Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reality and policy

Per WP policy: "A failed proposal (AKA:rejected) is one for which consensus for acceptance has not developed after a reasonable time period. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch and start in a different direction." People who continue to remve the failed tag are in direct violaioin of WP policy. How much more clear could the policy be? --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think people are disagreeing on the "unlikely to improve" part; disagreeing that the situation here is unlikely to improve. SamBC(talk) 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I also don't think it's been a reasonable time period. The discussion only hit a boiling point recently, and there needs to be a reasonable time to allow a compromise to be hammered out. Randomran (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough the RfC has not been open for long but I'd like to express a bit of an overwhelmed feeling in trying to contribute here. This talk page is 467k. Is there a way to make this discussion a little more managable? Padillah (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone ought to archive some of it. And maybe even put some of it in a hide-able window type-thingy. Two things I have no clue how to do on wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy says "reasonable time period." What is reasonable? Can we set some type of goals? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not being helpful, Kevin. Please stop trying to tag this as rejected. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
30 days seems a reasonable period. We shouldn't let this process become like the European constitution - rejected again and again but still pressed by Eurocrats who won't take No for an answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is still a great need for notability guideline on fiction, so unless you are putting forward a formal proposal that this guideline be rejected, I must agree eith Ned. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Even if the current version is rejected, we'll still be using this same page to propose another version (which could be entirely different from the last). -- Ned Scott 07:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What is the great need? The point of WP:BURO and WP:CREEP is that we are not here to create guidelines in ever greater detail. A putative guideline such as this therefore needs to justify its existence. My impression is that, insofar as there is a problem, it is a general one: that editors routinely create articles without sources and there is no good mechanism for improving the sourcing of such articles. This is commonly a problem with science and maths articles, say, (see First law of thermodynamics) and not a special problem for fiction. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it may be time to just mark this as rejected.

This guideline predates the general notability criterion. It was originally created as a tool with which to beat those who argued that fictional works don't need to be referenced to sources that aren't themselves fictional works. That's happening now, whether we have WP:FICT or not; even the most inclusionist arguments are "This could be the subject of outside commentary." "Well, we can reference to the book/movie/show/game" just isn't flying any more.

While I broadly support the intent and current wording of this guideline, let's just let it go for a while. WP:N has it covered. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. The guideline was a weaker compromise with which to assess notability. If it's not wanted...then fictional articles will have to pass notability requirements according to WP:NOTE, which is a lot stricter. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
NOTE isn't as strict as some people think. NOTE is not a test that articles either pass or fail. NOTE says topics should be notable, and says here's a way of giving evidence a topic is notable. If an article doesn't have that evidence (like, say, the article First law of thermodynamics) that doesn't mean the topic is not notable. NOTE doesn't specify how many people a topic should be notable to. From the beginning, NOTE should have said "If you create an article and editors think the topic is not notable, there's a good chance the article will be deleted." But for whatever reason, NOTE says topics should be notable. Here's a question: Is the guitar notable? Do you have your answer in mind? Did you have to look at the Guitar article or NOTE to come to the conclusion you did? Citing "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is one way of suggesting to people who know nothing about a topic that a topic is notable. That's it. And what "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" means is wide open to interpretation. Is water notable? Is the sun notable? Notability is one of those things where people know it when they see it — and if they've never heard of something, they're more skeptical. If someone has never heard of something, or is totally unfamiliar with a topic, "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" may convince them that the topic is notable. It may not. NOTE says notability requires objective evidence. But that's where NOTE is wrong. There is no objective evidence of notability, only subjective opinions. --Pixelface (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think your post is a great example of the differences between real-world notability and WP notability. Things that have real-world notability are not necessarily things that have WP notability; the two concepts should not be confused. For example, within a small community the high school principal might be extremly notable but that does not mean he should have a WP article. There has to be a way to filter out topics that really don't need stand-alone articles and WP:NOTE is the best we have. Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This is probably a discussion better on WT:NOTE, but I just posted something there that basically, I think trying to fit the GNC to all topics to determine inclusion is not a useful solution. If we can resolve that point there, what FICT would need to contain would be much clearer. --MASEM 15:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is time to tag it with {{historical}} if the RFC doesn't turn up a consensus. The reason why I'm removing your tagging is because you're a partisan voter in the above RFC and tagging as such is inappropriate per WP:COI. Besides, I don't believe something that passed once before can be failed. Sceptre (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I would not oppose the historic tag if it brings closure with less effort and frustration, and is done soon. However, I think that the failed tag is more definite and the emotional aspect of this process needs more finality. Regardless, the main theme I perceive in comments here is that WP:N as written is not satisfying a great many of the participants. How can we address this together? --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
"Failed" is inaccurate though: Failed is for guidelines that have been proposed and failed. Historical is for guidelines that had been proposed, passed, but later consensus became unclear - FICT is more the second than the first. Sceptre (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, as I said above, I won't dispute your tagging this as historical if you do it soon and we achieve closure. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If you count !votes, the numbers are roughly 50% for this middle-of-the-road solution, 25% for it being too strict against fiction, 25% for it being too lax for it. The problem is that those two groups of 25% have not provided suggestions of how to improve this to their liking that makes it even worse for the other group. We either need to 1) completely ignore one of these groups and develop a guideline that meets 75% of the support which to me is not an ideal solution but may be the only way to get something through or 2) convince these groups they need to understand the pressure on the other side of the middle solution and help refine this solution to not necessarily satisfy them 100%, but at least concede on some of their ideals in order to gain near-100% support for this. Mind you, a lot also rests on the NOTE discussion, if the general notability criteria is irrefutable or not for any sub-notability guideline; if it is, it's clear where this would need to go, if not, then we have a different direction to take this. --MASEM 14:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? Tag it {{silly}} for all I care. The point is that the goal of the original guideline has been accomplished, so we're just dicking around here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Masem's analyis is not entirely complete; if WP:FICT does not conform with with WP:N, then it just won't work. Once it becomes compliant with WP:N, we are back on safe ground and we can move forward. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The issue at NOTE right now is whether it should be read that topics should meet the GNC or any subject-specific guideline, or that topics should meet the GNC and any subject-specific guidelines; the former is much less restrictive, and the latter is very restrictive. From FICT, this basically forces how we revise this in two ways; if less restrictive, then we can outline cases of fictional elements that can be talked about; if more restrictive, there's almost no need for FICT, but probably should spell out that only GNC-met elements can have articles. --MASEM 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Attempts to alter WP:N in this way won't work, because it is underpinned by WP:V which quotes Jimbo: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". You can't make WP:N any less restrictive than it is; which for fiction is not restrictive at all, as fiction is an accepted and widely covered subject. Where WP:N tends to be restrictive is where a subject like Socionomics, where coverage is limited and the sources are unreliable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Except that what Jimbo says is not the letter of the law; policies and guidelines are determined by the community, with minimal mandates by the Foundation through the mission statement and certain resolutions (eg the policy on non-free works). Since there is no current mandate from the Foundation to require third-party sources, we as a community are free to choose how to approach this, which is what the discussion at NOTE is about. --MASEM 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:V is policy, whether is quotes Jimbo or not it does mandate the inclusion of information (not topics). WP:N is subtly different in that it tries to use third party sources as a surrogate for determining inclusion for a topic. I like the idea of letting indepedent third parties demonstrate notability for us, but I think we need to consider "noticing" and providing verifiable information as two different animals. For example if George Bush mentions William Clark Hemmingsworth in a televised speech, then that person just became notable -- to me this opens the door, even though Mr. Bush did not tell us much about the man, legitimate curiosity has been created, and we should be able to satisfy that curiosity with information including primary sources to the extent that we can. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It would have to be more than a mention. It would have to be significant coverage (more than trivial, but less than exclusive). But I'm okay with treating WP:FICT as historical. I'm not sure I like the idea that every show has a notable list of episodes, or that every book/movie/game has a notable list of characters. The WP:GNG is extremely reliable, IMO. Randomran (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed! On a side issue, while I belive in "more than trivial, but less than exclusive" in the general case, I think that notability can also be built by cummualtive minor mentions, and where there is legitimate widespread curiosity. But how do we accomplish this without opening the door to a flood of crap? I think that this concept could solve some issues with fiction. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Notability isn't about reader interest or editor interest so much as what can support a well-referenced article that isn't based entirely on primary sources, and unreliable/original research. A lot of small mentions might make something popular, but if it's nothing more than a mention, we're still stuck at ground zero: an article that can only be written by referencing the work itself. Randomran (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) I think we're at a point we need a centralized discussion amount this, NOTE, and probably a few other handfuls of policies (eg, WP:EL on using external wikis). Basically, at this point, I'm getting the feeling that its how we want to treat fiction will influence any further discussion (yes, that implies the tag wagging the dog, but that might actually be the case here). Anyone have any objections to this? --MASEM 18:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with centralizing a discussion somewhere. I definitely feel like we're stuck between WP:N and WP:FICT. The first thing we should get out of the way is if we can assume WP:N is a good guideline. WP:FICT can't really be discussed until we know the status of WP:N. Randomran (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am very suspicious about how this has all been conducted, and I get the feeling that outside of the context of these and other guidelines and policies, a centralised discussion will end up as the inclusionist equivalent of summer festival, without their being any concern for the quality of content, which WP:N is all about. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Not so, if last year's efforts are an indication. Inclusionsists were in minority and at one point many of them proposed WP:AI which failed. I think that the current version of WP:N reflects the moderate position between. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If there is no consensus for WP:N, I'd rather find out about it now than keep up the arguments. I have a little faith that WP:N has a deep deep consensus, since it's been around for so long and has resisted many efforts to tear it down. I think it's important for the more radical inclusionists who hate WP:N altogether to see the process work itself out: a proposed change to WP:N, and its rejection. Worst thing that happens is that their proposal is accepted. As a precisionist, I'm okay with that. Randomran (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty happy with WP:N. I think that there is the further concept I mentioned above of answering notable curiosity with primary source material, but that just may be too abstract. I do feel that WP:N has more support than opposition. This is just not the place for vanity spam and home grown theories. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
"Historical" sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, people need to stop jumping the gun. This was a proposal that become slightly stable, we prodded the community for feedback, and now we're going back to revise the proposal. The page itself has lost it's guideline status (though I still assert that many of it's concepts are still supported by most editors), and there are active attempts to work on it. You would not accomplish anything by tagging it as rejected or as historical if the page isn't a guideline. You can't force editors to not make new proposals and continue to work on it. And I can tell you right now, {{essay}} would be more likely than either rejected or historical.
So please people, calm down. We don't have time limits, and certainly not when there are active attempts to rewrite the proposal. We're just starting to have activity again, with people recovering from the end of the academic year, and being jaded by the process in general. Making us fight over a silly issue like this takes away our energy and efforts from the main issues, and is disrupting those efforts. -- Ned Scott 22:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This discussion hasn't stopped. It's migrated to WP:NOTE and other peripheral issues. I expect that going over WP:NOTE will take another month or two. And that will inform discussion here. It's not unreasonable to say that we won't know the status of WP:FICT until the end of the summer, because it depends on so many other factors. Randomran (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ned, you've had plenty of time and failed. The idea is that we don't allow perpetual proposals to sit around waiting for the right forum. For those who oppose this, we can't be expected to contest it forever. It's time for closure and a refocussing of this energy elsewhere in WP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You're over reacting and being rude. We're not going for knee-jerk reactions anymore. We're doing this calmly and carefully. -- Ned Scott 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ned, you are making it personal here and at my talk page, so let's stand down on that approach, and keep the discussion here. I am doing what I think is right for the project and apparently stepping on some sensitivities in the process. The WP:Policy page is pretty clear in my mind. Other agree while some do not -- what a surprise at WP. We have a right to try to implement policy in a timely manner, while you have a right to object. Please don't make it personal by accusing me of misdeeds, rudeness, etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It's already established in the talk page that the proposal, as is, will not stand. So people who have opposed it have established their opinion. You don't have to contest it forever. The proposal has a right to be worked on for a "reasonable" time, and should only be ditched if it's "unlikely" to improve. With all the efforts and discussions taking place through the wikipedia consensus building process, I'm extremely optimistic that this proposal will improve. In a reasonable time, considering how important the notability requirement is to wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Again I go with Ned on this one. Let the RFC process complete its course, and then we can discuss what comes next. Reports about the recent demise of WP:FICT are greatly exagerated. Fiction is an important subject area, already covered by the guideline WP:WAF, so I don't think you can say subject specific guideline is a Dead Parrot by any means.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
One things above I am going to disagree with-- there is a third possibility for WP:N, which I think represents what wikipedians actually go by at AfD--That when there are specific guidelines available, use them, when not, use common sense about what is important enough to be in the encyclopedia, with the so-called general notability guideline as one of a number of possible factors. (indeed, no version of the guideline, ever said "required" or anything of the sort) It is all limited by WP:V in practice, sure, but thats another consideration. This is especially the case with fiction where, despite a few dissidents, the general agreement is that primary sources are reliable enough to source the information in an article. The obvious difficulty with this view is the widely different idea of what is common sense about what should be in an encyclopedia--and that's why I support the development of specific guidelines. I dont want to give up with this one, and i think we need a break, and then an attempt to find a compromise. DGG (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There really is no common sense. That's why it's important to have guidelines. Not that they have to be crafted with mechanical precision. But WP:N is set at a pretty low bar, so nearly any semi-notable topic will qualify, and other factors such as WP:NOT become decisive. Maybe you're right that WP:N needs to be set even lower. But then we should actually try to articulate the "common sense" that you think is out there. Randomran (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Some random discussion break

Yeah, maybe people who are blocking WP:FICT by saying "I don't believe in WP:NOTE" are disrupting wikipedia. But I think they're doing so in good faith, because of a genuine lack of clarity about how the guidelines should interact. Randomran (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Random, there are those who say that a proposal like Fiction comes from those who lack clarity on how well WP:N works. I strongly support having an inclusion guideline, and for this WP:N is substantially a good and workable process. But the lack of understanding and application at AfD causes people to contrive these unworkable bandaids we call subject specific guidelines. It's a mess. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a fair assessment. But isn't that why we should clarify WP:N first, and establish a consensus around it? Or is there a better strategy for resolving this? As far as I can tell, a lot of the discussion has moved up to WP:N. I figure we should embrace that and follow it through. Randomran (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Because much of the focus is on FICT, I think we really need to have a global sit-down and really decide exactly how we should approach coverage of fictional works on WP, with or without considering notability and other policies. Almost to the point of saying, ignoring NOTE and V, exactly how much do we cover about a work of fiction? Now, I realize that some editors are going to want to frame this in the form of notability and sourcing, but I'm saying we need to ask that question in general discounting those policies and guidelines if only to establish what the global consensus is on what fictional coverage should be , instead of trying to aim at where it is now. This is really the question we need to ask, instead of playing with policies to try to map tons of different ideals to a few polices Once that has been determined at the global level, it will affect how NOTE should be taken including how areas beyond fiction may be affected by that. Mind you, I'm sure that editors will want to say "Fiction coverage should only be guided by what secondary/third-party sources can provide per NOTE/V" which is a completely valid argument, but it is not clear if this is global consensus. But it is clear from the NOTE discussion that most of the issues and questions raised are about fictional works, and thus that's why I think exactly how the whole of WP feels they need to be treated needs to be the first questioned asked, with that result filtering down to all affected policies. --MASEM 18:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Massem, there is clear consensus that WP:N covers all topics. The cloudy area is whether the coverage should be further restricted or relaxed by subject specific means. There is no broad support around the subject specific concept in aggregate or detail as the issue only becomes critical when it happens in "my back yard." Most of us are apathetic about cabals taking over the guidance for topics in which we have no interest. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with NOTE in general, I will argue that consensus of it is not absolute, and that's part of the whole reason we are here. Now, there are two ways to resolve this: we can say that NOTE is fixed, and thus we need to shoehorn in fiction works within its frame work, dumping anything that doesn't meet it; alternatively, and I think more productive, is to really determine how we want fiction treated on WP at the global scale, and then make the alterations as needed. This may end up back at doing the first solution if globally we say fiction needs to show notability just like everything else. However, right now we have two extremely diametric viewpoints: "All topics must show notability by secondary sources" and "Fiction topics should be widely coverage regardless of sources". Trying to find a solution that starts at the first viewpoint, assuming it correct, and to try to work in the second is going to be a more difficult exercise than by starting anew, assuming neither viewpoint is correct, and trying to find where the consensus sits on the whole issue, then and only then developing the right language to meet that. It is well worthwhile to consider that way back, FICT predated NOTE and led to its creation. It seems like we are at the same point again, basically readdressing WP and its treatment of fiction. --MASEM 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there has been new discussion at WP:N which is good. The problem is that many of the participants remain overly focused on how to make unique rules about fiction, where I think the solution lays in finding a method for identifying consistent inclusion criteria for all topics -- and then teach people how to apply these at AfD. We are dwelling on how topics are different rather than how these many topics are the same. I think that the central problem across all issues is what to do with topics for which we have (1) verifiable primary source material, but (2) insufficient independent third party recognition to satisfy the current criteria at WP:N. If we don't have #1, then I think the discussion is moot based on WP:V and WP:OR, which I do not think are being broadly contested. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If people believe that WP:N should defer more to specific rules, then that itself is a revision/clarification of WP:NOTE. And it's something that needs to be clear in the guideline. Some people say "specific guidelines can totally ignore WP:NOTE". Others say "specific guidelines must reiterate and conform to WP:NOTE". Whatever we come up with, the interaction should be explicit and clear. So it's not to say that a discussion at WP:NOTE has to focus on a global standard. It could be about finding out where WP:NOTE can be relaxed and how. Randomran (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If we have to have subpages, then each should not start with a repetition or paraphrase of WP:N. Just the facts -- simple concise and actionable clarification prefaced by something like Articles about XXXXXXXX shall conform to WP:Notability however, the following exceptions and clarifications apply". No jargon and justification, just a simple easy to follow set of either further restrictions or exceptions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The subpages should only list differences from NOTE, retell the whole thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
That's fair. But then WP:NOTE should also explain how the specific guidelines might modify the general guideline. Right now, it's unclear if the specific guidelines can literally make up their own contradictory version, or if they can only clarify and apply the general guideline, or what. Randomran (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Randomran, many of the "specific guidelines" pre-date WP:NOTE. For example, FICT pre-dates NOTE, and FICT wasn't even a notability guideline until December 12, 2005 when Jiy moved various Wikipedia space pages under Wikipedia:Notability (*). WP:BIO pre-dates NOTE. WP:MUSIC pre-dates NOTE. NOTE came later. NOTE v2 as I call it wasn't created until September 7, 2006. I created a timeline so you can see for yourself, see User:Pixelface/Timeline of notability guidelines. You can search through some of the history of FICT by looking at the timeline and searching for "FICT". BIO and MUSIC both list criteria besides "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" that can be considered evidence of notability. I think NOTE is clear when it says "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." As far as I'm concerned, NOTE says "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is sufficient evidence of notability for any topic, that is good enough — but that is not a requirement for all topics. --Pixelface (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a lot of interesting history! Thanks for that. I gave it a skim, and you're right that the specific guidelines came about before the general guideline. I think yours is a reasonable interpretation: that notability is a "residual test" for anything that doesn't meet the more "specific tests". In other words, if you pass one of the specific guidelines, you're in. But if you don't, you might still try to pass the general guideline. But I also think that it's reasonable for people to disagree with your interpretation, and see the general guideline as a fundamental threshold, with specific guidelines only tweaking small parts of the general guideline. Suggestion: How about you propose some kind of amendment or clarification to WP:NOTE? (see the list of proposals above.) Right now, there is no consensus about how WP:GNG and the specific guidelines interact, and that's exactly what this discussion needs to establish. Randomran (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Pixelface & Randomran, I think you are actually in agreement--and I am in agreement also--that the GNC is a background criterion to use when there is nothing else. The fact that its not the effective usual criterion is shown by the dozens of negative exceptions, such as BLP and NOT NEWS, the rather tricky use of WP:RS in deciding just which sources are not notable enough to count, all used because the main rule does not make sense in a great many cases. almost everyone does agree that a subject specific guideline takes precedence in a positive sense in ruling something notable. Personally, I think it takes precedence in a negative sense also, but this is the point which is disputed. Trying to actually modify WP:NOTE is a bit of a Mt. Everest--people keep trying, and very few succeed, because of the implications for special topics--such as this. so I think we have to go on our own. There aretwo key placeswhere this is relevant to fiction:
  1. Books having two full length book reviews in minor places such as local newspapers, which we usually do not consider notable.
  2. Subarticles/subtopics. --and here's where the problem is, and it wont be solved by clever wording, because there is basically no agreement between those who want to consider all major characters in major fiction suitable enough for an article, and those who want to limit it sharply. (and similarly for other elements). I do not know how to solve it,except by a compromise. But the extremists of both sides have rejected every compromise proposed. DGG (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Randomran, you said something that made me think:"...it's unclear if the specific guidelines can literally make up their own contradictory version, or if they can only clarify and apply the general guideline..." The phrase "Clarify and apply" struck a chord, I think that should be the exact application of the specific guidelines. WP:NOTE says there must be multiple reliable sources to establish noteability. Then WP:MUSIC says a gold record can be considered a reliable source. One says what is generally being looked for, the other specifies what they consider notable in that particular field. padillaH (review me)(help me) 18:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I completely approve of trying to get FICT to fit within NOTE that way - my concern (echoed at NOTE) is that 90% of what those want to include in terms of fictional coverage will never truly have secondary sources. A Gold record is affirmation by a third-party (via RIAA and sales #s) of the notability of a album, but it should be noted this is a way to note the album was an exception in the field. We are still stuck that most major characters (among others) of contemporary fictional works rarely get a buzz outside of the primary work, must less why that character is special. It would be great if we could find that, of course. --MASEM 19:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, for books there's any number of awards that can be won (Pulitzer, Hugo, etc), and of course there's always the NYTBSL. For TV there's Emmy's and so forth, maybe we can find a way to give a nod to certain levels of ratings or siply being carried on a major network (just being on ABC or NBC is notable in and of itslef). It's gonna a lot more work on the specialist part but it also gives us more control. As for the characters, sorry but not all of them can be Bart. The other side of this is the onus is on US to come up with the measuring stick. We have to determine what is and is not a measure of notability in the industry, or genre, or what have you. The long and short is, we can't just let fancruft do whatever it feels like doing. We are going to have to limit some of these articles. M*A*S*H was on the air for 13 years! Do you have any idea how many ancillary characters have been on that show? Even I can't advocate inclusion of all of them. But the metric falls to us to define. Staring characters only? A group character page apart from the show concept article but with all the characters together? What do we want out of it? And understand that some of our heroes will fall (not a pun regarding the series). Some are going to have to be trimmed back. That what a compromise does. padillaH (review me)(help me) 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
That's why I want to make sure that its clear that all those other subguidelines show why through a thrid-party method (but not necessarily through secondary source) of why topics are notable. Fictional works themselves, I don't think there's a large issue with showing notability there, but while we are trying to define the same for fictional elements, we need to figure out if there are any third-party ways for the same here.
Now, the flip side of the coin is that clearly there's no reason that we cannot make reference to every character or the like of notable work as long as the coverage is consistent with how much non-primary coverage of the character (or whatever element it is); we just aren't giving out articles to every character. With appropriate use of other wikis (like Wikia), users can still easily search for these elements then get more details that WP is just not suitable to cover (as to keep as consistent across the board with all other topics it covers). Unfortunately, this was suggested through the allowance for lists of characters in the FICT and soundly rejected as being too strict or too loose. However, we do need a compromise here. --MASEM 19:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
When Wiki is not paper was written in the 2002 [1], with the Simpson example ("Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above?"), to show the potentiality of wikipedia, was in air the thirteenth season of this show. Now we have 20 season, and this example is always in its place, with the every Simpsons character. If wikipedia can't have this pages, why don't' try to found Consensus to change the page on meta? If Wiki is not paper say so, why an editors can't write these page, and why every readers can't' expect to find, here on wiki (and not in other web encyclopedia), one day or another, a page on every character of a 13 season show?--Yoggysot (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
If we ever meet, I'll shake your hand and buy you a beer for that. --Kizor 18:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That's very nice of you. padillaH (review me)(help me) 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been going back and forth between here and WP:NOTE, and the discussions are definitely related. Padillah and DGG, I would appreciate it very much if you both posted your interpretation of how the general and specific guidelines interact at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#List_of_Proposed_changes. (That is, assuming that you don't think my proposal articulates what you already said.) I think that's the first step. The main issue is if the specific guidelines "clarify and apply" the general guideline, or if they are totally independent. Does the general guideline identify some kind of baseline? A baseline that can be tweaked, but basically respected? I think a lot of this other discussion gets ahead of ourselves. When we've established that WP:NOTE is good policy, and when we've established how much WP:FICT can modify WP:NOTE, then we can discuss specific issues like characters, items, and episodes. I'm not sure what a compromise will look like there. But we can't get there until we're guided by some shared understanding of WP:NOTE. Randomran (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance

