Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 26

Suggested rule of thumb

I mentioned this above in the context of spinouts, but I think it's a good rule of thumb we might want to reflect, or even say quite clearly, in the guideline:

“ If a fiction-related subject is notable, it will always be possible to include more in an article than plot summaries, in-universe information, and references from popular culture ”

This amounts to being able to say, at AfD, "if it's notable, you can write more than that plot summary; if you can't, it's not notable, *splat*", which frankly sounds good to me. SamBC(talk) 15:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - though given that the real-world information has to be verifiable through citations to reliable sources, isn't that equivalent to WP:N? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No; WP:N requires sources to be third-party and entirely independent of the source (so not connected to the author, publisher, etc), which WP:V/WP:RS doesn't require. There's some restriction as to how such sources can be used, but they can still be used. Notability is the only thing that requires sources to be third-party. Thus real-world analysis of a fictional element that is written by the author of the original fiction is fine for WP:V, AIUI, but not for WP:N. So information beyong plot, in-universe and pop-culture would be a necessary but not sufficient condition to pass WP:FICT in terms of what I'm saying. SamBC(talk) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So it would function like a weaker version of WP:N that allows for primary and non-independent sources? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Works for me. Also passes WP:KISS. That's exactly what I meant when I wrote WP:PLOT. Hiding T 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I was about to suggest I spend a little time working out where and how to work this in to the existing page, when it suddenly hit me that WP:FICT has gotten slightly... well... sprawl-ish and waffly. This hit me particularly when I was just reminded of WP:KISS. It even has one of the longest nutshells I've seen for a while! Is it maybe worth trying to pare it down to essentials, with more guidelines and less discussion? SamBC(talk) 22:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It was wordy before the last few weeks, it has gotten moreso recently, and I fully expected that a word trimming would be needed. I like the KISS statement above, and should be included. --MASEM 22:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that this proposed statement clears anything with a bit of sales or (often primary sourced) development info. Not sure if that was the intent or not. --erachima formerly tjstrf 02:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that? G.A.S 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We could clear that up by saying "... more in an article than plot summaries, in-universe information, promotional material and references from popular culture". Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I kinna like it! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me — and it would actually make a good nutshell. G.A.S 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Whatever we end up with, this is the sentiment it should express. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you added the but about promotional material, and "Articles that do not do so should be deleted", then I would fully support this. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will strongly caution about the "delete" phrase because that's basically why FICT has been unstable for close to a year. The fact that delete was given as the first option to deal with non-notable material is what ultimately led to the ArbCom cases through a series of editing wars. Ultimately, this information needs to be presented in a more acceptable form, deletion being the last resort, but to mention deletion in a nutshell is going to reverse the consensus we've build for the current version of FICT. --MASEM 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that is probably too strong. How about "Articles that do not do so, do not meet this notability guideline"? (or something equivalent, but less clunky) That way, it's up to the user to read WP:DEL themselves. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I like this, with or without the note about promotional material is fine, I think it really gets the point across pretty well. I haven't seen an issue with promotional material as an only source but that could just be because I haven't participated in enough AfDs. Stardust8212 13:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so an adjusted version is:

“ If a fiction-related subject is notable, it will always be possible to include more in an article than plot summaries, in-universe information, information from promotional material, and references from popular culture. ”

I don't think anything else is needed regarding deletion or non-notability, as that's implied by the "If a fiction-related subject is notable" at the beginning. I'm liking this more and more, especially in relation to my split approach suggestion below. The implication of it is that any article including only those elements may not be notable, but notability can still be demonstrated (possibly during the AfD) by addition of properly-source verifiable content other than those elements. SamBC(talk) 10:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Shorted version of FICT

I've taken the current FICT and done a major edit of text on it in my sandbox, included the above line in a couple of places. The reduced version, I feel , does not alter the approach taken with FICT now (yes, it includes non-notable spinouts, but written in a more discouraging manner). This can be found at User:Masem/fict2. --MASEM 05:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few suggested tweaks - feel free to revert them once you've seen them - and while I still think we should be saying "without real-world coverage" instead of "non-notable", it's much better. I think perhaps the above discussion (the KISS one) may be a more productive way forwards, though. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Working with what we have

Starting from what we have, what changes are needed? Adding the short & sweet version above as a nutshell seems like a good start. I'm not sure the second half of the third condition is well worded; it sounds like you could invent a character, but never use them in a fictional work, and that would make them notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• In which case, I must repeat my request for the removal of the controversial sections Notable groups of topics merit aggregate articles and Some topics are necessary to understand others, at least for the time being. I know they have been introduced to address particular problems, but since they conflict with the WP:NOTE's core principles, I dispute the assertion that there is a consensus to adopt them at this time. Either a technical solution that is more acceptable needs to be found or if there is no alternative, then they should only be adopted through a seperate review process (e.g. by RFC or Arbcom) because of their contraversial nature.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I was referring to the version Ursa found, not the one that it was reverted to - which also has the all fictional topics are notable section, that I would have thought you'd object to more strongly. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Gavin, the section of WP:NOTE you point to is the baseline that any subject may be measured against, and any topic meeting it is presumed to be notable; other notability guidelines, like this one if it's approved, are not only allowed, but actually supposed to give additional criteria that can be met instead of the general criteria. Hence the sports ones allowing anyone who's played professionally at a high enough level, and so on. If there's consensus (and I agree it needs to be broad) to consider certain things notable without meeting those general guidelines, then that's not contradictory of WP:NOTE. I quote: "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard" (emphasis mine), not and it meets any applicable subject specific standards. SamBC(talk) 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will point again that the version from a couple weeks back was nearly acceptable to all being representative of current accepted processes, there were a few small things being worked out. Trimming out the text like I have done with the addition of the KISS statement keeps the same approach and general direction. --MASEM 13:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think you are sidestepping my requrest and would like my objections about lack of formal process to be addressed. I understand both of these points, but I still believe these two sections are too controversial to be considered adopted without going through a distinct and formal approval process for each one. I am not sure there is specific evidence of concensus to include these sections at the present time, and I think there should be some procedure to establish that concensus has been established, other than your assertion that the rubicon has already been crossed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to the specific sections: 'notable groups' falls exactly in line with NOTE: if the grouping of fictional elements is shown to be notable (critical response to all the characters of a work, not just one, for example), there's no issue with that. This is very different from grouping non-notable elements and saying that the grouping is ok (the general spinout issue). We have FAs that demonstrate this approach. Mind you, I see this being no different from the general fictional notability clause (if it has secondary sources for real-world info, it's appropriate for an article), and thus not needed.

