wikipedia is the most attractive site on the internet for to editors wishing to write about their favorite topic, regardless of notability, because Wikipedia has a wider readership, more contributors, and is more likely to last a lot longer than any fan wiki. For these reasons, editors spaming fancruft congregate here like limpets to a ship, and moving them and their contributions to another wiki will be difficult.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Poll regarding the definition

I will jump in ahead of Sambc here (appologies) with a refined version of my proposal:

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) covers the notability of individual stories, episodes, characters, places, events and other elements in a work of fiction, including plot used to describe the relationship between these fictional elements.

I am happy for a poll to proceed as feedback is good. Note that I am proposing extending the defintion at the start of the guideline.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So, does that mean that you now accept WP:NCC applying to fiction-related stuff, and the arguments about WP:UNDUE and WP:PLOT being sufficient have swayed you? If so, I'll strikeout the I've written below, as it no longer applies. I also don't understand what you mean about plot, even reading it as "in universe content", as topics have notability, content doesn't, and you don't have articles about "in universe content" or "plot", you have articles about topics, and sometimes they include too much in-universe and plot-based content. SamBC(talk) 14:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: does anyone support Gavin's suggestion that WP:FICT specify that notability apply to individual sections etc of an article, where those sections refer to an element that could be handled separately if it were notable? I think that's what it amounts to. Note that this isn't meant to be a real poll per se, certainly not binding, just to get clear answers out of people so we can see what people think of the basic idea, rather than the tangled debate above. SamBC(talk) 11:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose no need to treat fiction so differently from other topics. Differently, not that differently or in that way. SamBC(talk) 11:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, does anyone support Gavin's suggestion that WP:FICT restrict the use of plot summary, even though other policies and guidelines already do so? Ditto about polling. SamBC(talk) 11:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose there's plenty of guidance about this already; people not following that guidance doesn't mean they need more of it. SamBC(talk) 11:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If I've misunderstood your intent, Gavin, I apologise; please feel free to clarify and people can then adjust their indications of support or opposition. SamBC(talk) 11:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Confused - Notability does not limit content, so WP:FICT can't be applied to the contents of an article; just whole articles. As for adding "including plot used to describe the relationship between these fictional elements", that seems to be a misunderstanding of the word 'plot' - perhaps you mean "the use of in-universe information". I'm happy for it to be spelt out that articles describing seasons or story arcs fall within WP:FICT's remit, but I think that's pretty well understood already. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that what Gavin is proposing, and what is perfectly fine if we say this guideline is about more than notability and the community gives consensus, is that we make an exception to that and say that, for fictional topics, elements included in an article on a notable topic must also be notable. Assuming that Gavin recognises that current guidelines say that notability does not limit content, I believe that he thinks it should in the case of fictional and fiction-related topics. SamBC(talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, well, I oppose that then. WP:WAF and WP:PLOT are sufficient for me. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you are missing the point of widening the defintion of WP:FICT; althoughWP:NNC does not limit content about a notable topic, but WP:NOT#PLOT does, and WP:FICT needs to cover the middle ground.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not missing the point; I just disagree with doing it. WP:FICT is a notability guideline for fictional elements; it should help to answer the question "when is a fictional topic notable?". You can look at whether or not sections are notable or not, but notability doesn't limit content, so the answer you come up with is irrelevant. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • What? What "middle ground"? WP:PLOT makes the restriction, WP:WAF elaborates on it (and could probably do so better), but it has nothing to do with notability. The notability guidelines and such don't care if an article has 90% of its space taken up with tangential crap, because that's not their job; that job is covered by other policies and guidelines. No-one is saying that the 90% situation should occur, or anything close to it, but we don't need to spell that out in a notability guideline. SamBC(talk) 10:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Have a look at the current discussion at Talk:Kender and you will see what I mean by the middle ground. There is immense confusion there is between WP:NOT#PLOT and its interaction iwth other guidelines. I urge you to reconsider my proposal to expand the definition for WP:FICT as a first step to addressing the confusion. This guideline should be making it clear what is and is not a fictional element, and that defintion should include plot. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • If anyone wants to chime in there that would be cool - however, the debate there isn't about notability (which hasn't been established for the article, and it is clear that the notability tag should remain until this is rectified), but about whether the plot-summary tag is appropriate as opposed to the in-universe tag. And there is no question that at least one of those tags should remain. Either way, the definition above would have no bearing, as it isn't a notability concern. - Bilby (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll post this over there too: it should be understood that plot, boiled down to its barest form is: "This is what happens." Elements of a story do not on their own compose a plot. Snuppy 00:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I haven't looked at Kender yet, but I do have to say that elements of a story can still be plot; they're not a complete plot, but they can still be elements of plot. SamBC(talk) 01:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
          • He's arguing that describing a kender as 4' tall counts as plot. Thus my sweeping generalization that plot is something that happens. To go into more detail, I recognize that plot relies on various elements within a story, and a case could be made that a kender's height could be a plot element in a particular story - but Gavin is trying to suggest that mere description of any race of fictional characters, by their very nature as potential elements of plot for an unspecified story, counts as plot. This then allows him to slot the WP:NOT#Plot argument into any discussion about removing the (misplaced) Plot Summary cleanup template. Snuppy 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
            • You'll see that, in the context of the Kender article, I agree with you; that comment made here, without that context, seemed rather broader than, I think, you meant it. SamBC(talk) 01:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I have altered my position about the article Kender, which I now realise is a mix of synthesis (i.e. combining fictional elements with speculation in a real-world style) and plot summary (summarising fictional elements and plot in an in universe style). I admit that I have been confused about the content of this article, but now I can distinguish between, fact, fiction and speculation (and the various combinations of the three), and this convinces me that this guideline needs to address these issues by applying the broader definition I have proposed at the start of this section.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice board

Even when its details are still hotly debated, this guideline offers great advice for improving the encyclopedia. Too bad it proves worthless because the only ways to use it for editing is through edit-warring and merciless AfDing (or dispute resolution where ILIKEIT and FICT / NOT#PLOT so often meet, with an obvious outcome right from the start). So would everyone stop by the noticeboard from time to time and offer their opinion? I'd really like to avoid arming myself with WP:NOT#PLOT and go to AfD for every article where a merge proposal and polite common sense might do otherwise, knowing that there is experienced "back-up" where necessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like you will have to arm yourself with WP:NOT#PLOT, because, as WP:FICT currently stands, it offers no guidance on the notability of fictional elements, only exemptions from WP:NOTE. For example, in a debate about the relevance of the notability (fiction) cleanup template, one editor is using WP:FICT as a defense against using the cleanup template. I think you are going to have to rename the notice borard from Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard to WP:NOT#PLOT/Noticeboard, because WP:FICT became haven for lovers of fancruft after January 27th. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay Gavin, you're skimming the borders of civility again. Please calm down. Also, specific notability guidelines often give what might appear to be "exemption from WP:NOTE", in that they give alternative criteria to judge notability. However, most of the people actively discussing have expressed their wish to avoid allowing any and all spinouts; in my case, take a look at my recent contributions regarding D&D monsters and VtM sects. Take it easy and please consider compromise. SamBC(talk) 10:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Alternative criteria are very different from what WP:FICT is currently saying: "individual elements cannot establish notability individually, a grouping of elements may be able to do so" and "Sections of an article do not need to demonstrate independent notability". In my view, these statements run contrary to WP:NOTE, and are more than just alternative criteria. I know this is not your viewpoint, but I think that sgeureka has got a point, if this guideline offers "alternative criteria" that cannot be enforced, then WP:NOT#PLOT will become the effective guideline of last resort for fictional subjects. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • "Sections of an article do not need to demonstrate independent notability" is exactly in line with WP:N. Notability limits what articles may exist, not the contents of those articles; that's down to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and sundry other guidelines and policies (including WP:PLOT). You seem to be misunderstanding the role of notability. That doesn't mean you can stick a section on a non-notable topic into any article on a notable topic, the section topic has to be relevant to the article topic, and that isn't the only restriction. However, section topics do not need to demonstrate independent notability, or any notability, just be relevant to the article topic, verifiable, NPOV, non-OR, not be purely plot summary (unless the section is a plot summary supplementing other bits of the article, and then not be over large), and so on. SamBC(talk) 11:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm also not sure what's wrong with suggesting that individual topics, not individually notable, may be part of a group that is corporately notable; that's been practice on wikipedia for some time, as far as I can tell. SamBC(talk) 11:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Not to put words into Gavin's mouth, but I think his concern, and one I'd have, is that say I had a work of fiction with 20 major characters, 40 minors ones, and a bunch of others, and only one character is truly notable; the "list of characters" from that work is not notable because one character is though the suggestion Percy added could be read that it is, Instead as it is usually done now, the "list of characters" is a non-notable spinout, with the one notable character given its own article; if there's not enough information for that one character to have a worthwhile article, then the notable information can be added to the list, but the list is still not notable overall. There would need to be some qualifier (fuzzy) to assert that if some fraction X of the characters are notable in a list, the list is sufficient, at least 50% is certainly on the right lines, but I could see, say, more than 25% if that 25% was all the major characters with the minor characters being added to bring a complete "list of characters". However, this is going to be a case by case basis. --MASEM 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Approaching the problem from a different angle

This idea is inspired by what Gavin is proposing (though I don't agree with it). As this also involves WAF, I will drop a message there to point to here.

Let's take a work of fiction and assume that the work itself is notable through numerous sources; however, these secondary sources nor any other non-primary sources talk about the fictional universe of the work. For this thought experiment, let us assume that WP:SIZE is not an issue: that is, the concept of spinouts is unnecessary. For purposes of discussion, assume this work is a television series with about 4 or more seasons (but the same thoughts can be applied to any work, save for consideration of episodes).

The question we may want to ask is: for a notable work without size restrictions without any sources of notability for any fictional elements, what types of elements and to what level of detail would it be appropriate to discuss them?

I point out that we have a "upper bound" of "all details" set by WP:NOTE (notability doesn't regulate content) but I'm sure most editors recognize this to be impractical. There are lower bounds set by WP:UNDUE and to some extent WP:PLOT, and thus there is a matter of how much discussion there is of fictional elements relative to notability, so lets assume that there's more than enough notable information about the work to always balance out the characters. I would assert that the absolute lower bound of "no plot information" is not appropriate at all.

In other words, given that all other factors relating to policy and guidelines can be met (including V, NPOV, NOR, and SYN), what elements of the fictional universe should be covered given a lack of notability for these, for purposes of encyclopedic coverage? The counterquestion, what elements should not be covered, should also be considered.

The reason I state this is that I think discussion of this will lead to

1. A better wording to include/lead off in WAF; if we state that barring any other sources of notability, the coverage of a fictional universe should be bounded by X, Y, and Z (both what can and can't be covered). Note that not all aspects need to be the qualifications for a spinoff, this is just a very top-level discussion.
2. The start of a spinout guideline for fictional elements. If we say that certain aspects are appropriate as part of coverage of a work of fiction, and then allow for spinouts, we provide bounds X, Y, and Z for what non-notable fictional spinouts are appropriate.
3. Potentially the development of fictional element notability outside of "coverage in secondary sources". If, for example, it is determined that not only a list of major characters in a work is appropriate but nearly required as part of the coverage, then it would make sense that a list of major characters meets "notability" requirements without having secondary sources. (I am not saying this is true, I'm just offering as one way this could go).