Notability (fiction) has been undergoing a year+ long revision, and at this point it appears accepted by the local editors that have worked on it. We now seek global consensus to move the guideline from "proposed" to "accepted", though any additional input at this time for other improvements or changes are recommended. Much of this is based on aligning the guideline with existing policies and established practices as well as from commentary from recent Arbitration Committee cases for television episodes and characters. --MASEM 22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(This is not a vote, but a discussion towards consensus, however, for easy of reading what arguments may need to be fixed, please your comment in the appropriate sections below)

I don't know where to put this, so feel free to move it wherever the best place for this comment is. For certain fictional universes like TV shows, putting its characters into lists is a compromise. For fictional universes like Marvel Comics, it's worse than deletion. A TV show has a limited number of characters, and there's a coherence to listing them together. They're all related. For something like comics, the proposed guideline will lead to List of Marvel Comics characters A-Ad and a slew of other similar articles. If that's the best compromise we can acheive, then I would rather have this page remain disputed and the articles deleted per NOTE until such a time as NOTE can be suitably amended. Edits have shown that we can create articles on these types of subjects in a couple of years, so if we had to redo all of them it isn't that big a deal. The will is there. It's a bit POINTY, but lets force the issue if that's the best thing we can do. Also, this guideline does not have consensus, and opposing viewpoints don't cancel each other out, they just show a lack of consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 08:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. There have been several versions of WP:FICT that I have been mostly fine with. The general advice leads to better articles, and there's very little I disagree with myself when I read it. I will be the first to admit that the guideline is not perfect, and won't solve all our problems, but WP:FICT was never meant to be an exact rule book. Some editors may continue to misinterpret things, and some of our advice will be vague since there's less agreement on more specific details, but I think we also need to understand that this specific page, no matter how much you tweak it, won't be able to fix every problem. That doesn't mean we should stop improving this guideline, as well as finding other ways to clarify the details and find consensus on those more specific matters. -- Ned Scott 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Ned, who put it as well as I could. This is not perfect, but it's a solid beginning and an effective compromise for the promotion of encyclopedic content. Eusebeus (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. What can I say that Masem and Ned haven't said already? I have watched the developments of FICT since October, and and it comes down to this being as good as it can (currently) get with the wide spectrum of opinions. Straying too far into either inclusionist or deletionist territory will not satisfy the "other" party, so I can live with the compromises in FICT (notability of lists, awards) and leave that for later when we hopefully have more of an idea what wikipedia wants to be. – sgeureka t•c 23:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Grudgingly support. I would be happier if it went further, and think that it really needs to emphasise that an article is supposed to rely on third-party sources. Still, if we want to achieve some kind of compromise, this seems like a decent, middle-of-the-road approach.Kww (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support as per this is the best its prolly going to ever get. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Given how hard it's been to get it to where it is, I have to say I think this is going to be the best it's going to get for now, and it's better than not having it. SamBC(talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Pragmatic support, because it codifies the existing status quo on what we do with these topics. Now if we work on implementing this, let's see if we can go further, in the direction of Gavin Collins' comments below. I support his stance, but I do not think are relevant to this guideline as-is, but would be better suited for a general discussion on the topic. Moreover, this guideline will finally enable some pragmatic work in this area. Sure, Gavin Collins' analysis is how it's supposed to be, but as long as we have (insert politically correct word here that encompasses both "fanboy" and "inclusionist") it's not going to be practical at all. User:Krator (t c) 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support and dismayed that this RfC is forcing what appears to be a rehash of previously raised arguments. Both arguments are valid but entirely backed by opinion, not concensus. From what I see, there is no strongly supported concensus, merely precedents. I think the fears about allowed non-notable articles overestimate the instances where the clause is appropriate. I'll try and review the last month or two of comments, update the FAQ I wrote, and put it up as a subpage in hopes of alleviating this cyclic argument pattern. -Verdatum (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Do realize that the arguments about fictional topics have been ridiculously long and convoluted. Major discussions are still going on at about a half dozen talk pages. Lots of editors might have been too intimidated to enter previous discussions, so you'll need to be patient with them if they seem to be "rehashing previously raised arguments". Zagalejo^^^ 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - valid compromise. It defines the current status quo in which character lists and episode lists are widely considered acceptable, and tertiary lists or articles on specific elements prove their notability or be part of the larger list (a list on a specific group of characters, an individual episode, a specific character in a series for instance). And I see the problem with the poor state of some of these lists as a fault of bad writing and not enforcing WP:WAF enough than anything with this guideline. As Characters of Kingdom Hearts, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, etc. have shown, they can be presented in a good, encyclopedic fashion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support— This seems to be an acceptable compromise, and as it seems to summarise current practice. — G.A.S 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. An acceptable compromise. I'm willing to put aside minor issues (I am sometimes in agreement with some of the opposers) for the sake of an overall good show. Can we move on now? giggy (:O) 11:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. I think this is a good compromise, it won't make both sides happy but since there's no way to simultaneously delete and keep the same articles it's unlikely that both sides will ever be happy. Stardust8212 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support, but re-organize This codifies the existing guidelines and consensus on notability. Remember, we should avoid more than a concise summary, as per WP:PLOT. We should also avoid undue weight on topics that are not important as per WP:NNC and WP:UNDUE. We should also avoid creating non-notable split articles as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and comply with the General Notability Guideline that we require multiple independent reliable sources to show notability. That's how I read this guideline, along with the consensus that lists of characters and episodes can be notable. However, I think this guideline should be re-organized to mimic the organization of WP:N: a section on notability for articles, and a section about notability for actual content within each article. The guideline already includes this information, but it's all mashed together. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support - This whole idea of "give the readers what they want" is ridiculous. First, there are millions of readers so lets stop trying to assume what their opinion is. If 20 people keep creating individual articles for their favorite shows, does that mean that all the millions of readers want that? No, so stop saying they do. Unless you do a poll and find significant evidence to suggest that, then stop using it in an argument. Second, if you get rid of FICT for that reason you might as well get rid of every single notability guideline, because frankly I want my own personal article and WP:BIO is holding me back. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost, no matter how many fans and readers want it to be their personal episode, comic, film, etc guide.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    We should give the readers what they want as readers become contributors and donors. We are trying to be a comprehensive reference guide, not some limited duplicate of Britannica. There's no reason Wikipedia can't be a sound general encyclopedia and specialized encyclopedic of fiction at the same time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    We should be careful with including excessive copyrighted material to avoid expensive lawsuits. We are trying to be a high-quality encyclopedia, not a mirror of google. - Both this and your view are totally valid and totally at opposite ends of the spectrum. There's no reason Wikipedia can't be a sound general encyclopedia and specialized encyclopedic of fiction at the same time, yes, but only as long as the other two or three points are observed. That's why compromise is the solution, not extremes. – sgeureka t•c 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with you regarding copyrighted material, but what I find with many of the fiction AfDs is just a lack of effort at finding sources or regarding Google as the end all of sources. MANY topics actually are covered in published works that don't have online archives or if they do, they're not public. I just do not see what we gain by limiting our coverage of certain topics just because a fraction of editors don't like that stuff. By contrast, when we allow it, we gain editors, readers, and donors, we become a more comprehensive and complete reference tool and the time spent trying to delete these artices can instead be used referencing and developing these and other articles. I see all sorts of gains from allowing the articles and improving them and using our time to do so, but I see time lost or misplaced when focusing on trying to delete them. I whole heartedly agree that we must delete hoaxes and that we should not allow libel or copyright violations, but too much is called original research just because it's based on primary sources. Well, plenty of almanac and published encyclopedic information is based on primary sources. If it's not a thesis driven essay, but a list, like say a list of Academy Award winners, it's hardly "original research" and obviously the primary source from the Academy of its winners is reliable. So to would a game guide or game magazine list of villains be a reliable source for that information as well and these things do work a spinout articles and yes, while some may say they're weak arguments individually that they are in fact useful, interesting, and harmless, taken together they stronger than to delete them just because some see the opposite. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Why don't we have a poll? You don't know what the readers want either. And remember that there's a big difference between an article about yourself and an article on a television episode viewed by millions. Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I beg to differ. My work is viewed by millions every day. I've written several fiction related articles by myself, and they're viewed by countless readers all the time. So, in essence, that would make me notable. Then again, you're claiming that something viewed by millions is notable, when that cannot always be the case. There are numerous television shows that are viewed by millions and yet canceled quite quickly afterward, so obviously no one cared to watch it enough to keep it on the air.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    If so, then we should find a way to notify the editors who have created and worked on various fiction related articles to get a sense of how they really think. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    See my above statement. I've written several by myself, and I'm for notability on fiction that restricts simple plot pages from being created. When I say I've written them, I'm referring to the ones that are featured (i.e. been peer reviewed by the community).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    We are not a democracy. We judge arguments and reasoning, not masses of users that want an article on their favorite comic book character. You could have a couple thousand fanboys and it doesn't matter. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Calling people "fanboys" is the argument you basically have to resort to when you're trying to remove content on fiction and you're discussing the number of people with various viewpoints. Obviously the people who want to remove fiction are vastly outnumbered, so all your left with is saying that the opinions of people who don't agree don't count. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Hardly. There is a clear disparity between a fanboy (i.e. "OMG, I love this character, article now please) and one who is actually presenting a legitimate point about why notability is bad. WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY is policy for a reason - again, if we ran by numbers, I would be writing an article on myself, which is obviously not appropriate for an encyclopedia, or any of the reasons illustrated below in practically the same argument. Trying to dismiss notability itself is a red herring at this point. If you disagree with notability in general, go to WT:N. Existing consensus doesn't change because you claim it does. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support This is a good compromise -- encouraging the addition of quality material, while avoiding the "article for every Pokemon" syndrome.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - It's good enough at this point. Hopefully, it'll be up and running sometime before 2015, though. I do find it funny that the opposers think that their whole "everything it notable" ideal still has any chance in hell. That has never been a viable at all with the existence of other policies and guidelines. This should be about trying to reach a mid-ground where a good chunk of people will be happy, and not about trying to force extreme personal opinions that go against the very point of this site. TTN (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Extreme personal opinions that go against the point of this site like a minority of editors telling the majority of the community what isn't notable? The whole "everything is notable" allegation is itself faulty too when myself and many others who oppose below have both argued and even nominated to delete more articles than I have seen some argue to keep. Please remember to assume good faith here and not make implied insults against your fellow editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Please go poll the actual majority of the site before claiming that we're somehow the minority. Despite how large the area of fiction appears to be on this site, it it actually fairly small compared to the big picture. The majority that you speak of is also a fairly small chunk compared to the actual number of users on this site as well. Go poll some people working with Ancient Egypt, military related topics, and celestial bodies just to start off. Come back if you find that a majority believe that all fictional topics, major and minor, deserve the same amount of coverage. TTN (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    It would be interesting to see what would happen if we polled the site. Because the reality is that many of the same handful of accounts that are anti-fiction in these sorts of discussions here and in AfDs seem a minority considering the combination of those arguing in support of fiction articles, plus the thousands who created and edited fiction articles, and the maybe millions who come to this site looking for those types of articles. Those working on other topics are probably just ambivalent and more interested in focusing on improving the areas they do care about. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    May I just say that it is laughable that you consider the supporters here to be against fiction. Most of the people here, myself included, care much more about fiction than you ever will. We want to see it actually flourish rather than act as a garbage dump. You and and a fairly good chunk of the opposers could care less about fiction; you just want to impose you own "notability is bad" standards on nearly everything. My main point was that if you actually were to ask the people that do not regularly edit fiction related articles "Do you believe that all fictional topics, major and minor, warrant the same amount of coverage?" that the answer would be "no" in most cases. That really cannot be done in any capacity though, but it stands that the argument "But all the people that create and edit these articles equal a consensus" is just as worthless. TTN (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I dig comics, but I'm primarily an editor of articles about classical history, biography and mythology, and yes, if we really want to get screamingly anecdotal, I believe there's no practical reason fictional characters and elements deserve articles less than, say, Agroecius, bishop of Sens (who might have lots of pretty refs but is 1000 times more obscure than even very obscure comics characters). Also, I get that this subject can call forth pretty strong emotion (my teeth are gnashing pretty intensely as well), as I think it cuts to the heart of what a lot of people think Wikipedia is, but can we try to be a little less bitey with our disagreements? No one, least of all me, is advocating an indiscriminate "garbage dump". I want Wikipedia to have standards. Reasonable ones. And the current state of WP:FICT applies the scythe to pretty much everything from Rabbit Angstrom on down to Omega Red, which seems to me unreasonable, and insufficient to our purposes. Ford MF (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'll agree with TTN on the assertion that any belief that the supporters here are against fiction is ludicrous. And to Ford MF, the problem there is that there's a crapload of more academic material on classical history, biographies, and mythology than there will ever be on our favorite comic book characters simply because stuff that's been around for a couple centuries tends to gather a lot of coverage and the longer you get, the more the coverage. This is not to demean the inclusion of fiction, but point out practical reality. And again, FICT doesn't undercut the current status quo in regards to comic book characters that happens in practically every AfD - they are kept because long-running characters are implied to be notable since they've been around long enough and featured prominently enough to acquire adequate coverage, which certainly Omega Red does. FICT doesn't change this. All FICT ends up doing is taking the material that does not survive the process and instead of outright deleting it, places it into a list or another applicable merge target. Per what I said below, a more thorough application of WAF solves a great deal of the problems that we have in regards to fiction by presenting the material better rather than the completely in-universe approach that Wookiepedia or similar would use. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    Do I have to remind everyone here that the WP:Content disclaimer says "Wikipedia's coverage of subjects is patchy, based on the whims of its volunteer contributors (in particular, subjects of interest to young technical people are likely, but not certain, to receive heavier coverage than other subjects). Readers should not judge the importance of topics based on their coverage in Wikipedia, nor assume that a topic is important merely because it is the subject of a Wikipedia article."? And speaking of ancient Egypt, military related topics, and celestial bodies — do Egyptian gods, Private Snafu, and articles in Category:Roman gods like Neptune (mythology) fall under FICT? --Pixelface (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    What does that have to do with this? I didn't state that fiction was more or less important than any of those. I stated that, while fiction seems to be large from this scope, it is still only makes up a small chunk of this site. Anyways, this guideline only covers things that are explicitly created as fiction, such as the cartoon character. Gods are obviously different, so they fall under other relevant projects. Why do you keep bringing that up anyways? If it's supposed to be some sort of argument, it's not doing much for you. TTN (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    You said "Go poll some people working with Ancient Egypt, military related topics, and celestial bodies just to start off. Come back if you find that a majority believe that all fictional topics, major and minor, deserve the same amount of coverage." So I pointed you to the content disclaimer which says just because a topic has an article, that doesn't mean it deserves the same amount of coverage on Wikipedia as something else — it doesn't mean it's as important or more important than any other topic. How many articles on Wikipedia do you think are about topics related to fiction? And asking about gods is just a question, it's not an argument. As someone currently under editing restrictions, you're sure one to talk about forcing extreme opinions on the site. And I don't think "broad statements" like "I do find it funny that the opposers think that their whole "everything it notable" ideal still has any chance in hell." are doing much for you, personally. --Pixelface (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    That argument was mainly targeted towards Grand, who has an inclusionist ideal ten times more extreme than your own. It wasn't really meant to apply to anyone else. The reason for my restrictions were due to some "gritty" editing tactics and some unnecessary bias towards one side, not because of any editing views. My views are hardly extreme, considering what I'm actually working with is fairly stable. You guys (just not to confuse anyone, this is towards one group of opposers, not all of them), on the other hand, are trying to uproot various core policies and guidelines, so that they support your views. TTN (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    TTN, who in the Oppose section said "everything is notable"? --Pixelface (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    It was just a broad statement to cover your and other's interpretations that most fictional topics are worthy of coverage despite not meeting our actual standards. TTN (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    The standards of Wikipedia is not paper, verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view and the editing policy? I've never said "most" fictional topics should have articles. But it's totally ridiculous to redirect the Luke Skywalker article for not meeting this proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    You have argued in support for minor episodes and minor characters, which basically equals most fictional topics. I don't think that anyone has ever implied that an article with actual potential needs to be redirected. It is obvious, given the other Star Wars featured articles, that Luke Skywalker has potential. TTN (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support good enough balance between both sides, with enough guidance to keep most current merge/delete discussions on track where appropriate, while also still allowing more traditional elements like a major character list, episode list, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support - it's as good as it'll get. It's been under construction for too long now. Sceptre (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support even though this guideline is less than optimal and would probably doom to perdition articles that I think deal with notable topics. This is the best that we're likely to get at present, and some guidance is definitely needed. Differences of opinion can be hammered out in the normal course of editing the guideline. Deor (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support. The previous guideline that was originally rejected brought about a lot of problems, such as the Pilotbob issue and the E&C issues both 1 and 2. This new guideline allows a little leniency so that these issues don't arise, while at the same time, bringing about a standard that keeps our content as encyclopedic as possible. For that reason, I support this becoming a guideline. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support. Good enough compromise for either sides. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support, individual articles that seem to fail the guideline can always be kept at AfD by a suspend-all-rules argument. It is important to stop the endless debate. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Among other problems, this encourages the contortion of content into suboptimal organizational structures in order to avoid creating "non-notable articles". To put it another way, if we are going to include content in any case (and I think we are likely to, and hope we do), notability is a bad principle around which to organize content. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you point to or describe a hypothetical example? I do agree that there are wikilaywering games that can be played with notability (fictional or not) and I think in cases that I believe you're describing, those require further discussion. I will point out that after making sure FICT is accepted, the next step is to reflect these changes, including content organization directly, in WP:WAF - we are just trying to set out what notability is here. --MASEM 23:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Most of our "list of minor..." articles are an example of this. In most cases the sections of these lists do not complement each other; it is just a bunch of small articles stuffed into one page. In practice, this can lead to bad consequences. I took a couple seconds to discover List of New Order Jedi characters; one of these guys is named "Penin, Rosh". Unfortuately Rosh Penin links to a totally different article, or does right now. If we are going to have information about this guy, we may as well let our readers find it. If the content about this character were simply filed under his name, as an ordinary person would expect, this sort of problem would never come up. It's a reasonable question whether the list or a collection of minor articles would be a more useful way to organize this information, but I don't believe that notability is a useful concept in helping us make the decision. The issue ought to have more to do with how readers would prefer to consume this information. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Fixed. But this is not a problem of a notability guideline, but of poor editing choices. The alternative is to let WP:N deal with non-notable characters, which will often mean deletion (i.e. I guess this would be even less desirable for most people.) – sgeureka t•c 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
          • It is indeed a problem of poor editing choices but the existing guidelines often force people to make bad decisions. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Ultimately this provisions for notability stems from WP:WAF#Summary style approach, which states 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. Taemyr (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
              • No doubt; the problem is endemic to our coverage of fiction, which is generally getting worse, if your measure of quality is how well we address the demands of our readership. I'm not opposing because this is breaking dangerous new ground but because it is further codifying bad practice. It is worth taking a look at [2]. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Completely valid point - however, without having to make anyone wade through talk pages, the overall goal of this rewrite was to reflect current practice, which is to neither reduce or increase the coverage of fictional topics. This is, after all, a guideline, and the last thing we're doing is trying to set a standard. You are correct in that this is codifying a practice, but it is codifying the current practice, and that's (at this point) all we hope to gain by gaining global consensus that this reflects current practice. Now, if that current practice is wrong, there needs to be a much larger discussion about it; WP:FICT is not the battleground for that (as we've had discussed many times in the past). As to your earlier point on allowing readers to find information, redirects and disambigs are cheap, and we should not be afraid to use them so that people, looking for a minor character, don't get a list of search results but instead the article and section that talks about that, or at worst, a disambig or hatnote page. We can still serve that purpose with list articles. --MASEM 00:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • We can serve that purpose with lists and redirects, but we are more likely to make errors, as in this case. If the list structure provided benefits to offset this, that would be one thing, but there really are few such benefits in most instances. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
                    • Well, with anchors and the like, a list of characters and with appropriate redirects to the specific sections will, to the reader, be as clean as possible without having to create separate articles. A point that describes what the attempt here well is that there are those that was 0 articles on fictional characters in WP, there are those that want X articles (X being the number of fictional characters in existence). What is a balancing middle group is to allow log(X) articles on such characters through the use of lists so that we are still providing this information while having maintainability of a smaller number of pages. As discussed below, more specific guidance on how to make these lists useful and like is needed, that's outside this scope but would be a next step. --MASEM 12:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
                      • I don't understand why a single 100-page article would be more maintainable than 100 1-page articles; the main determinant of how hard pages are to maintain is the total number of edits that have to be monitored, which should be similar either way. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
                        • It only takes up one entry on someone's watchlist (as opposed to 100 entries, and there is a practical limit to watchlist sizes), and in the case if there's 100 characters, either there's a page that links to all 100 characters (at which point, why not make it a list) or the page may be hard to find - unless one person consistently edits them, it can be very easy to lose track if its not well linked. Mind you, I'd have a hard time arguing that 100-entry list is appropriate - you'd still likely split that up to 2 to 4 pages, depending, but then this is where navboxes are useful for helping to keep linkages. Furthermore, it is easy to compare entries on the same list to make sure there's a balance and appropriate flow and no repetition. --MASEM 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
                          • And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:The_Simpsons_characters is one bookmark. Much of the time, a list is meant to link to individual articles, not replace them. You may want to look at WP:CLN. --Pixelface (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
                          • Watching 1 article vs. 100 articles is a wash if the 1 article is edited 100 times as often, which we would expect. Again, the load of maintenance primarily relates to the number of edits that need to be dealt with, which is likely to be similar with any method of organization. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Needs to clearly allow for television episodes for which reviews exist and lists of fictional weapons and characters, especially those with appearances in multiple media, i.e. if it appears in toys and TV or movies or games or comics then it is notable. Should also link to User:GlassCobra/Essays/What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Going into specifics per media is not a goal of this guideline. TV episodes with reviews are covered in the general approach, assuming the reviews are reliable secondary sources. List of characters are covered because characters are generic to all fiction. The issues of weapons, however, needs to be left to more specific guidelines, otherwise this becomes too burdered in details. The linked essay is not appropriate as it is written in a strong POV approach and not appropriate for inclusion in a guideline. (The fancruft essay is included because it attempts to be less biased and give an all-around approach to what the term is and how to handle it ) --MASEM 02:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Any use of "cruft" is inherently not a neutral or objective point of view. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Strangely, I find myself agreeing with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles on this point: this guideline fails to address works of fiction that are serialised or presented in episodes. Clearly this guideline does go into the specifics of media: it is filled with examples of films, and books, particularly in the section Elements of fiction, where it mentions awards, rankings, and sales figures. What is so disappointing about this guideline is that it does not address comic series or television episodes at all. In my view, this is a huge omission.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Episodes and other parts of serial works are mentioned under Elements of Fiction and one example is a television episode. There is no need to call out any more specific guidance for episodes or similar serial elements. --MASEM 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. I have a concern with this: the whole issue with lists. In all honesty, many sub-character lists end up becoming incredibly stagnant, as the information for them as a result may end up even worse than the individual articles were before the list status, as much can get cropped to simply "make it fit". The Pokemon lists are in effect just this: a mass reduction in information, and no real effort to sustain notability or improve any of it. Compounding this a little is that in order for such lists or even partial lists to reach FL status, every element on there has to be addressed in some form, which can be an insanely daunting task, especially since most of the characters aren't notable to begin with; in effect the point of improving the article becomes somewhat moot as it'll not get anywhere. Now I'm not recommending every character there deserves it's own article, nor am I saying transwiki the whole lot (I'm rather opposed to that idea due to the "sweeping under the rug" feel it has). But some better handling of the lists should be handled at this point before this policy is adopted because right now they're no better than dumping grounds.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Valid points, but again, not to make people read through the talk pages backlog, but we do agree that guidance on how to write list articles is needed, it is just not appropriate for a notability guideline (KISS principle). WP:WAF is due to include this information. Also, the idea of lists is that they aren't dumping grounds, but a well-written encyclopedic' non-notable list can compliment a notable work of fiction's coverage. --MASEM 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Also will add that I don't think everyone expects that such lists will likely reach FL; however, it has been shown that lists in these specific styles can be shown to be notable (typically applying to the group, not the elements of it) for some works and thus allowing these lists to go to FL or even FA. Thus, these seem to be the right groupings that have the most potential to be improved on. --MASEM 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    some better handling of the lists should be handled, we are all ears. The current guideline is representing current practice, but I don't think anyone is extremeley happy about it. If you have a better suggestion for how to handle these lists then please make it. Taemyr (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Kung Fu Man that this proposed guideline gives undue weight to lists non-notable characters and other elements of fiction by making them exempt from WP:N. This guideline does not need to provide guidance on the content of lists; this is covered in a comprehensive fashion at WP:LIST. The FEAPOALT section which states that "If consensus on a fictional element is that it is of unproven notability, editors should seek to retain the information where it can improve the encyclopedia"' is clearly nonsense; no where else in Wikipedia does it say that topics of unproven notability should be retained. The rest of this section in direct conflict with WP:N by providing exemption for lists of non-notable elements from the requirements of the General Notability Criteria. The FEAPOALT section proposed guideline needs to cut out althogether, so that this guideline is more focused on providing a concise definition of notability for fictional elements, rather than going the other way by providing exemptions from the GNC.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Again, notability is to be applied to a topic, not to an article. If a topic is shown to be non-notable, that does not mean we don't cover it, but instead it should be presented in the context of a notable topic as per WP:N. The limited exceptions for character and episode lists as supporting articles for the topic about the work fall within this line, as well as Footnote #8 of WP:N, as well as being the most common result of AFD's involving characters and episodes so describes current practice. WP:LIST may describe some aspects of lists, but to the points Kung Fu Man was stating, there needs to be more guidance on style and balance and the like for list of fictional elements than what LIST provides in general in terms of MOS. --MASEM 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree. If a topic is not notable, we don't need to cover it per WP:N. Providing exemptions from WP:N has no precedent in Wikipedia, and fictional elements are no different.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well, we don't need to cover anything. However, per WP:NNC, we can certainly cover anything if it is in the context of a notable topic. WP:UNDUE comes into play as well, but that never says "don't mention it at all ". SamBC(talk) 14:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Specific quotes from WP:N: These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.; Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.; If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.; Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections. I think it's pretty clear that WP:N allows for coverage of non-notable topics as long as they are not given the preceived importance that having their own separate article for that single topic entails. --MASEM 14:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It does, but FEAPOALT reverse this by exempting groupings of individually non-notable elements can from GNC. Articles like List of New Order Jedi characters are therefore exempt. As Kung Fu Man states earlier, by exempting them, they will remain stagnant and there is no impetus for improvement. FEAPOALT needs to come out, or otherwise WP:FICT will be a lame duck from the start; instead of offering guidance on how the article can be improved to meet the requirements of WP:N, you have created a class of articles that need never be improved.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Gavin Collins, I see your point and agree fully. However, I urge you to consider the pragmatic side of things as well. Adopting this guideline would be very helpful to this area of Wikipedia, as it takes a compromising stance. Note how all the people in this oppose section have some form of extreme (in the statistical, not in the moral sense) position in the discussion. The reason why we need this is that the current anarchy creates a lot of fights, which among other things, led to the effective topic ban of a user (TTN) who was aiming to do the right thing. See also my support vote above. User:Krator (t c) 15:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    From a pragmatic side of things, WP:FICT does not work if it creates a class of articles that exempt non-notable fictional elements from WP:N, which goes against current practise and consensus. WP:FICT cannot overide WP:N, otherwise this draft guideline will simply be ignored, regardless of its status, or whether I put my name to it or not. You can ignore this warning, but if you look at articles similar to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, they are being nominated for deletion at AfD because they fail WP:N, or for other reasons (such as failing WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:OR) which are symptomatic of them failing WP:N). If the FEAPOALT section is not cut from this guideline, then it will be ignored. There is no consensus for an exemption for WP:N anywhere else in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    If anything, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons shows that there is no consensus to strictly apply WP:N to lists of fictional items, whether they are collectively notable or not. FICT is not saying anything to the contrary, but that doesn't mean that we can't revisit this issue in half a year again. Until then, FICT in its current form seems to be the best compromise we can achieve (for now). – sgeureka t•c 23:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    We had a long discussion and a previous RFC that clearly showed that NN lists within certain bounds are acceptable, and even footnote #8 of WP:N spells it out. Those bounds pretty much were limited to two classes: Character lists and episode lists. The list you point to above does not fall in either, and thus is a reasonable candidate for deletion. However, if you look at any fictional character AFD, nearly all of them, if the article is determined non-notable, ends with a redirect to a list of characters. This is current practice. Of course, if this does get accepted, and people start abusing that section with lists left and right, then we will readdress the issue, but we've discussed this point over and over and most agree this section needs to be here to reflect current community consensus.
    Remember that WP:N is not policy. It is a guideline, and the GNC is not a absolute rule that must be followed. This means that WP:N applies to most, but not all topics and articles because it is a guideline and allows for flexibility within other policy and current practice (FICT is a guideline too). If you feel notability needs to be enforced absolutely, then you need to get it established as policy (which I strongly doubt will ever happen).
    Also remember this is consensus, not an attempt to get 100% agreement which is very unlikely. If there's enough acceptance of this policy by consensus but you're not on board, it is not going to stop to wait for your disagreements to be resolved. --MASEM 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that the notability criteria are not enforeceable directly, for there is no direct relationship between WP:N and the outcome of deletion debates, which are a matter of local consensus. Although WP:N is a guideline and not policy, it does provide the basic criteria by which all articles and lists are directly or indirect judged. Non-notable content, whether it is in lists or articles, will always be at risk of deletion and it is down to contributors to cite reliable secondary sources in order to provide evidence of notability. With regard to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, I don't think the outcome of the AfD debate will be deletion, but since the list does not cite reliable secondary sources, it fails WP:N and its encyclopedic merit is open to question. The FEAPOALT section attempts to side step the issue of notability by providing an exemption for such articles from GNC, but this won't work, as this section is not a defence against the deletion of non-notable content agreed upon by consensus at AfD. I agree with you that 100% agreement is never possible, but there is already consensus that non-notable material can be nominated for deletion, as there is no evidence that lists of non-notable fictional elements are acceptable if they fail WP:N, but they are kept if local consensus demands it.