The second clause is also straight forward, as at least how Percy wrote it, it required notability to be established for the secondary article. However, I see this being no different from the general fictional notability clause either.

The issue of spinouts is the one where we have had established consensus since 2005 (the Minor Characters deletion policy), and is only reiterating the general approach: that under certain conditions, spinning out non-notable fictional elements can address WP:SIZE. The only major change that has been done in the more recent versions of FICT is the try to close loopholes that people would wikilawyer through (either way, for inclusion or deletion). I can only point you to the archives since about.. August of 2007?; we've had pages and pages of heated discussion, we've had an RFC, and basically prior to mid-March, since the Jan 27 new version went live, there was general agreement from both inclusionists and deletionists involved in this development that it appropriate, with only fine tuning of the spinout issue. I can't point you to anything else more concrete; you can walk through the deletion reviews, you look at WT:EPISODE where there was a huge RFC about non-notable episodes, you can look at both ArbCom cases on "Episodes and Characters"; these latter points should show you were a good portion of the inclusionists sit, and why FICT needs to maintain the limited allowance for non-notable spinouts in the short-term.

Basically, (again, not a personal attack, just a time reference) before you or Percy got involved, we were probably a few weeks away from a general RFC to move this from proposed to accepted. This is why I want to move back to the version before this point, and let it go through that process; if the RFC clearly shows that spinouts are a problem, then we'll fix that. Yes, we could present a version without spinouts, but my gut feeling based on the current attitude of the inclusionists is that if we present FICT without allowance for spinouts, they will take that as an afront, and while the RFC will fail, there could be more fallout. Instead, we present something of a fig branch that may rub against policy that should satisify the bulk of the inclusionists, and probably a reasonable number of deletionists, but may rattle the chains of a few that will shout "violation of PLOT and NOTE!". Fine, we can use the context of the larger RFC to discuss that, but at least out the gate, it will not seem like we are trying to remove all non-notable fictional coverage from WP (again, I have to note that I agree in the long term this is likely better for WP, but in the short term, this is a very bad proposition). --MASEM 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If we present FICT with the current allowance for spinouts - the one that allows absolutely all possible fictional articles, then that's a greater affront to the deletionists! It's hardly likely that the RFC would have passed under those circumstances. Yes, consensus wants some spinouts included, but there is not and never has been consensus to include them in that way, except among hard-line inclusionists and editors who don't understand the implications. I know you've put a lot of work into the spinouts exemption, but I'm afraid we can't proceed with it in place. We need to work out which spinouts to allow, and allow those, without commenting at all on the others. We can't start from a position where all spinouts are allowed, then merely discourage the ones we don't want. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We are a free content encyclopedia, so technically we should not allow any non-free image use, yet we do; there are several technical requirements for these (rationale, licensing, can't be outside mainspace, can't be of living persons), but once you get past the cut and dried tests that can be checked by a bot, the rest are necessarily vague because not all situations of non-free use are the same, though there are cases where acceptance pending all other technical merits is virtually guaranteed, and cases where its use will virtually be rejected. When I wrote my draft for the spinouts above, it is the same approach here: there's a few technical points (needs to obvioiusly a spinout, meets V/NOR/NPOV, etc.) but we can only go as far as saying that spinouts on non-notable fictional elements are generally avoided if at all possible, but if needed, identifying that here are a lot of acceptable uses, here are a lot of unacceptable uses, but again, at the end of the day, its a case-by-case evaluation. I hardly agree that allows for all spinouts, as you suggest it does; even though someone could wikilawyer a full article on a one-shot character, the requirements for that article would be so high that it would not last. Remember, we cannot stop the creation of such articles from a technical standpoint; we need to provide appropriate guidance that helps editors aware of the guidelines to generate them off the bat, and provide mechanisms to remove the ones that are patently bad per the spinout guideline.

