Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 23

Rules and consensus

Reading Percy Snoodle's words above ("By leaving ambiguity..."), a chill went up my spine. I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but imagine if those words were, "By leaving ambiguity we turn what should be simple procedural executions into drawn-out trials." [break]

I didn't say or mean that, and I find it insulting that you suggest I did. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood both what you said and what you meant. But how you phrased what you said sounded plainly to me like a presumption of guilt. The consequences of such a presumption in a different context are obviously horrifying, and they should be disturbing in this context as well.

There is no such thing as a "procedural AfD", in the sense of "just a formality". Speedies serve that role. AfDs are for ascertaining consensus for the deletion of indvidual articles. Measuring consensus is not procedural in nature; it requires discussion and evaluation. It's not good when discussions degenerate into flame wars, but such disagreements are still, by definition, a lack of consensus. When there is no consensus to uphold a rule, are those who failed to uphold the rule wrong? I maintain in such circumstances that it is the rule that is wrong because it failed to match consensus.--Father Goose (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't embrace flame wars, but Wikipedia's mandate is to uphold consensus, not procedure. If there is ambiguity, it is present in the consensus (or absence thereof), and if any procedure does not reflect that there may be an absence of consensus, it is wrong.--Father Goose (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think there is an absence of consensus. Most editors want the better lists to stay. Do most editors want to completely abandon WP:IINFO? No. So we can't have an exemption, we should find a way to keep these articles within the guidelines. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can we not have an exception? Is having a guideline that interprets how we apply WP:IINFO to fiction abandoning WP:IINFO? I think not. I think your black and white, right or wrong, on/off approach is not conducive to a collaborative project that proceeds through consensus. If you would like to work on an encyclopedia with rigid rules, there is always Britannica. Ursasapien (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the "guideline interprets how we apply WP:IINFO to fiction" is an exemption then it says, "don't apply WP:IINFO". That is indeed abandoning WP:IINFO. I'm not asking for the approach you describe; I'm asking for guidance rather than the absence of guidance. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The trouble there may be that there is no clear consensus for applying IINFO to anything but the five specific types of info listed under it. People's definitions of what is "indiscriminate information" vary widely, and if you find people aren't agreeing with you, you're either applying too broad an interpretation of IINFO, or it's too broadly worded.

The one part of IINFO that does plainly apply to fiction is WP:PLOT, and if anything, I wish it were more restrictive, personally. Ten-paragraph "plot summaries" are ridiculous, even in featured articles. I don't believe WP:N(F) is undermining WP:PLOT. It is however pointing out that we do not agree that IINFO (and WP:N itself) should apply to various other types of information. And if we are undermining some other rule, that means that other rule is wrong. The rules are an expression of our views, not the other way around.--Father Goose (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with the above, except for "I don't believe WP:N(F) is undermining WP:PLOT." As long as it's worded as an exemption, it sidesteps WP:PLOT and indeed all of WP:IINFO entirely. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with the above sentiment. We have been working on the wording of WP:IINFO for a while and the prescriptive and proscriptive have always remained intact: Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. That says A LOT more than just we shouldn't have excessive plot summaries. In fact, it is fairly straightforward; the problem is that those who disagree with our policies muddy the waters in promotion of their own views. That can be disingenuous, however. Eusebeus (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That sentence is quite clear; it's asking for coverage. Notability is worded in terms of coverage, so an exemption from notability is an exemption from WP:IINFO. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge the fact that IINFO is worded very carefully. But even speaking as an article editor, as opposed to someone trying to influence policy, using IINFO alone, I'm extremely confused on how to apply it to editing decisions. terms like "excessive" are intentionally left undefined so that decisions can be made on a case-by-case basis using concensus. But it makes it difficult to use as a tool to cite as a justification for major edits. Still, I believe this is acceptable and good because I believe that interpretation of this policy is the role of WP:WAF. I do not believe it is the role of NP:N(F). I can justify this position on request, but I'm trying to remain brief. -Verdatum (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you about the terms later in WP:IINFO, such as "excessive", giving us room in which to debate. However, "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis" is unambiguous. Sources are required, both by WP:IINFO and WP:V. The role of WP:N(F) is to clarify how WP:N applies to articles on fictional topics; it is outside its remit to repeal WP:IINFO. The current wording does so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about non-notable characters vs. Body of Work.

I have a question that has been cropping up in a lot of the Dragonlance articles but I have been noticing more and more (TV shows etc,). What do we do when the main subject matter is notable (Say, the M*A*S*H T.V. show which has proven itself notable) but the characters are not BUT the characters have such an enormous body of work that including sections would make the main article too large and cumbersome? The character (let's say, B. J. Hunnicutt), in and of itself, is not notable. But they deserve mention because of their part in the body of work. But any mention of them would quickly grow too cumbersome for the article. If we try and spin these characters off into articles of their own we can't support them based on their own notability as they are only really notable as a part of the show. How would we handle that situation? Padillah (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the many issues being discussed on this page. Most of the editors here will tell you to gut the page and merge it into a list of characters article or into the main article itself. Wikipedia precedent and past practice on the other hand is that an article on Hunnicut is fine as a stand alone article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But even a "List of Characters" article, if it holds all the nn characters from a series like M*A*S*H, is going to be too large and cumbersome. Hmm, let's see where the discussion goes. Padillah (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's two ways this could be taken. First, without any notability information, the article has too much detail - fictional characters should not be given a biography like one would a real person unless the biographic information of the character is notable; this tends to go against WP:PLOT. Trimming the article down to talk about his personality, family, relationships with other characters, and key events in the show that affected him, would be sufficient to put into a list, with what is presently there can be transwiki'd to a GFDL-compat wiki. The other way to go is that this is MASH, and I would expect there are actor interviews in addition to other notable information that can be used to support a lengthier character article (though some trimming is recommended), thus allowing it to meet WP:FICT. However, leaving it in its current state is going to likely cause people to consider its deletion. --MASEM 19:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not a good test case since he's going to turn out to be notable. Even without being able to search newspaper archives, google news turns up a lot articles that mention him. [1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec 2x) My view on B. J. Hunnicutt - the sections "Personality" and "Relationship with wife and family" appears to be original researched analysis, either directly or through synthesis, and should be removed or sourced. Most of the trivia is trivial and can be removed. The Quotes section should be moved to wikiquote. The plot holes section can be removed as either trivial or original research. His character arc needs to be sourced to episodes. If you do all of this properly, you will see that the article can be merged quite easily because it is so short, or the article can stay because it demonstrates notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Example section

I've been offline for about two days, so I'm not sure if I'm totally up to date on the discussion, but from what I understand is that we want some way to indicate good spinout articles and to discourage "not-so-good" spinout articles. In the older version of WP:FICT, when the section was added that articles are sometimes added for reasons of style to length, I tried to propose some form of example section that would greatly help give better guidance on when do spin them out. WP:LINKLOVE#Link assessment table and WP:CANVAS#Types of canvassing have some really interesting example sections that might be useful. Not sure if that format would work nor not, but some kind of check list like this would be nice. -- Ned Scott 08:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I reading this right?