Note that these will be very general guidelines - some works may require more, some less, and thus we cannot pro-actively restrict the discussion of certain fictional elements for all works.

Now, I have no idea where this will go, so I'll start with stating what I think at least qualifies as part of a unbounded notable work of fiction's coverage:

• The setting of the work, which can include:
  • New terminology specific to the work
  • Major races/species or the equivalent for the work
  • Key locations for the work
• The major characters of the work
• The minor characters of the work
• The general plot of the work
• If a tv series or other serial work, a list of individual episodes in the work, in which specific one-time/cameo/infrequent aspects can be mentioned if they are critical to the plot.

In all cases, these are to be concise descriptions, a paragraph at most for each "element" (less for minor characters). --MASEM 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that you've said these are appearing in an article on a notable work, isn't this solely a style/content issue, not notability? Perhaps you should move this there and point here rather than vice versa. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a combination of style and notability issues. Obvious style as to what is appropriate to be covered, but this as I noted points to what is appropriate as possible spinouts, which the discussion has been focused here. And we may get a better feel for what are other possible ways of demonstrating notability besides coverage through this discussion. --MASEM 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's purely style/content. The article is notable; there is no further question of notability for its contents, because notability does not limit content. Spinouts aren't contents, so their notability is a different issue, but you've said above it's not one that we're dealing with. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

These are things that should always be considered "worth mentioning" in the article on the work itself? It sounds like it makes sense for WP:WAF, in that case. If you're saying that these are things that can always be spun out, then definitely not. SamBC(talk) 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a crossover issue between NOTE and WAF, it could have gone in either, but given that this is inspired from what Gavin has been suggesting, it makes more sense to discuss here (but as noted, I've dropped a note to WAF about this). And no, I'm not saying that these are guidelines for spinouts directly though I expect what are appropriate non-notable spinoffs (or what are not appropriate) will be a subset of what is discussed. --MASEM 16:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no crossover here. You say notability has been established, so WP:FICT's job here is done. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the editors who have recently expressed that WP:FICT has never been just a notability guideline, I think you misunderstand what Masem is talking about. He's not suggesting that material go here; he's suggesting a coordinated rewrite of both WP:FICT and WP:WAF, the two coordinated together, to address the concerns that have been raised here; this is better than "this is a problem and WAF doesn't address it, so we must change FICT to address it", as some seem to be advocating. SamBC(talk) 17:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what he's said, but if that's what he means, then my reply would be: if this is a problem and WAF doesn't address it, change WAF. This page is and should remain a notability guideline. Coordinating with WAF is fine, but let's keep the style guidance on the style page and the notability guidelines on the notability page. Confusing the two seems like an attempt to get back to a situation where the style advice for spinouts can override the notability concerns for spinouts, but I'll assume that's not deliberate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there; I think Masem does, generally, as well; he's not suggesting making these changes to WP:FICT, he's suggesting covering these points between WAF, FICT, and some putative new guideline. At least, that's how I read it. The list he makes is more for WAF than FICT, AIUI. Only point 3 of Masem's list would definitely be here; point 1 would be on WAF, and point 2 could be here or a new guideline. Whether it's a good idea or not, I'm not sure, but I think, given your reasons for dismissal, that you've still misunderstood slightly. Either that or I have, in which case you're probably right. Unless we both misunderstood, and missed the point entirely. SamBC(talk) 10:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Could happen :-) Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I know this is more about WAF, but there are notability and spinout issues that fall out from it; it is both style and notability in basically how both are combined in how we should cover all non-notable aspects of a notable work of fiction. Either place would have worked, but FICT gets much more traffic due to both the volume of discussion already and the number of times its used for article deletion and similar debates. --MASEM 13:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how notability issues come into it, unless you treat spinouts as part of the parent. It's been shown that we shouldn't, so contents and notability remain separate issues. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has shown that spinouts shouldn't be treated as part of the parent (nor its opposite). [break]

The RFC and polls have shown that consensus is against doing so; so I contest that statement. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But that's not the only crossover point. Say that its determined through style that a list of major characters is always appropriate for an article of fiction, regardless of their notability. Then we need to state that a list of major characters of a notable work is notable, not due to coverage in secondary sources, but from a new aspect of notability created for FICT. [break]

That doesn't follow at all. If it's "determined through style that a list of major characters is always appropriate for an article of fiction" then embedded lists will be created in articles. Notability doesn't enter the equation unless those lists are presented in articles of their own. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not arguing for or against this specific example, it is only just that). It's been determined well before that regardless of spinouts, WAF and FICT are extremely tied together through notability, even though some lines can be drawn to say what belongs where, but its impossible to talk style without mentioning notability, and notability without talking about style. --MASEM 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Notability is about the existence or otherwise of articles; it's not about their content. Only when you blur the line between articles and contents of articles by inventing a rule that says some articles are inside others do the two mix; and since inventing such a rule has the consequence of making all possible articles notable, we shouldn't invent it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(deindenting) The problem with saying that an article is never a part of another article is that then you will get situations where spinning content out of an article is the same as deleting the content. Assume that the situation that Masem describes comes about, ie. works on fiction should include a list of their major characters, now consider Sagas of Icelanders. Such a list would cover about a hundred names and would have to be spun out. So we would have to consider the notability of the list. Then our notability standards comes into direct conflict with our content guideline. I have already given a suggestion for allowing spinouts in a way that does not constitute autokeep, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Pushing the definition a step further. Taemyr (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a problem at all. If the article grows large enough that spinouts are "necessary", but doesn't contain enough sources of real-world coverage for its sections to justify independent articles, then it has failed either WP:V or WP:PLOT; it should be edited down to a reasonable size. In other words, if "spinning content out of an article is the same as deleting the content" then it is appropriate to delete that content. That's not notability limiting content; it's notability being consistent with other policies. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion (I assume you mean "allow spinouts of non-notable subjects if there is an article on a notable subject in wikipedia and the spinout article is needed for a proper understanding of the content presented in the notable article"), given WP:V and that Notability requires objective evidence, it would be necessary to include sources to demonstrate that "the spinout article is needed for a proper understanding..." - so your suggestion is identical to mine (WP:FICT#Some topics are necessary to understand others) Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that WP:V is a less restrictive guideline for facts than what WP:NOTE is for articles. WP:V allows unsourced facts to remain if said facts are uncontroversial. So a section containing solely uncontroversial can exist without any sources. This might include sections such as primers for persons who have no prior exposure to the subject and similar. [break]

Articles and facts are treated the same way. If a fact is challenged, it has to be sourced or removed; if an article is AFDed, it needs to meet a notability guideline or be deleted. We have {{fact}} and {{prod}} for less strong challenges. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles and facts is not treated the same way, since sourcing for facts has a weaker criteria than notability for articles.Taemyr (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V requires sources for facts if they are challenged; WP:N does the same for articles. It's more involved for articles, but I wouldn't call it stronger. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V also allows sourcing to primary sources if it is simple descriptive claims that requires no judgment to extract from the source. This might occasionally include things such as plot expositions, and frequently include things like production details taken from editorial commentary. [break]

Indeed, but WP:PLOT requires that they not be the only sources, just as WP:FICT used to require that for articles. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT does not require that the section that is a plot exposition has more sources. Although it does require that the plot exposition is not existing merely for it's own sake, so it requires additional sources for the overarching subject.Taemyr (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not on its own, but together with WP:V it does. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you will note that I am arguing for a more restrictive inclusion criteria for articles on fictional topics. In that for an article on a fictional element to be considered worthy of inclusion then there has to be sources showing real world impact.

That's only 'more restrictive' because the current spinouts section completely removes notability as a concern. It's about the same level as is generally required. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear here. I meant this proposal Wikipedia_talk:Notability (fiction)#General notability guideline is too weak when applied to fictional elements.

In that case, it seems like you're arguing for a less restrictive set of criteria, not more, because articles on fictional elements could meet either the GNC or the "essential topics" criterion. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I want a more restrictive general inclusion criteria, and that means a more pressing need for a spinout clause. Taemyr (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In what way to you want the general notability criterion to be more restrictive? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If such a wording is adopted then sections of articles on notable topics containing solely plot exposition might well be considered non-appropriate as a wikipedia article despite available, independent, reliable sources for all presented facts. As to objective evidence, note that I only talk about pages failing our other inclusion criteria, so the fact that notability requires objective evidence is immaterial. As far as I can see "needed for proper understanding" would, like any presentation concern, have to be a consensus decision. [break]

Notability requires objective evidence, so if "needed for proper understanding" is to be part of a notability criterion, it must require objective evidence. Since fictional notability claims are likely to be challenged, that means sources are required. Handwavy "this is needed" is insufficient. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate, we are talking subjects that perhaps should be kept despite failing our other inclusion guidelines. This implies that they are non-notable, so what WP:Note has to say is immaterial. [break]

That's completely wrong. If subjects should be kept, they are notable: that's what notability is. WP:NOTE gives one example of how to identify notable topics, and says that there are others. It goes on to say that however you identify notable topics, you need objective evidence. If a subject should be kept, but doesn't meet our guidelines, then the guidelines are incomplete. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition we are not writing "This is needed" in our articles, so what WP:V says is immaterial. [break]