That said, the only difference between these processes is that we can easily seek and tag images; spinouts are not as obvious. I've suggested way before the similar idea of a rationale for spinouts, which would categorized them and identify when and how the part was spun out and/or created from several merged elements, in which case people could review through the list of spinouts. I know that approach may be considered a problem because now all the appropriate spinouts are tagged, someone dead set on deletion can AFD each one, and people may not include that tag to begin with, though if we make sure that the first case doesn't happen such that putting the tag on "blesses" the article some additional protection if brought up in AFD ("Hey, we agreed before this spinout was appropiate for this case as shown here..."), its use would be better. --MASEM 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I a spinouts-with-rationales approach could be a solution to the loophole - but why make such a complicated system? We should just put the valid rationales here in WP:FICT, as circumstances under which articles are acceptable, and not bother with inventing a new class of article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We are never going to come up with a checklist of appropriate requirements that every possible valid spinout can be expected to make, just like we can't enumerate every possible fair use justification. Yes, we hardcode some acceptable and unacceptable uses, but someone may come up with a spinout that is completely appropriate, meets all other requirements for writing, but doesn't fit into a hard-coded category. Additionally, because of subjectiveness, one editor may feel that a spinout fails while another editor agrees. A rationale of some type at least allows for cases we cannot predict and a method of identifying that at least some editor believes the spinout to be appropriate as to start a discussion process should the spinout be brought up for deletion. This mirrors the NFC approach for images. --MASEM 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We very nearly already have. All that's left is spinout lists with insignificant coverage, and spinout elements that aren't essential to understanding the main topic. If there are any acceptable spinouts that that describes, I'd be very surprised - but if you can think of any, let's add them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember, this (as well as NOTE) are guidelines. We have to be descriptive and not prescriptive. This means, we cannot disallow any type of article just because it doesn't meet the general aspect of the guideline. I very much doubt that a spinout dealing with a non-notable minor character from a work of fiction is appropriate, however, we cannot rule out the possibility that someone will demonstrate such an article meeting all other guidelines and that it needs to be a spinout from a larger topic (again, I don't see how, but that possibility has to remain). Thus, the unfortunately equivalent statement to "we cannot disallow any type of article" is that "we have to allow any type of article", which I agree does open the door for technically any non-notable spinout. But that's our hands-tied part of being a guideline. The best we can do is note that while spinouts of non-notable elements have to be allowed for, they may ultimated be merged, trimmed, deleted, etc, if they don't possess certain other desirable quantities; certain arrangements of elements prove more acceptable than others, and failure to meet V/NOR/NPOV will also be considered grounds for removal. But because lack of notability is not grounds for speedy deletion for fictional elements, we cannot outright say that a spinout arranged as X is not allowed; we can say "strongly discouraged", "unacceptable" , and a bunch of other descriptive words, but outright banning such articles cannot be done at the guideline level. --MASEM 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, your argument is that spinout articles violate the general notability guideline. Perhaps I've missed this argument, but the entire point that allows us to use spinout articles is the wording of this same guideline. WP:N discusses the notability of a "topic" (emphasis quoted), while SPINOUT deals with the creation of articles. No where is it written/maintained (that I know of) that articles must be notable to fulfill inclusion criteria. The concensus of Notability as an inclusion criteria only relates to topics.

Concerning "formal process", there isn't one. The processes involved are WP:Concensus and WP:BOLD. It is generally prefered to stick to these methods when possible. If you believe these constructs have failed (which is an opinion you are certainly entitled to take), then WP Policy directs you to take the actions described at WP:DISPUTE. -Verdatum (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. There is no formal review process by arb-com. All we have is WP:CONSENSUS. That involves everyone working together, putting aside serious objections if they are the only objector and people working to a common cause. Wikipedia notability isn't a core principle, and one of the core principles of WP:NOTE is that it bows to subject specific notability guidance. That's because subject specific guidance came first, and WP:N grew from what they held in common. Hiding T 08:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Of course you can claim that consensus has alreay been reached but this assertion must be disputed. I don't see how there how you can claim their is consensus for these two categories of article because I believe that that aggregates and spinoff articles about topics that have no evidence of notability per se is contraversial from the wider perspective of WP:NOT#PLOT. You can also claim that aggregates and spinoffs are in accordance with with WP:NOTE, but I disupute this claim as POV; I think the justification for these categories of articles is muddled and mistplaced. The argument for changing the guideline to fit with current practise is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog. I think the problem is that there is no mechanism for strictly enforcing WP:FICT (at AfD for example) and this is the reason why so many spinoff and aggregate articles have sprung up like weeds in a lawn. Just because aggregates and spinoffs exist is not a good reason for watering down WP:FICT; loosening the editorial guidelines is like drinking sea water laced with the salt of synthesis, a problem that will get worse unless the guidelines are clear, and actually proscibe aggregates and spinoff of topics with unproven notability, rather than permitting them. I think overall that WP:FICT has been watered down, rendering it ineffective. Serious editors will have to look to WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF for guidance on fictional because aggregates and spinoffs as currently described are anomolies and a licence to spam synthesis of primary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

First, you should really work on spelling and grammar if you want your desire to improve the encyclopedia to be taken seriously. Perhaps, if you typed your responses in an external editor and then copied the text into your post, you would have a better result. Second, guidelines are supposed to be “descriptive” not “proscriptive”. In other words, WP:FICT should detail what a consensus of editors have found to be best practice, not what a cabal of guideline writers believe should be followed. WP:N is not the absolute law. Even WP:PLOT is subject to interpretation. You seem to be most comfortable in a world of strict rules, narrow interpretations, and absolute adherence. This is not the world of Wikipedia. We keep articles like Spoo, because the community of editors thinks it belongs and the rules be damned. Part of the basic spirit of this institution is ignore the rules when the rules do not make sense.