“ A spinout article on a single non-notable character or element may be appropriate when... ”

So... spinout articles don't have to have notability on their own merit? Isn't that an open invitation to create articles on non-notable topics? Isn't it therefore a really bad idea? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be clear that spinning out an article should not be done if the only information you have is what that charcter does in the fictional story they are a part of (i.e. not even spin-out articles can ignore our PLOT policy)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Masem made this change quite a few weeks ago.[2] I already expressed the same concerns as Percy Snoodle (see #List vs. sub-article in discussion of WP:SS, and related paragraph in WP:FICT), but no-one replied, so I guessed no-one else saw the issue. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be more how guidelines should be approached - we don't want to come across "no,, you can't do that", so the reason this line exists and the following lines is to say that once in a while a singular element is given an article without notability, but you better be ready to defend it to other editors. I don't see this as being a free pass for inherited notability, even though it opens the door. The previous version (that said that such articles shouldn't exist) was too negative for other editors here, but we can still fix it if it's too loose this way. --MASEM 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that minor topic lists are an important part of wikipedia, helping to include topics that are notable as a whole but which fail individually. They don't take their notability from the parent topic, but rather from the notability of their own topic on aggregate. So, there might be a list of characters none of whom met WP:N on their own, but who between them do so. What I'd propose instead is:

• "For fictional works, these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that are notable collectively but not individually. A spinout article on a single character or element may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article, as described by summary style." ... "Editors are cautioned that articles on singular, non-notable fictional elements..."

This removes the presumption of inherited notability, and clarifies the purpose and notability of minor topic lists, without expressly forbidding anything. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I really like this new wording, and I think it adheres more to the spirit of the guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Eusebeus (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly fine here, please feel free to modify the guideline for it. --MASEM 14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Just caught something in rereading this. We have still come to a previous conclusion that a spinout list of characters that neither individually or overall have notability but is written as a spinout of a parent notable topic is acceptable. That's a position that is readily accepted, and the slight change in the first sentence suggests that people may wikilaywer over such lists. We need to be careful that is not being implied (that spinout lists require notability). --MASEM 15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I agree that it should be acceptable. It should be reasonably easy for them to attain notability, certainly, but I still think they should have to do so. As it stands, it's already slighty easier for a minor topics list to meet the guidelines than for most articles, because the multiple necessary sources can be spread over the many topics. If it was clarified that a small amount of coverage of each entry in one source can be counted as a significant amount of coverage in that source for the list as a whole, then I think that most of the existing such lists would meet the guidelines. I'd rather see a system where valid articles met the guidelines than one in which some articles were exempt from them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If a list has a proper lead (which is usually what appears in the main article per summary style), notability (or at least encyclopedic relevancy) is usually satisfied, at least for my part. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a goal of having articles having notability, but right now, with the inclusionist/deletionist conflict, we need a position of compromise. Thus, we still require topics to be notable, but we allow for flexibility for elements underneath that topic that help to balance between "WP is not paper" and "WP is not indiscriminate collection of info". Mind you, such lists have had the potential to become notable in the past, compared to individual characters or other elements, and thus that is why it is better to encourage non-notable lists and discourage non-notable elements. --MASEM 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What notability is and isn't is up to us to define. I'd rather we worked out what we want the list articles to be like, and call that notable, than to say that they're exempt from the notability criteria. That would be a better way to form guidelines; the inclusionists are pleased because the good articles stay, and the deletionists are pleased because the guidelines are upheld. The topic/article distinction is just a way of saying that notability is inherited, and consensus is firmly against that position. What I'd like is to establish some loose notability criteria for the lists which would give them notability of their own, rather than having them have to inherit it from their parent. Now, if there's enough sourced information to expand a section into a spinoff article, then it's likely that we can use those sources to show that the spinoff article is notable in and of itself, and reach compromise that way without having to make an exemption. With that in mind, I'd delete the part that reads "viewed as an spinout of the parent article, judged as if it were still a section of that article, and" and add to the end of the same paragraph, "Real-world sources can provide significant coverage for a spinoff article by covering a small part of the topic in depth, or by covering many elements of the topic to a smaller depth." Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me review the problem here: We have no problem when real-world sources can be used to support any type of fictional element article (list or singular); this is covered by the first case about notable topics meriting their own articles. That part is not in question. However, the problem is that from the inclusionist side is that people want to include descriptions of characters and other elements that will likely never be able to demonstrate notability (due to age, obscurenss, and genre of the material); these can be sourced to the primary work to remain verifiable, but otherwise are included for sake of completeness in discussing the work. If WP:SIZE wasn't a problem, they'd be included as part of the main article, but we do allow for spinouts when SIZE is a problem, and cutting this section out and putting it as a spinout is completely appropriate, as long as editors don't see the spinout as a new glass they can fill with excess information. Again, this spinout likely cannot ever hope to demonstrate notability, but written properly, it fails no other aspect of our core policies. Requiring these to have notability is a very very dangerous step to disrupting WP too much; it's a goal for these to have notability and thus should be broken out with the possibility of notability eventually being demonstrated, but for the present, it is a spinoff section from the main article. Notability is generally not inherited, and again, in this case, notability applies to a topic, so as long as these spinoffs are written to avoid coming across as their own topic, I think we can safely give them the pass. --MASEM 18:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think you've missed my meaning. I don't think we can safely give any article any pass - that way lies madness. What we can do is change what we say notability means and by doing that we can keep the worthwhile articles without opening ourselves up to the bad ones. Saying "spinoff articles don't need notability" opens the floodgates to a world of fancruft. Saying "spinoff articles need to meet a lighter set of guidelines, here they are" doesn't. Please can we discuss what those lighter guidelines might be? A "compromise" that gives a blanket exemption to spinoff articles is no such thing - it's inclusionism all the way. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But its arguable that the floodgates have already been breeched with the amount of fancruft, as most of the actions that users like TTN have done is to prune it off. The goal of this guideline is to not only describe how to build out a good series of articles on a new series and to deal with the existing mass of articles on other series. If we only had to worry about future article creation, we'd likely be able to set a different tone and approach, but we have to deal with a lot of pages that, if we took a very heavy hand and required notability, will cause several worse problems than what TTN created.