Wrong again. Notability requires objective evidence, so we do have to have an assertion of notability in an article. Per WP:V, that assertion must be sourced. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Handwavy "this is needed" is unlikely to be an sufficient argument to create consensus unless it's obvious to "everyone" that it indeed is needed. Or put another way a handwavy "this is needed" is only sufficient if no one disagrees. If someone disagrees then a more detailed exposition of why it is needed should be provided. This concern is why I would support the bias towards deletion that I mentioned earlier. Taemyr (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If we've learnt anything here, it's that someone will always challenge the notability of a fictional topic (I'm sure Gavin will back me up on that) and so a sourced assertion of notability is always required for fictional topics. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I would support an bias towards deletion for pages that is included solely due to spinout status. Ie. if there is demonstrable consensus that the article does not meet our inclusion criteria then there would need to be a demonstrable consensus for the fact that an article is needed if the article is to be kept. Concrete example; Lets say it's decided that Jedi#Dark_Nest needs to be spun out from Jedi. Now Dark Nest (star wars universe)(as opposed to the triology Dark Nest), would almost certainly fail any inclusion guideline you care to present. Then Dark Nest (star wars universe) could be seen as part of Jedi and kept despite failing our inclusion guideline if consensus exists that Dark Nest (star wars universe) would be needed for understanding of Jedi. This can be paraphrased as an inclusion guideline for facts saying, a verifiable or uncontroversial fact should be available on wikipedia if(f) it is needed for a notable topic or it is in itself notable. Where I by if(f) definitely mean if, and possibly even iff. Taemyr (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If sources were required in both cases, I'd agree. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources or reliable independent sources giving non-trivial coverage? If the latter then you are saying that we can delete valid content by spinning it out and then delete the article we spin it out into. Taemyr (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources, definitely. Independent, I'm undecided. Non-trivial? I think most editors would say that a single sentence saying "X is essential for Y" in a piece on Y is a "trivial mention" of X, so I'd have to say no. So it's not just the GNC restated; it's a weaker condition. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't get myself to agree that we should require our sources to say "this is needed". I feel this decision should be left to our editors. I can agree that we should require sources, or more specifically that even spinout articles should not be exempt from WP:V. However, I must repeat myself, "This is needed" although it should be mentioned in discussions need not in any way be presented as a fact in our articles. Taemyr (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Notability requires objective evidence; that evidence requires sources. The decision of editors is not objective evidence, and is unsuitable as a criterion for notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand what Taemyr is saying, Percy. Sources do not actually say "this is notable" or not. That has always been something the community of editors has decided, via certain criteria, etc. -- Ned Scott 11:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Sources don't say "this is notable"; they say "this has quality X" where quality X appears in a notability guideline. For example, WP:BK allows books that have won a literary award, so the article would say "this book has won award Y" and that statement would need a source. We're talking about having "essential to understand another topic" be part of our notability guidelines, so the article would say "this is essential to understand topic Z" (where Z was notable) and that statement would need a source. Because notability requires objective evidence and challenged statements must be sourced, we have to have sources say that the subtopic is essential; we can't rely on the opinions of editors. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, that has always been up to the opinion of editors. When WP:BK says that a book has to have won such and such award, that was because editors set the bar and set the criteria for that specific situation. They made the call, that the award was enough to deem something notable. For FICT specifically, something like "if this is essential to understanding topic Z", has always been decided by editors. It's how we determine common names for anime characters in WP:MOS-ANIME, or how we determine if a character is "minor" or "major". Very few guidelines will require sources for something like that. -- Ned Scott 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How can it be up to the opinion of editors whether a book has won an award or not? I'm not saying we need sources for the notability guideline - I'm saying we need sources for individual articles which claim to be essential to the understanding of another article. How to name a character is one thing, but whether or not to include them requires objective evidence, not just opinion. If we leave it up to individual editors, we'll get flamewar after flamewar with editors saying "of course my favourite character is essential!". Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need sources for articles that claim to be essential for understanding another article. Provided such a claim is likely to be challenged, this follows from WP:V. But the articles in question need not claim this, editors will claim this about the article. It's a different matter altogether. And an editor that ignores consensus on the point that some character is essential for understanding, is disruptive. An editor that presents an argument that this understanding this character is essential for understanding this subject because... is perhaps one we should listen to. If not automatically belive. Taemyr (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should rely on sources in the talk page or an AFD debate to assert notability. If a topic is notable solely because it's essential to another topic, then that's the most important thing to be said about that topic, and it should be stated right there in the lead sentence. That has the benefit of being immediately obvious to editors, and so it will avoid unnecessary AFD wars. If an article's notability is never challenged, it doesn't need to contain an assertion of notability; but if it doesn't contain an assertion of notability it's very likely that its notability will be challenged. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed that statement would be an important statement, and one we should include. But if it can not be sourced, and if it in addition is liable to be contested, then we can't. Taemyr (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. But if it can not be sourced, then the required objective evidence doesn't exist; so the editor was wrong when they decided the article was necessary; it's therefore non-notable and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The objective evidence could be a synthesis of facts from primary sources. In which case it exists, but can't be sources. Taemyr (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's a synthesis of facts performed by an editor, it's not objective: it's just an opinion and we can and should disregard it (see WP:SYN). If it's a synthesis of facts presented in an independent, secondary source then it's fine and we can use it as a source. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this clear. Is it your opinion that we should disregard the opinions of fellow editors? Do you have any hope of establishing consensus for this. WP:SYN in no way states that we can disregard the opinions of an editor. It says that we can not use attribute to sources(A,B) facts which neither of sources state, even if A together with B implies the fact. So if someonthing is a syntheses we should not present it in our article if it is liable to be challenged. This need not imply that the editors opinion is wrong. And certainly does not imply that we should disregard it. If I feel an article is written in unclear prose then that is my opinion, but I do not feel that you can disregard my opinion. You can of course disagree, in which case it could be said that consensus does not exist.Taemyr (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes we should disregard editors' opinions, yes. That's why we have an AFD process - because sometimes we should disregard editors' opinions that what they put on wikipedia should stay there. When we're considering notability, and need to decide whether or not to go with one editor's opinion, or which of a set of conflicting opinions to go with, we appeal to objective evidence, which excludes biased syntheses from primary sources. If an editor thinks that a combination of two sources makes an element essential, that's just that editor's opinion; it has no objective basis in those sources. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And here I was thinking that the AFD process was to determine if consensus for deletion existed. Silly me, it is of course so that we can tell an editor that his opinion does not matter. Yes, if an editor thinks that a combination of two sources makes an element essential then that is just his opinion. One opinion does not constitute consensus, bear in mind that I said that there should be a bias for deletion if an articles spinout status is the sole reason for keeping it. So what I am saying is that if an editor can convince us that the facts presented in two sources makes an element essential, then the notability per current notability standards of that element should be moot. Taemyr (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And again, articles would require spinout status in order to keep from being deleted only when they fail our other inclusion guideline. I am in perfect agreement that such articles would not be notable. I am saying that we should keep non-notable articles if consensus exists that they are needed for understanding of a notable topic. Taemyr (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Notable" means "should be kept", not "has coverage". "We should keep non-notable articles" makes no sense; it's a contradiction in terms. If articles are needed for understanding of a notable topic, then they are themselves notable; they're an exception to the general principle that notability isn't inherited. Whether they're spinouts (created for reasons of WP:SIZE) or independent articles doesn't affect that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we splitting hairs over the use of the terms "notable / not notable / independently notable / etc" again? -- Ned Scott 11:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think so. We could really use a glossary. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But you have to show that this separate article is necessary to understand the topic (i.e. the only way to do that is with sources). You cannot split something off and go "we need this to be separate to better understand the parent article", and then do nothing but provide some plot information about the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a substitution for experiencing the fiction on your own, so the information that is split off needs to have some encyclopedic context to it. Nothing gets split off under the guise of "its notability is inhereted from the parent". Even subjects that are split off that don't have significant independent sources are split off because they have so much real world content that it's better to have a separate article on it so that you don't lag up a single page with it all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Notable" in common English parlance means worthy of note. "Notable" on wikipedia does not mean "should be kept", it means that it meets one of our notability guidelines. [break]

No, that is not the case. WP:N quite clearly disclaims that; a topic is presumed to be notable if it meets the guidelines, but failure to meet the guidelines doesn't necessarily mean a topic is non-notable. The guidelines aren't exhaustive and we're encouraged to use common sense. "Notable" means "worthy of note" means "should be kept". "Non-notable" means "not worthy of note" means "should be deleted". Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Substitute "Notability" on wikipedia implies "Has encyclopedic quality" the rest of my argument remains unchanged. Taemyr (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that it does - Notability requires objective evidence, so essential articles require sources stating that they are essential. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

you can't have it both ways. Either a topic can be notable without meeting notability guidelines or notable implies meets our notability guideline. Taemyr (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's having it both ways? A topic can be notable without meeting notability guidelines; if that happens, we should extend the guidelines, as we're discussing doing now. When we've done so, we can compare the topic with the new guidelines. When we do that, we require objective evidence to see whether the topic meets them. So the new guidelines still require objective evidence, in the form of citations to reliable sources. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are extending the guidelines then we are extending the guidelines and can make exceptions to require objective evidence. Clearly we would need a clear criteria when we do, and I have proposed consensus as such. Taemyr (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Jebus, Percy, repeating yourself ten billion times doesn't make it true. -- Ned Scott 11:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Notability for fictional topics is likely to be challenged, so assertions of notability for fictional topics require citations to reliable sources. Repeating myself ten billion times doesn't make people hear me, that's the problem. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability is set by the editors, period. The editors set the criteria for inclusion and how we might be able to define the criteria. "Notability", or something being essential to understand another topic, has always been considered to be an editorial decision. It's one we make for the readers. It is not a statement in the article text. WP:V and WP:NOR apply only to statements made in the article, not about our meta discussions and decisions for inclusion. Believe it or not, we can come to the conclusion that something is "notable" without having to source it, because our definition is something that originates from us, not from someone else's definition. That is how it's always been on Wikipedia, and that's how we're still doing it. We do not have to cite a source for our inclusion criteria. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To meet one of our notability guidelines means that the topic has encyclopedic suitability. I am saying that an article on a topic that lacks encyclopedic suitability should be kept if it is needed for an article that is notable. If you now say that the fact that an article is needed for a notable subject implies that it has encyclopedic suitability, then my response will be that in this means that we are in agreement. Because consensus overrules any policy or guideline, so if consensus exists that an article has encyclopedic suitability then that article should be kept. Taemyr (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus may trump the guideline, but it wouldn't matter if you had 30 editors saying the article was had suitable notability for separation, if the only thing on the page was an episode plot summary and nothing else. Consensus is not based around simply having a lot of people so it is so, it's based around a lot of people having strong arguments showing that it is. To do that, you must have sources to back up your claims.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please show any source indicating that edit warring is bad. I think we can agree that consensus exists that edit warring is bad. I am agreed that consensus exists for this due to strong arguments for the position that edit warring is bad. I do not agree that sources outside wikipedia is needed for those arguments to exist. Taemyr (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never said anything about edit warring (but if you're looking for a place that says it's bad, see the Wiki page on it: "Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of Wikiquette."). You cannot argue that some random episode in a show is suitable for separation, to better understand the show, without sources to back it up. Any fan can argue that episode X needs separation, because they can rattle off how it affects episodes Y, W, and Z, but without sources you cannot force someone to watch the entire show to get a grasp on this one episode's importance. Regardless, if the only thing you have is a plot, then we all know that you cannot break the policy on that. You may be given more time to fill the page with real world information, but it doesn't change the fact that you cannot find legitimate consensus to allow a page to exist with only a plot summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But you did. You stated that arguments needed to established consensus needs to be sourced. Since our policies on edit warring is detirmined by consensus you where talking about this as well.Taemyr (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets look at the argument of episode X is important because it's needed to understand Y,W, and Z. First notice that I say needed for understanding our articles on the subject. So the fan says that understanding the plot of X is needed to understand our article on Y,W, and Z. Ask him why and wait for his response. There is two cases to consider, either you don't know what episode X is about or you do. In the first case, read our article on Y, W, or Z. Was there elements in the article that was unclear because the information indicated by the fan was missing. If so you should conclude that the article on X is indeed needed. Or you do know what episode X is about and can follow the argument by the fan directly. Taemyr (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. First, we don't provide sources for rules and regulations because THOSE ARE established by the community. They are not "articles", they are just pages that detail the rules. You cannot use that as a legitimate analogy, because it isn't in the same ball field. As for the episode X. If the only thing needed to provide understanding for episodes W, Y, Z is a plot of episode X, then you dont' need a whole page for that. We have list of episode pages, and season pages that have basic plot descriptions. First, you would be violating WP:PLOT (that's a core policy, and one would you need strong consensus to ignore). Not to mention that if you need to separate a plot out onto its own then it probably means the plot is too long. If you're giving some play-by-play of an episode plot then you run the risk of copyright violations. The people that make the show also own the stories that go along. If you're providing a free alternative to viewing a show, because someone can come here and find out everything that happens in their episode, then you're potentially costing the studio their ability to market and sell their product. That's against the law. Even plot descriptions fall under fair use rules here on Wikipedia. It's the same reason why we can't have 20 screencaptures from our favorite episode without legitimate reason. So, how would episode X be able to stay out on its own, if it only had a plot description? Well, you would need to have some real world information on that episode. How do you provide real world information? I'm glad you asked, because it's down with sources. Hence, you cannot split out articles that have no sources, and contain nothing but plots (or in-universe information, if that's the term you wish to use).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So our rules and regulations is not based on consensus? You said; Consensus is not based around simply having a lot of people so it is so, it's based around a lot of people having strong arguments showing that it is. To do that, you must have sources to back up your claims.