    • on Masem's interpretation of footnote 8 of WP:N, I think he may be under a misundertanding about lists and their function. A list in is best described an appendix to a notable article or group of articles, not a dumping ground for non-notable content. I think there may be undue weight being placed on footnotes, and a disregard for notability criteria which both lists and article need to meet. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • A single AFD may by local consensus, but given that the support of using nn lists as merge targets is a extremely common result of AFDs that span numerous fictional areas, I'm pretty that there is tentative global support for that. Also, do note that fn #8 falls specifically in the section about dealing with non-notable content; the footnote exactly describes this practice. --MASEM 12:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • But that type of list is not covered by that section; it is neither characters nor episodes. AFD-result guidelines clearly shows support for these specific two types; any other type is undeteremined and as such impossible to put into words. --MASEM 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Merging smaller topics into a list has the effect of increasing the probability that the list itself can meet applicable policies and guidelines (largely due to increasing the number of potential sources). However, it does not guarantee that this is the case. Is it plausible that it is generally easier to source characters and episodes than, say, masks? Jakew (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I would say yes; if we look at Featured Articles and Lists, there's plenty of examples of character and episode lists, but little else pertaining to fiction. Episodes, at worst when grouped by season, may gain critical response that wasn't there before when such shows are released on DVD, or in post-season wrap-ups by television critics. The characters as a whole are likely to have more information on their development collectively and how the whole cast was received. This doesn't mean every character or episode list may end up as such, but there's a pattern that usable there. Lists of weapons, items, terms, planets, etc. from fictional universes may have the potential to be notable, but from historical data, we have very few examples to go on. One case I do know of is Weapons of Resident Evil 4 before it was redirected could readily claim notability, however, the core element of the list, the list of weapons and the meat of the article, ventured into WP:NOT territory (WP is not a guide, particularly for games); ultimately it was determined that the notability aspects could be folded into the main article to provide a more encyclopedic treatment of the weapons. So once you get away from characters and episodes, lists of other fictional elements tend to skew the coverage of the in-universe aspects of the work too much. --MASEM 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I'm just wondering whether there might be an acceptable compromise here. For example, what if we were to say something like: "In general, while an individual character or episode may not be independently notable, it may be easier to establish notability when such articles are merged into a list. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the list article is suitable for inclusion." Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know if that necessarily compromises with what Gavin is asking for (no nn-lists at all), but it is worthwhile I think to include that such nn-lists should only be content that is appropriate to WP, in light of WP:NOT, specifically we are not a directory, guide, manual, or textbook. --MASEM 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I phrased that poorly. I intended that "suitable for inclusion" would include the general notability guideline, in addition to WP:NOT, WP:V, etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Gavin, but I think you're specifically arguing against non-notable lists, so emphasising that notability is still required would at least partly alleviate your concerns. Is that correct?
    • The theory I'm going on is that a blanket statement that lists of characters are ok would create a contradiction with WP:N (as well as other policies & guidelines). However, a statement encouraging merging into such lists because they are more likely to conform to the general notability guideline would create no such contradiction. Jakew (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, as lists of characters are not notable unless evidence is provided somewhere that they are, and we can never get around this. However, lists are useful as appendicies, which is why they are widely used. As it stands, the section FEAPOALT contradicts GNC. As a result this section represents the Achilles Heel of this proposed guideline. It is fundamentally flawed, as it runs contrarty to WP:N, and probably goes against other guidelines too, like WP:NOT. I don't know that merging article or lists of non-notable characters would make it more likely that they would meet the requirements of WP:N because of the reasons I have stated earlier: it is actaully very hard to demonstrate that a run of the mill character is independently notable of the work of fiction from which they are derived. Articles about many famours characters (such as Frodo Baggins) don't demonstrate evidence of notability at all, and those that do (such as Gandalf) are exceptions on Wikipedia. Most of the articles about characters that do demonstrate notability tend to be synonymous with the work of fiction, such as a notable film, in which they feature (e.g. The Terminator, Superman). Although merging articles or lists of non-notable characters won't make them compliant with WP:N, it might make them more useful if they presented as appendicies to articles demonstrate notablity, in which case deletion is less likely. However, once it becomes clear that a list has no encyclopedic value, it will get get deleted for failing WP:N or WP:NOT, and FEAPOALT won't protect bad articles or lists from deletion, despite the exemption it seeks to provide. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In answer to Jakew's question "it plausible that it is generally easier to source characters and episodes than, say, masks?", it is generally very difficult to source characters, episodes or masks, because in order to do so, you have to effectively show that the element of fiction concerned is independently notable from the primary source. In my experience more than 90% of all articles or lists on fictional elements are of unproven notability; even many featured articles are of unproven notability. For example, out of all the characters out of the famous The Lord of the Rings books and films, only the article on Gandalf cites more than one reliable secondary source, whilst there are no reliable secondary sources cited for any of the Characters of Kingdom Hearts, neither jointly or severally. Masem's view that Lists of weapons etc have the potential to be notable is either naive, or is based on wishful thinking. Generally lists of fictional elements like List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons orList of New Order Jedi characters are of unproven notability, and will remain deletion candidates unless evidence of their notability can be found. The section FEAPOALT will not protect them from being nominated for deletion, because the primary criteria for a list or an article to be included in or excluded from Wikipedia is directly or indirectly contained in GNC. As it stands, WP:FICT is going in a direction that is against Wikipedia concensus that notability is the most important criteria for judging encyclopedic merit.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • There's no reliable sourcing in Characters of Kingdom Hearts?? That's probably one of the best examples of how to write and source a notable set of fictional elements. Yes, not every character list can be like that but by pointing people to that type of article, we can ask them to mimic as many aspects as they can to provide the right amount of encyclopedic coverage. --MASEM 16:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Amazingly, there are no reliable secondary sourcing that could be used that the one or more of the characters are notable outside the video game from which they are derived. Most of the sources are primary sources taken from game itself, from promotional material issued by the game creators or self-published sources from fansites, forums and blogs. Of the reliable secondary sources cited in the article, all of their subject matter relates to Kingdom Hearts itself: the characters are mentioned in passing. Outside the game, not one of the sources cited actually demonstrates that a single character or a group of them is independently notable; evidence of this is that sourcing for the article Kingdom Hearts is -virtually the same as for Characters of Kingdom Hearts.-Gavin Collins (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The whole point of the reception section is that the characters as a whole are notable. If there was sufficient reception for a single character, then they would have their own article, hence the section in FICT concerning character lists. And what about the reception section does not pertain to the characters? Graphics, voice acting, the inclusion of both Disney and Final Fantasy characters, and so on are all relevant to the characters. Also, show which sources are not reliable, as I frankly doubt the article made it through WP:FAC without that being addressed. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Alas the receiption section only cites reivews of Kingdom Hearts, so there is no evidence that the characters are notable outside of the game. A mention of a character within the context of a game review is not evidence of independent notability for the character per se. Its a fine point I know, but it all boils down to the fact that the characters cannot inherit notability from the game in which they feature - they have to "stand on their own feet". If the references cited were soley about the one or more of the characters, I would have to agree with you, but they don't. Outide of the reviews of the game itself, they are not mentioned anywhere except by Questionable sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's ludicrous. Of course proper reception of the characters is found in the reviews of the games they were featured in. Of course it's valid. They're not inheriting notability; if the reviews never mentioned the characters then we wouldn't be having this argument and it wouldn't be a FA. The reviews specifically mention the characters and elements concerning the characters in the general review of the game. It does not detract from the fact that it is significant coverage that satisfies WP:N, as if the reviewers are going out of their way to make specific mention of the characters, then coverage of the characters is acquired. By your logic, anything that is not the game itself shouldn't have an article, which is blatantly false. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The evidence is there for you to see: the reviews clearly show that it is the game as a whole, not the characters that are notable. They are just one aspect of the game that has made it sucessful. Other elements, such as game design, graphics, gameplay, levels, weapons, vehicles, as well as the characters contribute to the notability of the game. The reviews are about the game, not the characters per se. Not one reliable secondary source singles them out on their own. Clearly this a dispute that can run and run, so we will have to agree to disagree on this point. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • If far more people disagree with you than agree, will you agree to disagree and let it go, accepting that consensus is against you? SamBC(talk) 11:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In the case of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Riverwind/1, I believe there was a similiar disagreement about notability and lack of reliable secondary sources. I think if Characters of Kingdom Hearts were to go for article reassessment, there is an outside chance it might loose its featured article status. Whether others would share my viewpoint on this issue, I could not judge - consensus is both local and global.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Given that the KH article relatively recently (end of 2007) passed FAC, and there have been no major shifts in policy since, I would seriously doubt that people would question the appropriateness of the sources to demonstrate notability. The sources of Riverwind are much different as the only non-primary sources were annotations from the writers (which is in general agreement here: that information alone is not sufficient for notability). If you think that the sourcing for KH is insufficient, you are setting an extremely high bar that makes it nearly impossible to write about fictional elements. --MASEM 12:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the reviewers of the article must have been intimidated by the 77 citations in the article, as it is very hard to see the wood from the trees. However, it is not me that "sets a high bar", it is just very difficult to find reliable secondary sources the for fictional characters. All the secondary sources cited in Characters of Kingdom Hearts provide notability for Kingdom Hearts rather than the characters themsleves. Simply put, ficitonal characters don't inherit notability. I am not setting higher standards, just pointing out to you that the reviews are about the game, not the characters.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, there are a large number of sources, but even a causal glance will be able tell a lot of them are primary, and thus I'd expect that those evaluating sources considered this. But more importantly, there is no cardinal rule that says that an external source that talks primarily about one aspect lending to its notability cannot also be used for notability of another aspect. Spot checking the reviews sourced, this seems appropriate: the "characters" (not individual ones) are mentioned not in passing but in several sentences or a paragraph, and as mentioned in separate independent sources, met the general notability requirement. --MASEM 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • A review of a game (or book, or film, or TV show) can make reference to a character (or other element) without it being simply a "passing reference". If there is a section of a review discussing a character, or a small number of characters, then that is non-trivial coverage of the character. If there's a box-out for a character, then that is non-trivial coverage. You don't need a whole article/book/chapter to be on a specific thing for it to be "non-trivial coverage" of that thing. It needs to be more than a casual passing reference, that's all (well, slightly more, perhaps, but not much more). You also seem to be rather disparaging the reviewers, and they generally take the job pretty seriously. SamBC(talk) 14:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Masem is right that there is no cardinal rule, but it is clear from the reviews that they are game reviews, not character reviews. Note the citations quoted are indeed "passing references" to the game characters. I think this issue needs to be discussed elsewhere, but because there are no reliable sources which address the Characters of Kingdom Hearts directly, the notability of this subject unproven, or at best very weak, because this is a classic case of WP:NOTINHERITED. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Then bring it to WP:FAR. Honestly, you're being very disparaging towards the FAC reviewers, specially the notion that they were "intimidated" by the large number of sources, which is nonsense. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Gavin makes a good point. NOTE prohibits that Kingdom hearts article, and just about every other List of Characters article. It sounds like if enough people support these changes, that will be what allows these article to live, not their references. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Then, by all means, take it to AfD. I absolutely guarantee you it will fail. That's part of the reason for the guideline as it stands - it codifies what is the status quo concerning this character lists, especially at AfD. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (unindent a bit)I don't want it deleted, it's just interesting what an actual application of NOTE to fictional topics would do. I'd like to see minor characters allowed in lists, and major characters allowed their own articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I'm not sure how to interpret this line: "Such sources can include creators' commentary and interviews regarding the work or topic, bearing in mind the restrictions if the work is self-published." So... would DVD commentaries count as self-published? If not, what sorts of things are prohibited? Zagalejo^^^ 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    They teeter on the edge, but for benefit of the doubt, such would be sufficient for notability; the argument, for me, is that DVD commentary is typically "time-delay" once-removed analysis of the work, they are still technically primary, but can provide analysis and development details; the "creators" of the work really aren't publishing it. This is counter, say, me writing my self-published work of fiction, then adding a separate "commentary" document, then attempting to say that's notable from that source alone. It is important to note that we still are looking for "significant coverage" -a DVD commentary can help, but it alone is not significant coverage. --MASEM 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, okay. I do think that DVD commentaries are often the most significant source for behind-the-scenes info. For example, very little production information was known about any individual Simpsons episodes before the DVDs started coming out. In any case, I still think that section should be clarified, because if this becomes a full-fledged guideline, people are going to be quoting it like it's holy scripture. Zagalejo^^^ 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I've added a footnote to this statement to explain that self-pub sources, alone, are not sufficient for notability, but do help with it when present with other sources. If you feel it needs rewording along the above lines, please edit appropriately. --MASEM 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well, now it looks like that whole section has been changed... *shrugs* Zagalejo^^^ 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    A new concern: I'd like to see some specific examples of sources that would demonstrate notability for individual fictional characters or individual episodes of a serial work. Give me something concrete to work with. Zagalejo^^^ 18:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Are you looking for specific examples of articles (which there are in footnotes) or specific examples of sources, and when you say specific, do you mean down to a citation for a specific character/episode, or something more general? If anything, this might warrant a section below to talk about good specific examples - however, I want to be careful to say that only those examples are allowable, because notably may come out from out aspects. --MASEM 18:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Examples of specific sources, such as a particular journal article about a fictional character or a good review of a television episode. Full citations would be good, and it would be even better if the sources are available online. (And no, we shouldn't say that these are the only acceptable sources, but I'd like some idea as to what people's ideal sources would be.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Give the readers what they want, which are detailed individual articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, that is not the compromise that is seeked (sp?) after by this specific guideline. We cannot have it that specific way because then we run very much afoul of the parent guideline of WP:Notability. --Izno (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      More importantly, what readers want runs aground of what WP's mission is, to be a free-content encyclopedia, and unbridled fictional coverage without appropriate commentary fails that. We however should be not afraid to utilize extrenal wikis to supplement WP's coverage.--MASEM 06:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Wow, it's funny when you come across people who have so diametrically opposed views of Wikipedia from your own. Basically what you're saying is that Wikipedia's mission is to be an encyclopedia, not actually useful to the majority of people using the internet? We do have Britannica for that, you know. Ford MF (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec)I know. We should have some policy that takes readers into account, but of course they don't vote. NOTE was created to stop articles on garage bands and other things we shouldn't have articles on. Millions of readers and thousands of editors would agree with this. Where NOTE fails is with fictional topics. Forget about what NOTE allows, we should create an optimal guldeline here and NOTE editors can come fight over it here if they want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      That's ad populem. An optimal guideline would certainly include individual articles, but again, we come to the question/issue of "How best can we make this sub-guideline work with WP:N while also satisfying readers' presumed wants and needs?" As Masem said, external wikis are a helpful supplement to this guideline. --Izno (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      (ec) Considering that FICT is derived from NOTE, I don't see that happening. It's been common practice for a while now that any articles on individual subjects (aka characters, episodes, etc.) need to assert their own notability, while a central list is fine. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      I don't think ad populem applies to something that is opinion and is trying to represent a groups opinion. FICT is the sub-guideline that applies to fiction and if we want to make it looser or tighter than NOTE, that is allowed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      The problem is that editors want to have FICT looser and tighter at the same time. Neither party has been able to convince the other side in the past few months, so the best that FICT can do is compromise, or leave it all to WP:N (which would be desastrous for fiction inclusionists). – sgeureka t•c 07:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      Actually, generally, in response to Peregrine Fisher, we should be sticking to NOTE. This guideline should clarify, but under no circumstances attempt to change, by loosening or tightening, how the requirement for multiple nontrivial independent sources applies to fiction articles in particular. In this particular case, non-notable things may be mentioned in appropriate context on articles for subjects which are notable. That is a perfectly acceptable solution, since notability does not restrict article content, only what may be the subject of a full article, and is often workable and appropriate for articles on fiction. Really, it's an excellent solution, and I hope to see it implemented soon in other areas, like albums and athletes. I think merging really is a better solution for non-notable articles than deletion, but it must be made crystal clear—something must be done with them, they cannot stay, not as full "articles" which serve really as no more than fansites. Fansites belong on Tripod, not Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      So the Luke Skywalker article serves as nothing more than a "fansite"? The Luke Skywalker article[3] belongs on Tripod? --Pixelface (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      How does the fact that readers want articles on soap opera characters "run aground" of Wikipedia's mission to be a free content encyclopedia? How does that "run aground" of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement? --Pixelface (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      From the mission statement: The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. Extensive coverage of fictional works without analysis or out-of-universe context is not "neutral educational content". In addition, the summary of copyrighted published works are derivative works - which while not a copyright issue that we need to legally be aware, they still are non-free content, and thus inclusion must be offset by fair use provisions - again, analysis and out-of-universe context. --MASEM 02:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      Masem, are you a lawyer? --Pixelface (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      And if the source for the analysis in an article is copyrighted, isn't a summary of that analysis also "non-free content"? So you're saying non-free content (a summary of a copyrighted fictional work) + non-free content (a summary of a copyrighted article that analyzes that work) = free content? All contributors to Wikipedia agree to license their contributions under the GFDL. That is the free content license we use. Now, I've argued in the past that plot summaries are non-free content too. But that was based on my layman's understanding of WP:FAIR, but Wikipedia does not give legal advice. That was also before Father Goose contacted Mike Godwin and I read what Mike Godwin had to say. Wikipedia is not receiving takedown letters for fiction articles as far as I know. Now, I am not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that content on Wikipedia is provided as an educational tool, a teaching tool — and that's what we're doing and that counts as fair use. We're providing neutral educational content under a free content license. If your claim that "Extensive coverage of fictional works without analysis or out-of-universe context is not "neutral educational content"." is true, wouldn't that also apply to list of character articles? List of episode articles? Wouldn't that also apply to copyrighted news stories? Take any article from the Main Page that's in the In the news box. Take 2008 French Open for example. Aren't the broadcasts of that copyrighted? Aren't the news stories about it copyrighted? Again, I am not a lawyer but it's my understanding that copyright covers the particular expression of a work, not the ideas behind it. It's legal to reformulate ideas in your own words. So please stop talking about "derivative works" in some effort to install fear, uncertainty, and doubt in people commenting on your proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      The issue with free content, and the issue with copyright violations, while both based on US copyright law, are two very different problems. All the points you describe, including the discussion with Mike Godwin and so on, are the copyright infringement side. I am not talking about that at all; Mike Godwin said to not worry about, so it makes no sense to talk about limiting fiction due to FUD over copyright. Free content is meant to be unbridled by any copyright concerns. However, to be comprehensive, we need to include non-free content, but we have been tasked to keep this to a minimum as best to present a topic. You are right that the ideas are open: one cannot stop me from writing a story about time travel just because another author used the concept. However, to retell not the idea, but the work itself at any level of detail is a derivative work that only the copyright holder has the right to make; this applies to news reports and sports games and pretty much everything else today not tagged with an open-source license. Again, to be clear, I am not talking about the FUD of copyright lawsuits over derivative works, I'm specifically looking at how this impacts free content. For us to use non-free derivative works in a free-content encyclopedia, we need to minimize its amount and amend it with (the unfortunately vague term) "critical commentary", which, for most works of fiction, can include development, reception, influence, and the like, the "real world context" of the work. The lists of characters or episodes are fine is that these are considered in context with the main article on the work itself; it has only been split off per WP:SIZE. The same logic applies to how we cover news stories, sporting scores, and the like. --MASEM 03:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      Oh, so a summary of copyrighted critical commentary is not a derivative work as well? Care to explain derivative works some more to everyone here, or are you done playing Internet lawyer? --Pixelface (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Strongest possible oppose. First off, the guideline is simply too long. It's also confusing. It doesn't present a compromise. It appears to represent the point of view of a handful of editors, out of over 7 million. I like lists too, but what is this obsession with redirecting articles to lists? And I'm interested in how Masem defines "global consensus." When the RFC on WP:EPISODE was started by Maniwar, Maniwar contacted a whole heck of a lot of people on their talk pages. In my opinion, the "global consensus" is that readers want articles on every episode of South Park. Readers want an article on Lenny Leonard. Readers want an article on Luke Skywalker. Readers want articles on comic book characters. They even want articles on soap opera characters and even soap opera storylines like Storylines of EastEnders (2000s). They don't give a crap what IGN thinks about a character. Coverage doesn't make something notable. Notability is just a perception. It's a subjective opinion. When someone says something is notable, they are saying they think it's worth their attention. That's it. When someone says something is not notable, more often than not they mean they've never heard of it. "Notability" is not some objective reality. Is the character Luke Skywalker not notable because the article doesn't contain any citations? No, it just means the article doesn't contain any citations. I have a question for this guideline's supporters. How should the current version of WP:FICT be applied to the Luke Skywalker article? The Cosette article? The Lenny Leonard article? The The Seven-Beer Snitch article? The Electra article? I'm curious. --Pixelface (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    You seem to have a problem more with WP:N's dictum that coverage from secondary sources is required more than anything with this guideline. And naturally it represents the view of not all of Wikipedia because that's expected. Heck, if we followed popular demand, I would be writing an article on how awesome my room is. We're not here to cater to popular demand, as it's an encyclopedia, not a fansite for whatever someone wants to include. I don't give a crap about most of the stuff on Wikipedia, but I recognize that it's part of an encyclopedia. Harping about notability in general isn't really warranted here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    WP:N doesn't require secondary sources. It says topics should be notable. And it says secondary sources are one way of providing evidence of notability. You act like secondary sources are the only way. And FICT doesn't have to follow N. WP:N itself says "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." And no offense, but nobody cares about how "awesome" your room is. You're right, this is an encyclopedia project, but it's edited by volunteers and people don't get paid to edit. So who do you think spent most of the time working on the List of Naruto chapters (Part I) article? Fans of Naruto or non-fans? And I can throw around the "fansite" word too. Like, what are all these images[4] you've uploaded? Did you upload those because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or because you're a fan of Castlevania, Naruto, and Bleach? I actually support keeping the articles you uploaded those images for, but the supporters of this guideline would be happy turning the articles into redirects and deleting the images as orphans. And pointing out that "notability" is just an opinion actually *is* warranted here. This is a notability guideline, so why is talking about the concept of "notability" out of place? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is also not paper and also not a bureaucracy. What does WP:FICT say should be done about the Orihime Inoue article? The Byakuya Kuchiki article? The Kenpachi Zaraki article? You think they should be put in a list? You think people can't give their opinion whether a character is notable or not? Do you want editors going around redirecting nearly every fictonal character article "per WP:FICT" as if it was a policy? --Pixelface (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Of course it isn't required, but it's how a great majority of topics assert notability. If something has won an award, is featured in multiple media, or so on, then it follows that it receives coverage as a result; ergo, it is the easiest method of determining the notability of a topic. And naturally those interested in whatever subject material they are working on have a vested interest in whatever they are working on, but that does not mean that they do not respect our policies and guidelines. For instance, plenty of the articles I've uploaded images for have been redirected or deleted. Am I going to overturn the decision made by consensus because I like the page and because I took the time to put an image on it? Of course not. If we aren't going to respect consensus, then there's little point in collaborating here. In any case, talking about notability in general is inappropriate here because this is talking about a sub-guideline of NOTE that is derived from it, and you're attempting to undermine what basically is established consensus. Your concerns are more pertinent for WT:N than this particular guideline, and you aren't really presenting anything actionable in regards to this particular guideline. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    "Of course it isn't required" Um, you just said "WP:N's dictum that coverage from secondary sources is required" So which is it? Why are you trying to dictate consensus over every fictional character article, every fiction book article, every fiction TV show article, every fiction TV episode article, every fiction film article, every game article, and possibly every article dealing with myths and legends — from this page? Do you know how policies and guidelines get written? Editors make them up. And in this case, FICT is a horrible idea. Go ahead and look through the 31 archives of this talk page and tell me what the consensus is. Why are you trying to override the consensus among article editors on article talk pages? This may be a notability proposal, but it doesn't have to be *based* on WP:N. If WP:N was all you needed, what's the need for a FICT guideline? And WP:N is not "established consensus." It's just an excuse people use to make it look like their personal opinion of "nn" carries some weight because WP:N has a guideline tag on it. Speaking of "actionable", how about you actually apply FICT as it's written to any one of the multiple articles I've mentioned. I oppose making this proposal a guideline. If Masem has spent over a year re-writing it, he's wasted his time. Now would you like me to come up to the Support section and argue with you up there? --Pixelface (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Required unless consensus dictates there exists sufficient grounds for it to be considered notable in the absence of enough coverage. And honestly, your rant concerning NOTE and the work that has been hammered into this guideline is rather appalling. And yes, it has to be based on NOTE, as we derive the rest of the notability guidelines from it. Are you going to go ask WP:MUSIC, WP:BK and so on and so forth be thrown out? And until NOTE has a disputed tag on top and it's being challenged, then it will be implemented and followed. You've basically stated you don't like this guideline because you think the concept of notability is bad. Again, I point you towards WT:N, where your discussion is pertinent. I don't really see much point in continuing this, as your stance presents something that's neither actionable or really able to be reconciled with. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    The proposed notability guideline on fiction is supposed to be grounded in the general notability guideline: that notability depends on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You're not just arguing to trash the proposed guideline, but to trash the consensus that has existed at WP:N for years. In good faith, you're entitled to your opinion. But how is anyone supposed to buy this argument that you represent the "global consensus" on this proposal when you don't even acknowledge the consensus on an actual guideline at WP:N? If you honestly believe you represent the global consensus, go ahead and change WP:N. You should have no problem if your support is as overwhelming as you believe it is. But if not, the only reasonable thing to do is to base WP:FICT on WP:N. Any proposal that doesn't begin with WP:N just isn't helpful. Randomran (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    The only way you can say that NOTE has conensus is to say that the few editors who frequent NOTE overrule the thousands of editors actually edit articles. The arguments in favor of a strict intrepretation of NOTE when it comes to fict are basically because NOTE and NOT say it must be so. This is a weak argument when you consider the number of editors involved. If every 100 editors who edit in a way not consistent with NOTE and NOT were counted as equal to one policy wonk, it would be obvious that they do not have consensus. I'd like to see some arguments other than XXX has consensus. We can come up with countless articles where 100,000+ readers read it and didn't have a problem. Again, countless articles where 100+ editors didn't have a problem. We cannot find a policy or guideline page that outlaws these articles where 100+ editors did not have a problem. Give me some numbers/reasons why a few policy wonks should overrulle thousands of editors and millions of readers. If the only thing you can come up with is copyvio, then that's already a policy with support. What other truly widespread support is there? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Do you see NOTE being rewritten and massively opposed? For every person that goes to an AfD and claims it's "NN", "not notable", or "fails WP:N" (which is the case for a majority of AfDs), they're following the guideline. In the absence of opposition, there is consensus. Until there's a disputed tag on NOTE, then the onus is on you to show that there's significant opposition to it, not the people supporting it. If the opposition that you claims exists to it did, then we would have hell of a lot more non-notable articles at WP:AFD that are kept, which is definitely not the case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I do see it massively opposed on AfDs. Hopefully someday a small fraction of those people will take an interest in NOTE and it will get that disputed tag. The disputed tag is already on the fiction notability page, obviously. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    WP:N is a fundamental guideline that has had consensus for years. The same as other guidelines. Would the eager editors who add their friend's garage band invalidate the notability requirement? Would the numerous editors who engage in edit wars invalidate the three revert rule? Would all the editors who add in links to their fan site or favorite opinion piece invalidate the rule against spam and advertising? What about all the people who add elaborate criticism sections based on their personal grievances? Yeah, there are people all over wikipedia breaking rules that have huge consensus. But wikipedia is not an anarchy. You haven't shown that there are more people who oppose the notability requirement than there are editors who want to add advertisements, point of view, and engage in edit wars. But even if there were this massive opposition that you claim, should they really be allowed to destroy guidelines that have served us for years without so much as a discussion? My point: if someone wants to have a go at reforming WP:N, then reform WP:N. But until then, these guidelines should at least acknowledge WP:N rather than ignoring it as if it never existed. Every discussion about WP:FICT must be compatible with the guidelines we actually have, not the guidelines you wish we had. Randomran (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    But it totally lacks community support in practice, which is why so many editors make these articles, edit them, and myself and others defend them in AfDs. Saying they are breaking rules is to assume bad faith as most editors get welcome messages and all that link to the guidelines and so if we assume good faith then these editors simply interpret the policies in such a manner that like myself see that most of the works of fiction actually are suitable for Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Nobody was assuming bad faith. I was saying these people broke rules and made mistakes. Good faith isn't an immunity card. Wikipedia is not an anarchy. People who disregard fundamental wikipedia guidelines in good faith aren't implicitly rewriting the rules. Just because you edit war for what you see as the good of the article, it doesn't mean we overturn the 3RR. Just because you promote your fansite with the good faith belief that it truly is a great fansite, it doesn't mean we disregard rules against advertising. Just because you have a good faith belief that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim terrorist and you're trying to protect the world against Islamofascism, it doesn't mean everyone can inject their point of view for the enjoyment of anyone who shares that point of view. If you have a problem with the other guidelines, revise them. Otherwise, I'd caution against giving undue weight to any opinion that insists on creating guidelines that contradict one another. Randomran (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    People are not automatically "disregarding" anything, rather they interpret and understand Wikipedia in such a manner that allows for the inclusion of these articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    You have no evidence of that. None of these "interpretations" are compatible with WP:N, indicating disregard rather than interpretation. Randomran (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I see nothing that suggests these interpretations are incompatible with our notability guidelines. If I did, I wouldn't argue for the inclusion of the articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    How do you deal with the general notability guideline, that requires notability to be established by reliable sources that are independent of the subject -- and goes into great detail about what independent, reliable, and so on all mean? It sounds to me like you're arguing that the notability guideline essentially doesn't exist because several editors act that way. That's the furthest thing from a fair interpretation of the guideline. Randomran (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    By focusing on finding those sources rather than on just declaring they can't be found. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Please assume good faith. Most people who declare they can't be found are saying so because they actually, in good faith, tried to find them to the best of their ability. If people are in error about those sources, then your grievance is with the editor themselves -- not the notability policy, and not this proposed guideline. In fact, this proposed guideline is very clear that improving an article requires some attempt to find those reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I would support efforts to make this more clear, but not to disregard the notability requirement. I very much agree with the spirit of WP:INSPECTOR, but then I also agree with WP:N in word and in spirit. Randomran (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't doubt that some do indeed do quick Google searchs for sources, but Google is not the end point of research. I have found and added many unchallenged reliable secondary sources that appear in journals and magazines without online public archives. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Either way, at some point people have to weigh a decision on the evidence they have, not the alleged evidence some claim may still be found. I would entirely support a guideline that formalizes some of the things we just talked about: that there should be a good faith effort to find some sources, and that articles should be given time -- it may even be a good idea to explain what amount of time is appropriate. I think the proposed guideline does this to some extent, but it could be more clear. But we can't remove the part of this guideline that is based on the general notability requirement: you need independent and reliable sources on the subject of the article in order to demonstrate notability. Randomran (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:There is no deadline, so who arbitrarily decides based on what evidence there is when the article is not sufficient? So long as there is a realistic chance of additional sources turning up, we should allow our editors a lot of leeway here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    You're right. It's not about a deadline. It's about making a reasonable and educated estimate as to whether that article is notable at present. I believe it's easier to make this estimate when you've had some time to observe the article, see how it's been edited, tagged it for its notability problems, and seen if it's realistic that this problem can be resolved. But at a certain point, you can make an intelligent estimate. "I've tagged it, nobody's done anything, I took a quick look myself, and I'm pretty damn sure it's not notable". And then there's the AFD discussion itself, where people more well versed in the subject than you might have a better idea of what to look for -- and it only takes one person to pull up references to put a stop to it. But again, we're talking about mechanics and process. It sounds to me like you actually agree with the guidelines, just that you don't want to see them used too early. I agree with that. Do you support the guidelines otherwise? Randomran (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Good faith and reasonable editors can look at an article see that it’s not being improved and nominate it for deletion only to have someone come along and find sources and improve articles that others could not find sources for. Please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Yanehiro, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and the Pumpkin Queen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Ways to Die (song), etc. All I am saying is that more effort should be made into helping improving and referencing the articles and that a lot of times the claims that sources cannot be found or that there is no notability are just not true even when made in good faith and because of that, it is important that we approach many articles as works in progress and allow our editors the benefit of the doubt when they do believe the article has potential, but that the likely sources are in publications not available on the internet and that take considerable more time to find. Given the articles I have even helped reference and fulfill notability concerns in AfDs, I reckon a lot more that are deleted after a mere five discussion in which a half dozen or so editors declare it can’t be improved also could and should have been saved as well. So, to some extent I obviously agree that many of these articles should be improved and that they should be better referenced. Where I disagree is the assertion that they cannot be improved or referenced and that a lot of time spent removing them could actually be spent improving them. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    So basically, you don't have a problem with the guidelines... you just think they should never ever be used to justify an AFD. Randomran (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    (unindent a bit) If editors who merged and nominated articles for AfD improved articles to an equal extent, it would be much easier to find some middle ground. It's all volunteer so there's no way to enforce anything like that that I can think of. I've heard a few people say some of our problems are an editor problem, not a guideline problem, but if they can do what they do with in good faith, which they can, it means the guidelines need to be adjusted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I understand your point, Peregrine, but I continue to believe that is something we can't realistically fix with this specific page. If what's on this page is good advice, and we can agree (to some reasonable extent) on that, then we can actually do something about how people handle the situations. Right now we're in a big traffic jam, waiting for WP:FICT to be dealt with. For example, we still have WP:EPISODE to fix up, but we're mostly waiting for WP:FICT to become somewhat stable. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for understanding, common ground is a good thing. If we can make this page so it allows for optimal orginization of fictional topics, which I doubt we can since it would involve some articles being about single non-notable subjects, then that would be great. If we could make users who redirect say, 100 episodes of Scrubs, establish notability for 5-10 of those articles (and it is possible) then that would also be great. Since we can't do anything like what I just mentioned, I think the best thing to do is probably get rid of FICT so the real discussion can take place at NOTE. It seems to me that to get a FICT anywhere close to what I would like, and what represents actual readers and editors on the ground, this discussion needs to take place at a higher level. In my opinion there have been a number of well reasoned arguments for loosening FICT, and they're pretty much all countered with "that's against NOTE." The whole support section ingnores the conflict with NOTE. I guess if NOTE and NOT were changed to even allow what the support votes are supporting, I might support as well. Until then it's really ignoring the problems with our policies and guidelines when it comes to fiction. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 08:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Then your points are better represented at NOTE and NOT. Yes, it would be great to cover every single episode, character, and so on for all these media, but realize that that a line has to be drawn since NOTE and NOT still stand. So long as they do, this guideline must respect what NOTE and NOT currently dictate. Now, if you were to change NOTE and NOT, then by extension, you would have the ability to alter this guideline in order to make it more permissive. If the support for changing NOTE and NOT exists per your statements, then feel free to go change them. However, trying to argue against this guideline using the version of NOTE and NOT that you want is a bit silly, no? And note that the guideline as it stands actually does lend itself towards being more permissive than what the current situation is. If this doesn't pass, then you're going to end up with people bulldozing articles at AfD while citing NOTE and NOT#PLOT, while if FICT passed, you would have a merge or a tag-and-wait situation present. And it still doesn't stop you from going to NOTE and NOT to change it to your liking if the current version of FICT passes. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    (redent)One of my main talking points lately has been that this compromise is prohibited by NOT. I know that this is more permissive, and that's a big reason why I won't support it when it has no teeth. The ultimate goal in my opininion is to change NOTE, NOT, and whatever else hinders us in our coverage of fictional topics, as agreed upon by the masses, not policy wonks. Supporting something prohibited by NOT, without changing NOT, is silly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 09:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's not really prohibited by NOT#PLOT, which states that "a concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work" and I construe "larger coverage" to indicate the lists that we're justifying in terms of WP:SS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SIZE, which is the compromise point that has been taken by FICT. It doesn't contradict NOT#PLOT but rather clarifies more specific cases on how it is applied. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Why is it supposed to be grounded in WP:N? We can come up with different standards for different topics. WP:N itself says "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right" Notability does *not* depend on "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." If that's present, it's likely that people will agree it's notable. That's one way of providing evidence of notability. If that's not present, that doesn't mean anything. Go read WP:N again. I never claimed to represent global consensus. But if you want to find out what "global consensus" is, you should probably look at some of Wikipedia's 2.4 million articles. You should also try actually *applying* FICT as it's currently written to some of those 2.4 million articles and see if editors actually agree with what you're doing or if they oppose it. For example, what does WP:N or WP:FICT suggest regarding the Guile (Street Fighter) article? --Pixelface (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    When it comes to specific notability guidelines, they can be more strict than the general notability guideline, but not less so. As for Guile, he's probably notable because he's probably been given significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the Street Fighter series. I'd have strong reason to believe there are references that can assert notability. Randomran (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    That doesn't actually make sense when you consider the quote "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right". If they had to be more strict, then it would say "and" rather than "or". The "or" implies that meeting a subject-specific standard means that it doesn't have to meet the GNG, and several more specific guidelines allow for notability without requiring significant coverage (such as books and films being notable if they win awards). Nowhere does it say that subject-specific guidelines must be more strict than the GNG. SamBC(talk) 12:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, I think that you are both right, and that WP:N needs clarification on that issue. Randomran's interpretation is the only one that makes sense to me, but Sambc is correct in terms of what a literal reading says. The problem with Sambc's interpretation is that it gives unreasonable power to a wikiproject. If the (purely hypothetical) Irving Forbush Genealogy project decided that being named "Forbush" conferred notability, then they could create an article for every Forbush in the world, and there wouldn't be much anyone could do to stop them. Kww (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    The way I've read it (and not saying my way is right, but seems to be consistent with subnotability guidelines) is in the sense that other guidelines can supercede the GNC, but only if, first, it is an objective measurement, and second, the most common result of meeting that guideline will still result, ultimately, in an article with reliable, independent sourcing that is related to its notability. I point to WP:MUSIC's criteria for musicians, where the first one is the GNC, but the rest are all objective standards that I can easily see leading to sourcing of some type.
    I've mentioned that we've tried to think of cases of the same type of fictional works as alternatives, but unfortunately either the approach is not objective (say, if I say major character of a notable work is presumed notable, "major" is a subjective term) and/or that sourcing in most cases is limited to the primary work only. We've explored that with the only possible leeway being major awards, and even that is a careful balance, because most awards are given to the actors or the creators of the characters, and not specifically to the character itself, though there is some implied notability here. I'm not saying there aren't any, but that's been part of the brainstorming of this guideline for the past year and has proven unsuccessful in providing such alternatives to the GNC for fictional works that still end up meeting the general concept of notability. --MASEM 13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    No, Randomran, you're wrong. You're saying that a topic can have "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and still not meet one of the notability guidelienes? The various notability guidelines have all kinds of different criteria a topic can meet. Go look at WP:ACADEMIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:MOVIE for example. Significant coverage is sufficient evidence of notability; it's not a requirement. --Pixelface (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I think Christopher Parham has said pretty much all I want to say. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Weak Oppose I do think some definable standards need to be applied, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. There's a huge divide around here about what kind of articles are and are not notable. This policy seems to be heavily slanted to curtail the activities of the "pop culture" set of editors (for lack of a better group title). There must be a better compromise than this. AniMate 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I would argue that this is not an attempt to curtail pop culture coverage but to make sure that is treated in an encyclopedia manner (and again, we should not be afraid to defer to wikis for more details on pop culture that don't work under WP's mission and policies). However, I will ask, either why do you feel this curtails on pop culture, or from a different approach, what do you feel needs to be added to achieve a better compromise? --MASEM 23:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    First off, I hate this side of things, because sometimes all a contributor wants to do is give an opinion andnot have someone try and talk them out of it. Secondly, deferring to other wikis strikes me as an awful idea. First off, we'd have to figure out a way to determine which wikis are and are not acceptable. Can you imagine how awful that would be? Wookiepedia is arguably the best known entertainment wiki out there, and a great place for Star Wars articles. However, there are some pretty second or third rate wikis out there as well, and that is being generous. How do we gauge the quality of these wikis? Will it be as divisive as judging the quality of which articles should remain on Wikipedia? Probably. Can we offer the same protection and community values to hard working contributors whose work has been deemed "not ready for primetime"? The more I think about it, the less I like this idea. AniMate 00:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    We're trying to get a compromise that everyone finds suitable, so asking for clarification on what you find wrong with the guideline so he can make corrections is perfectly fine. And the only reason we're including other wikis in this guideline is that there exists wikis on more specialized topics in which non-notable topics here, or many topics that would normally fail WP:NOT can be sent to. Yes, some of these wikis are in bad shape, but transwiking is preferable for these editors in most cases rather than outright deletion, which they would be subject to normally. In any case, whatever wiki they are sent to ultimately comes about in the individual AfD, and consensus usually doesn't result in a transwiki decision. If this guideline is passed, we would actually see a spike in "merge" !votes rather than an increase in "transwiki" !votes. Anyways, for articles "not ready for primetime", editors who want to work on them are free to work on them in their userspace for practically as long as they like, and any administrator would be happy to provide a copy of the deleted article for this to work. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. STRONG Oppose. Per above. The problem I have with this is that some people actually use the notability guidelines as an excuse to just obliterate and merge everything left and right. Several content and all the hard work people put into articles are lost when uncivil gutter trash just show up just to enforce these guidelines and assimilate everything in their path, even going as far as calling them "vandals" when they try to make simple edits to the page instead of helping them, and for what? Just so they could reach "GA" or "FA" status. BAH! The notability guidelines, in my opinion, only served as a catalyst for a battleground of uncivilty and unnecessary fights to keep all of this information. ZeroGiga (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Editors do need to realize they don't own articles and their efforts can be removed - being upset at the loss of editing work is not fruitful; however, that is why need to encourage the use of wikis so that this hard work isn't lost (and as long as merging is done, it's still there in the history). As for uncivil editors sending things to AFD, that's a behavioral issue - editors that do engage in uncivility need to be reported if that's a problem (such as TTN, I'm guessing). --MASEM 03:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Speaking of incivility. I find the irony behind statements such as "uncivil gutter trash" rather hilarious. If you want people to take you seriously, try not to insult them when you try and make your point. Second, other than speedy deletion, it takes consensus to delete an article (it takes that to merge it as well). Whether someone is using FICT (or any other guideline for that matter) as a means to delete or merge a page is irrelevant to the fact that consensus must support such a thing. Now, if it's blatantly obvious the subject shouldn't have a page, then 40 editors saying it should--when all it has is a plot summary--isn't going to change that fact either. Consensus isn't about how many peole say "yes" or "no". If you have a problem with people misusing the guideline (or a policy for that matter) then take it up with the editors (or the community); don't blame the guideline for the trouble caused by a few editors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    The truth is, without FICT, people already use NOTE (and NOT#PLOT) to merge/redirect/delete fiction articles in masses quite successfully, and even a {{rejected}} tag on FICT wouldn't miraculously stop that. Some people may have problems with NOTE and NOT#PLOT, but FICT is the wrong place to discuss their merits. (The easiest solution would be to start an RfC at NOTE to turn its guideline status into an essay or something, but I imagine this proposal would be shot down quickly like the RfC to remove NOT#PLOT. And we're back to what FICT currently says.) – sgeureka t•c 07:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have to agree with this statement. I generally hate when people argue with oppose or support !votes, but sgeureka's comment really needs to be pointed out. If we implement this proposal, a lot of work by many contributors will be lost. Frankly, this seems to be a divisive proposal mostly about curbing popular culture articles and proving that certain editors on one side of a conflict are right. I wish I could propose a "stay on your side of the playground" guideline, but petty politics and drama will always be an unfortunate factor here. Are these articles really detrimental to the encyclopedia? No. Do they need guidelines? Yes. Is setting up a system to delete the contributions of our fellow Wikipedians the right way to go about getting said guidelines the right way to go about this? Absolutely not. There are thousands of articles in this encyclopedia that desperately need to be improved. Instead, many are here to play in the worst part of Wikipedia: the deletionist vs the Inclusionist bullshit... and that is what this is. So, as I don't have any power to make a guideline: I will just ask all of you to play on your side of the playground, improve all of the articles that need to be improved, and to just support each other. This advice won't be heeded, but a Wikipedian can hope. Can't he? AniMate 09:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think you misconstrued what he was trying to say. He was saying that if this proposal does not go through, then people are going to bulldoze articles using NOTE and NOT#PLOT with practical impunity. If this guideline passes, then we get a situation that is more permissive, not stricter. If anything, it will reduce possible conflict. And for your "stay on your side of the playground" idea, it isn't what Wikipedia really is about. There will always be voices on either side of the issue and in the end, we have to abide by whatever consensus dictates, or Wikipedia doesn't work. Also, there's really no "fences" that separate the editors here - we share the same community and articles sans any sort of impediment, and we have to cooperate. There is always conflict and to every conflict, there has to be some form of resolution. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Um, FICT is based in part on NOT#PLOT and NOTE. And the RFC on NOT#PLOT is to determine whether PLOT has consensus, and it doesn't. You don't need to demonstrate consensus to remove a section of policy that doesn't have consensus. It needs consensus to be policy in the first place. So don't claim "the RfC to remove NOT#PLOT" was "shot down." When PLOT has been removed from NOT, the removal has been reverted by parties of E&C1 and E&C2, and that includes you. --Pixelface (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    This RFC appears to support that some statement that "Wikipedia articles are not just plot summaries" has support; the exact language was in question, but the concept appears to be strongly supported by those that responded. --MASEM 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    You continue to ignore other statements made by people outside of that section at WT:NOT, just like you ignored them when you performed three reverts to WP:NOT and re-added PLOT three times — probably because this misguided proposal of yours relies on PLOT. I've pointed to lots of articles that are simply plot summaries. There does seem to be some support that articles ought to be more than plot summaries, which is why such wording belongs in WAF and not under WP:IINFO. --Pixelface (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Policies are supposed to be mostly stable, with significant changes being discussed before the change is made (or, if made and reverted, discussed to determine consensus for the change). It was removed once and reverted; at that point, there needed to be discussion about it before removing it again. Consensus doesn't disappear and policy doesn't become broken because some editors believe a line shouldn't be present. That's why rationale discussions about changes to determine if they fit into existing policy are key for making sure policies and guidelines reflect policy, and the removal of PLOT without gaining consensus had to be reverted once it was reverted once. Again, please remember to be civil and not attack the editors. --MASEM 00:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose I support the well-reasoned points made by Christopher Parham above. The proposal also fails WP:CREEP and WP:BURO. Such long and tendentious rule-making is contrary to our principles, being an elitist concept which is explicitly hostile to the contributions of ordinary editors who typically work upon such topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    There's a reason why this has been under editing for more than a year: every time we got close to what we thought met current practice as to establish a baseline, someone would bring up another point that had to be addressed; at least 4 times there was a complete tear down and rebuild of these. In order to accurately reflect today's current practices and to make sure that editors at the extreme ends of the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum were happy, we had to include all the various clauses and the like, because that's exactly how the situation with fiction is being dealt with presently: there is no one simple answer that can be applied across all fiction topics. The reason we're asked to get consensus on this version is to make sure we then have an acceptable baseline that we can then try to work on changing it into someone simpler that may go against the grain and thus would require much more discussion; we need something stable for FICT however while this occurs. It is not meant to be hostile because we are not preventing coverage of topics, simply trying to make sure how and where these are covered are appropriate for an encyclopedia. --MASEM 10:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Strongest possible oppose per all those before, because the guideline is too long, and because the setting up of secondary-source requirements would be to essentially hand a club to editors to obliterate large swaths of Wikipedia's terrain, from, oh, 99% of our comic book-related articles, to pulp-era mystery and fantasy heroes, to more recent serial characters like V. I. Warshawski. Ford MF (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Without FICT, you will still be bound by secondary source requirements from WP:NOTE. And this does not prevent coverage of these topics, but asking them to be presented as part of notable topics. For example, the V. I. Warshawski article would be better presented by talking about the series of books either on their own page (presuming that some of the books are notable, or the series itself), or within the Sara Paretsky page, with appropriate redirections to make the information readily available; wherever the series is covered , you can explain the characters briefly and any other aspects common to the books. --MASEM 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I respectfully, but with the greatest disturbance, disagree. Fictional characters are a unique case, and aren't WP:BLPs, and aren't ever going to be. In most cases, the work is the coverage. That forum editorial quoted above, Why Wikipedia is Deleting the Wrong Articles is 100% dead on. Category:Dungeons & Dragons magical beasts, or comic characters, or TV characters, aren't ever going to get secondary coverage unless they're Mary Tyler Moore, and deletion and merge pogroms against these things drive readers away, damage the project's long-term viability, and frankly create a hostile atmosphere to the editors who work on these articles (which, face it, constitute an enormous amount of traffic here), and whose stuff gets tossed out largely because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If Wikipedia's mission isn't primarily to be encyclopedically useful to its readers, its mission is nothing but a stupid social experiment. Ford MF (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Question. How do you want to write a neutral article that does not violate WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR if you don't have any secondary coverage? If you dismiss these accepted policies and guidelines along with a few others (WP:GUIDE, WP:TRIVIA and WP:RS) as IDONTLIKEIT, and if you consider others' defending these rules as hostile, it may be you who mistakes wikipedia's mission, not the others. – sgeureka t•c 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sgeureka, do you think the Andrey Nikolayevich Bolkonsky article violates NOTE, PLOT, and OR? Do you see the word "notability" anywhere in the Wikimedia Foundation mission statement or the five pillars? Have you read WP:IAR?? Is Wikipedia a notability project? How does "notability" fall within Wikipedia's mission, considering that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia? --Pixelface (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    WP is supposed to be useful by providing "neutral educational content". This is not to say that most modern fictional is not appropriate to that, however, there's a point where it is appropriate to talk about modern works and elements thereof and how they have been influenced or have influence the world in an educational approach, and where it is not appropriate to give a complete biography of a fictional character straight of the primary source. I'm not saying we are trying to strike anything that cannot be considered educational, but when we do step away from that mission goal, we need to make sure that what is being covered is treated in the same fashion that the educational content is given as, which means that keys policies like NOT, V, NOR, and NPOV have to be followed. Characters and other aspects that can only be covered by the primary work should be covered in the discussion of the primary work (presuming the work itself is notable), at the level to establish who and what these characters are. And again, I note that we have offsite wikis that can take information that doesn't meet the educational content goal and interlink with those to provide complete coverage. --MASEM 13:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, the elements within the FICT guideline are widely open to interpretation, which has been seen at numerous debates at AFD etc. e.g what is an independent source, how significant a mention is significant etc. Thus to make a concrete guideline from fluid elements seems illogical. Much information of vital articles is, in and of itself, non-notable, yet may be forked out when an article grows to a large size, eg diseases with a treatment of x subpage etc. These are dictated by size and depth of material rather than an extraneous notability which acts as a cull of material, which I feel is not in the interests of wikipedia or its readers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I believe that the general notability guideline already defines that information. So, you may want to check out WP:NOTE. Read the first section, and then follow the sources at the end of each sentence to the bottom of the page for a more detailed explaination. Short of simply copying and pasting that information, there isn't much that needs to be said. We link to WP:NOTE when we define how this guideline classifies notability. Depth of material can split a page, but the material should not be simply plot information, or you run the risk of creating a page that does not but provide a free alternative to watching/reading/listening to some fictional program.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Also, note the suggestion below to provide concrete examples of what are good sources for fiction notability. That would address the first points. Mind you, regardless of how much we actually spell out, what happens at AFD is still going to be a subjective determination, that is the nature of the process. What we need to do is step back a notch from the aggressiveness of some editors like TTN to require significantly more coverage; we need to be less BITEy at AFD and give more good faith benefit of the doubt that if there's a couple weak notability references, then deletion is not called for. The problem is that is something we can help line up by helping to spell out good sources, but really cannot control from FICT's standpoint. --MASEM 13:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Too much dislike onto a subject is not helping here. Yes people look to WP for details on series/literary works and the characters/actors involved. In my mind when looking at any article we need to look at three major aspects: 1) Does the reader benefit? 2)Does the writer benefit? 3)Is the subject (or others) harmed by it? If No 2 outweighs No 1 it is spam. No 3 mostly applies to BLP issues but could be construed to commercial interests which in the most case are actually not harmed by those articles but furthered. Agathoclea (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Honest question: In how does this relate to anything that FICT says? FICT doesn't mention dislike, spam, harm or how readers and writers benefit from articles. – sgeureka t•c 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Which is maybe the problem. Ford MF (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Basically, I agree with Christopher Parham and KungFu Man above. Also, I see no reason why Wikipedia should avoid lengthy articles on specialized topics of interest to only a handful of readers, as long as those articles are of good quality and contain accurate information. rb000 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. I can't tell you how often I've plugged in the name of a character from some corner of fiction I don't normally delve into (YA lit, or an obscure comic book character, or a game...) & been pleased to have something pop up. I also have to admit that I've been drifting away from the project as perfectly reasonable articles I've found have all been up for deletion. I realize that a fiction policy on notability is a tricky subject. Things like characters, plot element, & the like are not often discussed in third-party arenas. This makes arguments for inclusion difficult, despite the fact that, such as in The Leader mentioned below, they are long-standing & viable characters. Furthermore, the arguments for lay-out have a lot of weight; making a sub-article for a page that has grown too long & clumsy suddenly puts that content in jeopardy. Fundamentally, Wikipedia should be useful. Wikipedia can be bigger than any encyclopedia that came before. I certainly don't think that notability should go out the window, but I think notability needs serious consideration. Because Wikipedia is user-generated, it doesn't have to be as limited. I don't have any answers for policy, but I don't think that being more restrictive in response to the short comings of restriction is the solution. --mordicai. (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    This version of FICT does not change the fact you will be able to still put in a character name and have something come up - it just won't be its own article but instead part of the coverage of the work it is in or a list of characters from that work, and hopefully, a link to a wiki with more information. Redirects are cheap, and there's no reason we cannot catalog all those fictional characters so they are all still searchable within WP. And (to both Mordicai's, Rb000's, and Agathoclea's points) while WP can grow, it's free content mission is a priority - that is a limitation in how far we can take the discussion of fictional elements when there are no secondary source to provide fair use provision of derivative works. That doesn't mean we can't talk about the characters, but they have to be in context of a larger topic (typically the work itself) where we can provide the alternative sources needed to justify the use of derivative works. (And just again to clarify, this does not mean we are protecting WP from copyright lawsuits or the like, but instead the philosophy of what free content is.) --MASEM 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Your solution sounds like turning Wikipedia into a search engine & an index. Linking to a site that isn't Wikipedia? Now THAT sounds like a bad idea; once it gets out from under our umbrella, we really have no say in the reliability (as Sephiroth BCR poinsts out) or content of the site. & how big & sprawling is, lets say, the Marvel page going to get? We'll just stash all the content that doesn't pass the new notability guidelines under it in a big list of hyperlinks? Saying that an article will lie fallow is all well & good, but I'd rather have a stub NOW than nothing later. --mordicai. (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Again, wow, your philosophy of free content doesn't look anything like mine. So...talking about it is okay, but a separate article in the namespace isn't? Merge with preservation of content 1) will create preoposterously enormous articles (since what you're saying is a work's primary article should more or less be be the sole repository of ALL information related to it), and 2) will create unnecessary redundancy, since comic book characters, at least of the major companies (and to a lesser extent television characters), appear in a shared universe instead of in a specific work. Would the Leader's character career be spread out among the Hulk, Avengers, Captain America, Namor and Thing articles? How is that useful for any reader? Ford MF (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Obviously there needs to be a WP:SIZE allowance, and thus that's the reason why lists of character (which themselves do not need to show notability as they support the main articles) are considered appropriate. Then, as I pointed out below, if there are characters that cross universes, but are effectively the same character, {{see also}} can be used to point between lists, including adding more information about a character if there are significant differences between them. Also it should be noted that the length of several of these comic characters is too long and information will need to be trimmed, but what is there presently can be placed at a wiki to provide more information without weighing down WP.
    The reason to avoid a separate article is first, this approach is not easily maintainable (see the first oppose viewpoint); today, you may all agree to watch the articles, but in a year, how many editors will still be around? Second, editors tend to fill the glass as much as they can, and as its generally easy to write about in-universe details for a work you love, these blank slates fill up very quickly, and to a point where the free content issue becomes a problem; it is much easier to keep the plot aspects of characters to a limited amount when they are all in the same list to compare and contrast with. --MASEM 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Uh, what exactly do you mean by weighing down Wikipedia? I'm serious, because some of your concerns seem to stem from an unstated harm that such articles do to Wikipedia. (Nevermind that having information about one item on several pages all connected with five or six SEE ALSO tags could only possibly make things more difficult for readers.) Ford MF (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Per the free content mission, we need to strive to minimize the use of non-free content, which includes derivative works in the absence of additional context to meet fair use requirements. It's not an issue with disk space, its an issue with the amount of non-free content that's not justified with fair use. --MASEM 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Could you point me to the "free content mission" that forbids fair use material? Do you work as a lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation? Are you a Wikia employee? You keep throwing around the term "derivative work", but it's just more FUD. You suggest that these "derivative works" don't qualify as fair use here, and suggest we link to for-profit wikis, but how could wikis like Wikia be allowed to make money off so-called "derivative works"? --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. I have a problem with the confluence of WP:N and WP:RS as it applies to fiction. Should not the fact that TV show X has N+1 fansites serve to establish its notability? In the absence of any sort of web sockpuppetry campaign, of course it should. Fansites are truly legitimate coverage for the *notability* of a fictional topic. They may or may not be accurate about other facts (e.g., bios of the actors/artists) and those factual items should be subject to more traditional definitions of acceptable reliable sources, but notability for fiction should be establishable via fansites and other SPS. No one would seriously propose that SPS be used for chemical compounds, scientific theories, or historical biographies, of course. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Fansites don't pass WP:RS. That's the bottom line. Also, your last statement is quite hypocritical. Fansites for fiction and not for "higher" material? The only "higher" criteria we have to maintain is WP:BLP and there's no reason good, reliable sources should be used for fiction. In any case, your argument is suited for WT:RS, not here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Is WP:RS more about WP:V or WP:N? Serious question, to which I believe the answer is 'V'. I think you misunderstand my argument--it's not about a higher standard of verifiability for everything but fiction, it's about a more flexible and fiction-friendly standard for notability. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    And VERIFY talks quite clearly about the quality of sources that have to be used. See WP:SOURCES. Your stance diminishes fiction by allowing for sources of a quality much lower than what is commonly used for other types of articles. Again, the proper venue for your issues is at WT:RS, not here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think you're missing Jclemens's point; the suggestion isn't that fansites be an acceptable source for the content of articles on fictional elements or works, but that they be acceptable as evidence of notability. SamBC(talk) 17:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, that sums my issue up nicely, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Your solution sounds like turning Wikipedia into a search engine & an index. Linking to a site that isn't Wikipedia? Now THAT sounds like a bad idea; once it gets out from under our umbrella, we really have no say in the reliability (as Sephiroth BCR poinsts out) or content of the site. & how big & sprawling is, lets say, the Marvel page going to get? We'll just stash all the content that doesn't pass the new notability guidelines under it in a big list of hyperlinks? Saying that an article will lie fallow is all well & good, but I'd rather have a stub NOW than nothing later. --mordicai. (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't recall advocating linking. The presence of a number of blog entries or fansites googleable on the Internet doesn't mandate their inclusion into Wikipedia--anyone who wants to question the notability of a fictional character can do a quick google and see what the 'buzz' is (or isn't) about a fictional topic. I don't see it as the end of the world. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry Jclemens-- I meant to reply to Masem's "or a list of characters from that work, and hopefully, a link to a wiki with more information" comment. So much formating, so many indents, arggg! --mordicai. (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. I continue to think this is a misguided approach that neither addresses what our readers seem to want, how best to preserve the accurate and quality information that is often in these articles. Furthermore, I think the push towards deletion implicit in this guideline makes very flawed assumptions about the availability of sourcing, and that the existence of a notability guideline wrongly focuses efforts on cleanup instead of on working to find better sources, which are often trivial to find. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. The conditions for verifiability are too stringent for some categories of popular youth/underground/alternative/counter culture. The great D&D/RPG debate is one case in point. The problem is that the subjects of this genre and similar ones, although they may have a vast fan base and be a significant manifestation of popular culture (and what is wrong with that?), get little exposure in authoritative venues of establishment culture. Few D&D novels, no matter how good they are, are likely to be reviewed by the Times Literary Supplement or the New York Times Review of Books. So, although the topic may be of great importance to many people outside the mainstream of established culture and deserve an article because of this, it can be difficult to find sources that are verifiable by the criterion required by the policy. Such sources will exist only when the subculture has time to make an impact on mainstream culture. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC).
  20. Oppose, allowing "subject-specific" guidelines is a tremendous loophole. Either there's enough independent coverage to warrant an article, or there's not and we merge/redirect/delete. We don't need any creep beyond that, or beyond the guidance of verifiability, for that matter: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Any subject-specific guidelines should be intended as helpful pointers toward when such significant source material is more likely to be found, not as exemptions to the requirement that such source material must, in fact, exist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The use of "subject-specific" guidelines where it is means deferring to other established sub-notability guidelines, as opposed to deferring to WikiProject-level guidelines or the like; if this needs to be more explicit in the text, that can be done. It should be noted that we do want to keep WP:V and the GNC of WP:N as sepearate concepts - "third party sources" and "secondary sources" often overlap, but they are not the same. --MASEM 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not even for "established" sub-guidelines, and please let's not let Wikiprojects anywhere near them, Wikiprojects in fiction tend just to be fan clubs. Even wider ones, though, tend to be problematic, since people tend to see them as "Let's keep this article that passes the sub-guideline even if independent sources demonstrably do not exist", rather than "Let's write a guide to help people figure out when secondary sources are likely to exist, but keep it clear that they're still required." That tends to cause the problems I stated above—we end up keeping garbage articles that don't belong here. I'm rather afraid of the same happening here. We really should have some quality control to ensure that our articles are educational, and not simply entertainment or fan material. (That's not to say they can't be educational and entertaining, and indeed the best articles would be, but no articles should serve pure in-universe entertainment purposes.) That means sticking to areas where appropriate secondary sourcing exists to write an out-of-universe article, and not going into any more detail than such sources support in that style. I would, however, support if we make it crystal clear that sub-guidelines absolutely cannot allow an article if significant independent out-of-universe sourcing does not in fact exist, and may only be created to help editors determine when such sourcing is more likely to be found. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
        • You couldn't be more wrong about WikiProjects and the communities extremely widespread support for sub/sister-notability guidelines. I lost count after about 500 for the number of articles WP:DIGIMON transwikied. WP:ANIME is another great project that doesn't keep stuff just because they're fans of the work. Same for WP:STARGATE's past cleanup and many others. WP:POKEMON turned most of their individual articles into lists, for both the monster characters and the TV episodes.