I complete agree that notability is generally not inherited, and that we should not be creating exceptions for notability. However, again, as I read both WP:N (particulary WP:NNC that states that notability does not regulate the content of an article) and WP:SS, that under breaking out a list of non-notable characters or other fictional elements from the work of fiction's article is an acceptable approach that is still valid under both WP:N and meets our MOS. Mind you, there is an approach these articles should take (outlined more in WP:WAF) that if they go too far off this path, they need to be put back into shape. For example, compare what List of characters in Bully is now to what it was about a month ago. Yes, notability is still not demonstrated in the article, and there's a few other points of cleanup, but as a spinoff from the video game article to describe the characters, it would be an acceptable spinoff under the suggested policy, and there's a possibility that if the designers talked about the characters in interviews or the like, more notability could be demonstrated. --MASEM 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure you have understood me. Are you saying that you would prefer an exemption to a guideline, even if it meant the same articles are kept? I cannot agree to an exemption. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But it is not an exemption, again when you consider that notability is at the topic level and not at the article level, and that this is a guideline, which meant to be advisory, not hard policy. This was previously discussed at WP:N as well with the consensus that spinouts as part of a larger notable topic do not have to show this (relevant discussion). --MASEM 12:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Phrased the way it is, it absolutely is an exemption. So, I'm asking for it to be phrased differently. Remember, all notability is, is the criterion for acceptance. So if the articles are acceptable, they're notable. Saying that articles are allowed to cover non-notable topics, it that article is a spinout of an article on a notable topic, exempts them from notability by making notability inheritable. Saying that articles are notable under certain additional conditions does not. Please,, try to understand: I am not asking for these articles to be deleted - as you point out, consensus says they should stay. I'm asking for the guidelines to reflect consensus, rather than having them say that they don't apply. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: The only change is from "these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that usually rely on the notability of the work instead of their own" to "these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that are notable collectively but not individually". So the sentence at the beginning of this thread would stay.(?) – sgeureka ^t•c 15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the bold part would be deleted. We wouldn't explicitly say that the article is exempt from WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Had missed that word. So yes, I would be much more comfortable with this rewrite than what we currently have. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• you're reading it wrong. You seem to have completely missed Editors are cautioned that articles on singular, non-notable fictional elements may be contested by other editors; more often, the contents of such an articles can be included into some grouping ("Characters", "Setting", or the like) within a spinout article list of the notable parent topic. This completely addresses your concerns. Hiding T 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't address them at all - in one breath, the guidelines say "notability is not required" and in another they say "some editors may complain". That makes the guidelines empty and permanently disputed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There are two types of articles we consider in that section: list-style articles on non-notable elements which generally are not contested at all, and a singular non-notable element article: this latter type is regularly not as well accepted and so the caution note that such articles will likely be contested. It is not a conflict between the statements. --MASEM 12:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not a conflict, only because the exemption trumps the right to complain. Saying "articles don't have to be notable" completely neuters the AFD process. Going on to say that the process can still happen isn't a compromise, it's taunting. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• The solution is a 'major characters from major fiction' criteria. It would certainly be better than the current system, which is essentially whim-based notability. Masem claims that no concievable definition could work, but this is based on subjective impressions.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's only a solution if you happen to subscribe to a particular view of what Wikipedia is. Notice that arb-com are pointing out the contradictions that exist between policies and guidance. A better solution and one which fits better with the wiki practose and the principles upon which Wikipedia is based would be to ignore notability full stop and try and make each article the best encyclopedic article it can be through consensus. Hiding T 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hiding. I don't think it is nessisary or wise to tie issues of PLOT with inclusion criteria for spinout articles. If plot content does not belong, then editors can remove it, this is obvious. If this results in a blank spinout article, then the spinout article can be merged/deleted. This second concept (when last I checked) is appropriately addressed in this guideline. -Verdatum (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In practise, that's unworkable. If an editor, in good faith and with the full justification of all policy and guidelines, blanks a page they will be reverted by a bot; if the bot is disabled, they will be reverted by another editor. What should be an AFD becomes an edit war. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The part I particularly object to in the current guidelines is the use of 'non-notable' in "A spinout article on a single non-notable character..." and "Editors are cautioned that articles on singular, non-notable fictional elements...". I'd be far happier if that were phrased in terms of coverage, because it wouldn't explicitly exempt articles from WP:N, it would just explain that there are other considerations. Would anyone object to that? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggesting being to change "A spinout article on a single non-notable character" to "A spinout article on a single character lacking real-world coverage..." and a similar change? --MASEM 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right. I'd probably say "sources of real-world coverage" just for the sake of precision. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion of rewording would also take care of the many cases where an article currently lacks (demonstration of) real-world coverage. When these articles are "contested by other editors" then, it is time to demonstrate notability or make a merge proposal (or go to AfD) after a while. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and may this phrasing change in given section. --MASEM 12:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but now the section basically says, "it's ok to violate WP:PLOT (a fundamental policy BTW) if you just have to write up all that fictional information about a character". I don't agree with this. We shouldn't be creating articles (not even spinning them out) just because we have some overzealous editors that want to include all this fictional information about a character. If they need that much fictional information to be able to understand who they are, then there must be real world information about them somewhere. People are going to abuse that section by spinning out every character under the guise that it would require too much space to list everything that happens to them in their respective fiction. I think if you have to have that there, then you need to make it clear that though WP:SS may be the basis for splitting that information out, it still violates Wiki policy and that will be the reason other editors contest its existence. I think it needs to be clear that the contesting of the article split is most likely going to come from adherence to policy and not simply editors that don't believe it should be split because they don't believe the character is that notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Added points about UNDUE and PLOT in the "editors are cautioned..." line. The first line of the para mentions "concise" within the construct of PLOT, and between there and WAF, it should be obvious that spinouts are not free passes to expand to 32k of text on the topic. --MASEM 12:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, would you say Meta_Knight (appeared in a dozen video games) may be appropriate as a spinout per PLOT and WAF, or is List_of_Kirby_characters#Meta_Knight a better presentation (got merged by TTN)? May Samantha Carter (appeared in 11 seasons as main character of two shows) be appropriate as a (temporary) spinout article? There don't seem to be any substantial sources for real-world content for Meta Knight, but the Carter character seems to have enormous potential per the article of another character from the same fictional universe. Yet the current articles of Meta Knight and Carter are IMO in the same inappropriate bad shape, with the Carter article potentially even being worse. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Meta Knight doesn't have enough coverage shown, and if you tackle the text of the article (there's a lot of game-guide type content in that) you're left with something that fits nicely into a list of other Kirby characters. Carter's article does need work, but it has some coverage (awards Amanda Tapping's won for the character), and thus the likelihood of showing more is there - though if more beyond the awards can't be found, ultimately it should be merged. The bio needs to be less structured around the order of the series, however, to get the rest in shape. --MASEM 14:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break - request for clarification