I think we have gone far off course in this discussion. I am trying to figure out where to post this, but the discussion is not really about “spin-out” or “aggregate” articles that do not meet notability standards. The issue, when it comes to fiction, is and has been list articles. One can not discuss a notable television series without discussing the individual episodes that make up that series. One can not adequately discuss a notable novel without having some discussion of the characters in the novel. Sometimes these elements will not fit in the primary article about the notable work of fiction. However, these elements are not notable in and of themselves, particularly in a dozen separate stubby articles. So consensus has turned to allowing list articles that contain these elements but avoid splitting the information up in to many smaller articles. This is the compromise we have reached. We will not have hundreds of separate articles on all these elements of fiction, but we will allow neat list articles of these same elements. I think this is a great compromise, but your mileage may vary. Ursasapien (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• You might take a look around wikpedia and its articles. The "tail" (articles) wagging the "dog" (FICT) is thousands of article editors disagreeing with tens (to be generous) of guideline editors. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• You will always find that other stuff exists, but good guidelines will help everyone in the long term. I think we have to firm, otherwise thousands of editors will be making additions to articles which will probably get transcribed to the Annex when they thought they were adding to Wikipedia mainspace. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't expect to get any traction on this page, but "Other Stuff Exists" is only valid when following guidelines, not writing guidelines. If thousands of articles and editors contradict a guideline it means the guideline needs to reexamined, not the thousands of articles. Descriptive and not prescriptive and all that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that guidelines need to be continuously improved, but in this case the principles of the guideline need to run against the current trend of spamming topics without evidence of notability, rather than running with it. My point is that articles based on synthesis have a limited shelf life as, over time, they will be deleted or merged into topics in which synthesis has been replaced with real-world content based on reliable seondary sources. Having a guideline that permits aggregates and spinoffs goes against this trend, and is dishonest because gives the impression that somehow that they are good practice, when in fact the opposite is true.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is WP:N per-topic or per-article?

After all, the language in the guideline itself (WP:N) is inconsistent, to the point where I generally read it as referring to topics, but presuming that there is a 1-1 correspondence between topics and articles. SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly other guidelines indicate that the basic concept of a spinout is acceptable, which would then imply, to me, that either the spun-out subject must be considered as a separate topic, or that this 1-1 assumption is broken. SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, we can't decide what WP:N means, in a general sense, here. However, we must try to decide how we will interpret it. I am leaning towards, for the sake of simplicity, interpreting "notable" as "meriting a wikipedia article". This would mean defining per-topic notability here in such a way as to define spinoutable subjects as notable. SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I've been using the word. WP:N makes clear that there's a difference between 'notability' and 'having coverage'. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

However, this notability need not be completely freestanding. Awards are considered evidence of notability in many subject-specific guidelines, but I suspect that any award that was acceptable for that purpose would be, itself, considered notable, and any that wasn't acceptable wouldn't. Thus, the subject in that case is, in some sense, "inheriting" notability from the award, just not in the sense usually meant by "notability is not inherited". SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So why not specify that subjects may be notable if they are closely associate with a notable subject and meet some other criteria, which are not as strict as the general notability criteria or the WP:FICT (or other) subject-specific criteria? My "rule of thumb" above would be one such criterion, and some others can be and- and or-ed together to produce something generally acceptable and descriptive of at least the non-controversial existing spinouts. We then need to come up with two cleanly separated sets of criteria: to determine independently notable fictional elements, and to determine acceptable spinouts. Keeping them clearly separated separates associated debates, and makes use of the guideline once it's accepted much more simple. SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - that's exactly how we should be going about things. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, here's my practical suggestion; forget what we have now, although we can refer to it. Forget all the crazy back-and-forth debates. Agree between us that we will work in that framework (that I outlined above), and start putting together the two lists of criteria. Then try to work them into fresh prose, and build the guideline up around that. How about it? SamBC(talk) 12:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to make sure that it's not just me and Percy, let's have people indicate their agreement or lack of:

People agreeing to "fresh start" approach suggested by SamBC

1. Agree, naturally. SamBC(talk) 12:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Agree becuase this is a good way of clarrifying whether the changes since January 27th make sense or not. My opposition to the current guideline is based on the view that it is an anomaly that it permits two categories of articles call aggregates and spinoffs about topics that have no evidence of notabilty per se, which conflicts with other guidelines. It is clear there is no evidence that consensus has been reached for the changes that have occured since January 27th. However, if this process reveals that aggregates and spinoffs for topics without evidence of notability per se is the best way forward, then my current thinking may need to change. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