          About sub-guidelines, did you know that WP:FICT was a guideline before WP:N was? Do you think there's even a snowball's chance that editors would support deprecation of most of our sister-notability guidelines? -- Ned Scott 23:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
          • The only reason WP:ANIME enforces it is because Collectorian and The Fairix think they WP:OWN the project and keep trying to ram perfectly good articles through afd. Fairix was recently pwned on the ACML over the issue. A few other deletions swarm in, who will vote down anything and everything whether they know anything about the subject matter or not, and bang, article gone. Because normal people won't be stalking the article on a daily basis, and may not even know the article is up for afd until its suddenly gone. As to transwiking WP:DIGIMON, its pretty much an exile to the ghetto - I'm never going to think to look up some obscure "transwiki" website, and neither is anyone else. Snarfies (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
            • If you think those two are the only reason WP:ANIME is the way it is, then you are entirely unaware of the project's true history. As for the Digimon Wiki, we're getting first page search rank results off of Google, and maintain tons of cross links between Wikipedia and DW (to discourage recreation on some article for Wikipedia, and to encourage appropriate additions to Wikipedia when they're made to DW). You'll never have to think about which wiki it's on, because you'll be guided to that information from Wikipedia and from Google. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Summary_of_opposition_so_far points 1, 2, 6, 9, and 11. Snarfies (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Summary_of_opposition_so_far points 1, 2, 7 and 11. --Maitch (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  23. Oppose I made little edit here in en.wiki, but I'm an editor in it.wiki and many times i use page on fictional topic to create or translate the Italian version (sorry for my bad English), so I it can help i want so say my opinion (i don't know if there is a requiment in number of edit to participate in RCF discussione like in it.wiki for deletion, i search for it, but don't found nothing). I'm not very expert with al those Acronyms used before, so i refer only to two fundamental rules to support my opinion. Wiki is not paper use a real world and a fictional example to show what is wikipedia, look at the fictional one "...detailed subtopics and sub-subtopics enrich Wikipedia with information. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpson character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia.". This Meta essays explain well what is the scope of wikipedia: it doesn't limit the coverage of the subtopic of a notable topic (The Simpson) to the real word impact of every singe (reasonable) subtopic, but simply say that of this clearly notable topic we can have every single (reasonable) subtopic type (characters or episode in the example). The first pillar reiterate the concept: we are "an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopaedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs: for popular (notable) fictional topic (TV series, comics or games of major publisher, etc...) there are usually specialized "encyclopedias/guide/alamacs" (sometimes published by the same publisher, maybe because they don't want to lose control on their intellectual property allowing other secondary source to write and speculate about it, sometime licensed, sometimes by independent publisher) that cover quite all their sub-topic (characters, places, settings, timeline, ecc...), many times also with large in-universe style section (ie the Star Wars Del Rey Books/Random House guide, or the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe for Marvel Comics). So following Wiki is not paper and 1' pillar it's clear (at least to me) that we must have general article on fictional topic for generic readers (the real world poker exemple "a 100-page thesis on poker is useless to someone who merely needs an article summarizing the basic rules and history of the game"), but are "worthy of note" also specific article (wikilinked in the first) similar to those on specialized encyclopedias ("a normal encyclopaedia is to provide the reader a brief overview of the subject, while a reference book or text book can explain the details. Wikipedia can do both."), independently to the coverage of these subtopics in generic mainstream secondary source (that usually don't go so specific). You can say "if this subtopic is so notable, why there isn't generic mainstream secondary source? why they don't go so specific?", the answer is the same of "why, if (9970) 1992 ST1 or N-acetylglucosamine-1-phosphate transferase or Fernbahnhof Düsseldorf Flughafen are notable, they are only referenced in generic Directory (databases) or institutions that is closely linked with these topic and not in generic mainstream secondary source?": when the topic is so specific (a single asteroid, a single enzyme, a single train station, a single comic character, a single spaceship of a SF saga) there are only specialized source, and these is more and more linked with the subject (the report of the observatory that discover the asteroids, the study of the professor of biology that use the enzyme, the rail operator web site, the guide of the comics publisher, the episode guide produced by a licensed publisher with the commentary of the screenwriter). In these cases the more verifiable source (and in some case the only with a deep coverage) are those (almost) "primary sources", so these source must be used to establish if a topic or a subtopic is worthy of note, also using their importance (a comic character that is reviewed only in a obscure web fan-blog is clear different in notability from a recurrent villain that appear for years in a dozen of story of a major publisher of comics and have both a voice in the official guide and in all of the unofficial fan-guide of that narrative universe, regardless the fact that none of the two have an explicit review on the New York Times or have a book specific on thir editorial life).. If it work for real world topic (asteroids, train stations&C), why it need to be forbidden for finctional topic? For recent the fictional topic, contrary to asteroids or other specialized subject, in some country there are also the intellectual property problem, that limit the existence of completely independent secondary source, so they are very difficult to found also when the notability is explicit to those who know the topic. A last thing IMO the transwiki advice in Relocating non-notable fictional material can lead to a misinterpretation of what wikipedia is, we are here to write page that contain information on a topic, we aren't the Open Directory Project or google that link to website that contain information about the topic. --Yoggysot (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    Really excellent point about how the more specific a subject gets, the narrower the field of sources to cite. It's great to hear from other-language Wikis on stuff like this, too. Ford MF (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • While the English in the above comment isn't the best, it is one I agree with and wish everyone on wikipedia would be required to read before they made another edit. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose I typically like to write my own response, but Seraphimblade has said it perectly above. In brief, if it doesn't meet WP:N, then it shouldn't be included. However, I might depart from SB on the need to broaden WP:N a bit. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:N is not a "higher authority", it is only a guideline on one possible way to establish notability. -- Ned Scott 23:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Vehemently Whatever happened to Wikipedia?- It wasn't long ago that you could come to Wikipedia and find information just about anything, and heaps and loads of it! Now, it appears to be that Wikipedia has been hijacked and passed through a SHREDDER, with a vast multitude of articles being deleted or as as it is colloquially called: "merged". What is the rationale behind this? What is the rationale behind articles that have been exhaustively researched, referenced, citated, whatever you want, been reduced to nothing but a footnote? Take Tifa Lockhart for example, an article that is currently up for debate whether it is worthy of having her own article OR being wiped out, despite the quality of the content and the recurrence of her persona through several media, throughout the years, and the same could be said of several entries that as mentioned have been eliminated. This is akin to coming and condensing entire episodes in history without proper mention to main-protagonist, causes, effects, basically: how can you talk about Waterloo and not talk about Napoleon? Do we suddenly get subjective, under the guise of discerning what is notable or not, decide to "merge" Waterloo into Napoleon? This is not to say that guidelines shouldn't be followed, but those guidelines should be clearly defined not as arbitrary as this "notability" one that should be contested. Wikipedia had its many flaws, sure, many times related with the quality of information, or how it was presented, and I believe that as a community Wikipedia was making amends. But now, we've gone past trying to imbue a neutral point of view, an informative point of view on articles, to eliminating or reducing trivia, to simply suppressing and eliminating information. It has reached the point where every single entry that has been deleted and merged somewhere else finds itself to be barren of information, yes, barren, where we could add a tag that says: This is stub, please expand. So, this is a call to all of you to revert this insidious act of trying to reduce and encase Wikipedia's annals of information into a nutshell. Cease and desist. Or is it that now with the advent of Wikia, Wikipedia is being butchered at the expense of giving Wikia a greater exposure, because, and hear me well, folks, those articles that many of you worked hard on, or had the ease and benefit of finding here, may have their OWN Wikia entry. Why is this so? To conclude, I would like to contest this tyrannical guideline, and merging it into oblivion, and to reestablish Wikipedia as the symposium of information that it once was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.176.22 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  26. Very Strongly Oppose I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor, but as a very frequent Wikipedia user, one of the things I like best about Wikipedia is that one can easily find information here on obscure topics that would otherwise be very hard to track down. Removing obscure or un-notable (or at least un-notable to a majority of editors) information from Wikipedia simply because of its un-notability would be a grave error in my opinion. Further, perhaps I haven't looked far enough, but I certainly haven't seen any convincing reason why material that isn't "notable" to a large number of people should be removed. Is Wikipedia running out of server space? Since finding information on Wikipedia is a search-based process, its not like having mounds of extra information (that is only interesting to a very small number of people) somehow makes Wikipedia cluttered or unaccessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.27.247 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  27. Oppose First of all, I want to acknowledge and thank those that have worked on this. I know there are a few people who have done a lot. However, the notion that "real world" and "not-in-universe" information is what makes fictional things notable is flawed. Discussion, reviews, papers, and specialized encyclopedia entries on in-universe topics are all relevant, even when that discussion is all "in universe". Hobit (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    One thing to sort out in another survey might be what we consider "real world" content. I agree with Hobit that reviews and coverage of the in-universe topics, even if mostly discussed in an "in universe" tone, is relevant. However, in my mind this would be what I would still call "real world" content, because it's a reaction/discussion by those in the real world, and you're still learning things you don't just get from watching/reading the work directly. It's one of those things that makes me wonder if I'm on the same page with everyone else, regardless of supporting or opposing the guideline. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • The major WikiProjects dealing in fiction should probably be notified that this has come under the scope for community comment. I've already left a note at WT:VG, but I think WT:TV, and WT:WikiProject Books would appreciate the courtesy gesture. In fact, I noted that TV also has it noted in the template up top... --Izno (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • To borrow from FAC, can we demand that oppose !votes need to be actionable to be considered? (Unless, of course, it is the goal of the opposers to forever stall the acceptance of this guideline.) Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so this is not why I bring this up. WP:NOTE#cite_note-7 supports the more inclusionist view to allow lists of less-notable elements (whatever this means), and WP:LIST makes no specific mention about the requirement of notability in lists. On the other hand, e.g. WP:N, WP:UNDUE and Featured lists suggest that there is a cut-off point (wherever that may be). In this light, basing oppose !votes on that FICT needs to be much more lenient or much more tighter is a matter of preference (e.g. quantity vs. quality), and many (not all) oppose !votes do in fact cancel each other out and thus become inactionable. I'd also like to point out (again) to the more inclusionist-minded fellow editors, that if FICT does not get picked up, people will just use WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT to successfully bulldoze articles at AFD, which is in stark contrast to the encouraged tag-wait-merge approach of FICT. – sgeureka t•c 08:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Precisely. I originally used the old version of WP:FICT to support the merging of articles into lists and related items, and with that gone, I more frequently have to !vote "delete" using NOTE and PLOT. And yeah, the opposes should indicate at least why they dislike the current format. Saying that you don't like it because you don't like notability period isn't really actionable, while opposes that are looking at specific elements or similar are fine. We should end this discussion with something feasible that a rough consensus supports. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, so the 5 to 10 pages of replies between oppose commenters is not enough? --Pixelface (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Guidance on NN List Style/Format