If X is not needed for Y because a brief summary in Y is sufficient and appropriate, then X is not needed for Y. If X then can't stand on it's own it should be deleted. Taemyr (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to twist what I said around to support your argument. You know darn well that when I said "consensus is not based around simply having a lot of people so it is so..." I was referring to the consensus on an ARTICLE (not on a Wikipedia guideline page or policy page), and people sitting around going "I don't think we need to follow the rules here simply because I like the show". Even so, the number of people arguing something has nothing to do with consensus. Read the policy page and you'll see that consensus can go in the favor of the minority. As from the policy page, "In practice, a lot of people look in on an issue and check to see if a (mere) majority exists in favor of their position. However, to find the actual consensus (or what it will end up as), you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree, and in more complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace should also be checked." --- It's about quality, not quantity. Again, regardless of that situation, how does one say any article deserves to exist on Wikipedia? It isn't based on the biased opinions of those that follow the topic (whether fiction or non-fiction). We have to base it on objective criteria, and the only objective criteria is "significant coverage from independant sources". Now, we will allow articles have have a significant amount of real world content, which may happen to come from non-independent sources (like a DVD commentary), but only if separating the information out would allow for better flow. If it's working where it was then it doesn't need to be separated simply because a few people believe all fiction should be separate out on its own.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was actually reacting to your claim that the arguments to create consensus needs to be sourced, not relative weight of numbers. I am in complete agreement that the number of people is not what is important. I am puzzled that you claim that consensus means something else when it is in the scope of an article than what it means in the scope of formulating policy. I do not agree with this claim, and do not believe that it is a consensus view. Taemyr (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said that arguments for consensus need sources. What I said was that when you are arguing a consensus on whether an article needs to be split off, then the only measure of objectivity will be sources. Consensus cannot say that an article should be separate if that article is nothing but a plot. A million people arguing won't change that simple fact, that was what I was saying. The only argument in that cause will be based on sources for that topic. Hence why you confused what I was initially saying as "consensus for articles requires sources". My initial statement was that if you claim the separated topic needs to be separated in order to understand the main topic then it's always going to come down to sources, because you're talking about the content of the article. No main article needs separate plot pages to understand it (even you agreed that an article that's nothing but a plot description doesn't need to be separated), so we're obviously talking about an article being separated for some other reason besides a plot summary. If that's the case it must be for real world content, because there's no other reason to separate an article out onto its own. Since that's the case, the only way to have real world content is to have sources (you can't just make it up). This is why I said it boils down to sourcing when you are talking about consensus of article existence. If it's consensus on article structure, or some other stylistic issue, then you wouldn't need any sources, as that would be an instance of what the stronger preference is for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that wether or not content should be spun out is a structural concern. Indeed WAF gives explicit examples of artilces that could be spun out while "reliying on the parent article for notability". Taemyr (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why spinout articles should occationaly be given special status

From Wikipedia:WAF#Summary_style_approach; "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary." ... "For fictional works, these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that usually rely on the coverage of the parent topic, and may lack demonstration of real-world coverage through sources dedicated specifically to those elements." Together with, from WP:PLOT "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis,".

What this means is that a strict interpretation of current rules is that when an article gets to long, you spin out content. If that content lacks real-world significance you delete it. I feel that this is the wrong way of going about things. If content is being removed due to concerns over size then it should be kept if it would be allowed in the parent article if size was not a concern. Spinning out should not be a procedural prequel to deletion of the content. If the content is inapropriate then imidiately pruning it should be the course of action. This is very much the spirit of Wikipedia:WAF#Summary_style_approach; WP#PLOT allows for "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." What happes if editors feel that this should be spun out? Things like lists of major characters is unlikely to have noticable real world inpact, but can quickly become long enough that they are unwanted in the main article.

However saying that an article should be sacrosact because it is a spinout article is an extremely bad way of preventing this problem. Because it opens the door to things like excessive plot synopsis, and other cruft. Hence I made the suggestion that if consensus exists that article a is needed for a decent understanding of b, then a should be kept even if it lacks notability. Taemyr (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head, but your conclusion was lacking. :-) Yes, content that has grown too big should be spun out. And yes, inappropriate content should be trimmed. Ergo, inappropriate content that has grown too big should be trimmed first, not spun out. But what is happening all too often (and this doesn't even happen maliciously) is that inappropriate content is spun out, which is then deleted, artificially creating what a trim would have done. Merging back such spinout articles is a softer approach than deletion and somewhat counters the concerns you just expressed. And that's why FICT now suggests a merge before deletion to get the content back in line. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree with this, content should first be trimmed. And if after trimming spinning out is not needed then it should not be spun out. But then the spinout article is not needed. My point first apply if after trimming the content still should be spun out. Taemyr (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If the to-be-spunout content would still violate NOT#PLOT, then it wasn't trimmed enough. (For the sake of argument, I only refer to single-topic spinouts, not basic lists or aggregate list articles, because list articles seem to have the tendency to not evolve into PLOT fests as quickly, if at all.) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's where it's gets a bit runny. Why should we allow aggregates and not single-topics? But I agree my original wording was a bit lacking, it should perhaps say something like article A can exist on wikipedia despite failing our other inclusion criteria if the consensus view is that all the content in A is needed for B and that article A is the least intervention approach for this content to be incuded. Where least intervention of course would need further clarification, but should cover things like aggregates. Taemyr (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things occur with non-notable single topic spinouts: Either the content of spinout is large as to justify spinning out per SIZE, but now you have a long wordy article on one fictional element and either there is a reason is wordy (as it is actually notable and that needs to be shown) or it is just a large amount of PLOT violations that likely can be trimmed to a much shorter version that never would have been spun out; the other case is that the amount of material spun out is very small as to meet PLOT, but then the question of why it was spun out as to meet SIZE seems questionable (save for the answer "but I think this topic needs its own article!"). [brea]

Exactly. No-one has demonstrated that an article can reach WP:SIZE limits and not either (a) have enough sourced material for a spinout that does meet the notability guidelines, or (b) contain so much unsourced stuff it's in violation of WP:V and/or WP:PLOT. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists and aggregrates, non-notable and trimmed appropriately, are still likely going to be spunout for size without overly pushing too much in-universe content. This is not to say there may be a practical case of a single topic non-notable spinout, but what I've seen so far for these does not met the requirements for what one expects spinouts should be. --MASEM 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

...and there we disagree. I knew it was too good to last :-) There's no evidence that a list can reach the WP:SIZE limits, and yet it not be possible to reduce that size by creating spinouts that meet the notability guidelines, unless that list is in violation of either WP:V, WP:PLOT, WP:UNDUE or similar. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking in the sense of a spinout from a main work of fiction article, not so much spinning out from a spunout non-notable list. I don't believe that there's ever a time that spinning out from a spinout (both non-notable, as I can see a notable character spinout from a non-notable list of characters as acceptable) is ever appropriate, in more than information can be organized better as to have the information spinning out from the main topic instead. (Eg dividing a list of characters in a generic superhero comic by heroes and villains). --MASEM 13:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your last paragraph, if you ask any fan (who usually make up the majority in fiction discussions), they unfortunately often have the tendency to say that even the most trivial bit is needed for a decent understanding of their favorite fictional universe. And that's where Percy's pointing to objective proof comes into play. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. That is where the question of sound arguments comes into play. If the arguments the fans present is sufficient to generate consensus that something is needed, then there are in fact general agreement that it is needed. This is what consensus means. Taemyr (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just point to the TNN situation where TNN was the only one whose "opinion" (as brusk as he may have presented it) was based in policy and guideline, and all the others' WP:ILIKEIT fan opinion generated an artificial consensus in direct and obvious contrast to policy and guidelines. You can't always start a three-months med cab case when you want to merge articles that fail policy left and right because some consider ten ILIKEITs a stronger consensus than three NOT#PLOTs. And, as you can imagine, this brings up the question why fiction-related policies and guidelines exist at all if local fan consensus will triumph anyway. (I need to admit at this point that I have also had very collaborative and polite contact in many merge proposals). Only the demand for objective proof (i.e. demonstration of real-world sources) can elevate ILIKEITs to "I have fulfilled my WP:BURDEN of proof" when normal collaboration fails. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That people misunderstands what consensus means is hardly anything we can fix here. Confirmation bias is always going to be a problem, but this does not invalidate the point that the current guidelines as written amounts to saying that spinning out content in certain circumstances is equvialent to deletion. Taemyr (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If article a is needed for a decent understanding of notable article b, then article a is itself notable. Notability is not coverage; please learn and remember that. Size is never an issue - if an article gets too big and spinouts would not be notable, then it should be shrunk. That aside, I mostly agree; as I have been doing above. Necessary articles are necessary, whether they're spinouts or not. As regards "sound arguments", remember that notability is only ever an issue in AFD. If an editor can make a "sound argument" then they'll be successful in defending the article in AFD, irrespective of what we decide here. So saying "if there is consensus" is the same as not saying anything at all. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, it gives us a clear guideline to point to when someone argues that this article should be kept because it is a part of this other article. It gives us the oppertunity to place these articles in it's own category and say that they need to contain only content that is indeed needed for the other article. Taemyr (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have veered off into talking about content; that's a matter for WAF, not a notability issue. You say "this article should be kept because it is a part of this other article" but when you spin an section out into an article it becomes an independent article with independent notability concerns. It's likely that we need to show that some of the spinouts have that notability for reasons of necessity, byt it's not the case that they don't have to show notability. As for "when someone argues that this article should be kept", well then it's up to them to prove their point. I'm saying that we should state that sources saying that they are necessary should be enough to do so. You seem to be saying either that a single editor arguing for them is enough, which I disagree with, or that it an editor providing a sound argument is enough, which depends on whether their sound argument is enough to sway other editors into forming a consensus. But we shouldn't start saying "articles should be kept if there's consensus to do so" because that's pointless and harmful. Rhe whole premise of AFD is that we act on consensus; we don't need to repeat that in every section of the guidelines, and if we do we'll get a whole load of "I have consensus" "No I have" flamewars for the admins to clean up. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is largely the whole of my point. As things currently stands WP:NOTE do sometimes talk about content, because content is sometimes taken from one article and into it's own. I have never argued that this is a concern that is unique to WP:FICT, indeed I have argued that how to handle spun out articles needs to be independent from any notability guideline because it's as much a content decision as it is a notability concern. Taemyr (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Percy) Notability is not a concept only for AFD. These kinds of guidelines were created so we didn't have to have those AFDs in the first place.