People who disagree that this is a good idea

1. Disagree Not trying to be a killjoy, but we already had a "fresh start" in December/January, and what we have now (or what we had last month) is the result of that fresh start. I doubt that a new fresh start will result in anything much different. I will also say that since spinouts are such a subjective topic, there will be always be a bit of "strong" disagreement, at least in the near future. So we are either forced to live with the middle ground, or will never come to an agreement (the latter of which seemed to be the case until Masem served as a voice of reason to the hopelessly opinionated discussions). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
   • Note that I am not against such attempts per se. But I am thinking this can be done in parallel and not as throw-everything-over-board-and-start-fresh, and if it works, it can be adopted/included. If it doesn't work for whatever reason, it wouldn't do much harm of what we currently have. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
     • That's a reasonable point; I didn't actually mean delete what we've got, I actually meant more of a work-in-parallel. I realise now that was not at all clear. SamBC(talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Disagree - Starting a new is throwing months of good and consensus work just because of one bit. I don't think anyone disagrees that absolutely clearly, notable fictional topics with secondary sources are clearly appropriate. Trying to work above the meaning in notability, this route (at least for topics) has been suggested (by Nydas for one), and would be similar to WP:MUSIC and WP:FILM notability paths (aka "an album published by a notable group"). That idea may be good in theory of fiction, but the problem is two fold: people's appreciation for certain works will make them "notable" in their minds, and would make notability defined this way highly subjective, and that at the end of the day, any non-"coverage by secondary sources" route for notability still needs to meet the five pillars, which means both WP:V and WP:PLOT have to be met; a vague "meriting an article" would aggriviate the situation. We have been looking for clear concise rules like this that avoid subjectivity and will end up with a good encyclopedic article and there's no strong case for any, save for "major character from a work discussed in an academic publication" and even that may be a bit lax. On the spinouts, I agree that this needs a separate guideline which I've already proposed before. --MASEM 13:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
   • We're not suggesting that we assert that a topic that "merits an article" is notable. We're explaining that the meaning of "notable" is "merits an article", not "has coverage". To say that a non-notable topic merits an article is a contradiction in terms - but that's not to say that a topic without coverage is automaticall non-notable. WP:MUSIC and WP:FILM don't say that non-notable subtopics should be included, they say that under certain conditions, subtopics are notable. We're not being vague, we're being precise. As regards moving talk of spinouts elsewhere, where they can be disputed separately, I've agreed before. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
     • I understand that, but that's the point that we've tried before and there's no easy other approaches to defining notability for fictional articles that has a high guarentee of an article that meets all other WP criteria. Example, it's been suggested "major characters in major works of fiction are notable". Assuming major is understood, this provides such a criteria, but when it comes to writing the article for that character, it may end up that only primary sources exist for that character, or that given a "blank page" to write about the character, editors may end up engaging in OR and POV pushing. Now, if you're suggesting that we're trying to define that list of normally non-notable elements is "notable", that's not a good approach because how WP already uses notable is confusing to many folks. We want to say that certain spinouts meet WP's inclusion guidelines; remember that notability is not the only measure of this. --MASEM 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
       • But no notability requirements ensure that an article meets all other policies and guidelines. They don't need to. Notability isn't a shortcut to ensuring those policies. If a marginal spinout were allowed under this guideline but still failed WP:NOR or WP:V, for example, then it could be deleted or whatever on those grounds. Also, the only policy or guideline I know of that excludes primary source completely (and then only from its own consideration) is WP:N. WP:NOR allows primary sources quite happily, with caveats. So, to have an article, a topic must be notable and it must be possible to write an article that meets other requirements. SamBC(talk) 14:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
       • We want to say that certain spinouts meet WP's inclusion guidelines, but we don't want to do that by making all spinouts - which is effectively all articles - acceptable. You claim there are no easy approaches, but I've put forward two that only Gavin objects to. We can cover the rest of the cases without giving all spinouts a free pass. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
     • My view is that we could cease to view some of what are currently considered spinouts as spinouts; they would be notable as articles themselves, but notable because of their relationship with something unquestionably notable. The phrase "merits an article" wouldn't appear in the form of guideline I'm suggesting, just in this discussion in order to clarify what we're meaning by notable. Existing consensus-supported guidelines indicate that "has significant third-party coverage" is not the definition of notable, just the only accepted universally-applicable criterion to discern it. It is sufficient but not necessary. SamBC(talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
       • And this I think is bad approach and not necessary. Notable is a meausure applied to a topic of whether that topic should be included. Spinouts should not be creating their own topic (that is, a spinout on a single fictional element) unless they are notable, per this. Spinouts of several non-notable elements that fall within a larger topic cannot be judged by notability because this spinout is not a new topic; again WP:N makes a strong distinction between topic-level and article-level for this. We need another yardstick, and that's why I agree that we need a spinout guideline just like our non-free content guidelines which judges the spinout's appropriateness to be included, with the key thing that spinouts should be written as supplementary coverage of a topic, and should, unless notable, be a topic to themselves. It does not bend or create a new aspect of notability. --MASEM 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
         • Argh, do I have to say this again? Spinout articles have spinout topics. WP:N applies to the topics of articles, so it applies to the spinout topics of spinout articles. Considering the topic of a different, notable article instead of the topic of the spinout means that all spinouts are included. All of them. Each and every one. Anything, at all, that anyone has made up, so long as it is related to a fictional work and isn't a copyvio. Some spinouts are desirable, but we can include them without including all the rest; we can do that by describing them in our rules here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
           • There is not enough guidance presently to say that a spinout is its own topic or not. This may be a key point to see if this has been considered in the past (not just FICT). --MASEM 14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
             • It may. The closest thing I can see is note 6: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." This is the other way round - but here an article on a topic is considered to be a separate article to one on a "broader topic"; in other words, an article on a spinoff topic is considered to be a separate article to one on a main topic. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
               • I can see it that way too. I am taking the viewpoint above, however, of what inclusionists will look for if we try to require spinoffs being their own topic, because we need to be able to respond to those arguments as well. My best answer is that the approach of how a spinoff is written is what determines if it it is its own topic or not; the fewer the details and the more support provided to the parent topic, the less likely the spinout is its own topic. --MASEM 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
                 • The unfortunate thing there is that that still leaves down to personal opinion as to whether the spinout is its own article or not, so the creators of an article will always say it is one; and so all possible articles are still included. That's going to be true of any approach where we start from a position of saying "spinouts are OK with exceptions" and spell out the exceptions. We have to say "spinouts are acceptable under these circumstances" and explain the circumstances. We should also add a justification of why each circumstance is beneficial, so that deletionist editors can see why they're needed, if we're to get agreement on them. You claim elsewhere that it's an impossible task, but we're actually most if not all of the way there with the first three circumstances that the article describes (notable topic, notable group, essential topic). Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
                   • I suggest you go back to the fictional spinout guidelines I drafted. I listed 3 cases of "generally acceptable" and 3 cases of "rarely acceptable" cases of non-notable spinout lists, any case not listed has to be considered on its own to the other approach the guidelines give (relevance and style). See the comment I made above too: a guideline cannot be prescriptive, we cannot limit what articles can be created, we can only warn editors that articles not generally accepted as a whole will be likely deleted because of relevance and/or style. --MASEM 01:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                     • Those guidelines cases - while preferable to a blanket exemption for all fictional articles - were phrased in terms of the topic of the article: whether the article was about an episode, or a character, or whatever. We shouldn't say "series are generally notable" or "episodes are generally not notable", because the appropriate level of detail is different for different works. Notability guidelines need to be phrased in terms of the importance or benefit of a topic. That has to be shown by citations to reliable sources - not necessarily real-world coverage, but verifiable statements about the topic. Whether the topic is about a series or a fictional weapon is irrelevant to notability; what matters is the real-world significance of the topic. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                       • Notable spinouts don't need to follow those at all. Once you should notability through secondary sources, then the article should be structured best to talk about that notability - if the notability is on the whole character cast, you don't talk about each character in its own article, but only in one, a character list, for example. But if you can't demonstrate notable for any in-universe aspect, these spinout guidelines take over and suggest spinout types that work or don't work in terms of being generally acceptable and how such articles survive through AFD; the groupings (aka "topic" though I disagree with that) are what best works to avoid dozens of extraneous articles on in-universe information. But again, once notability through sources is shown, the spinout guideline is no longer applicable. --MASEM 13:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                         • You are confusing 'notability' and 'coverage' again. The aggregate and essential sections are for spinouts that lack sufficient coverage to meet WP:N - in the case of aggregate articles, because the coverage is not of the list topic but rather the individual elements, and in the case of essential articles because the coverage is trivial in size. You still haven't shown that there are any spinouts that don't fall into one of those categories that we should keep - can you give any examples of a group that has insufficient coverage, even on aggregate, or an element that is non-essential, that it would be appropriate to keep? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                           • The aggregate case is one thing; basically saying that either the grouping (the topic) has notability through sources, or a significant portion of the elements of the grouping have sources; the first case is already covered, the second case can be seen as an extension of this, and I think the second case is just a one-sentence addition to the general case of notability, but this is where Gavin's point comes in place: there needs to be a threshhold quantity of how many elements are notable; one notable character among 100 is not a good list; likely the alternative is to have a non-notable list of characters with sub-articles for the notable characters. The "essential to understanding" case, I believe, is basically saying that "source X says that Y is important to understanding the work of fiction, thus an article on Y should exist". This is basically saying "Y is notable", it's just calling out a special type of coverage, that Y is "essential". Thus, I think this is duplicative. [break]
                             • Perhaps it is, if you read WP:N with an extremely inclusionist eye. A strict reading of WP:N doesn't admit those types of coverage, and so we should provide guidance here on the reading that best fits consensus. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                           • But now let me address your question of a grouping that lacks aggregate sourcing or sourcing to stated essentialness, and that should be kept, and that should be as an approximately line, any list of major, or minor/recurring, or both, characters from a serial/multiple entry work, a list of episodes or chapters from a serial/multiple entry work, or an article describing the universe/setting of a serial/multiple entry work (pulling from my spinout guideline). Those articles, 90% of the time, will never have secondary sources or coverage (aka non-notable), though will at times will be necessary to support the topic of the work of fiction itself (though again, no source is present to say this). These are elements that, ignoring SIZE, would be covered as part of the article of the work of fiction, so spinning them out to a new article is not changing why they have been included. This is the fundamental argument of why certain types of spinouts lacking any coverage (aka non-notable) need to be allowed. --MASEM 14:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                             • You say they are "necessary to support the topic of the work of fiction itself" but that "no source is present to say this". If a source doesn't say it, then it's just the editor's point of view that it should be included - this isn't an acceptable reason, as evidenced by the rules against POV and content forks. In general, however, the relevant sources do exist. If a an article on a fictional topic has not been given undue weight, then its sections contain citations describing their real-world siginificance, and can be spun out without violating WP:N. Your figure of "90% of the time" has no basis in fact. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
         • I can't help feeling that we're now talking at cross-purposes. I'm not talking about dealing with all instances of spinouts; people mean different things when they talk about spinouts, and I'm now talking about those items that may be considered spinouts but could be seen as notable. What is notable is not completely determined by WP:N; WP:N sets out criteria that can judge anything, but allows that more specific guidelines might allow things that WP:N on its own would forbid. So an article on a character that might not meet any straight notability criteria, but is in a notable book, film, universe, whatever and meets some other requirements that we agree indicate notability, then it can be seen as notable. It might not have the coverage required by WP:N, but still be able to generate a good article within WP:V and WP:NOR, etc. SamBC(talk) 14:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
         • Also, I disagree that WP:N makes the strong distinction between topic and article; it's written in a very unclear way that can be interpreted in a number of ways. Percy makes a good point of subarticles having "subtopics" that can be rated in themselves. After all, your suggestion would mean simply having to draw a line from whatever-you-want-an-article-on to something that is notable, and no further requirements. That would mean almost everything being acceptable. Also, I assume that "should, unless notable, be a topic to themselves" should be "should not, unless notable, be a topic to themselves". SamBC(talk) 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
           • Ignoring anything with spinouts at the present, if there is a criteria that you are suggesting here, it needs to be nearly absolutely objective. There will be large biases for certain types of fiction if such criteria are objective; look at the history of Spoo staying as an FA for an example of when such fan-biases come into play. Trying to find any criteria that don't have a bias of that approach is very very difficult, and is an exercise we've gone through before with no luck. The most objective criteria ends up being back at NOTE: "significant coverage in secondary sources". If we can find other non-subjective criteria, great, but we've tried before without luck. --MASEM 14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
             • Well, the other notability guidelines give some indication. The Spoo article isn't so much an issue of a failure of objective criteria, it looks to me like a failure of reasonable application of half of the guideline's and policies on wikipedia, followed by application of circular reasoning. But one farce doesn't prove anything. SamBC(talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Disagree, we've aleady had a fresh start. Hell we've probably had give since the one in December, because as soon as get near consensus and something workable, arguments start all over again. *sigh* AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
   • The point is to try to understand why arguments always start and work around any (and hopefully all) underlying issues. My suggestion might not be the best way to do that, or even a good way, but the point isn't so much the "start again" (as I indicated in a reply above) as it is about the structure and strategy I'm talking about. The current structure and strategy has left us with a complex, long, and verbose guideline that people can't seem to easily agree on how to clean up and get back on track. So, let me ask, ignoring the "start again" issue, what do you think of the structure and strategy being put forward? SamBC(talk) 15:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
     • Who knows anymore? In less than a week, we've had at least TWENTY different topics on this page started. How anyone can figure out what's being put forward or follow any discussion is a miracle. Its no wonder so many have dropped out of the conversation and just given up trying to hammer things out. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
       • Exactly. That's what I'm trying to fix, in a number of ways; put aside (for now, for this page) the question of all spinouts, and of spinouts as a distinct category. Focus discussion onto identification of discrete criteria, as featured on most of the other specific notability guidelines. Not fifteen threads about spinouts, which seem inherently able to generate controversy. SamBC(talk) 15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Disagree - This version doesn't even really represent actual practice but it's the closest thing that bridges what the few editors here want and the thousands out there want. Every month a few new editors show up here and want to "tighten" things up, that's (and this) is nothing new. When this guideline is actually enforced, then the other side shows up. Welcome to FICT. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Disagree Some might notice that I've taken a break from this page for the past few weeks. From what I've been able to catch up on, I can't say that "starting fresh" is a good idea. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Another one for the opposition. While I can sympathize with the editors who are newer to this page and feel a bit disenfranchised because they weren't here when the original consensus was established, we cannot restart from square one every time a new face arrives. Consensus is community consensus, not just the consensus of whoever is on the page that day, and at this point, in order to throw out the current background discussions we would need evidence of a significant shift in the opinions or demographics of the community as a whole. (If it's any consolation, a lot of the people who were involved in the earlier stages of the discussion started out far more opposed to the idea of spinout articles than any of the current editors here appear to be.) --erachima talk 07:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
   • When I contributed to the debate about this guideline in early January, aggregates and spinoffs were not even being discussed; I thought consensus had been reached back then. Since the radical changes which have taken place since January 27th are still being debated, I would say this is evidence that the opposite of what you state is true. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
     • But they were in the guideline; at that point, we were calling them subarticles, and as I've mentioned, that allowance for some quality of non-notable spinouts (in spirit) has been in FICT from day one it was created. This entire explosion of discussion came about when Percy wanted to add language that including requiring spinouts to be notable, which went against what we had worked out as a point of agreement. --MASEM 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
       • I think that Percy's intent was (or at least now is) not to require them to be notable (in the sense of the general criteria at WP:N), but to sidestep the idea of "non-notable content" by defining certain types of (what has been referred to as) spinout's as articles on notable topics themselves. That avoids the idea of saying "these things are okay, despite being non-notable". Don't forget that WP:N gives the criteria "of last resort" and subject-specific notability guidelines can define things as notable that don't meet the WP:N criteria. SamBC(talk) 13:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
         • Yes - that's correct. My issue with these guidelines isn't that I want to require spinouts to show significant, real-world coverage; it's that I don't want to give them a blanket exemption. The coverage/notability confusion was responsible for a lot of the initial discussion, but I hope we're past that now. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