A few editors have commented that the lack of style and formatting and content guidelines for limited cases of non-notable lists of characters and episodes may be problematic towards this. I will point out that we had such guidelines in this document previously, but given that they were not a function of notability but style and the like, they were decided to be pulled out to WP:WAF, and subsequently, they have been removed from there by others. I don't disagree we need guidance on these, however, notability guidelines are not the place to introduce them.

To that end, I propose, not so much in this language, but just a general overview of what that guidance was/should be for making sure NN lists are developed to the best they can be encyclopedically. List of episodes already has pretty good guidance at the TV project, but characters and other possible breakouts are a different matter. But in general for character lists:

  • Lists should be structured to present major characters first and foremost over minor characters; however, if there are also logical groupings of the characters per the fiction (good guys vs bad guys), then the order should be presented as such, but still major > minor/recurring within the groups. If such lists grow too large, splitting to sublists by a logical grouping
  • Major characters should be given 2-3 paragraphs of text, minor and reccuring 1-2 paragraphs.
  • The article's title and lead should clearly define the work, provide enough context of the work to allow the list to be understood without necessarily reading the main article on the work of fiction. A list of Jedi characters from Star Wars should briefly explain what Star Wars is and what Jedi are in the lead before progressing to the characters. If groupings are used, brief introductions to those groups should be included.
  • Character details should not be approached biographically or in-universe, but instead the importance of the character in the work: what his/her role is, major impacts on the character's growth from others or vice versa, and so forth. Presumably the plot of the work is summarized elsewhere so there should be minimal overlap of character details with plot details
  • Actors and voice actors should be included for characters that have such.
  • Though such cannot be sourced to secondary sources (by being non-notable), they should still be verifiable, citing primary source material, and should not engage in original research and point-of-view writing style.
  • The use of intra-page {{anchor}}s, redirection, and disambs should be used for all elements on the lists; every major, minor, and recurring character should be the target of a direct or disamb. wikilink, even if that's still a redirect, a mention on a disamb page, or in part of a hatnote.
  • Non-notable Character lists should not include every possible character from a work but should be limited on major and minor or reccuring characters; for purposes of clarification, minor characters are assumed to make multiple appearances within the work but are not the focus of the work. One-shot, cameo, or other bit characters should only be mentioned if they have some significant impat on the plot, and in this case, should be described as part of the work's plot section instead of being given within a separate list.

This is not meant to be exhaustive, but I want to be clear that these NN lists were envisioned to meet guidelines like this to avoid them become unmaintainable. --MASEM 16:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Masem, I'm a bit confused by your wording. Are you proposing introducing style/content guidelines for lists within this guideline? If so, can you explain why such points would go here and not in WAF? If similar points were removed from WAF by others, should not the discussion take place there? (I'm not up to speed on the WAF talk, forgive me.) As a compromise perhaps this could be written up as an Essay and then linked to by both pages? In this manner, it can remain a controversial aspect without diminishing the overall reflection of consensus held by either article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No, these would not be a part of this guideline, they would be a part of WAF. (They were deleted from WAF because this guideline was still proposed and it wasn't needed to write them out). I'm suggesting them here as these are the types of guidance that would be added to WAF once FICT is accepted, as to help alleviate the concerns of those worried about letting these lists run free without additional guidance. --MASEM 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I find the idea of a style guide or List non-notable ficitonal elements very amusing. For starters, which editor in their right mind would claim that a list they have created contains only non-notable elements? You would have to be a complete chump to say "look, I have created a list of elements which are non-notable, so I have styled it accordingly!", as that would be an invitation for deletionists to go into a feeding frenzy. I think having a style for material destined for deletion is a bit like putting more colourful outfits on the victims of Auto de fé.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ha! Nice to get a guffaw out of this page for a change. Ford MF (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Minor" lists

This seems to be the biggest "change" to WP:N this sub-guideline has to offer. The only concern I have is with lists of "minor characters". While they obviously fit with this proposed guideline, I think having lists of "minor" anything is stretching WP:GNG a little too thin, and I think this specifically could be looked at. --Izno (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To specify, I mean something such as the example list above. They are "extended universe" characters, and while I have no opinion on the contents of said article itself, it seems that such lists will be the most "slippery slopey" of them all. Having a list of characters that only appear in one game of the series? Again, seems to be stretching WP:N/GNG a little too far.

There should (in my opinion) be something in the guideline that says (if the guideline doesn't already) that such lists become too specific and must establish notability through the method of most articles (eek, mentioning the subset we're creating here!), by using reliable secondary sources to establish real world notability in a verifiable way. A cutoff must exist, else (as pointed out above) this guideline ends up ignored by both the masses of deletionists and the inclusionists. --Izno (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying - and I think the guidance for cutoffs would be written out with the above list points and put into WAF; the general guidance here is if the list can be shown to be notable, we could care less if it's incredible detailed, but once you get to NN lists, editors need to be very judgemental about the cutoffs. Separate lists of major and minor characters from a TV makes sense. A list of main and reoccuring characters in a video games makes sense. But if the character appears only once in the series or works, it is better explained in the main article about that specific work, or in the plot of the work, as opposed to a list of single-shot characters (for example Frank Grimes is a character in one episde of the Simpsons - note that there's no article for him nor in a list, but a disamb to the episode with him in it.) This type of cutoff info can be included, but I will note again that we're trying to keep this guideline specific to notability, and this cutoff for lists is more a style guideline. --MASEM 06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's impossible to define a global/universal cut-off. What we can do is help guide people in the right direction, and we can probably do that best with simple examples. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Izno: the only way to establish notability for lists of fictional elements is by citing reliable secondary sources. A list of main and reoccuring characters in a video games does not always make sense if they are not notable; otherwise the article could end up placing undue weight on non-notable elements.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A list of minor characters would violate WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:NNC -- particularly the part about undue weight. If someone could establish their notability, they would be included in the main character article: which leads back to the same conclusion, that there should be no "list of minor characters". There should be a single article about all characters, with due weight to the importance of each character in the series. Even if the WP:FICT guidelines are silent on this point, the other wikipedia guidelines are not. Randomran (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
For some works, putting all the characters in a single article would really be lengthly, take, for example, the Simpsons (mind you, characters from there are notable, but lets assume that's not the case). At some point, per MOS, we need to break this list apart. Now, I can see the point that if the line was along major/minor characters, that can create a conflict (though again, WP:NNC does specifically mention grouping minor characters to lists); if the split was along more along the lines of some natural grouping within the body of work, or at worst, sectioned by alphabetical character name, would this be appropriate? --MASEM 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose there would be nothing wrong with a split along alphanumeric lines in theory, but I this would probably violate policy in practice. I think The Simpsons is an excellent example of how this would work in practice. The series has existed long enough that several of the main characters are notable enough to earn their own articles. That's what you would split out from the main article (Homer, Bart, Lisa), rather than an alphanumeric split. If a different series managed to accumulate that many characters without the same level of notability, it's more likely you'd just reduce the amount of excessive plot details in the article, not to spin out a non-notable article.
The fact that we deal with this on a case-by-case basis is reflected in the proposed guidelines: we want to avoid non-notable articles, but we also want to avoid an excessive amount of non-notable fictional detail in otherwise notable articles. In my limited experience, the need to split a character article has to do with a badly written article rather than too much encyclopedic information for a single notable article. Randomran (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It is never appropriate to break out a single fictional element article that cannot show notability; that is a position most agree on with no problem. The issue comes into play is that WP:SIZE and Summary Style suggest that long articles have spun-out articles (which of course is fine), but for most fictional works, the most logical point of this is the list of characters; development, plot, and reception fit like a glove, but after a brief summary of the top level characters in the main work, the rest of the non-notable character details (and for the purposes of discussion, let's assume that they are very concise and written in an appropriate manner) need not be in the main article though are still useful to have around. There is also the point that these lists should only be broken out if there is sufficient need to do so, or more importantly, if you start a topic on a new work of fiction, the first step is not to go creating a "List of characters" articles; that should only fall naturally out of the main article due to size. Of course, determining if this was considered in looking at the history of the article can be very difficult to do.
What I think we'll see if this all works out is that we'll ask people to relook at their nn-character lists and just make sure they are not being used as ways to go into gazillion details of the characters. In the overall scheme, these articles should be evaluated in that sense as if they were still in the main article, which one can consider: does this section fit encyclopedically, does it match the style that the rest of the article is, is there undue weight, is there ways to trim further without losing coverage of characters as long as they are important to the work? It's a balancing act, and not going to happen overnight. --MASEM 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You're not saying anything I disagree with, so I think we're close. I think the best way to explain my point is in reverse. Let's say we had two lists of characters articles, sorted alphanumerically. I have a strong belief that after a clean-up of content that is inappropriate for wikipedia, the articles would be small enough and suitable for a merge into a single character article. But in theory, I suppose it's possible that you could have a well-written article about many characters that is simply too big... I just suspect that if there's really that much notable information on all those characters, there's a decent chance that some of the individual characters are notable. Randomran (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember that to an extent, you have to consider reader comprehension as well. There's only so much information you can excise before you have to start sacrificing reader comprehension for the sake of size, and in that case, a split-off may be appropriate. In this context, it is possible to reach a state where a single character list would simply be too long, and a "minor" (or whatever cutoff you care to utilize) may be appropriate, something especially apparent in the case of long-running series. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This might be a point where we recognize that the cases allowed for characters may be the best we can say for now, and assuming this is accepted, we just watch and see if the specifics of what should be in lists be expanded or reduced based on input. Given all that's going on, I think that these lists are exception is hitting the dartboard, but likely not a bullseye. --MASEM 00:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
MASEM, I think I must not be understanding you: you seem to be saying both "It is never appropriate to break out a single fictional element article that cannot show notability" AND "that should only fall out naturally do to size" Which of the two represents your position? . I don;t actually agreewith either of them, but I'd like to understand which one I'm arguing against. DGG (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Those are two different positions. The second point first is that if, say, a new work of fiction is created and appropriate to cover on WP, the first and only article that should be created is the article on the work of fiction itself. This would include lists of characters and other plot-related information in addition to other aspects. Over time, the article may then grow too large, at which point it is then appropriate to consider a split. We should be discourage the behavior where a new fiction work comes along and someone races to create a list of characters in that work while the primary article on the work is stub-like or incomplete. This is not to say lists are bad, but they really only should be created as a split in the natural growth of the article. Of course, presently, there's a lot of non-notable individual articles and the like from the creation of WP, so in these cases, unless it clearly can be done in the main article, the merge to a separate list makes sense, even possibly as a staging area to move the list into the main article.
Which gets back to the first point; a single character or other aspect of fiction that cannot be shown to be notable should not get its own article, though the concept should still be covered in a larger grouping or a notable article. That is not saying there isn't a case, but if the size of the articles gets large and the only logical split is a non-notable element, there are several options to consider first that may make more sense (including trimming, grouping it into an appropriate list, and the like). --MASEM 05:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If we allow for minor lists, then I will support as there's no really valid reason for a comprehensive paperless reference guide with thousands of editors not to have them or be able to maintain them when clearly there is legitimate interest for them. Minor lists are totally compatible with the more important spirit of our policy and guidelines as interpreted in broad practice. The main thing is that we need to do away with this limited, unacademic, and unencyclopedic concept of basing our coverage on the subjective "notability". After all, "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Citrouilles, just because you don’t like the rules Wikipedia was founded on doesn’t mean you can decide to ignore them and pretend like they don’t exist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we can per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Plus, the rules that Wikipedia was founded on are that we combine "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs" and our founder said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Thus, an honest and legitimate interpretation of our "rules" is that we can indeed ignore those that conflict with making our project a better reference guide and in reality the whole "notability" thing conflicts with what an encyclopedia and alamanac actually is. Encyclopedias and almanacs catalog human knowledge. There is no really valid reason barring running out of disk space why something that gains hundreds of new accounts daily cannot or should not cover fictional topics without being burdened by some members of the community's more limited vision of understanding of this subjective term "notability". Obviously the community does NOT agree on what is and is not notable and I would much rather ere on the side of pleasing the majority of editors, readers, and donors than eliminating stuff that some do not like for whatever reason. So much time is spent challenging articles as not notable or unreferenced that could be spent referencing these articles or improving those articles the editors do care about. Imagine what we would accomplish if we channeled this energy into trying to bring articles to good and featured status instead. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Congrats. You infuriate me to no living end. I can parrot quotes from people all day long too. That doesn't help jack-shit. Disk space is not the issue here, stop pulling a straw-man. Guess what? I do channel my energy into getting articles to good and featured status. But the articles we are talking about will never become even GA because they are piles of non-notable fiction material! You say that "wah, evil deletionists get rid of articles before they get improved," but that's not the issue here. If I had a nickel for every time someone invoked WP:IAR... oh wait, since I can ignore rules, I'll delete your userpage, talk page, block you indefinitely, and trash every article you've ever worked on. Will that make you happy? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
David Fuchs, take a time-out. You have to wonder what someone who believes in the far-reaching scope of "ignore all rules" is doing on a rule proposal page anyway. Randomran (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You make several weak or invalid points here. How can anyone really say "never" regarding these articles? Did we know any work of Shakespeare at the time would eventually be replayed as multiple films centuries later? To say "never" is to crystal ball and speculate. You say they are "non-notable", yet others disagree. Thus, the term is subjective and so long as some believe in good faith that they do have a place here, I would much rather help them out and have some potential of accomplishing something positive in the process. Please don't put words in editors' mouths. I for one do not use hyperbole by calling anyone "evil" and nor would I swear at anyone either. I hope that you can maintain civility and decorum in these discussions. People can disagree without devolving the discourse in such a manner. Ignore all rules applies to how we edit in order to benefit the project, not to obviously pointed behavior as you suggest. Working to improve articles that some editors believe in good faith do indeed belong here is hardly comprobable to going on a rampage attack against someone else's work and efforts. If you have worked on good and featured articles, then I am happy to see that, but why not allow others to do the same with the articles they care about? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe one day some random character from some random game will become notable. But if he isn't at present, he doesn't belong on Wikipedia. When he does have multiple, non-trivial 3rd party sources, then someone can recreate the article. But keeping crap around which doesn't meet notability is not what wikipedia's guidelines and policies are for. I don't agree with hastily deleting articles where full research has not been done to see whether there are sources- but I search my library's catalog, Google News, ProQuest, Amazon, and the greater web- and if there's nothing there, then the article fails to demonstrate notability, pure and simple. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that web searches are not the end all of research. The appropriate reliable secondary sources for video game characters would be GamePro, Electronic Gaming Monthhly, GameInformer, etc. and not all of their articles turn up on regular internet searches. It is much easier to have a base article to begin with and to add to it then to keep deleting it and forcing editors to start over constantly. And again, I and others think it inconsistent with academic and encyclopedic tradition to base coverage on "notability." We are cataloging human knowledge after all. Moreover, there are articles on topics that mean nothing to me, but I still wouldn't call them "crap". And just to reiterate, I have argued against the inclusion of hoaxes, how tos, original research, and other unconstructive stuff and some deletionists even appear on my list of nice Wikipedians. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
At some point, we need some line to say where we cover things to avoid becoming an indiscriminate collection of information and an unmaintainable encyclopedia. For works of fictions and their elements, we know we aren't going to have an article about the main character of little Timmy's (age 5) creative writing assignment, but obviously we are going to want to talk about Hamlet in great detail in its own article. There's the extremes , and so some reasonable line must be draw, a line that is as much as objective as possible for coverage in its own article. That line presently at or around the existence of secondary sources, because that helps us to meet V, NOR, and NPOV in the best manner possible.
But, more importantly to your point, notability should not be a limitation on what we cover, only a limitation of the importance we give a topic by allowing it its own article. Character lists from works of fiction, treated in an encyclopedic manner, should be part of the coverage of the work on WP, and whether contained in the work's article or as a supporting list should be allowed; editors just need to make sure that such lists are well-organized and conform to other policies. Other types of lists may be allowed; in the same sense that character lists are allowed, coverage of other fictional elements should be ok, but we also need to be wholly aware of what types of content are not appropriate by WP:NOT.
And on another aspect, there's a reason why FICT here goes into detail about how to deal with non-notables, because there are people that are quick to suggest the deletion content that uncontentious is completely appropriate within the context of the work itself. I've also suggested the idea of allowing deletions to be postponed to allow for more time for sources hunting should the AFD be the first request for notability demonstration.
However, we also need to be suggesting editors to not split off or create articles on singular non-notable fictional characters until there is sufficient notability is there. Users have sandboxes to work in, and there will be coverage, albeit limited, of the character in the main article space, but existing users should be aware that article notability will be called into question and should strive to make sure they have notability in a article when putting into main space on day one. New users, of course, will not know this, but thats why we need to take less BITEY routes of helping them improve it. --MASEM 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I did have a long reply written to this, but I decided it wasn't worth it. I'll just limit myself to what Le Grand does a lot: quoting another user's opinion. The difference though, is that this user is somewhat more important than practically every other Wikipedia user. Le Grand, please also read and fully understand WP:IAR? as well, IAR is not a get-out clause for everything simply because you disagree with using notability. That's all I'm going to say on this discussion (as I'm sure people here will try to bend Jimbo's words to their views to override notability requirements and I frankly can't be bothered getting involved in that sort of discussion), this guideline has been tampered with so much over the last year or so, having been degraded from a guideline, its just far easier to work on the spirit of WP:NOTE. Its this sort of debate that has driven the likes of Deckiller and many other fine and established editors from participating as much or as enthusiastically anymore, not to mention damaging Wikipedia's credibility. -- Sabre (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
So Jimbo Wales said "An encyclopedia is not an in-universe fan guide."[5] Is anyone here saying that an encyclopedia *is* an in-universe fan guide? And could you quote the part of the five pillars that mentions "notability"? When Wales responded to T.Neo (who created WikiProject Fancruft), Wales said "I generally try to stay out of it." — and well he should, because his for-profit wiki runs on fiction content. Have *you* read WP:IAR?? IAR means if FICT prevents you improving Wikipedia and creating an article about the character Andrey Nikolayevich Bolkonsky, FICT should be ignored. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and rules are not the purpose of the site. And I'm quite interested in what exactly you think damages Wikipedia's credibility. Personally, I think it might have something to do with the fact that anyone can edit (anonymously I might add) and the Wikipedia:General disclaimer says "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY", but maybe that's just me. --Pixelface (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It does not need IAR to justify detailed and extensive coverage of fiction--rather the principle that the people in wikipedia make the rules they wish to follow. the only true limitation is the general concept that it be a contemporary free online open content encyclopedia, and that has a very broad meaning. It does imply a certain selectivity of coverage, but it does not say where the line should be drawn. I don't see it as a line, but a zone, and the extent of coverage will depend upon the importance. The readers and the users and the editors are the same here--that's the meaning of open content, and the zone will therefore be set where they want it, not where any theoretical speculations about where it ought to be from anyone of us. It's clear they want it in most subjects very broad, and I think that inherently open content implies that--for it must be broad enough to allow for all who wish to contribute. the limitation that it be an encyclopedia does require verifiability, and the conflict between that and "anyone can edit" is indeed the tricky part & where the tension and difficulties come. (I see the solution is that the more skilled will guide the others.) But preconceived notions of what is notable and what is not, based upon printed works or conventional academic curriculums, are inappropriate here. I speak as one who has worked all my life within the formal academic system: that's how I know that this is different. Each has its natural role, and the nature of user-generated content is comprehensiveness. If in doubt of importance, we leave it in, for it might be. With paper it was different. with a time-limited college course, not everything can fit and some things are more important than others. we have neither limitation. I'll just mention that GRC is also a part of the formal academic system, though still rather junior. Good academics know their limitations. Wikipedia should remain Wikipedia. The idea of waiting until there is some preconceived "sufficient" notability is not part of its appropriate context. Anyone who wishes to do that, should stay with the conventional media. For that matter, some of the opponents of the coverage of fiction are in fact devoted fans of the very fiction they do not want to include in detail. I see it as a bias--to them it is a game, so it cannot be important. But what they do is not my particular game, so I can recognize it to be as important as other human activities. Paradoxical negative COI, is what I call it. DGG (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples of appropriate sources for notability of fictional elements