Indeed - but it's only an issue when it's challenged. If no-one tags, prods or AFDs an article then the question of its notability never arises. That's why it's a good idea to make the notability of an article clear in the lead sentence - that way no-one tags, prods or AFDs the article in the first place. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If article A is needed to fully understand B, then article A is notable. Yes, but we're getting confused at what "notable" means. A is notable in that it is appropriate content for Wikipedia, and is content we strive to include. However, it is not independently notable, which is what WP:N deals with. When we say they don't have to show their notability, we only mean that they don't have to show independent notability, as defined by WP:N. A source will not say "this is necessary", because we (the editors) are the ones saying " this is necessary", not someone else. We decide that, and it's a silent decision that isn't represented in article text, only by the content's existence. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's just the opinion of editors that "this is necessary", then it's up to them to provide proof if challenged. All I'm saying is that we should say in WP:FICT that sources that say "this is necessary" constitute such proof; assertions of editors' opinions don't, because fans will always say their favourite character is necessary, but we don't need to mention that at all. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT is currently worded to specifically allow sub/spinout articles to contain mostly or all plot-type content, as long as it is in some form of reasonable proportion when seen in context to the article series. A lot of you are missing this key point. This is why WP:FICT says that one should see these spinout articles as still being a part of the parent article. If they were a part of the parent article, and they contain too much plot when looking at the "big picture" (for that topic), then you would simply trim it. If you trim it so much that it can fit back into a parent article of some form, then it would make sense to merge it back in.

One of the big reasons for this is because articles/pages are simply a distinction we've invented. We could theoretically make each section in an article it's own electronic document, and view each section one at a time. We could also view multiple articles at once. So there really wasn't much point on getting hung up on how we define individual pages. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's simply not the case. WP:FICT says that one should see these spinout articles as still being a part of the parent article, but that section does not have consensus support in no small part because it makes a nonsense of the question of notability; absolutely all articles can be seen as spinouts of, say, Earth and as such it makes every twitch of every eyebrow of every pet of every mentioned-but-not-seen character in every cancelled-before-broadcast show notable. WP:PLOT applies to spinouts because they are independent articles. WP:FICT says otherwise, but WP:FICT is wrong. That's why we're all here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically yes, but at steps along the way, there are notable spinouts from that topic; this creates a new branch, and there is no need to consider the quality of a notable spinout as part of the parent. We have to concern ourselves only with the cases where spinouts are strictly non-notable. Now, I point out a key word you are omitted and that is "judged": spinouts are to be "judged" (not considered) as part of the parent article. This means what Ned is trying to get at. Take a non-notable spinout, back up to the first notable parent article, and then look at the overall volume of in-universe information relative to the real world context. If the in-universe aspects (whether in the work of fiction's article or in spinouts) dominate, it is time to trim or merge. If they are in balance, then nothing needs to be done. That's how one should be judging non-notable spinouts. Mind you, to set what that "balance" is, we need to outline what spinouts are typically acceptable and ones that aren't, and that these have to be written with respect to V/NOR/NPOV/SYN/UNDUE and a whole host of other concerns to keep the entire balance of a work of fiction's coverage appropriate to provide sufficient focus on the real-world details and keeping in-universe plot details to concise points. --MASEM 12:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"WP:PLOT applies to spinouts because they are independent articles" Percy, considering I was one of the editors that proposed that specific change to WP:PLOT, I think I know what I'm talking about. Sub/spinout articles are not always independent articles, and generally speaking, the community supports that viewpoint. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See the RFC and the polls we've recently had. There's support for keeping some spinouts, but they're wanted for what they contain, not because they're spinouts. There's never been any need or widespread desire to ruin the idea of notability by exempting all articles from it on the grounds that spinout articles aren't articles. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The current wording on WP:PLOT is fairly clear in that we can see articles as part of a series. This in no way makes the article exempt from WP:NOTE, but then Ned was not arguing that it does. Taemyr (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that in WP:PLOT - which part makes it clear that we can see articles as part of a series? Anyway, it's not seeing articles as part of a series that exempts them from WP:NOTE; it's the idea that we treat articles as part of other articles. If we do that, they're exempted from WP:NOTE by WP:NOTE#NNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. I was misreading works in the sentence "This applies to both stand-alone works and series". Ned, there really is not anything in the current guidelines that indicate that such a thing as a sub article exists. If this was the intention of the current wording it should be changed. Taemyr (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that WP:PLOT gives exemptions to WP:NOTE. Taemyr (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but several people are saying that WP:SIZE and WP:SS do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no apparent consensus for the need of sub-articles to meet current WP:NOTE in the RFC, however must admit that I have so far just skimmed it. The strongest view with consenus that I can see in that RFC is that we should not automatically extend sub-article status. Taemyr (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're coming at it from the wrong direction. There's no consensus to withdraw WP:NOTE from spinouts, so it should apply to them unless specific exceptions are made. I'm fine with specific exceptions being made; it's the blanket exception that the current wording gives that I object to, because it completely undermines WP:NOTE and hence WP:DEL. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I coming at this from the wrong direction? Isn't it the case that guidelines is an expression of the consensus. This implies to me that if there does not exist consensus that a guideline applies in a particular case then it does not apply in that particular case. Fortunately there does seems to be consensus that spinouts should not automatically be exempt. Taemyr (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you are. Let me put it this way: there is consensus to judge articles on their own merits by WP:N, except where there is consensus to make exceptions. There is no consensus to make an exception for spinouts. So, we judge them by their own merits. Applying WP:N is the status quo, because it has consensus generally. We don't need to say "OK, WP:N has consensus. Do we have consensus to apply it to aardvarks? OK, WP:N applies to aardvarks. Do we have consensus to apply it to aardwulfs? ..." Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The example does not illustrate the point. There is no reason to ask "Do we have consensus that WP:N applies to aardvarks?" But this holds for weaker reasons than what you outline, it holds because anyone can see that that the answer is yes. The same does not hold for spinouts in general. The general gist of your argument fails because you there is no consensus that spinouts should be seen as articles when considered in the context of WP:N. So to take your example, if there was doubt about whether or not consensus was that WP:N applies to aardvarks, then yes we would need to ask if it actually does apply. Taemyr (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you arrive at a position where someone can rename a class of articles and suddenly we have to question whether WP:N and WP:DEL apply to them. There is no need for a consensus to treat spinouts as articles, because they are articles; consensus is needed to make an exception for them. There was no concept of "spinouts" until fairly recently - and certainly there's never been a consensus-backed guideline or policy stating that they need special treatment - only this disputed version of WP:FICT. Spinouts are articles; WP:N and WP:DEL apply to articles, unless an exception is made. There's no consensus to make an exception, so we shouldn't. Hence WP:N and WP:DEL apply to spinouts. It's that simple. You seem to be saying that there's no consensus in either direction, so they need special treatment. No. There's no consensus to give them special treatment, so we shouldn't. Applying WP:N and WP:DEL to them is not special treatment, it's how articles are normally treated. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Percy) Let me dig up the discussion archives for WT:NOTE and you'll understand better. I'm really not sure why you keep trying to dispute me on points that I agree with you on. No one is saying that sub/spinouts are not articles. No one.

Thanks - and I wish that were the case. People are saying that sub/spinouts should not be treated as articles; the current wording says "Spinout articles should be judged as if it were still a section of the parent article" which under WP:NNC exempts them from notability concerns. That's what I disagree with. 08:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the discussions regarding this are wide and many, and our recent RfC only looks at a small part of the greater community. While there are a lot of good discussion on that RfC, I wouldn't be too quick to put a lot of weight on it. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a bunch of discussions regarding WP:PLOT, but the one I had in mind was Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 7#Plot summaries part 3. At one point I had made a list of the discussions that had caused notable changes in WP:PLOT. I'll see if I can dig that up as well. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We could do that, but the consequences would be disastrous. Let's stick to sensible notability guidelines that don't just say "forget notability - do what you like." Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We never talk about describing editorial behaviour and how to fix it

Guidelines are supposed to summarize editorial behaviour and direct us towards best practices, yet they rarely do.

I'll start: editors create articles on the most minute elements of fiction (Star Wars etc.). This is not ideal. Other editors then cull these articles using edit warring (TTN etc.) Again, not ideal. AfD obviously produces mixed results and is inefficient as a way to add references. It's basically a survey on how much editors LIKE a topic and sometimes forces editors to add refs in order to save an article.

Our goal is to produce highly referenced articles. What's our plan for acheiving this? One plan seems to be to delete all unreferenced articles and BAM!, our articles are referenced (the "TTN plan" which leads to edit warring and arbcom).

I think one thing that might help is forcing the deltionists to help with referencing, which ironically is something that they understand way better than an editor who adds lots of PLOT. Wikipedia is volunteer based and you can't force anyone to do something they don't want to, you say? How about we create a structure at the fiction noticboard (or do it here) that's based on references.

My off the cuff idea is to use the fiction noticeboard. Each topic is a section header and each article is a bullet. For each article we do a google news search with a description of the results. Using Star Wars as an example:

• Star Wars - 417,000 hits [2] [3] [4] discuss it in detail. There's enough for an article.
• Great Jedi Purge - 33 hits [5] [6] A number of refs discuss it in detail, but they aren't all independant of the source. Should we put it into Jedi or let it have its own article?
• Saba Sebatyne - 1 hit [http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/A_Glimpse_Into_The_Inferno_107487.asp This doesn't discuss the character and isn't indepent of the novels} Sava doesn't seem to be notable, may warrant a mention in List of New Order Jedi characters. Has anyone read the book that Saba appears in? Are they a major character?
• etc.

Discussions of this type can be linked to from the appropriate page, or even copied over. Bam! Editors who want to delete something that is in fact notable will be stopped. Editors who want to include something that that isn't notable will get a quick lesson in how to do things right and which articles they should be working on. It won't stop all the arguing but we'll have a nice record of why something was nominated for Afd or why it can be improved. Sorry for the long post. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind exploring some of these ideas, but I don't think WP:FICT is the page to give behavioral advice. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple points on this:

• Our goal is not to create highly referenced articles, but instead to create articles on fiction of an encyclopedic quality, for whatever definition that Wikipedia uses for "encyclopedic". This may or may not include secondary sources, though obviously primary sources should always be used for fiction elements. Of course, the current issue is that some believe articles absolutely have to have secondary sources, others don't, but we need something that reflects how all editors see WP within WP's mission goals.
• There's a similar discussion at WT:NOTE by User:Phil Sandifer in how we treat articles that presently lack notability, and I agree that we need not to rush these articles to AFD but instead use the various {{notability}} tags and give people time to work on the articles, before the AFD is even brought up.
• The Article Rescue Squadron is already a dedicated project to help save articles that simply lack likely notable information for articles in AFD; the scope could easily be expanded to include articles not yet in AFD but that would likely need just this last step of notability.