I'm not trying to call out Percy or the like here, nor trying to escalate this, I want to make sure I understand what he is saying with respect to the current guideline, as such because there may be some language or confusing issues here. So, just to reset the base from where we're starting the discussion, if Percy could respond to the following:

• Do you agree or disagree that an article, describing in list fashion a series of fictional elements from a work without demonstration of notability, is appropriate?
• Do you agree or disagree that an article, describing a singular fictional element from a work without demonstration of notability, is appropriate?

(The other two questions, in which notability is demonstrated for both cases, I think Percy would agree to by his previous answers, but please correct me if I'm wrong). The issue becomes if Percy disagrees with both statements, and in which case we need to discuss further. --MASEM 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with both statements. Here's my chain of thought:

• To comply with WP:IINFO, we need a criterion for deciding what is and is not appropriate. We call that criterion notability.
• To comply with WP:PAPER, the notability criteria should become more inclusive as time goes on.
• Current consensus is that spinout articles should be allowed; there is dispute that the notability criteria do so.
• Therefore, we should alter the notability criteria to include spinout articles.

The manner in which the current wording includes spinout articles is by granting them an exemption from notability. What I want to see is a version of WP:FICT that does not say "non-notable articles are OK", but rather says "spinout articles are notable if [conditions]", where the conditions are chosen to include the spinout articles that we all agree, I think, are beneficial. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a point where we should be treating policy and guidelines as not simply words, but as a thought and principle. [break]

Always.

I don't disagree with what you are trying to end up with (preventing such articles from being deleted at AfD), but the method you're asking for this seems to be introduce more rules to a system that we should be trying to avoid adding more. [break]

I'm just asking to clarify the existing ones, in a more inclusive fashion. Adding an exemption to the existing rules is a new rule.

I can't see how we can create a special considering of notability for spinout articles (not just for fiction, but for any type of spinoff) without expanding our rules. [break]

By allowing spinouts a more flexible definition of substantial coverage, as I suggested above.

Again, I feel confident that the current policies and guidelines and MOS already provide the guidance that is needed to say that appropriate non-nonable lists articles and, at select times, non-notable fictional elements articles, are appropriate, primarily because notability is a concept applied to a topic, not to an article. [break]

Again, the topic/article distinction is just a way of saying that notability is inherited. The topic of an article on a character from a series is the character, not the series, and the character does not inherit notability from the series.

This might be a better discussion on the WP:N page since this transcends just fictional works, though likely fiction is the area where such a change would have the most impact. Mind you, I'm not trying to speak for everyone, but my feeling is that the general consensus is there's no special need to extend notability to spinouts. --MASEM 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about extending notablility - I'm talking about not retracting it. You're still trying to convince me that we should include spinouts. I agree, and have done from the start. I want to include them by defining notability to include them, not by throwing away notability and its benefits. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see what you're trying to get at. You're asking for some language somewhere that states that non-notable spinout lists and in a handful of other singular coverage cases for fictional elements are protected from being deleted due to lack of secondary sources. (Which, yes, that's the intent). What I think is throwing a wrench into the works is that you're trying to group this under "notability". Notability is an inclusionary criteria for WP, but it is not the inclusionary criteria (though it is use 99.99..% of the time as the only one). Mind you, I'm unaware of any higher or other inclusionary criteria guideline that we have around that calls itself explicitly that, and maybe this concern reflects that.

Lists of non-notable elements (not singular elements) are generally easy to recognize, so when looking at such an article if it were in AfD, it should be recognized that it is not covering a topic but supporting one as a spinout should, and this implicit "spinouts satisfy inclusionary criteria" rule is invoked, thus avoiding the need to consider the notability of its content (though the main article should, of course, be notable). If it is not a list, then most likely people will then evaluate its inclusion per our topic inclusion criteria: our notability guidelines (which is why singular elements from fiction without notability should be a carefully considered case, because they usually aren't seem immediately as a spinout).

Does this make sense? I think we're having the problem here because "notability" is generally thought of our only inclusionary requirement, but it is in reality not; what you seem to be asking for is a stronger statement of that implicit "spinouts are included in WP" to help protect such articles at AFD. --MASEM 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort of; you've nearly got my position there. What I'm asking is that, given that consensus wants currently non-notable articles to be allowed, that we redefine notability, rather than dropping notability as a reason for deletion. So the currently non-notable topics would be included because they would become notable, not because they had inherited notability from the article they were spun out from. We're free to do this because there is no definition of notability as a guideline beyond that which we provide, and it's desirable to do so because it means that the articles can be kept without having to overhaul the system (which, as you point out, should be done elsewhere if at all). Rather than go on trying to clarify my position, let's look at how I'd do that:

• Replace "rely on the notability of the work instead of their own" with "are notable collectively but not individually"
• delete "non-notable" from the next sentence - we're keeping the same articles but calling them notable.
• I'd then want to go on to describe collective notability somehow. As a base, we want to look at the sentence from WP:N that the article quotes, saying "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So we'd want something like "significant coverage for a collection of topics can include a large amount of coverage for the collection as a whole, or small amounts of coverage of each topic in the collection". This should be sufficient to retain the good spinout lists; some sourcing is required already by WP:V and WP:NOR.