Per suggestion of User:Zagalejo above, I recommend that we identify a few examples of what are good qualified sources for notability of fiction elements, pulling from better articles. We should make sure to cover the gambit, from academia to print to web sources, as well as for the different types of elements (characters, episodes, etc.) and information (development, reception, etc.) I think if we can identify 5-6 good examples as a footnote to the guideline, that might help clarify what to look for. We still can point to FA/GA articles as well as a more broader approach, but some directly here on the page couldn't hurt. --MASEM 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help out with this:
  • It is usually inappropriate to explain strategies, but the "lurking" exploit in Asteroids is an exception because it changed the way developers test their games for exploits.[1]
  • It is usually inappropriate to describe game items in detail. But describing the portal gun from Portal is necessary to understand the game, and has significant coverage in reliable game news reports.[2]
That's where I'd begin, since a lot of my focus is on video game articles. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've got a question Masem. Does FICT cover games, like, oh I don't know Bitin' Off Hedz? --Pixelface (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Technically no - there's no creative story behind it, so it falls to WP:TOYS (pending) or WP:N, and I will admit that it's likely not notable. If someone puts the page up for deletion, I won't stop it - of course, a better option in line with notability is to group all the Cheapass Games into a list, linking to notable ones like Kill Dr. Lucky and summarizing the rest.
Also please be aware that dragging out everyone's past articles and trying to use them against them, among other things, is approaching tendentious editing that is becoming disruptive in this discussion. For example, this question to me is not even related to this thread. We know you feel passionately against this, having that opinion is fine. Work with us, as instructed by ArbCom, instead of fighting every step of the way. --MASEM 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My question *is* related to this thread. You said "We should make sure to cover the gambit, from academia to print to web sources, as well as for the different types of elements (characters, episodes, etc.) and information (development, reception, etc.)" So I asked if games fall under FICT. Do you personally think that game is notable? Do you realize that editors can use their own judgement to determine if an article is neutral or not? So why shouldn't they be able to use their own judgement to determine if a topic is notable or not? So paper games don't fall under FICT but some videogames do? All videogames? All videogame characters? Some game characters? Toys with a backstory fall under FICT, but toys without a backstory fall under TOYS? The game Dungeons & Dragons falls under FICT, but the board game Scotland Yard does not? I'm truly wondering about the scope of this guideline. I can ask about any article I want. This is a discussion. Does FICT apply to mythology? Greek gods? The Loch Ness monster? Various lake monsters? Bigfoot? The article God, depending on one's point of view? Now, speaking of "tendentious editing", would you call it tendentious editing if an editor argued to delete every article about a fictional character in a game because a biography of a living person they had written was deleted? Would you call it tendentious editing if an editor went around redirecting thousands and thousands of articles because they were upset an article they were interested in got deleted? Asking about the scope of this proposal is not disruptive. You've chosen a pretty broad topic to write about with your proposal. I'm not trying to use articles against you. Nobody owns any articles, not even the ones they've created. And I've provided input at many places. But ArbCom did not designate a place for the parties to discuss like I suggested, so there have been discussions at AFDs, article talk pages, WT:EPISODE, WT:FICT, WP:FICT/N, WT:NOT, WT:AFD, WT:Plot summaries, Wikipedia talk:Postponed deletion, WT:N and probably WT:WAF. If a television episode is not from a documentary series, does EPISODE or FICT apply? Or WP:SERIAL? This proposal flies in the face of Wikipedia is not paper and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It flies in the face of the five pillars that says "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here." And you weren't listed as an involved party of the E&C2 case, Masem. But I find it very interesting that the only people who put PLOT back into NOT after the first revert were involved parties of E&C2...and you — and all were present on the E&C2 case pages. You want to find out if a fiction subject is worthy of notice? Bring up the question at the article's talk page. Realize that "worthy of notice" is just a personal opinion. Realize that "significant coverage" is not the only way to suggest notability. Personally I think you seem to have bitten off a little more than you could chew with this proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil. This is supposed to be a discussion to find a consensus, not who can shout the loudest. My point was that this section was "examples of good sources for notability", and you bring up "is this article notable?" That is not helping to reach consensus, and since the article you picked was one I know I worked on way back, you are singling out the editors and not the concepts behind the discussion. The only editor who's actions may need to be brought into question is TTN per the E&C case, but given this a project talk page, he's completely within bounds to comment here freely. --MASEM 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary of opposition so far

It's still too early to tell where this RfC is going, but I'll summarize below what FICT is currently opposed for (based on each initial oppose !vote, which may be counted as several points; the support !votes and all comments are neglected here). Some of the points may help us to improve FICT although there has most often not been any explanation how. Other points would be called inactionable if this was an FAC. – sgeureka t•c 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. 6x notability is a bad way to organize content
  2. 2x FICT needs to allow articles where sources exist but haven't been added to the article yet
  3. 1x FICT needs to address lists better
  4. 1x FICT needs to disallow nonnotable lists of elements
  5. 1x FICT needs to clarify what sources are accepted and which aren't
  6. 5x WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL are more important than WP:NOTE; NOTE can be dismissed in favor of other practises
  7. 3x FICT is too long and confusing; CREEP and BURO
  8. 1x FICT is not a compromise at all
  9. 3x FICT is too much against popular culture, or would be used to reduce such content
  10. 1x FICT encourages incivility and unnecessary fights
  11. 2x FICT may reduce the amount of information that is otherwise accurate and of good quality (probably referring to in-universe information, i.e. WP:WAF and WP:UNDUE)
I would say the guideline as is cannot be particularly accommodating to either the "hang notability" or "death to lists" sentiments above, but if nothing else the long and confusing aspect should definitely be taken care of... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say it remains damnably mum on how to address an article about a character such as The Leader*, who has been a veritable fixture in the Incredible Hulk comics since the Hulk's creation (well, two years after, in 1964), but who realistically speaking has no secondary sources that are not trivial. The straw man argument the "support" voters seem to be promulgating is that those in opposition are arguing to "hang notability". This is untrue, or at least a misrepresentation. I think what most of us are saying is that recurrence and persistence in fictional media is notability. WP:NOTE is not a philosophical end in itself, it is a necessary real-world approximation of a magic rule that would keep important stuff in the encyclopedia and exclude useless stuff. It is a tool, and it needs to be flexible in certain areas (although fictional characters is the only one I can think of) or it's simply broken. Ford MF (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
*I just picked the leader off the top of my head, but it could have been any one of thousands of articles that would easily survive any AfD by virtue of common sense, but which could not possibly fulfill a guideline such as this. Ford MF (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is the argument that a persistent character through a notable series is possibly notable, but this is why FICT is also based on WP:PLOT and WP:UNDUE. That article, including the appearences in other media, is all about the plot of the character through the series, which is not appropriate content. We should not be giving a character's full biography through a work, but simply summarize key aspects of the character and major influences on the overall plot. I am presuming there's a number of other Hulk villains (same argument applies if you picked a different character and a different series), so it completely appropriate to place all these characters within a list, so that they are still covered, but in a manner more appropriate for a free content encyclopedia, as part of the coverage of the Hulk comic. (that said, I do know that comic universes are terribly mish-mashed as one foe from one may "slip in" to another work, but there's no harm in having {{see also}} links in one list to point to the entry in another). --MASEM 15:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would have to say that even though they haven't commented here (I only found this page myself just today), the vast weight of editors who created the nearly 3500 articles in Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, Category:Marvel Comics superheroes, Category:DC Comics supervillains, and Category:DC Comics superheroes (the overwhelming majority of which fail this proposed guideline) disagree with you about what is "appropriate content". And that's just comics. A consensus of usage, the behavior of the editors who most deal with fictional character content, who may or may not ever pay attention to project pages such as this, should count for at least as much as a debate with, comparatively speaking, a tiny handful of participants. Ford MF (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to attempt to bring numbers in to this, please remember that fiction is only one small category of articles on this site. If you were to poll everyone else, you would likely find that the editors that created and worked on those articles are also a minority. You also have to take into account that numbers mean very little when at least 80% of that content is unsuitable per all the other policies and guidelines of this site. TTN (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Er, that's kind of what I mean. That you find 80% of that material inherently deletable (and honestly I think the percentage would be much higher, by this guideline) doesn't count for much when the material persists, a comparatively large body that ebbs and flows but largely endures by common consent. Not to paraquote the loathsome Forrest Gump, but Wikipedia truly is what Wikipedia does. Go ahead and AfD tag those 2800 articles and see how that works out, if you really want to see a consensus on what material is appropriate for inclusion. Ford MF (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The only reason that fiction has reached this state is because of lax standards over a number of years. It doesn't represent any sort of consensus or actual common practice. The actual consensus has existed in our policies and guidelines, and they are reflected in our good in featured articles. AfDs are subject to many different variables, so they are not really able to work like that. You can take three characters that are nearly the same, have one kept unanimously, one deleted unanimously, and one fought over for various reasons. It can only work on small scale, and it cannot really determine a larger consensus. TTN (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Lax standards? You mean like WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV? Listen, just because the Duke Nukem 3D monsters article was deleted, that doesn't mean you have to take it out on everyone else. Policies and guidelines don't derive their power from being written down. If those policies and guidelines don't actually describe common practice, they're just imaginary rules decided upon by a few editors. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Wikipedia is not Mao. You think a few E&C parties supporting this guideline means it represents consensus? Yeah, consensus among them. You're right, you can take three character articles and have three different debate results. But you want to weigh the dice in your favor with some made up rules. The supporters of this guideline are trying to dictate whether any and all fictional topics in existence are "worthy of notice." You're trying to make 7 million people do what you say? Give me a break. Do you seriously need outside coverage to tell you that Superman is notable? Mickey Mouse? Hello Kitty? And does FICT apply to myths and legends? Mythical creatures? Mythical heroes? The world origin myths of indigenous people? You want to find out if FICT has consensus? Then go apply FICT to every Simpsons episode article and South Park episode article right now and see what happens. Heck, see how many of the supporters can agree what to do with the articles Luke Skywalker, Lenny Leonard, and Andrey Nikolayevich Bolkonsky. --Pixelface (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
By lax standards, I mean that the above were not applied throughly enough to the articles. There is also the fact that standards have just been changed over time. We had several fictional characters featured at one point, even though the articles were mostly junk. Now they aren't featured, and many are redirects. Back when I voted in that AfD, I was blissfully unaware about the true purpose of this site, so whatever you're trying to imply is very wrong. The rest of your comment is the usual straw man junk and some of your other pointless arguments, so I will not bother responding to it. Please try to find something new to present. TTN (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I may as well. Numbers are completely irrelevant. Neither of us can use them to actually make a point. We can guess, but in the end that's all it ends up being. You can say people writing junk equals a consensus, though I say that our featured articles show a consensus. I know that those are notable because they have the obvious potential for outside coverage, which is how we define notability here. Don't like it? Oh well for you. If the case isn't obvious, we give it time. I assume myths and legends fall under whatever wikiproject covers their country of origin or something like that. You know as well as anyone that that example is BS. The Simpsons have shown that most of their articles will end up being at least GAs, and the South Park episodes require an episode by episode look. And either way, numbers do not form consensus. Luke obviously has potential given the other Star Wars FAs. Lenny is on the edge, asking the Simpsons project to take care of that would work. The last would probably need to be tagged and looked over by an expert or just merged outright if none of the other characters show any obvious potential. Seriously, get some new arguments. TTN (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Unfortunately, WP is not a democracy, we are built on consensus, which means that editors do need to be aware of policy and make compelling arguments (instead of simply voting) of why something should change or should not be changed, with those arguments compared against existing policy and guidelines that have consensus. In this case, we are trying to offer FICT that falls in line with the established NOTE and PLOT. Yes, this makes those articles they've created a problem, and while we've had arguments like this in the past in bringing WP:FICT to this point, no one has yet brought forward an argument that challenged FICT's approach to support those types of articles beyond, basically, WP:ILIKEIT. I am not trying to shut this argument down - however, we need something more compelling than the vast number of editors that write those articles (and trust me, I've tried to brainstorm any other argument to make this work without success), and the only other ways I can see to allow a different approach is if we got rid of PLOT or NOTE, neither which is likely to happen. But it is important to get additional input; maybe one of those other hundreds of editors on comics articles has the magic bullet that allows such articles to exist despite PLOT and NOTE. That's why editors serious about improving WP in ways they see better should not ignore policies and guidelines and what goes on behind them. We need those types of editors to comment here if there is some way to argue for the support of those types of articles, if they really believe they should exist. --MASEM 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I erred in being specific. Perhaps I should have been asking how exactly we can be arguing about a guideline that targets the vast majority of an entire class of articles (most articles on characters from novels, comics, TV, video games, &c. fail this guideline, as currently written, miserably) as undesirable? I get that people feel the need to put a quality valve on our content, but excessive rules lawyering and more Wiki-bureaucracy is not a good response to these concerns. This guideline is entirely indiscriminate, so basically all we're having is WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Ford MF (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but I think the argument is between WP:ILIKEIT/WP:NOTE. I'd never try to clean out content simply because I didn't like it. We're basically arguing about a guideline that's firmly in place that we can't change here. It's not productive. It might be more productive to move the discussion up the ladder to WP:NOTE. Randomran (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a bunch of people who genuinely want to overturn WP:NOTE. I'm not sure what we can do about them but ignore them as asking for something we can't do here, and redirect them to Wikipedia talk:Notability. As a precisionist, I'm trying to find a compromise between the extreme inclusionists and deletionists at both ends. We need workable standards about what belongs in the encyclopedia. I could live with a more relaxed version of the notability requirement if there's another workable standard in its place. But then someone should try to actually make efforts to change WP:NOTE, rather than pretending we can just ignore it in all cases. Randomran (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(!@#$!@# ecs) I would add WP:OTHERSTUFF to the list of opposes, based strictly off the ensuing conversation. If articles which aren't suitable for the content of Wikipedia haven't been tagged for cleanup/review/deletion, then that is because we haven't gotten around to it yet, not because of some known consensus. --Izno (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did a round of a lot of video game articles recently and found most of the weapon/location/item articles had already been cleaned up. The character stuff is a little trickier, but at least it's tagged, and a lot of characters HAVE demonstrated notability. I can't speak for the other wikiprojects. Randomran (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's trivial or to point out that even profoundly obscure fictional characters without any secondary sources routinely, and easily, pass AfDs because of persistent appearance in notable media. There is clearly a consensus, at least at AfD, that recurrence in notable media confers notability on characters to some degree. Ford MF (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not compatible with WP:NOTE, though. The WP:GNG defines sources as "secondary sources", meaning that primary sources like movies, TV, games, and comics can't be enough to assert notability. You need journals, books, news that analyzes or synthesis the fictional work itself. I'm not saying this is written in stone. But I'm saying that we can't have contradictory guidelines between WP:FICT and WP:NOTE. Something has to give. Randomran (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the GNG is broken when it comes to fictional characters. Isn't that why we're here debating all this? Ford MF (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Some people are here because the GNG doesn't apply well to fictional characters (and other elements), and seems to forbid too many of them (I'm in that camp, slightly). Others want this guideline because they want the GNG to be rigidly applied to such things (and the current draft has fallen more their way, but at least it preserves most of the content). SamBC(talk) 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, as Pixelface smartly points out above, WP:N itself states that the GNG are not absolute criteria. Ford MF (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; as I read it, WP:N defines notability as the characteristic of being "worthy of note" and then gives the GNG as one way to demonstrate it. SamBC(talk) 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I read what you wrote on the Notability talkpage, and I agree with the interpretation that holds that GNG is one way to determine notability. More to the point is that I strenuously disagree with the camp that holds the GNG to be absolute and a personal club to be used against articles. It's essentially a tool for expulsion against which no appeal is possible, under the current wording (I admit I have not seen previous versions of this page). Ford MF (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There were various suggestions for non-GNG criteria for determining notability of fictional elements, but all were opposed strenuously. The proponents backed down out of, as far as I can tell (and I'm one of them) a combination of fatigue and a desire to encourage compromise. Suggestions included: characters/elements that are major elements of multiple notable works (to encourage consolidation of information) and awards for the specific element (examples were given for film characters and RPG settings, but dismissed). I think there were others, but those are ones that I suggested and/or supported. SamBC(talk) 17:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC) (to clarify the multiple works thing: this was not meant as multiple works in a single series or franchise, or adaptations of an original work, just to remove the most obvious objection to it before someone makes it SamBC(talk) 17:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC))
The GNG defines the most consistent way to define notability and the one most widely implemented. Yes, you can assert notability in other ways, but you should have a damn good reason for ignoring the GNG. In the case of the comic book characters that Ford MF is mentioning, I think the accepted status quo is that these characters have been present in serialized media for a pretty long time; ergo, sources probably exist, which is probably true. Also, part of the concerns of those who are defending the GNG in this discussion can be alleviated through a more thorough implementation of WP:WAF, and pushing these comic book characters from a in-universe standpoint into something more like Superman, Batman, or Captain Marvel (DC Comics). I think the major point of contention has its origins in the manner in which these articles are written rather than their ability to assert notability. As such, FICT isn't going to change the current status quo on the matter, and a more thorough application of WAF can fix the headaches on both sides. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think you're even nearer the mark than you realise. I've recently been working closely (and unusually amicably) with one of the editors who has been perceived as very anti-fiction-coverage, and I think I'm beginning to understand the disagreement more clearly. That's not to say that it isn't still a disagreement, but it's not the one that we think it is. The most extreme point seems to be not that fictional topics shouldn't be covered, but that every ounce, every sentence, every clause should be real-world perspective, and for preference no in-universe content (not even perspective) except where it is necessary to understand real-world content. This could be seen as "we should cover the coverage, not the fiction itself". Now, I don't agree with that, but it is, frankly, easier to understand and work with than "fiction should not be covered". Plus it's always easier to resolve a disagreement once everyone realises what they're disagreeing about. SamBC(talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
While I think you're right about that, I also think it amounts to the same thing, since I think the default for the overwhelming majority of fictional-character articles is "no outside sources". It's also worth mentioning that commentary about a character is kind of useless if it is made in the absence of, as you say, "in-universe content", which I'd say in almost all cases is necessary to describe the character in a properly encyclopedic manner. All the articles cited above as "good" fictional character articles (e.g. Batman and Superman) feature lengthy in-universe histories. Ford MF (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'm not saying in-universe content is bad. On the contrary, it is necessary for the topic to be comprehensive and should be included. My point is that a great deal of these articles talk about the in-universe content from an in-universe perspective that is not appropriate, and makes it much easier to justify deletion per NOTE and NOT#PLOT. A better application of WAF to present the material alleviates some of these concerns, as if you present the in-universe context from a real-world perspective and with real-world context, then it becomes harder to justify deletion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, I'm not suggesting that in-universe content should be excised everywhere, but rather that it be presented in the manner shown by WAF. It definitely doesn't have to be punctuated with real world context in every sentence, but it shouldn't treat the subject from an in-universe perspective. Like I said, you alleviate a ton of the problems here by more adherence to WAF and presenting the topic better. It becomes much easier to apply NOTE and NOT#PLOT to an article that contains nothing more than an in-universe perspective (not in-universe content, but perspective and the manner of presentation), and much more difficult to justify deletion when you have a well-written article that presents the in-universe content from the real-world viewpoint dictated by WAF. FICT doesn't change this. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If you go into the trenches on it again, let me know, as I would be interested in participating in a discussion. I agree with the vibe I'm picking up that much of the problem is with Notability over-all & not just Notability (fiction). GNG is a useful tool, but I think we're seeing it sort of SkyNet into a stranglehold that I (for one) don't think is helpful to this project. --mordicai. (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I started a section at WT:NOTE on this, which has so-far not gained responses. Discussion there would be most welcome, whether you agree or disagree with either my interpretation of the situation (as expressed there) or my opinion on how it should be read. SamBC(talk) 17:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of action that needs to be taken. Good luck. Randomran (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm totally fine with putting together a workable standard based on coverage in multiple kinds of media. Not that I'd go to bat for it, but I wouldn't oppose it if that's how the GNG evolved. Call it the "multiple media test", that runs parallel to the current notability test. But as of now, notability is measured in secondary sources (that are also reliable, independent, etc.) This is the kind of thing that has to go all the way up the ladder, to WP:NOTE. Seriously, guys. If you want to make it happen, go there and make it happen. But don't just ignore the guidelines we have now. It would be absolutely nonsensical and disruptive to have contradictory guidelines. Randomran (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kyaa had a comment here, which he's refactored. Please carry on. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bottom up

I'm interested as to if the other wikiprojects have their own project guidelines in place concerning how to apply WP:NOTE. I know the video games wikiproject does. This might help give us a better idea of how to build up the overall fiction guideline on notability. Randomran (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And also besides a few voices the VG Project actually seems more united behind the guidelines, but I doubt that can be scaled up without falling to pieces. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:TV (of which I am part) is pretty much a backwater place that just hosts all the FACs and FLCs; it has a handful of low-activity task forces and also has some MOS guidelines, but it mostly just points to FICT, WAF and EPISODE for advice. My other fiction wikiproject, WP:STARGATE, had become pretty much inactive by the time I started editing Stargate articles in October 2007 (it was a total mess with hundreds of nn articles), and when I boldly exchanged all its ancient intra-project guidelines with the the TV MOSes, FICT, WAF and EPISODE, no-one complained. There are only a handful dozen of nn SG articles left that are not merged/redirected yet and therefore should fear AfD, the others are articles that could easily reach GA through expansion, or are lists. – sgeureka t•c 19:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiny matter of detail regarding RFC

Does anyone have any objections if I break out the Support and Oppose sections via "Statement by USERNAME" to make replying easier? --MASEM 02:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

An observation

I think it is important for every editor to recognize from the !voting above that there are three positions being taken here. In general, they are:

  1. We cannot weaken the GNC at all / content must be sourced for notability etc.
  2. Notability is insufficient for fiction / fictional elements can be sourced from the primary works, etc.
  3. The position that FICT currently attempts to make.