You mean Wikipedia:ICU? Taemyr (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And no, this is not to say that a grouping of articles that need notability can't be brought up on the fiction noticeboard, I just don't think we want individual articles all the time when it is possible to group a request together. --MASEM 04:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ned: I don't know if this is the right page for all this. It's just that it seems to be where we are discussing it so that's why I mentioned it here. My goal (right now anyways) is to find the best system possible to determine what articles are notable and then figure out some way to demonstrate this without taking them to GA. We need something to help us determine when improvement is possible and let the article live, while also maximizing the actual improvement of the article. It's a high goal, but we need to figure out a way to direct editor's edits towards referencing.

Masem: I know it's complicated as far as "do we need sources", "what kind of sources do we need", "how many of each type of sources do we need", etc. It was actually some comments by Phil over at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard‎ that got me thinking about it. Using the notability tags isn't really getting the job done. I doubt we get even an average of one reference for each tag. Similarly, I love the article rescue squad but there's only so much they can do.

Basically, we need a better system to determine notabilitye, but even more than that, we need a better system for establishing notability. Something that directs interested editors (which we have tones of) into reference adding editors (which we need more of). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That I agree with - mind you, I'd like to keep FICT/N as part of dispute resolution, but there could possibly be a "FICT/Request for Sources" that we could create that serves the point you are doing as well. We should also encourage projects heavily invested in fiction to institute a similar department.

Also, I think reading your responses that we probably want to be more with exactly what types of sources are appropriate to met general real world aspect notability guidelines. I don't know if that would fit well into FICT or possibly just a separate page under it, but it would be stating that "For a fictional character, sources will generally include the development and influence of the character, the reasonings for casting the actor and any particular aspects that actor faces in preparing for the role, critical reception of that character in supporting the work, etc. etc.". I'm thinking as I type this it might be better to state in FICT directly then, as this is the likely the most direct way of stating "if you want article X to be notable, find at least two of these aspects". --MASEM 13:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea of including guidance on what we mean by real-world coverage for the various types of article is an excellent one. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:WAF would be the better place to elaborate on that. However, I also wouldn't be opposed to FICT being expanded by a few more words (It currently only says, For articles on fiction, reliable sources may cover such things as design, development, reception and cultural impact and gives a few examples, but I can think of conception/inspiration, production, shooting locations, visual effects, music, marketing, awards, casting, costumes & make-up, themes (sourced) and cultural references (sourced), to give some ideas.) – sgeureka ^t•c 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean coverage in the article of its topic, but real-world coverage of the topic in sources, used to establish notability. Since the sources we look for for notability talk about the same things that we want the article to talk about, perhaps that definition needs to be in both places (in a template, perhaps) or in a separate article that both link to. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Specific sources of notability (via secondary sources) for fictional elements

This idea is based on the above discussion on editing behavior, basically that we likely should have more concrete examples of what are notable sources specific to types of fictional elements. This should help newer editors wrap their heads around what we are looking when we say "notability" (via secondary sources, pending if we add any other means), possibly giving them ideas where to look for more info.

This would be a list under "Demonstrating notability for fictional elements", and would be organized by general type of fictional element (obviously there are cases we likely can't cover, but hopefully the list can be taken as a whole to be applicable to other areas). I'm also thinking we want to include what does not count, eg, the name of an actor for a character is not sufficient for single character notability, as to spell out this side further. I don't expect these lists to be fully exhaustive nor that they can be, as someone may find something new, but we can likely cover 99% of the cases that are already out there for this. --MASEM 15:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always felt that an example section was essential for clarification on the sub/spinout situation. It would also be the real meat and potatoes for WP:FICT, in that it would be the real guidance that editors are looking for. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• No one has come up with any other examples other than real-world content from reliable secondary sources, so I think this idea has hit a brick wall. If you have any examples you wish to share with us, make sure you are not confusing the medium (Book, film or game) with the fictional element itself.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not asking for anything outside of real-world context, just what type of real world context is likely to be found for both the work, and for the fictional elements. EG, a character's notability can likely be shown through development of the character, influences of the character, the reasoning behind the selection of the actor for that character, the critical response to that character, influence of the character on other works, and merchandizing of the character (independent of any other aspects from the work). Again, all real-world context elements. --MASEM 11:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• You mean non-trivial sources? I think this is covered in WP:RS. I don't think this is worth restating in this guideline. However, if you can think of a list of trivial sources that are not acceptable evidence of notability, now that might be useful. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, the point of this possible addition is basically to give a list of the types of non-trivial real world sources that cover the majority of the cases that exist when notability can be established for both (but separately) works of fiction and certain types of fiction elements. Experienced users likely can recognize these quickly, but the lists would be targeted at newer editor to learn what they can look for to show notability. See the tail end of the previous section for why this bit came about. --MASEM 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can you give an example of such sources that are not covered by WP:RS?--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• They would all be under reliable sources. So arguably there would be no need for listing these. However, at times, you need to handhold new editors, and providing some suggestions of what could be search terms for Google or inspiration of other sources to look at may help them recognize where notable info can be found and how they can work from there. We're not trying to redefine RS nor alter what is already agreed on, so this is not a rules creep, only helping to make the guideline more functional for new editors. --MASEM 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you can't give any relevant examples of sources that provide evidence of notabilty that are not covered by WP:RS, then I propose we don't provide concrete examples, as there is no need to repeat what has been said in WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• The examples at RS are generally about the form of the source (printed vs web, forum/blog, etc.). Obviously sources still need to follow this. What I am trying to include is a section that says that an editor will want to show notability through secondary reliable sources (per RS) that include aspects X, Y, or Z for a fictional element (enumating those for characters, settings, and so forth). X,Y,Z would be, as mentioned things like reception, development, casting, etc. It is not meant to be inclusive, nor every element will necessarily have these, but it should help spark a creative mind to look to other, not-so-obvious reliable sources to source notability. This is going beyond what RS provides, which is only about the form of the source, not what the source contains. --MASEM 13:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents (just thoughts/feelings about this whole thing)

Hmm. Personally, I feel that if the work is considered notable, all characters and events therein should also be considered notable (as far as they are related to the work). The only reason I see for people considering this Wikipedia requirement is to try to get Wikipedia to be considered a professional-style, valid source of reference. My question is, does it really have to be a matter of world affairs or pop culture for this? There are other ways to establish validity; so, we might as well use a useful one (i.e. What's the point in limiting the number of articles on such a trivial matter? We know the book, so why shun the inside?) Viewing things from the outside in is just as biased as from the inside out, if you take my meaning (the only difference is that more people are being deceived; from a 'standard biased' article, it is more readily discernable). Of course, I'm comparing bias potential to bias potential; it's not really that one way has more potential. I just don't think we should do the world view on 'every' aspect of Wikipedia (for instance, this one); generally, I think it's a good idea. Here, I think it's just being nitpicky, and since it's the way things are generally done (I think more thought should be put into this; I don't think that it should be implemented just because everyone is used to this sort of thing; that's how organizations get corrupted in the first place: people do things the way they've always been done, and so when the situation requires something else, they make things convoluted to compensate the old way; flexibility is key to survival and progression beyond the point of fracture; you can only build around it so long before it turns out to require a ton of paperwork for everything that needs to be done). I bet if you asked 1000 random people, most of them would agree with me (and I'm not talking about a sample including only long-standing Wikipedia editors). Not that Wikipedia is democratic or anything, but then, I don't know: is it? Maybe it only is for long-standing, reliable editors. That's nice, and all, but fresh perspectives unbiased by the current culture/routine are pretty nice to consider. (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Realize that these are just my thoughts/feelings/rantings. I understand if you disagree with the content or do not feel it is right for Wikipedia. I didn't mean to offend at all with anything I said. I realize there's a lot to consider which I may not have considered fully, and at least some which I know I have not considered (consciously, at least). Shoreu (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not-democratic. There is no way to perform reliable polls of wikipedia users. Wikipedia works by building consensus. Current consensus is that for work on fiction we should focus on real world impact. This is in part because we want to be seen as a professional encyclopedia, or that a professional encyclopedia is the goal we should strive for. But as far as plot goes it really is a minor point. The important reason that wikipedia should focus on real world impact is that plot summaries are derived works. As such they are copyright of the people who hold the copyright of the original work. So wikipedia would be breaking the laws of the state of Florida if we include it and it fails to be covered by fair use. Since we are in agreement that we will be abiding by said laws we must make sure that we are indeed working under fair use when we choose to include plot summaries, applicable court cases tells us that when we are just providing plot summaries we are not. Taemyr (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about the copyright status of plot description are a relatively recent but worrying development - didn't one lead to asking Mike Godwin, and didn't he say that there's no need to worry? --Kizor 12:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it, at the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_16. "So that shitcans my argument", says the editor who sent the question and was worried about summaries being considered abridged reproductions. He excerpted from Godwin's answer: "You're missing the fact that we are not receiving DMCA takedown letters regarding plot summaries, and that plot summaries, in general, are not taken to be copyright infringement so long as they do not include any great degree of the original creative expression."
I hope that we can lay this matter to rest quietly. --Kizor 12:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What is "original creative expression"? As far as I can understand US law this is not limited to the actuall wording of the original(although it of course also covers that), but also includes things like the interpersonal relations of the characters in a fictional setting. Is it the wikipedia foundation or the wikipedia editors that stand responsible for the edits made on wikipedia? Taemyr (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, what Kizor is summarizing is that until WP's lawyer, Mike Godwin, says that we should worry ourselves with copyright infringement beyond fair use with respect to summarizing copyrighted works, copyright concerns cannot be a reason to limit our coverage of fiction. (Mind you, there's other, non-legal reasons that have been outlined already). --MASEM 14:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