The first two of those changes received some support above, and I'd like to make them if that would be OK. You've convinced me that on their own, they may be too open to a restrictive interpretation, so I'd like to add the third one too. Would it be OK by you for me to make those changes, and then discuss that form of the guidelines and revert it later if necessary? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keeping what changes can be done on FICT and nowhere else, the wording for the 3rd change is a possible problem as this still marks any list of completely non-notable fictional elements (individually or as a whole) as being unacceptable, by strict reading (which people will take). These lists lack "small amounts of coverage of each topic", and thus this will become a wikilaywering point, particularly since the requirement for notability (in the current sense) is now being called out. If anything, I'd argue what you are defining is a list that by the present definition of notability is notable itself without any need for additional protection of the spinout considerations. While having lists require this is a good thing, under the present atmosphere of editors here, this can only be set as a goal, not as a requirement. --MASEM 14:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but a list of fictional elements for which there's no coverage, individually or as a whole, would probably be disallowed under concerns of OR or verifiability anyway. By keeping a weakened requirement for some coverage, we reach a compromise, rather than going 100% inclusionist by allowing each and every element to be spun out. Looking at WP:PSTS, I think it might be useful to have the collective notability sentence be "significant coverage for a collection of topics can include a large amount of coverage for the collection as a whole, or small amounts of coverage of each topic in the collection, and may be found in secondary or tertiary sources"; so that if a source has decided to collect very small amounts of coverage together then that can still be used. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But this is one of the key points why WP:FICT exists; it has been commonly accepted that certain lists of fictional elements without any notability is appropriate as a spinoff article. Consider two cases:

• An article about a notable show has a list of characters within the article; the list of characters is not sourced to anything but the primary work and there's no discussion of the real-world impact of the characters.
• An article about a notable show; due to size limitations, there is a separate article with the list of characters; the list of characters is not sourced to anything but the primary work and there's no discussion of the real-world aspect of the characters.

Assuming that the list of characters in both cases is exactly the same text, there is no distinction between these cases beyond the application of WP:SPINOUT to create that list. This is the generally accepted policy on this. Mind you, the idea is that the list is truly a "spinout" in that in may have been present in the main article but was forced out due to size; too many times, people start at the spinout and work back to the main article (a situation reflected in several older articles), and one can see the spinout being much more expansive and descriptive than it would be had it been part of the main body of text. However, regardless if it started from the main body or is a modification of existing articles to help bring them to spec, allowing for lists of non-notable fictional elements, to a degree they meet with V, OR, PLOT, and other policies, is still acceptable, and do not need to show notability, as long as they are written in a way to support the parent article. This is not necessarily an ideal case, but it is a compromise that needs to be in place in the current environment between inclusionists and deletionists. (At least, last time the issue came up, this was a necessary inclusion that had to be made). --MASEM 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It would help me if you used the word "coverage" rather than "notability"; coverage refers to stuff written in the real world, and notability refers to our guidelines. If we can change the guidelines, then articles without coverage can be notable. If consensus wants coverage-free articles included, then that's what I'm asking for. Now, assuming I've read you rightly, you say that "it has been commonly accepted that certain lists of fictional elements without any [coverage] is appropriate as a spinoff article". I'd like to take that qualification - the reason you say "certain" lists rather than "all" lists - and work out how to codify that, then call that notability. If we can do that, then we can have a set of notability criteria that meets with consensus, without opening wikipedia up to all the other articles. So: Could you say a bit about what you think the difference between an acceptable and an unacceptable spinout is, if it isn't coverage? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(←) This is where the aspect of undue weight comes into play, which, yes, is highly subjective but if approached this way, I find helps convince some that want a lot in place to be able to cut it down. The way to "quanitify" this would be to imagine that the text of the list is put back into the main article (excluding lead and footer stuff), along with all other similar spinoffs as well as truly notable topics such as individual characters or episodes. Then, one must ask two questions:

• Is this list supporting the notable, real-world aspects of the fictional work or its elements in some way? For a tv show, a list of characters can help to offset describing the character over and over again in plot descriptions, for example. This is why lists of major and minor characters is generally appropriate, but lists of one-off characters can be taken as excessive because it doesn't support the overall topic well.
• Is the content of the list in balance with the rest of the discussion of the topic - that is, the list content does not unduely weigh down the rest of the article? This means we provide concise plot information for supporting these lists but shouldn't be going into every plot detail, and that we aren't just making a list because we can make a list. (A "List of Planets in Star Trek", outlining every planet ever mentioned, would be indiscriminate, but a "List of Major Planets in Star Trek", outlining the key homeworlds of certain races or where key series-altering events occurred, would not be)

Unfortunately, as noted, these are very touchy-feely requirements that is extremely difficult to codify, which is why the guideline presently talks about and around them, but gives very little detail of their content. We can state that certain cases are appropriate, like lists of characters (major and minor, but not one-offs), lists of key locations, terms, etc, but when such are challenged, we need to evaluate each as appropriate on a case-by-case basis. --MASEM 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the "imagine it's in the main article" - that smacks of WP:NOTINHERITED. Further, how do you judge whether the list supports real-world aspects without requiring real-world coverage? If you're concerned about wikilawyering, then saying we have to judge on a case-by-case basis should concern you greatly; it turns a comparison with a set of guidelines into a shouting match. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To the first point, this is not done in considering notability, it is simply to compare the amount and type of content between spinouts and main article.

I think you're using "notability" when you mean "coverage" again. "Imagine it's the main article when determining notability" is equivalent to saying "Notability is inherited", so I can't accept it. Perhaps you could rephrase, using "coverage" where you mean coverage?

Second point: if part of the real world aspect of The Simpsons is to say how caring the family is for each other, or how Bart's antics are genius, or anything that calls out specific characters (including concisely describing a work's plot), then it makes sense that we have to mention the characters at some point to provide that basis.

If part of the real world aspect of The Simpsons is to say how caring the family is for each other, or how Bart's antics are genius, or anything that calls out specific characters, then either (1) there is coverage of that, or (2) that's opinion/OR and doesn't belong on wikipedia; so that's not a good example of a situation in which coverage isn't required.