I want to make it clear that there are significant numbers in both of the first two groups, both making reasonable points based on policies and the like; in other words, going off what the opposes give, I can't tell if we should push FICT one way or another (the last group is in pretty fair balance with either of the others) I'm not trying to said any side is currently showing better consensus, but I think it needs to be clear that we have a non-ignorable number editors at both the far extremes of what this proposed guideline suggests. Somehow, we have to find a way to move forward and get something on notability for fictional topics, but that means that we have to find a way to make those extremes agree to something at the midpoint; those at one end need to recognize the concerns of those at the other, and vice versa. To me, unless there is significant policy change elsewhere, the present FICT needs tweaking, and figuring those tweaks out may be necessary in order to reach the middle position that is best represented here. --MASEM 04:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to at all. We have a perfectly good general notability criterion, and any attempt to weaken it just invites more garbage. This guideline should mainly focus on the question "The following solutions are available to take care of fiction articles which are not notable: merge to parent work of fiction, merge to list, redirection, and deletion. Under what circumstances is each such solution best?" Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the one thing both sides agree on is that this page cannot decide the issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 04:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That guideline (WP:N) says that articles are considered notable if they meet the GNG or an accepted subject-specific guideline. Saying "get rid of the subjet-specific guidelines" is pretty much as radical as "get rid of WP:NOTE". SamBC(talk) 11:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
How about we mark it as rejected so the discussion can take place at NOTE, which seems to be the appropriate level. One side says NOTE doesn't work, the other that NOTE cannot be amended by FICT. Either way it seems like a discussion that has to happen at NOTE. I think we'd gain eyeballs, which is good, and arguments could be judged by their merits. This page generates a lot of heat, but if the issue cannot be decided here it cannot generate much light. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 04:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The alternative is for people to start an RfC at NOTE right now to seek the removal of the GNC. Depending on the outcome, wikipedia either has to reconsider one of its most fundamental inclusion criteria, or any current general objection of NOTE here doesn't really influence the coverage of fiction (i.e. either FICT gets adopted with sufficient closeness to NOTE, or FICT gets rejected and NOTE decides fiction notability from then on). – sgeureka t•c 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a much broader RFC at NOTE right now that could help clarify things so the GNG can have its place, and subject-specific guidelines theirs. There's no specific action suggested, but there could easily be once there's some indication of what the general view on the interrelation of V and N actually is. So far, it seems that most don't think that N is a conseuquence of V, or the it is a way of ensuring V (although it helps with that. SamBC(talk) 11:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As for the "non-ignorable number editors at both the far extremes of what this proposed guideline suggests", I'd like to repeat arbcom's words that editors are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles. I am not expecting anyone to take these words to heart, but retaining extreme positions makes collaboration very hard indeed. – sgeureka t•c 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that expecting articles to be in keeping with NOTE, which has been a longstanding guideline despite frequent challenges, verifiability, which is cited as part of the first pillar, and the defined scope of the project, another longstanding policy, is in any way an "extreme" position. Just as nonfree image cleanup met some opposition, plot summary cleanup will as well. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it or that doing so is in conflict with the defined scope and mission of the project, which is as an educational reference, not a fan guide. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work collaboratively, because of course we should. The question here, however, is "What is an extreme position?" If one argued against using a neutral point of view in a given article, that would be an extreme position, even if also something of a popular one. Similarly, arguing that a relatively large class of articles should be allowed to violate content policies is a rather extreme position, arguing that they should follow those policies is not. The question we should be asking is not "Should fiction articles be required to follow the standard content policies?" Rather, it should be "What is the best way to bring fiction articles in line with the standard content policies?" Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The best way to bring fiction articles in line with current guidelines is to delete 99% of them. Editors don't agree that that would be a good thing, which is why this page should be marked as rejected. The two sides are basically "ignoring thousands of editors ain't right" vs "ignoring our guidelines (and their thousands of editors) ain't right." Let's take the discussion to where it really matters by rejecting this page. We've split this discussion among a bunch of pages before (repeatedly) like doing an RfC for fiction, but the discussion elsewhere always pales to the discussion here. A rejected notice here and a move to NOTE would quickly solve that problem. On the other hand, if you like NOTE's status quo and the arguing here, then dividing the conversation works wonders preventing any changes to NOTE, or showing that NOTE should be applied as written (allowing us to get on with our work). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As said before, there is nothing to stop you from questioning the consensus behind NOTE right now. But that that needs to happen there, not here. – sgeureka t•c 07:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Since the main part of FICT is built on NOTE (an obviously related guideline, some would say parent guideline) and NOT#PLOT (policy), all positions that significantly undermine or significanlty go beyond NOTE and NOT#PLOT are extreme. What is signicant? Refuting the existance of NOTE and NOT#PLOT, or making them stricter than their own wording. In both cases, discussions to make them stricter/looser need to take place there, not FICT. FICT just brings together consensus practises, and doesn't create new practises (except encouraging merging instead of AfD, which I hope won't be held against it). – sgeureka t•c 07:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
What's stopping me is that we tried it recently and dividing the conversation into many places didn't help people in expressing their views and replying to other's views. Again, if nothing can be said here that contradicts NOTE and PLOT, then we need to get rid of this page so the conversation can take place at the relevant pages. Seems simple to me, although other's don't agree. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The RfC to remove NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT was working fine in parallel to the discussions at FICT, so I don't expect NOTE/GNC to be any different. Also, the difference between NOTE and FICT is that NOTE demands reliable secondary independent sources in significant amounts to establish notability ("inclusion"), while the current version of FICT pretty much just asks for reliable real-world information, which can be also come from the producers (who aren't independent). Plus, FICT calls for merging, while NOTE seems to encourage AfD. I see a rude awakening coming for fiction inclusionists if they seriously believe they will be better off with NOTE than with the current FICT, or that NOTE (or NOT#PLOT) will get amended to allow Jake Morgan his own article. – sgeureka t•c 12:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(@Seraphimblade) I am only saying that relative to what we (those helping to edit FICT) have found from a year+ worth of work, the extreme positions are those that are at the opposite sides of spectrum of solutions and are about as far apart as possible; they are not the political type of extreme where being so far to the end of the scale the points are dismissible. Both extremes in this case have completely valid and non-ignorable points. The issue is that those fighting to keep the extremes are looking at the middle ground (a point that FICT is trying to define) and trying to pull it back to their side, without looking beyond that middle ground to see that the other side is doing exactly the same.
All this is a content dispute: we can't take it to ArbCom (I very much doubt they'd want to see another fiction-related case anyway). The only other authoritative group we can turn to I believe is the Foundation to set a mandate, and that make turn out disasterous for one side or both. The reason we have FICT as it is is that it is a middle ground that attempts to keep the key points that both sides want: the allowance for expanded coverage on fiction beyond just the work while keeping the amount of it limited to prevent excess non-notability. But if neither extreme is willing to move to a position towards the other, then maybe we do need to basically turn to a greater power to end this dispute once and for all.
However, it should be important to note that FICT and NOTE are guidelines, and to have to bring in as close to an outside third party as we can get to resolve a guideline issue seems like using a sledgehammer to drive in a thumbtack. Colonel Warden said it best: notability should be based on common sense, and same here with FICT; it was written this way to reflect common sense as best as possible. The problem is that there are editors that wikilawyer policy and guidelines to their benefit, and thus while FICT could probably be summed up in one common-sense paragraph, it needs to explain all these different aspects to a level of detail that is necessary to prevent it from being twisted one way or another - demands that users that began to dispute FICT way back last year complained about and thus necessitating its rewrite. But because its a guideline, it leaves open room for exceptions that may not exactly spelled out in it. Should FICT as present be accepted, we'd watch what those exceptions (verified through AFD or other discussion) end up being, and then amend FICT to specifically call out such exception if they follow certain patterns. The main point is that FICT is trying to point out where the middle ground and make it as reasonable a solution that either extreme can see as acceptable without fully accepting the viewpoint of the other extreme. --MASEM 12:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you "observations" are are a substantial misrepresention of Wikipedia policy and concensus. The idea that Notability is insufficient for fiction / fictional elements can be sourced from the primary works, is just not supported. I have never seen an article that was deleted which cited reliable secondary sources amoung the dozens of AfD debates I have particpated in. WP:FICT needs to reinforce that only reliable secondary sourcing makes for Good Articles, because without them, they will be filled superfical and trivial content at best, like List of New Order Jedi characters. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    And I think that comment was a substantial violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. People disagree with you; that doesn't make them wrong, much less malicious. SamBC(talk) 20:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, the comment is not about exactly what positions the extremes have, it is the fact that there are two extremes diametrically opposite with equally strong arguments for their POV and against the other POV (at least to myself, I believe I'm somewhere between those). That's why ignoring what the other extreme is stating and trying to pull the middle ground closer to one side is not going to ever get consensus. --MASEM 20:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Which is why we don't have consensus, and probably never will, on this page when the discussion needs to happen at a higher level. Why don't we see what kind of consensus we have for marking this page as rejected. Maybe we can could consensus on rejecting this and moving the discussion to NOTE? Probably not, but who know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Rejected wouldn't be the correct tag at all, because there are a lot of concepts that WP:FICT represents that are true. We're having trouble wording those concepts, but they're still true. I do agree with you that some of WP:FICT won't likely get consensus in the near future, which is why I've tried to encourage us to be vague on those areas. People are mad that we say "yes you can make a list" and seem to forget that was a compromise so we didn't have full articles for every character under the fictional sun. Some people are mad that we don't specifically say what can be created. WP:FICT can not and will not solve all our problems, nor will it make everyone happy. We need to stop expecting it to do so. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There are some useful concepts, but I keep seeing arguments that this isn't a page that can make a decision about "X." It seems like it would be more fruitful to reject this page and then recreate it if we want after we've discussed this at a higher level. Even if we had real consensus here that individual articles aren't OK, but lists are OK, with say 20 editors backing it, I don't think it would take very many editors at the next level up to force us back to no consensus by saying we're violating NOTE or NOT. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Our goal should not be to decide for every situation on when to create an article or a list, but rather to guide an editor with useful advice. Like I said, when it comes to stuff that we, a) don't have exact consensus on, and b) know that one size won't fit all, that we should be vague to reflect that. It's frustrating when you're not given a clear "can I do this or not" response, but the fact is that we really can't say that and have it be true for every situation. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Brainstorming: An alternative proposal

Although this RfC is ultimately not a vote, supports and opposes have been coming in in almost equal numbers for the past seven days, and this seems unlikely to change. Per #Summary of opposition so far, the reasons for oppositions are varied, sometimes uncollaborative, sometimes helpful and unhelpful, and sometimes perfectly valid. I still maintain that keeping FICT around is more desireable than tagging it as {{rejected}} (which has the negative connotation that no-one agreed with it, instead of that just not enough people expressed their support), but I am beginning to not fool myself any longer that people will suddenly somehow agree with this (my) view. But I just remembered the solution of the much-fought-over Wikipedia:Attribution, which says as its header:

This page is not a policy or guideline itself; it is intended as a summary of two of Wikipedia's core content policies: No original research and Verifiability, which explain how and why sources should be used in articles.
Shortcuts

As long as WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT#PLOT (and WP:OR and WP:WAF) enjoy the widespread support they currently have on wikipedia, the essence of the current FICT stands. In AfD and merge proposals, people can achieve the same results as FICT by simply citing WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT#PLOT (this has been done since December 2007 anyway). FICT will work as a citable essay-ish crossover of the policy and the guideline, but will not have a guideline tag itself (this pedantic difference may be enough for people to switch from oppose to support).

The other alternatives are to (1) accept that RfCs are not a vote, and ignore any inactionable or cancelling-each-other-out opposition, (2) open an RfC at NOTE to remove/change the GNC and work from the results there (leaving FICT un-rejected during that time), or (3) {{reject}} FICT (not {{essay}}-tag it) and leave the notability of fictional elements solely to the GNC, which may/will be desastrous for the majority of current fiction sub-articles because deletion-minded editors will exploit that no significant reliable and independent sources exist for most fictional elements (their articles often happen to be sup-par with little hope for improvement). The RfC will still be open for some time, but brainstorming can't hurt. – sgeureka t•c 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I like giving it the ATT method. Nice idea :) Sceptre (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I like this too. It also gets us around the issues of which parts of this do and don't belong in a notability guideline. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem w/ this approach and the RFC at NOTE - though I'm afraid that NOTE could end up in the same place in terms of overall dissent. The only benefit is that there may be even more eyes on it. --MASEM 12:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What's the point in creating something that's not actually citeable as proof of anything in an argument? Ford MF (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, people cite essays all the time; it doesn't mean that their argument is "proven", it means that the essay contains the argument they want to make, and it's not worth reiterating it all. SamBC(talk) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I just meant that retaining it as an essay (and calling it a "summary" of the other guidelines) would almost certainly lead to its being cited as, e.g. Delete per X, when clearly there's no consensus about what X actually means. It lends a kind of legitimacy to it that the community is rejecting, or "non-consensusing", if you like. Ford MF (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the ATT-style plan, and I think the current RFC at note might actually lead to something that will affect the way the fiction-related arguments move in future (if it leads to anything at all). SamBC(talk) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Another approach I just thought of: what if we flipped the intent of this RFC, for purposes of something like the above suggestion, as to get consensus if FICT accurately depicts what is currently the general process by which fictional topics are dealt with, modify it as necessary for any significant points brought up, thus it could be called a guideline but with a huge top caveat that other discussions may change this in the future and thus should be used with a grain of salt. Or add a "Current Practice" section or something. It's basically the above, but still showing that some aspect had consensus and thus should not be ignored.
Now, I'm specifically saying "does this reflect current practice", not "is this guideline ideal to you?" Arguments like "It weakens the GNC" or "It doesn't allow for coverage of popular characters" are not appropriate for this specifically; we are trying to summarize what all involved can bring to the table about the typical fates of fictional element articles, and not what you'd like to see in the guideline. This may mean we have to add language like "Articles on fictional elements without proven notability have unpredictable results at AFD and should be treated on a case by case basis." Again, getting this gives us a guideline that should prevent NOTE being heavily applied to fictional topics should this be degraded to less than anything than a guideline. Once any further discussion from NOTE arises to suggest FICT changes, we can then make them from there. --MASEM 14:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, per (for example) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirigi (DC Comics), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plunderer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega Red, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morlun, &c., &c., no, the proposed guideline doesn't entirely reflect actual practice on the Wikipedia. Ford MF (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If WP:FICT is not GNC compliant then it can't be a guideline and so this approach will fail; it will remain a proposed guideline, based on what some editors would like it to be, rather than what can feasibly work, and because there are no other criteria to apply to fictional elements other than GNC, WP:FICT has to align itself closely with WP:N. Masem's assertion that "Articles on fictional elements without proven notability have unpredictable results at AFD and should be treated on a case by case basis" can easily be explained by the fact that guidelines do not always prevail where local consensus overrides them --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, that seems a fairly unsupported assertion, but the current RFC at WT:NOTE should give us a better idea as to what "GNC compliant" actually means. So far, it seems there is little support for notability being determined solely through the current GNG, or even through the current GNG with subject-specific guidelines offering either tips or further restrictions. It's early days, though. SamBC(talk) 15:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As I said, if we need to change what is given to state that fictional elements without sources for notability have unclear fates at AFD, then we change that, as to establish that that is the currently accepted practice, regardless of what NOTE or other policies and guidelines say. Again , and to Gavin's point, we keep in mind that meeting GNC is great, but currently accepted practices goes beyond that, and thus treated on case-by-case. --MASEM 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: "Current Practice". I fear quite a few people are not aware of current practice. E.g., I know 17 of the current 21 supporters (mainly from AfD and merge proposals, more rarely from AN/I and the E&C cases), but only 10 of the current 22 opposers, some of them only from one memorable encounter (i.e. they appear to be editing in a walled garden or do not really participate in wikiwide fiction-related procedures). If we still want to give everyone's opinion equal weight, then walled-garden editors will distort the results significantly. Thinking about it, we may already have such a situation... And it's also true that fiction AfDs can be quite a gamble (especially for highly popular subjects), and nothing we say at FICT can stop that. – sgeureka t•c 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Defining what is "Current Practise" seems to vary by editor. In my view, we should have a set a guidelines built on Wikipedia wide principles, knowing full well that their application will always be out of step with local consensus. I think Masem is implying that guidelines should be changed to reflect local consensus, which is a pragmatic way of looking at the current situation. Both viewpoints have their pitfalls.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You're missing the point of what I am trying to do. I want to have a consensus that FICT (with whatever necessary changes have to be made) is a statement of fact that currently this is how fictional elements are handled, simply to then say "there's the FICT guideline, let's see how NOTE and other discussions work out". It would not provide any conclusion that implies that there is something wrong with doing certain types of articles one way or another if the general handling of those articles is unclear from group knowledge.
  • What I'm expected that with a few small rewrites is that the only section is changed is the non-notable section, and this would be to make clear that lists of non-notable elements (particularly characters and episodes) are generally acceptable, and that singular element articles have to be determined case by case; in either case, notability via sources would help a lot. Does stating this go against NOTE, FICT, NOT, or other guidelines? Yes, certainly. Is this an accurate reflection of what happens on WP now? Yes, certainly. Would that reflect the guidance that everyone wants? Heck no. it is only meant to serve as a placeholder guideline that neither confirms or denies these types of articles being acceptable, pending resulting discussion at AFD. Once it is determined by the notability discussions if there is more or less leeway, we can then adapt this to meet that requirement. But this at least gives something that provides guidance without making it look like it's rejected. --MASEM 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
As for this particular specific, I think it needs additionally the concept that it must be more than a bare list, but include a suitable amount of discussion--we will then of course have the problem of defining suitable, but I think we'll reach a compromise. DGG (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In answer to Masem, I am not missing the point at all. local consensus is just that, its local and focused on the issues relating to a particular medium (such as comics) or work of fiction which a particular group of editors is focused. Generally that is a healthy thing, but even in big groups, people can loose sight of the bigger picture, such as Wikipedia guidelines. In order to ensure that fiction remains congruent with other areas of Wikipedia, I think WP:FICT needs to stay close to GNC. What I think Masem is talking about is starting a new enyclopedia where WP:N is not important, where the rules change every few months to meet the requirements of local consensus, which is what you have been doing with all the recent "goldfish" editing.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You are still missing the point of my suggestion. It should be crystal clear that your viewpoint is completely and diametric opposed with other viewpoints, as I pointed out above. Neither viewpoint has been shown to be wrong per core policies, and both are well built on that. That means there's a strong difference of opinion that needs to be further investigated at NOTE and other pages as it's larger than just FICT; it is clear it is not going to be resolved here However, to just let FICT go as rejected is probably more disastrous to trying to work out those points, since effectively only NOTE now exists to handle fictional works, and despite the fact you may be believe this to be right, the fact that there is opposition to that would inflame the situation. The proposed idea started here is to consider what is at FICT right now as a lame duck that's not going to get consensus as a proposed solution to this. Instead we admit that and strictly rewrite the necessary parts of FICT to exactly detail what is fact right now: the fate of many non-notable fiction element articles at AFD is undetermined, as the rest of the advice in FICT is pretty much spot on par given that no one specifically called out the other parts (outside of being length). This presents FICT as a guideline in general, but leaves out exactly how to handle non-notable fictional elements because right now that is a huge unknown and any attempt to define it breaks down into the discussions that can be seen here and on NOTE. If FICT is written as basically a matter a fact, and the consensus agrees, despite their personal opinions and feelings if this strengthens or weakens coverage of fiction on WP, we then at least have a guideline that is mostly useful for what can help define notability for fictional elements and how to deal with their cleanup and merging, but leaving wide open to case-by-case studies if non-notable fictional elements should get articles or not.
  • What I'm trying to impress is that I know that written like this, saying, at best, that fates of such articles are undefined, is the only way to map yours and others view that the GNC is absolute, and the views of others that the GNC is bunk for fictional articles and should be ignored; and then we can point to pending discussion elsewhere that are attempting to resolve it. However, I believe that most recognize that it is presently a fact that it is a coin flip for how fictional element articles survive AFD, for every one where that you can provide where the non-notable element was deleted, I'm sure someone can provide one where it was kept, and vice versa. So it is clearly the case that we can't say how non-notable articles are defined, and that's all I want to try to nail down via consensus so that there is a stable guideline at FICT. --MASEM 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The guidelines aren't a "bigger picture", and they have no mantric power. They are tools that help us construct an informative, useful encyclopedia. If there is an element of the guidelines that is retarding verifiable, useful content, then that is a problem with the guidelines. The argument you seem to be making is that our guidelines deserve more fidelity than our content. Ford MF (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A good half of the opposition to FICT is based on opposition to WP:NOTE, and people's insistence that the General Notability Guideline doesn't reflect wikipedia wide consensus. I think the most sensible thing to do is to contest WP:NOTE and see if it budges. Wherever the consensus moves it -- whether people are trying to eliminate it entirely, or relax it slightly -- will inform how WP:FICT is ultimately written. So to break down the procedure: (1) Contest WP:NOTE, and build a consensus. (2) Rewrite WP:FICT, based on the consensus at WP:NOTE. (3) Do a new RFC on the rewritten version of WP:FICT. (4) Only give weight to those comments on WP:FICT that acknowledge the consensus at the rewritten WP:NOTE. Randomran (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm agree with what Masem is saying, as well as with Randomran's last statement. I think that a rejected (for now) tag is the most likely way to move the conversation to the appropriate place (NOTE). I'm not sure though: a rejected tag may just inflame the discussion here or marking it with something else may move the conversation to the correct place better. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I kind of like the concept proposed here, but I think it would swing the pendulum the other way too much. There are a great deal of articles that are "protected" because WP:FICT introduces the idea that there are situations where a page might not pass WP:N, but still be appropriate. We might have trouble expressing which pages this applies to, but we can at least state that there will be such situations. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In answer to Masem, I don't think WP:NOTE will ever change to accomodate a different treatment for fiction because:
  1. it is such a well established guideline, and has a great deal of respect throughout Wikipedia, so any attempt to change it will run into opposition from Wikipedia vetrans, administrators, academics and students;
  2. attempts to single out fictional topics for special treatment in order to make WP:N more inclusive are bound to fail on the grounds that the principal of notability applies as much to fiction as to the sciences, business, biography or any other subject area; WP:N is directly or indirectly the best defense against bad content being added to Wikipedia;
  3. there are probably more reliable secondary sources about fictional topics in existence than another subject matter, because in addition to extensive academic coverage, fiction is covered widely in newspapers, magazines and on the web. I think this whole inclusionist vs deletionist debate can be boiled down to whether editors have bothered to research their chosen subject matter or not before creating articles: reliable secondary sources are available if we only look;
  4. if articles are being kept or deleted, it is not because WP:N says so, it is because there is local consensus in AfD debates.
I therefore disagree with his approach which involves editing WP:FICT over and over again in attempt to somehow find compromise with editors who oppose the application of WP:N to fictional topics. I don't see how goldfish editing can get around WP:N at all. The only way to get agreement is to write a guideline that sticks closely to WP:N and other policies such as WP:NOT and guidelines such as WP:RS - making up exemptions will not work if there is an over arching guideline or policy with which WP:FICT is not in full agreement. Lastly I fundamentally disagree with his approach that somehow we need to change WP:FICT to reflect what is going on in AfD debates, as this is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog. AfD is a process that operates within the context of guidelines and policy, and what goes on there is influenced by them, not vice-vice versa. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It is possible for consensus to hold that a guideline "sticks to" NOT and other guidelines/policies without it sticking to your interpretation of them. SamBC(talk) 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Esquire, February 1981
  2. ^ Bramwell, Tom (2007-05-15). "Portal: First Impressions". Eurogamer. Retrieved 2007-10-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)/Archive_34&oldid=1140108365"