People who don't mind care anymore, and will go along with it get on with editing the encyclopedia

1. Meh - I am taking a break from working on guidance to get on with improving some articles to GA and FA. I think this pursuit is quickly becoming a "caucus race" with editors running around in a circle, expending great energy but not accomplishing anything. Ursasapien (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A vague skeleton to indicate what is intended

Okay, so here I'm trying to cut confusion. What follows is an attempt at indicating what the guideline, or part of it, would look like under my suggestion:

A fictional element or topic may be considered notable either in and of itself, or due to close connection to a topic that is notable in and of itself.

To be considered notable in and of itself, a topic must:

• Criterion...
• And another
• etc...

To be considered notable in close connection to a topic that is notable in and of itself, a topic must have a close relationship with a topic that meets the above criteria, and:

• Oh look,
• Some criteria
• etc...

We would then have an explanation of the "close relationship", and fit the "rule of thumb" in somewhere. The point is firstly that there's two cleanly separated lists, and that lists/aggregates aren't specifically referred to. True spinouts, due to size/style, can be handled in a separate guideline as people have suggested. SamBC(talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists

I just want to put a thought out there and see what people think. This guidelines doesn't need to, nor should it attempt to, cover lists of fictional elements. Lists have a separate understanding of inclusion and are generally considered separately, at WP:LIST primarily, I believe. The guideline shouldn't mention them, IMO, except to disclaim relevance to them and point to the general list guideline, and possibly (at a later date) a separate guideline for lists of fictional elements. SamBC(talk) 09:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LIST is a style guide, not a notability guide; I'm not sure there is a general list notability guide. Perhaps there should be, but until there is, this is the closest match for lists of fictional elements. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, Percy. So are lists an exception to notability? The only guidance we have are essays that warn of the dangers of using lists to get around policies/guidelines. Ursasapien (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