The last point, I grant you; unfortunately, I think this is because we have a lack of experience to know how these articles fare up through AfD and other discussions. We know some types have no problem, but I have yet to see an archetype for a list that is absolutely not acceptable. The way I would consider this is that if you approach the authors of the page in a helpful manner, making suggestions for how to trim an existing list or merging it within a larger list, so that coverage is not lost but better balanced (no undue weight), you likely don't have to take the list to AfD to begin with, which may be why it's hard to draw a box around what is completely unacceptable. --MASEM 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's nice in theory, but in practise there are a lot of people who will AFD anything that happens to be fictional. We shouldn't hamstring them by taking away notability concerns entirely, but we do need to have a firm set of guidelines based on something other than opinion which can be used to tell whether they're right when they say an article should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This wishy-washyness is effectively a license for favouritism. It means blanket coverage for unpopular flops like Star Trek: Enterprise, whilst successful shows like Grey's Anatomy have to fight for every article.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Firm guidelines are necessary, and they should relate to something other than the opinions of the interested editors. I don't see a way to do that without some reliance on sourcing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we can go that way (and I'm going to start a new section for); if we outline exactly what types of lists are appropriate, people can tailor their lists to that. However, there will always be exceptions - this is a guideline, not policy. --MASEM 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. (I'm assuming you mean here, so that we can use the outline to form guidelines, rather than having a bunch of examples in the article, which wouldn't address Nydas' concern at all) Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jumping in. I've just read through all of the above and see a camel's nose inside the tent. This needs to be tightened-up. I see that this is only intended for limited cases, but others out there are already seeking to exploit this. See Talk:Paladine (Dragonlance)#Regarding notability... and Talk:Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons)#Weighing in on the use of Dungeons & Dragons Source Materials as references; primarily the posts by User:Dalamori who's argument also seeks to allow importance based on primary sources to justify articles on non-notable characters. My concern is less about lists than about allowing a loophole for non-notable characters. The standard of notability being required must be maintained or we'll see hoards of non-notable stuff being argued for endlessly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a standard of notability must be maintained for those reasons, which is why I'm against an exemption. However I do think that well-sourced minor topic lists are beneficial, so the standard that we establish should include them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the PROD suggestion

Regarding the following suggestion:

If you believe the article will never have a chance of demonstrating notability or cannot be merged elsewhere, place the article up for proposed deletion. An article about a character in a TV show that only appeared on-screen for a few seconds and is never referred to otherwise is probably non-notable; however, by using the proposed deletion process, someone may be able to provide the required notability. If you are unsure if this is the correct step, then do not perform this step.

I removed this from the draft. First, I thought we had agreed that deletion should be the last resort. Second, I truly do not think this needs to be suggested. Deletion-minded editors will certainly take this course. Third, I agree with Nydas that this is biased against articles that do not get much traffic. Especially with this being the first suggestion. I think a better suggestion would be to take it to the new Fiction Noticeboard. Ursasapien (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as any editor can create new articles at will, there needs to be a way to propose the deletion of articles without much bureaucracy. Fiction-related articles already have a de-facto protection from speedy deletion, so prodding remained the only alternative for clearly nn material (merging/redirecting is not always the solution). In addition, prods can be removed by anyone, and the deleting admin makes the final decision if the deletion rationale is valid. The last two sentences of the paragraph already account for that. Even if this paragraph is removed from this guideline, I will continue prodding where I see fit, so the guideline may as well provide some guideline (pun intended) when a prod is reasonable. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you wrote. A PROD is reasonable when an editor feels that the deletion would be uncontroversial. This common editing policy and does not need to be rehashed in this guideline. An admin (in my experience) rarely questions an undisputed PROD. This could be problematic for articles that are not well-monitored. However, I would be ameanable to the inclusion of this clause, as long as the caveat that the editor that applies the PROD tag should also put a PROD warning on the creating editors talkpage (and preferably the fiction noticeboard). Ursasapien (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Standard PROD procedure does say to drop a message to the article's main editor(s), that can be added. I am unaware if PRODs are sorted like AFD's, however - I've never seen such a list; maybe there needs to be a similar one in general? However, I recommend against using the FICT/N board for PROD notices: FICT/N is part of a dispute resolution process, and I don't think we need to fill it up with incoming PROD notices. --MASEM 12:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

E.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Television#Television_Proposed_deletions and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_characters#Fictional_character_Proposed_deletions try to give a list of prods, but they are usually out-of-date (and they also seem to get ignored). Some of the more popular fiction-related wikiprojects have sections where prods/Afds can be noted. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be something that should be suggested at a higher level, to have PROD sorting like there is with deletion sorting? I know there's a few editors that keep active here (Pixelface for one) for fiction-related topics (including TV and games) for AfD's, I would think that adding PROD to that area of coverage would also help. (However, this is likely above and beyond FICT's area). --MASEM 15:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most projects del sort areas also have sections there for listing PRODs (as well as other xFds). I think people do, however, tend not to make as much effort in finding and noting those as they are with AfDs. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Put it back as it needs discussion. The fiction board is not for that purpose, it is for dealing with discussions where peopel can't agree on how to deal with issues. A PROD is a normal part of the process and should be mentioned, and as sgeureka notes, people will use it regardless of the guideline. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Given some of the above, I have added one adding phrase to the first sentence re PROD, which now reads: If you believe the article will never have a chance of demonstrating notability or cannot be merged elsewhere, and that its deletion is not contestable, place the article up for proposed deletion. This should help to prevent zealous editors from PRODing a lot, by implying that if there's going to be an issue over the PROD, it shouldn't be done in the first place. --MASEM 14:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - reply to AnmaFinotera) Agreed. I believe that proposed deletions are in fact one of the least disruptive ways to go about this, since they are easy to contest, and can furthermore be restored by any admin upon reasonable request (Refer to Wikipedia:PROD#After deletion). If an article is not well monitored, it is likely that it is not notable either. G.A.S 14:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded your addition slightly, as technically no prod is "not contestable" and anyone could contest it for any reason, even just being bored. So changed to "unlikely to be contested." Hopefully that will work? AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is pedantic instructioncruft and should be removed. The viewpoints being used to defend it are naive. Most fiction has no specific wikiproject to look after it, and low traffic fiction articles are the norm, not the exception. Asking an admin to restore it is not 'easy', it's a nuisance and intimidating for new editors.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Any deletion route is biased technically against any type of article that receives low traffic; the best thing we can do is rely on those that partake in deletion sorting to include both PRODs and AFDs to the approach sections, and that those interested in those areas watch and review them. Furthermore, not mentioning PROD will not make it go away, we just define a more restrictive case than without that statement because without it, people will PROD any character they feel non-notable; here, at least, we give them several considerations of thought before that tag is slapped on an article (and yes, there will still be people that PROD anyway, regardless if its mentioned in the guideline or not; all we can do is if their PRODs consistently are on contested articles, they need to be told that). And most importantly, article creation (including patently bad articles) is easy, getting rid of patently bad articles (ones that I don't believe even the inclusionists would say merit an article) on fictional elements is difficult because CSD cannot be applied: we need a process that provides a streamlined route to remove such articles which is what PROD is; the difficulty of getting article content restored via an admin is a very minor barrier to this process. --MASEM 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The instructioncruft could be condensed into a sentence or less in the deletion section after the other options. All it needs to do is to provide a link to proposed deletions. Nobody will pay any attention to these pointless rules and modifications.