But you will note that Shoreu was advocation going beyond summarizing copyrighted works. Taemyr (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean the same thing. This is not like the Foundation mandate that all fair use of non-free media be tracked as to limit their liability should WP be a target of a lawsuit. We have absolutely no request or requirement from WP's foundation or lawyers to limit our coverage of fiction, and thus such concerns cannot enter into a rational discussion. --MASEM 21:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that WP:RS says Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case (Wikipedia:Verifiability), primary sources suffice. We seem to be getting off point when we rehash copyright and deriviative work arguments. Basically, the discussion should be do we focus on "real world" aspects of fiction or "fictional world" aspects of fiction (or both)? Which makes the encyclopedia better? Ursasapien (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• We have to focus on real-world content only, because no one has come up with an obective test of notablity for fictional elements, other than real-world content cited from reliable secondary sources. So I must disagree with the statement of Shoreu that "if the work is considered notable, all characters and events therein should also be considered notable", since that is based on opinion, not evidence. Since fictional elements have no physical existence, there is not any observable connection that might enable notability to be transfered, so no inference of notability can be made between them. Going back to my example of Jedi#Dark Nest, there is clearly a connection between Jedi and Dark Nest, such as their fictional subject matter, but that connection is not one of notability. Primary sources provide detail of how the elements are connected, but are insufficient from a notability perspective because saying that one element in a fictional universe makes all elements in that universe notable is a form of self-referencing. The article Jedi is crammed with citations from primary sources in an attempt to establish the notability of individual elements; it is as if the contributors are trying to establish notability by adding more and more synthesis to make the connection between notable and non-notable topics appear strong and binding. However, in reality, this article is being stacked with fancruft. This is a major problem with this guideline as it stands, that it allows this process of accumulation of excessive plot and character summaries, and why it needs to be reverted back to the version that was agreed on 27th January. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, are you speaking of this version? I see NO agreement/consensus on the guideline at any point in January. The guideline was disputed then as it is now. Ursasapien (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• LOL, that must be the version I was talking about! It has been signed off by the US Navy Marine Corps and you don't want to mess with them! --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm somewhat confused. Some people seem to be indicating through their comments that this guideline is some sort of law that must be obeyed. Can we just all make sure we're on the same page and all accept there will be exceptions, and that nothing has to be deleted because it doesn't meet any criteria, if consensus determines otherwise. Otherwise, I think we're just heading for edit wars again, which are disruptive, counter-productive and are actually more stringently deterred by policy than any notability guideline. Hiding T 11:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

From previous statements, I think you may be looking at me, so I'll reply. This guideline should reflect current consensus, but it will also inform future consensus. Nothing has to be deleted because it doesn't meet these or other guidelines, but most editors will decide whether or not to AFD fiction articles based on these guidelines, and in those AFDs the outcome will be determined by people pointing to these guidelines. So if we see an interpretation of these guidelines that leads to an outcome contrary to current consensus, we should word these guidelines to avoid that interpretation. For example, an interpretation of "spinouts should be judged as part of the parent article" is that all articles are exempt from notability; as a result, we must word that section differently. Exceptions will be made to these guidelines when consensus dictates, but it's not wise to second-guess what those exceptions will be, nor to undermine these guidelines by adding "except where consensus dictates otherwise" to every sentence. Edit wars will happen as long as editors are human beings, but by choosing our wording carefully we can at least make sure the participants have to find fuel elsewhere. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be stating that consensus cannot change, and we should reword to prevent any change. I have a feeling I am misreading you. Could you clarify. Why should we reword this policy to prevent interpretations we do not agree with? Hiding T 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that consensus can't change; I'm saying that editors will interpret what we write according to their own tastes and then claim that they have consensus support because the guideline agrees with them. If one of the possible interpretations of these guidelines is at odds with consensus, then we will end up with edit wars, as editors who choose that interpretation seek to apply it in conflict with the more moderate editors. The current guidelines state that "spinouts should be judged as part of the parent article"; since notability does not limit content this means spinouts are exempt from notability. The interpretation of "spinout" can vary tremendously; almost all articles can be seen as spinouts and some inclusionist editors will choose to see it that way. As a result, we will get edit wars and AFD after AFD after AFD. By choosing a wording that does not imply an exemption from notability, we can retain the articles we're seeking to retain without causing those edit wars. As consensus changes, so should these guidelines - but the current guidelines should reflect current consensus without including obvious and disastrous loopholes like "spinouts should be judged as part of the parent article" Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are concerned needlessly. An extreme inclusionist editor (or an extreme fan for that matter) will create an article any time for any reason. Consensus is consensus, and if the article is not good it will be improved or deleted (regardless of what this disputed guideline states). [break]

My experience of AFDs is that pointing to a guideline and saying it supports you will sway the closing admin. If the editor can say "this is a spinout of X" and point here, then the article will usually be kept, whatever the consensus at large is. That may be a complaint with AFD rather than this guideline, but we have to be realistic and work with the system we have. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Carefully choosing the wording of the guideline has gotten us to this point. I think we need to go back to an extremely simple guideline that states ways we can adjudge that a fiction-related topic is notable, list consensus-borne exceptions (i.e. List of episode articles), and then get working on WAF (where the real work needs to be done). We need to stop the endless hand-wringing over people getting away with something and get back to editing actual articles. Ursasapien (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Here I completely agree - the simpler the guideline, the less likely it is to contain disastrous loopholes. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess most editors here accept that there should be exceptions. However, a common problem with this guideline in practice is that fans demand every article to be an exception. And since they form local consensus in numbers, they often get their wish both in merge discussions and AfDs. Which in turn makes it very hard to apply this guideline at all. So, working back from this, it's obvious that (local) consensus is often unable to determine the exceptions, and that this job thus falls to FICT (which may make it look like a law). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite grasp the concept of a local consensus. Can you clarify. Do you mean that out of all the people who discuss, the consensus is to keep? That is a consensus, and until a better consensus is built that is the only consensus. That's the main thrust of WP:CONSENSUS. If the consensus of all the wikipedians who choose to comment on an issue is one thing, why should a local consensus on this page trump that? Hiding T 18:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have edited articles outside of the arena of fiction. In articles about scientific subjects, small towns, theological concepts, biographies, or political topics, I have never heard of "local consensus". Editors that care enough to edit an article form the consensus. Where I have felt that an article conflicts with guidelines, I have said so, but I have often been contravened by the consensus of editors. I move on and edit other things. I want Wikipedia to be great and I have strong feelings about neutrality and balance, but I firmly believe that consensus gets it right in the end. Let's use the noticeboard and accept consensus when we see it. Ursasapien (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See e.g. the Firefly characters AfD, merge and medcab discussion (Firefly ran for just 14 episodes, a movie and some spin-off literature). The local consensus before that was "The characters are notable for each one to have their own article. Sources exist. We will expand them. Go away and don't even think about touching our shrine articles." On the other hand, policies and guidelines, which "express standards that have community consensus", would have said that the character articles don't demonstrate any kind of notability, are nothing but plot, even then aren't sourced to the primary source (WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V), and should either be expanded, merged or deleted (WP:FICT). After five months of tiresome discussions and little to no actions/expanding by the former local consensus, the policies and guidelines could finally be enforced, followed by the need for page protection to keep them enforced because of trolling IPs. I see history repeating itself with some other franchises now (24, Scrubs, House, Gilmore Girls, anthing that TTN ever dared touch), but of what use are policies and guidelines if they are ridiculed and drowned by effortless ILIKEITs and ITSJUSTAGUIDELINEs? I hope this explains my point better. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on consensus. I see the text we used to have at WP:CON has been removed namely: When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. I am going to propose at WT:CON that we restore it because, as Sgeureka notes in the above instance, aggregated local interests often coalesce to defend their local franchise and use this to prove "consensus" against the kinds of sitewide policy discussions we are having here. I welcome disagreement, however, if I am missing something. Eusebeus (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Another point for clarification

I just read something interesting in a review of The Original Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes Vol. 1 - Featuring Batman. This is a work which "treats fictional characters as real people and the old comic books as historical texts." The reviewer ponders the worth of having an entry on every character in a Batman story between 1939-1974: "If you have the character's name, you have the comic and don't need the Encyclopedia. If you don't have the character's name, you can't look him up. And if you're browsing, items on walk-on players don't stay fun for long."

• Now I'd say that the whole nature of this divide between two sides is that some people actually find it fun to browse, and that, given the nature of the internet, it is possible for those that like browsing to do so and those that don't not to. Might it be possible to build a common ground, not on notability, but on succinctness, adherence to sources and the recognition that fictional character's are not real. If all we have are primary source, allow the entry, but keep it brief, descriptive, free of speculation and presenting the fiction as a work of fiction. For the record, I'm with the reviewer, it is fun for a while, but not forever. However, it is also fair to say that other people have different tolerances, hence this fractious debate which still rumbles on. Thoughts? Hiding T 11:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully support Hiding's proposal that we concentrate "not on notability, but on succinctness, adherence to sources and the recognition that fictional character's are not real." Therefore, I think this guideline can be rather simple and primarily defer to the general notability guideline. The real work needs to be done over at WP:WAF. We need to concentrate, not on exclusion or inclusion, but on writing complelling, informative, "out of universe" articles. Ursasapien (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Hiding and congratulate himfor finding a real-world source which we can now use in our discussions. My view is that WP:WAF, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SYNTH are symptoms of a lack of real-world content from real reliable secondary sources, so I am not agreement with Ursasapien's view that the guideline should be simple, but I would support his view if my views are not shared by everyone else. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The old FICT said, If these concepts are individually notable and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long, then the concepts are split into succinct sub-articles that maintain such an encyclopedic treatment. Simple, efficient (I loved it), but ultimately disputed, leading to what we have now. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (Addendum and explanation: I should point out that the old FICT gave a couple of more ways for allowing spinout articles than what I wrote here, e.g. for technical reasons of length or style, although it always came back to the need of demonstrated reliable secondary sources in some form. The old FICT only became disputed when it was actually enforced on a larger scale on popular topics with much fan backing. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

What was disputed about it? To me, that describes the majority of cases where such things are acceptable, and the right way to handle it. Nice and succinct. You need a bit more, because as I said it covers the majority of cases, but otherwise it's great. SamBC(talk) 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I expect it was the "if these concepts are individually notable" since that's what the current blanket exemption contradicts. For my part, I think the old version is great, as it explains both when it is desirable (to "maintain such an encyclopedic treatment"), and when it's inappropriate (if the concepts aren't "individually notable") to spin articles out. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I believe there are some (few) circumstances where it's appropriate to spin out non-notable material; I say this guideline should make the above statement, and then give guidance to these exceptions. If we can't agree on the exception, we would have to resort to wishy washy language that "non-notable spinouts are rarely appropriate". SamBC(talk) 13:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And again - that's a non-sequitur. Non-notable topics are never appropriate for articles. Material that doesn't meet the GNC is sometimes notable, though. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Percy & Sgeureka: there are no circumstances where it is appropriate to spin-out fictional elements that are of unproven notabillity. I am not talking about topics that might be notable or where there is a reasonable presumption of notability that might save them from deletion in an AfD debate; I mean fictional elements that will never achieve notability. I support Sgeureka's proposal to restore the old wording. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you still differ from nearly everyone else in the discussion in your view that the GNC is the only means of determining notability for fictional topics? SamBC(talk) 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I do, but not blindly. A few people here have asserted that there are Subject-specific criteria by which notability can be evidenced for fictional elements other than GNC, and although no one has come up with any concrete examples that can establish a a reasonable presumption of notability equivalent to those listed in WP:BK or WP:MOVIE, they might appear, but their appearance is unlikely (like UFOs). However, that does not make me a notability Nazi; if there is a presumption that a topic can pass GNC in the future, then I am open, like everyone else here to reasonable arguements that a topic may be notable, but that is an example of local consensus. The guidelines need to establish global consensus for the reason given by Sgeureka that everyone will claim exception by claiming there is a local consensus that their favorite topic is notable. Percy made a very good point that global consensus is stable will last into the future; my view is that local consensus is fickle, short lived and is probably based on the presumption that popularity is the same as notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. I have started a discussion to restore the wording regarding global consensus at WT:CON, since this is an important principal and should be explicitly articulated in my view. Eusebeus (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Arb break

Why do I feel we're back at square one again? Remember, guidelines follow consensus, we cannot create that consensus for new guidelines.