There's no need for a 'streamlined' route, since the mythical flood of fancruft doesn't exist.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on how to proceed

Given the recent, er, "passionate" discussion on the matter, I'd like a second opinion on how to proceed on this.

I recently came across the article Humanx Commonwealth, and through it the articles AAnn and Ulru-Ujurrians. None of these articles are showing real-world notability in the least, so my thought would be to merge them into a spinout article on races / characters in the main book or series article. This is where I run into a brick wall -- what is the main article? It's unclear from the article if the Humanx Commonwealth is a feature of just one book series or if it is used in many books by Alan Dean Foster. Either way, the place for the spinout article isn't clear to me, unless it's from the Alan Dean Foster itself. Thoughts?--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is really not appearent what the main article should be (I have never heard of these books), but User:Paul A, who started Humanx Commonwealth, is still an active editor, and he may be able to help. – sgeureka ^t•c

Merging them into lists might work, but the ambiguity around lists essentially makes it down to whether Wikipedians have heard of/like the fiction in question. I suspect these works aren't in the 'in-crowd'.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If a spinout shrinks

Should we include a section advising that if a spinout article shrinks to the stage where it would no longer be excessively long in the parent, it should be merged? This might happen if a user span an article out, but another user realised that the spun-out content was unverifiable or original research. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That might be better in WP:WAF, as that's moving away from what notability has to do with spinouts. It's also implied by merging (the reverse of a spinout) and other aspects covered here. --MASEM 13:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate here; WP:WAF is about what should be in a spinout; the question of when spinouts are and are not appropriate is more of a notability than a style issue. I do note, however, that WP:WAF includes the caution "Editors are cautioned to not immediately create such sub-articles that lack real-world coverage, even if such articles exist for a similar fictional work." which I think would be and appropriate caution on this page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: "Depth of coverage" section

Nydas removed the following section from the guideline and I subsequently restored it.

Articles on fiction should be structured around evaluations and critiques of the work or topic, with an appropriate balance of plot information, as outlined at Manual of Style (Writing about fiction). The size of a plot summary is often determined by building consensus for each article on a case by case basis. Editors should compare approaches taken on featured and good articles about fiction for examples of length and tone.

Depth of coverage within an article should be guided by the amount of information which can be sourced. A single movie, book, video game, or other work of fiction has most likely not generated large coverage in sources which Wikipedia can summarize. Therefore, the article will be able to summarize those sources in one article. On the other hand, a series of books, television shows, or video games could have a commonality of elements which are better covered in a spinout article, helping to provide suitable background and supplementary information for each work within the series. However, articles about individual elements (i.e. a specific character or location) or individual segments of serialized works (i.e. episodes of a television program or issues of a comic book) should establish individual notability as opposed to inherited notability. At times, better depth of coverage may be accomplished by combining notable and non-notable elements into a single topic, such as a character cast or a single season of a television show instead of individual elements. WikiProjects that deal with fiction have guidelines describing what depth of coverage should be provided for plot information relative to the length of the original work. The complexity of the work should also be taken into a consideration; uses of certain creative elements (such as time travel or flashbacks) may require more detail to clearly explain the concepts in an encyclopedic manner.

If there is an imbalance of fictional information in an article, consider trimming the text or moving the fictional information to an appropriate GFDL-compatible Wiki.

I would like to know his specific objections to this section, and what could be done to improve or clarify the section. I strongly hold that the guideline must contain a section detailing how editors decide "depth of coverage" issues. Ursasapien (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's redundant with writing about fiction and adds unnecessary bloat to the guideline.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WAF that talks about undue weight, beyond the pointer back to here and WP:UNDUE. Mind you, some points in WAF suggest what already is here, but it is necessary to talk about depth/undue weight and notability at the same time, because the amount of notable information is going to drive the depth of coverage. --MASEM 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in this section that can be understood or followed without first interpreting the ambiguous or meaningless language. Like the lists section, it's a license for favouritism. No doubt 'commonality of elements' and 'suitable background' will apply to fiction which is important in the Wikiverse, whilst everything else gets hosed. If that's the case, we might as well remove the section, since all it does is add flab to this bloated guideline.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, it has nothing to do with favoritism, and your continued assertion of that is not helpful. -- Ned Scott 12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a side effect of the poor state of this guideline, this section in particular. Take this sentence:

The complexity of the work should also be taken into a consideration; uses of certain creative elements (such as time travel or flashbacks) may require more detail to clearly explain the concepts in an encyclopedic manner.

Firstly, it contradicts the rest of the section. To what extent does complexity overrule the need for sources? Secondly, 'creative element' is a protologism. We are told that flashbacks and time travel 'may' count, what else?--Nydas^(Talk) 15:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of this part is that if you are describing the plot or fictional elements of the work, that you should "exactly" as much language and discussion to make sure the content is clear. Of course, "exactly" is impossible to define, but what this means is that if your plot involves several different sub-plots, time travel, flashbacks, or other creative elements that break the "A, then B, then C" mold of events (which would be impossible to fully enumerate because there's an infinite number of ways a story can be told), then the coverage should be allowed to expand to make sure it is clearly understood what is going on; in some cases, this can actually reduce the amount of text and coverage, Memento (film) is a good example of this. The entire jist of this section is that there are no exact rules for depth of coverage; the "exact" amount of depth of coverage that a work should get is a case-by-case judgment call. However despite the guidelines being vague, the point is that coverage is a function of sources of notability; a subject that is barely notable should not be given several pages of text, while those that can be sourced many ways can be given a lot, but there is no attempt to define a ratio that is required to be met or not to be exceeded. --MASEM 16:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to say that Depth of coverage should be governed by the fiction's importance and to a lesser extent by the complexity of the narrative. That's all that needs to be said. A sprawling paragraph sprinkled with neologisms is unnecessary and damaging.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Identifying spinouts (Was: Partial revert)

I took out the good faith addition of "Articles which do not begin as sections of an article are not spinouts of that article." I think we can all agree that, for example, Arrakis is a spinout article of Dune universe, without having to go all the way back through the article histories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but we how should we distinguish between genuine spinouts (which exist because of size concerns) and articles which wouldn't have appeared as sections in a parent article? Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't (though at one point I offered up a "in-universe rationale" talk page template that would describe when and how the spinout was created). The idea is that barring any shifts in policy from here on out, all new spinouts and all existing non-notable lists can be brought to the same type of presentation, making it impossible to tell if the article started as a spinout or not, rendering the history of that article moot for the reader. --MASEM 15:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we need some way to do so. Far to many people attempt to claim something was a "spin-out" when in reality it never even existed in the main article and they just recreated it because they wanted to. It is fairly easy to tell if something started as a spin out or not by looking at the date it was created, then checking the main pages edits on the same date to see if it was there. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should require there to be a corresponding section in the parent article? It's common and beneficial to leave a {{main}} tag and sometimes a copy of the lead section behind in the main article when creating a spinout. So, for example, Companion (Doctor Who) is clearly a spinout of Doctor Who#Companions. We should probably also provide a template along the lines of User:Percy Snoodle/Spinout template which would identify spinouts and provide a link back to the parent article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See {{SubArticle}}, which barely survived TfD as recently as February. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be ideal. I do think it should appear at the head of the article (like a dab link) not on the talk page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have been fairly strongly in favor of this idea (using Template:SubArticle or another template with similar intent) from the begining of the rewrite of this guideline. It would serve to protect from AfDs that fail to make any argument beyond WP:N. Now that arbcom is completed and controversy about the cahnges here seem to be begining to decline, perhaps it's a good time to voice my opinions there. (If you read the discussion on that template, and the arbcom, it's a bit hairy, so I chose to wait.) -Verdatum (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Ok, I put forth my proposal here. It would potentially affect the content of this guidline, so it may be worth reading to interested parties. -Verdatum (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I further agree with percy's comment about the use of {{main}}. I believe this is defined within WP:SUMMARY. An article is only truely a spinout article if it is referenced by a parent article in a proper summary style. If it is not worth summarizing in the parent article, it is not worth existing as an "abandoned child" article. -Verdatum (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, identifying spinouts' sources in the lead section seems to have a fair amount of support, so how would people feel about replacing "Spinout articles should be judged as if it were still a section of the parent article, and identified in the lead section as an article covering elements within a fictional work." with "Spinout articles are an expanded version of a section of a parent article, and should be judged as if they took the place of that section. The parent section should link to the spinout, and the spinout should identify and link to the parent section in their lead section." Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Spinout of spinout

"It is usually inappropriate to spin out an element or elements from a spinout article that lacks real-world coverage." I had to read this passage a couple times before understanding it's intent. I have no strong specific arguments about the wording, but I wonder if it could be improved (IOW, I couldn't think of a better wording, but I suspect one might exist). My larger concern is, the statement begs the question "Why?" I think the idea is a reasonable compromise, because making a spinout from a spinout article (that is to say, a grandchild article) without real world coverage is a strong sign of undue weight towards plot elements. Perhaps a similar justification is sufficient and should be added to clarify/justify the statement. Thoughts? -Verdatum (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

more generally, because if the 1st level spinout doesnt have independent notability, a further level will probably be carrying the detail too far. But this is not at all true if , for example there is a spinout article on characters, and one or two of them are notable and the rest arent.DGG (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording does have to be revised, to cover the situation of breaking a List of characters in X article, to a list of minor characters in X and articles about individual notable characters. Any suggestions for wording? DGG (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If, in a list of characters, one or two have sufficient coverage to warrant an article, then those characters' articles wouldn't be spinouts; they'd be articles on a notable topic. If, on the other hand, they didn't, then it would be inappropriate to break them out of the spinout list article, In neither case is a spinout of a spinout appropriate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Guidance requested — inclusion criteria in list of ...

I and another editor are currently reworking an anime series's character articles and character list, and require an opinion as to when minor characters should be omitted from an character list:

• The applicable policies and guidelines are:

1. WP:NN, which states: "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content"; there are one exception (not applicable here).
2. The old version of WP:FICT[3], and the basis of that guideline; both of which is not active anymore, but I would argue still applicable, which states that "Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a 'List of characters.'". It also states "The difference between major and minor characters is intentionally vague; the main distinguishing criterion is how much nontrivial information is available on the character."
3. Again the deletion policy; which also states that "Trivial characters from major works should be deleted as unencyclopedic"
4. WP:WIAFL; which states that featured lists should be "Comprehensive". It does not explain the issue of trivial list items, though.
5. WP:V; which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability...", without specifying the need for secondary sources.
6. WP:FANCRUFT; which defines the term as "The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole."

• Taking the above into mind, it seems that minor characters should be included in the list, but might excluded when they are trivial.
• This leads to the question: When should a character be regarded as "trivial" and as such be omitted from the list: When they only appear in one scene? How about just in one episode? In just two episodes?

Regards, G.A.S 05:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note:If deemed necessary, please put this discussion on the fiction noticeboard

You won't find any general answers here or anywhere else in the guidelines. What you might do is mention how many episodes these characters have been in, and drum up some support for inclusion/exclusion of these particular characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What I would like to know is the current consensus in this regard – a more general guideline to work by – as opposed situation specific advice. Long ago the guideline helped in this regard, which makes this the obvious place to ask. G.A.S 08:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are getting into a realm where different philosophies clash. From my point of view, it is impossible for a general guideline to answer a question like this. Whether to include minor characters in a list needs to be determined on a situation specific basis. I could think of hypothetical instances where it would be appropriate to include a character that only appears in one episode, but I would not want a rule that one episode characters were always acceptable for inclusion. What is wrong with situation specific consensus? Ursasapien (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with situation specific consensus:) But I also figure that if I am struggling with this, that a lot of other editors are struggling as well. In any case, all guidelines include "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." — so I won't say that this is cast in stone. Which unfortunately brings me no closer to an answer. G.A.S 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for compromise: Give each major character that cannot support his own article, his own section, and bullet-point-summarize each non-major character in a section called "Minor characters". See Characters of Carnivàle (ignore the first two characters) for what I mean. Generally, only recurring characters (two-three episodes minimum) deserve mention at all, but still some one-time characters can be mentioned if they had major impact or are referenced a lot later on. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you can find a (verifiable) sentence to say about a minor character, do so; if all you have is a name, omit them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, the advice and example are greatly appreciated. G.A.S 10:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)