For fictional elements, we can argue there are two cases. Case one: the element is notable, and can be its own article (though merging to a larger work (main work of fiction, or list of elements as long as most other elements are notable) is fine - articles resulting from this case are not a point of contest for right now. Two: the element is non-notable. If this is the case, and the artilce is approaching the size limit, it is necessary to consider trimming, moving to a wiki, or otherwise creating a spinout. The RFC I think, while not absolutely a "yes" or "no" for the need of non-notable spinouts, does suggest that we should allow a limited number of carefully considered cases of non-notable spinouts. Thus, Case two boils down that spinouts of non-notable fictional elements should only be performed if they meet specific grouping requirements, with any exceptional case beyond those likely to be challenged by other editors. What those cases are should be a separate guideline (in addition to advice on what to do before creating the spinout and how to maintain it right), so that FICT will only cover the following points:

• Why FICT exists
• Notability for works of fiction (deferring to BOOK, FILM, etc. for any more specific means)
• Notability for fictional elements (listing out what type of appropriate reliable sources work to show these)
• Spinning out of non-notable elements (deferring to fictional spinout guideline)
• Dealing with non-notable articles

(The Depth of Coverage, I think, can be safely moved to WAF). Of these, we should improve the working of spinning out, to something like When an article on a work of fiction becomes too large, by WP:SIZE, it is generally considered appropriate to spin out content into new articles. Notable elements of fiction can be spun out easily, but non-notable elements can be potentially contentious. While these non-notable elements can be spun out, the material should first be trimmed or transwikied to remove the need for the creation of a spinout. If it is still necessary, the spinout should follow certain guidelines for fiction spinouts (wikilink here) with respect to organization and content. Note that bolded "should" is the best we can state for these because, being a guideline, we need to remain descriptive and cannot be prescriptive.

And then I've mentioned these before, but I think clearly cases of allowable non-notable fictional spinouts include:

• List of major and/or minor/recurring characters
• List of episodes/chapter (whole work or by season/other larger grouping
• Setting/Universe/world for a work (combination of locations, races/species, terms, alternative histories, etc.)

There may be other cases but we can add them there. But any cases that fall out of that need to be discouraged (we create a tag specific for spinouts that states that the spinout fails this new guideline and neesd to be improved or otherwise deleted)

So then we can turn to WAF and work it to make sure the Depth of Coverage is added, such that it incorporates that the total coverage of a work (the work, its notable spinouts and non-notable spinouts) in considering how much detail is allowable. If one can only write 4 paragraphs on the work's overall notability, and there's 200 articles in that grouping, obviously, we have a problem. That should be part of the focus of WAF, then, as that meets with PLOT's requirement.

That gets us back close to the point we were before this last month, with the only major addition being more specificity on what are allowable spinouts. --MASEM 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That list is a bad starting point, for one main reason: different fictional works deserve different levels of coverage. It's appropriate for us to cover Star Wars in far more detail than Terrahawks; yet your list doesn't make allowances for that. We're not a publisjer of original thought, so the correct depth of coverage for us to give an article is given by the depth of coverage given in the real world. Put simply: If an article grows large without it being possible to create a spinout on a notable topic, we should stop adding to its size. You have failed to demonstrate that an article can reach the limits of size without either (a) having a potential notable spinout or (b) being unverifiable or overly devoted to in-universe content. There is no need to allow non-notable spinouts and there is no consensus to do so. While I appreciate that you've put a lot of work into these guidelines, you must by now realise that we cannot move forwards in the direction of allowing non-notable spinouts. Instead, we must work out under what circumstances spinouts are notable. This isn't going to be determined by what their topic is - whether they're about characters or settings - but rather, by objective evidence of notability in the real world: not necessarily non-trivial, independent, real-world perspective coverage; but perhaps coverage of some other sort. The above sentence, "If these concepts are individually notable and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long, then the concepts are split into succinct sub-articles that maintain such an encyclopedic treatment" is a great explanation of what spinouts are needed and when. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

First, Masem has done very good work here and shown remarkable patience and I think all editors are very appreciative of his efforts here. While I agree with the Eureka/Snoodle/Gavin/SaminBC line that the original prescription in FICT (i.e. individual notability) remains the most compelling basis for moving forward, is the suggestion here that LOCs and LOEs are unacceptable unless a real-world focus can be found to assert notability? Eusebeus (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to echo that sentiment: whether it can be used or not, Masem's work here has been very valuable and is warmly appreciated. As regards lists: They're a slightly special case. WP:N specifically mentions that they're a good idea, and the benefit they give, both in encouraging good articles and in discouraging bad ones, is something we need to preserve. However, we clearly don't want to allow all lists. I proposed that lists and list-like articles should be allowed to find sources coverage across their entries instead of (as is required for articles) having to find coverage specifically of their topic; Masem has pointed out that that would basically mean any two related notable articles would justify a list. It's an idea that needs further development if we're to use it; or perhaps we should try to find another way to identify the good lists. The arguments above still hold: the coverage we give should depend on objective evidence of coverage given in the real world in some way. But we should be less strict for lists and list-like articles than we are for single elements. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a difficult question to answer... SamBC(talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a blanket statement that settings of notable works of fiction are notable (which is what you're saying above, just meaning something different by notable, I'm about to add a section to clarify that because it's a broader point). The problem is that we need to balance documenting current (best) practice with thinking logically... SamBC(talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to this and a similar comment above by Percy, certain there needs to be more in that spinout guideline than just these three things. The necessity to spin these out needs to be apparent. A sci-fi TV show with 10+ seasons under its belt? Highly likely that the above spinouts are perfectly in line. A sitcom with 10+ seasons? Setting is likely not necessary. A single made-for-TV movie that is somehow notable? Probably none of these need broken out. What I'm trying to say is that if you are going to spinout non-notable works, these groupings are a first step, but not all works necessarily need all these groupings. The only problem I see trying to define this is that while longevity of a work is one thing that can be used to say if such lists are needed, determining the point where setting is or isn't needed is not easy.

There is a level of give and take here. We have to assume good faith that editors won't abuse this ("The Universe of Full House" better not exist!), but to counter that we need templates similar to {{notability}} that states the need for the spinout is unlikely, such that there's an editing process by which the issue can be resolved, whether it's voluntary merging/redirection, trimming, transwiking, or ending up at AFD. However, by having such tags that specifically address the concerns of non-notable spinouts, we hopefully avoid the repetitive arguments that would occur at AFD over the appropriateness of the list since there would be time to address them before it goes to AFD (if needed). There also needs to be a way to avoid biasing the system simply due to the number of editors that like a given work. This may mean our coverage of Star Trek and Star Wars and The SImpsons and other popular series will be reduced. But again, all this can be summarized that we have to help encourage good faith improvements to the encyclopedia. --MASEM 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF refers to intentions, not actions. Experience of AFDs and elsewhere tells us that loopholes will always be exploited by editors who wish more coverage for their favourite fictional topic - so yes, "The Universe of Full House" would almost certainly be created and defended by an editor pointing at these guidelines. It would be done in good faith - the editor would sincerely believe that the topic deserved that coverage - but that doesn't mean it would be appropriate. The way to avoid this and the way to avoid bias are both given by WP:NOBJ - we have to require something external to both the editor and the article in question. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The first time an editor creates a spinout that fails to meet the guideline is acting in good faith, and those we certainly do not want to stop as this would lead to biting the newbies. Should that spinout be deleted due to failure to meet the guideline (the editor well aware of why) and the editor recreates it or creates another similar one that fails to meet the guideline, it may no longer be in good faith; continuation of this becomes potential for admin action if the editor is well aware that these articles are questionable. --MASEM 16:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There will of course be exceptions and therefore only hoaxes, copyright violations, and libel have to be deleted. Rarely does anything else. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I also disagree with Masem's proposal, as in my view, LOCs, LOEs & Aggregates are unacceptable unless a real-world focus can be found to assert notability of the fictional elements. It will always be the case that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I don't think we need adapt the guideline to accomodate it; in my view, that is an example of the tail wagging the dog. Having said that, it will always be the case that even a strict interpetation of WP:FICT will not provide licence to deletionist to nuke hundreds of defective articles; due process still has to be followed, and it is likely that LOCs, LOEs & Aggregates will continue to exist, but as an intermediary stage to becoming article or part of an article of proven notability. As Roi des Citrouilles knows, I ought to have more respect for the opinions of all editors in AfD (not that I always do, mea culpa), because it those opinions that count in those debates, and those opinions may or may not concur with WP:FICT. So in fairness to Masem, I think the existing process of dealing with fictional topics offers lots of protection to existing articles and effort that editors have put into them. I think now is the time for him to give way on his proposals, knowing that there are other checks and balances of due process to protect the local consensus (such as that expressed by Roi), but these guidelines need to reflect a wider consensus of GNC.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• If existing guidelines and policies offer lots of protection to existing non-notable articles on fictional elements, we would have not had two arbitration cases over episodes and characters and their removal. Even the ArbCom noted that how currently notability interacted with fiction is not clear. The entire reason why FICT has been under rewrite and "proposed" for almost a year now is because editors wikilaywered through it for both deletion and inclusion principles, and with the change in GNC (to secondary sources), it was clear the old version was no longer sufficient. The rewrite (prior to about a month ago) was enjoyed by many editors from both sides and was written to reflect what we currently allow through unstated principles that applied to a majority of cases that passed through AFD and other locations -- eg: exactly what guidelines should be done, mirroring current global consensus. Yes, this meant that we have LOE and LOC and other articles that fail the GNC, but this is the necessary glue to keep the editing enviornment of WP friendly. I am sticking by this rewrite that has taken nearly a year to get through, because I strongly believe it is a reflection of current practices and thus is easiest way to resolve many of the problems we have right now between inclusionists and deletionists. I go back to a point I made a while ago: I feel we need to push what we had before a month ago to the public to get overall global consensus, given that the local consensus of those involved in editing was favorable towards from both sides of the issue. If we get global consensus, great, if not, we're back to the drawing board, using the comments there to recraft it. The issue with FICT has gotten so large that it is time now to take the best of what we had and hold it to the wind to see if it holds. --MASEM 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with your viewpoint, as we can't write a guideline that will stop edit warring and abitration cases, as these will happen regardless of WP:FICT. Those underlying abritration cases may have been partly to do with non-notable fictional elements, but I think edit warring, rushed mergers and lack of local consensus was the real driving force behind them. Due process was served and certain editors were banned, but that indicates to me that due process does provide a level of protection to local consensus, whilst at the same time WP:FICT cannot be ignored entirely. Quiet rightly ArbCom noted that how currently notability interacted with WP:FICT is not clear; its a seperate process, and its not driven by guidelines, but by what editors do in mainspace.I think you need to set aside the shiboleth that WP:FICT can regulate the number of ArbCom cases; it can't.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)