With or without the current version of WP:FICT? Without the current version of WP:FICT, and without a more specific guideline, lists are covered by plain old WP:N, and have to show coverage of their topic: the class of things they are a list of. Under the current WP:FICT, lists of fictional elements are always notable, as are all fictional articles, because they can be considered to be a spinout. Other lists still have to meet WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk)

I'm not sure that you can say all articles on fiction-related subjects can be considered spinouts. Spinouts must have a parent article that they point back to (and in my mind a particular section in that parent article). [break]

That's also a style requirement, not a notability requirement. Unless spinouts without the relevant templates are speedily deleted, all possible articles are exempted from notability. Even if they are, then (a) an interested user can just add the template, and (b) if we're really to treat them as parts of the parent article, it would have to be possible for a non-admin to delete them, which it isn't. As it stands, absolutely all fictional articles are exempted from notability because an editor who likes them can cry spinout. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I also do not believe all editors consider lists to be subject to WP:N, as evidenced by common practice and this essay. Ursasapien (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Common practise in AFDs is certainly to argue from a notability POV. You mention that there are "essays that warn of the dangers of using lists to get around policies/guidelines" which seems to suggest that lists are subject to guidelines and policies. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting suggestion, one that deserves some consideration. Are lists spin-out/sub-articles? Do lists need to establish notability? What is/is not a list? Our articles titled "List of episodes" and "List of characters" contain much more text than in a typical list article. What do others think of this suggestion? Ursasapien (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Up until November, I strongly felt that lists of fictional items succumb to WP:FICT like any other fiction-related article, but I am not so sure anymore. Also, WP:FAC/WP:FLC often direct you to the opposite candidacy page when you want to nominate your list-article. In short: The lines are totally unclear, and I now prefer to err on the save (inclusionist) side when it comes to lists, at least until wikipedia has a firmer standing on this issue. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A common feeling seems to be that lists are not articles, they just share the namespace. Articles that look like lists is another matter, I suppose, but the main thing about lists is that they are mainly handled case by case. However, if we were to apply WP:N et al. to lists, what would we apply them to? They apply to the suject of the article, or to the topic. What is the topic in question in, to give a hypothetical example, "List of Minor Characters in MyFavouriteTVShow"? Or to think about the broader question so we can see our place in it, "List of Fooologists"? My first assumption would be "MyFavouriteTVShow" and "Fooology", respectively, and then the issues of each list's criteria for inclusion apply. However, without a general view of lists across wikipedia, I think it's best to specifically not touch them. It also allows us to leave one major area of debate for later, and get something out the door. SamBC(talk) 12:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that lists need to be about (or in regards to) a notable topic (or subject), but the individual items on the list need not be notable themselves. (Words to this effect exist on one of the guidelines for lists, but I forget which one.) The canonical List of minor characters in Dilbert is a prime example of this. Dilbert is highly notable, but the primary reason why the list of minor characters exists is because they aren't individually notable. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure this is entirely true; you could edit the List of minor characters in Dilbert so that there it only comprises of characters with proven notability, since a List of characters in Dilbert with unproven notability would probably be deleted as listcruft. What I think is absent from this discussion is that there seems to be a lot of confusion between lists, aggregates and spinoffs. In my view, List of minor characters in Dilbert is an example of an aggregate, which started life as a list of topics with proven notability, to which content comprised of plot summary based on synthesis was later added. Spinoffs take this process one step further - they are in my view, are single topic which have been moved from an aggregate to its own article, or moved directly from a list of topics with unproven notablity to its own article without the intermediary step of being part of an aggregate. I think aggregates and spinoffs should be proscribed by WP:FICT, because they fall outside the scope of WP:LIST.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting directly from WP:SAL (another guideline, and not strict "policy", of course):

"Ideally each entry on a list should have its own Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." --Craw-daddy | T | 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And combine this with this statement from WP:N, where the emphasis is mine:

"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). 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."

--Craw-daddy | T | 10:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure if I am agreeing or disagreeing with you here, but the reason may be that the List of minor characters in Dilbert may have started life as just that, a simple list, but has subsequently been expanded into more than just a simple list which now qualifies it as an aggregate. What should have happened along the way is that reliable sources should have been added or the OR should have been edited out. Because WP:FICT does not proscribe the expansion of lists into aggregates based on original research or synthesis, this list falls between two stools, and this is key issue that needs to be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NOR and WP:SYN prohibit that. WP:FICT doesn't need to restate them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• This issue is probably closely related to the debate at WP:EPISODE, where the same process occurred: lists of episodes developed into agrregate articles on episodes, which then became spinoff articles about episodes.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• ...which is fine, if those episodes are notable. Whether or not a topic is notable is independent of whether or not it has been spun off from a notable parent topic; that's why the spinouts section we have is in error. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you on this point.(phew) --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

CD: That bold section, which summarises WP:NNC, applies only to the individual elements of the list - it doesn't exempt the list article as a whole from notability. I hope that I've described the usual approach to determining whether the topics of list articles meet notability, in the groups section of the current WP:FICT - so the topic of List of minor characters in Dilbert, which is "minor characters in Dilbert", is notable because there is sufficient coverage, considered as a whole or across the individual elements. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you here. I wasn't attempting an argument to the contrary. The topic of the list needs to be notable, but not every individual item on the list. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Again, I am not sure if I agree or disagree with you. A plain vanilla List of minor characters in Dilbert is probably notable as a single topic per se, but only when that list was strictly a list. However, since the list has been expanded into an aggregate article on multiple topics of unproven notability comprised of plot summary based on synthesis, it now fails WP:NOTE. To rectify this situation, it should be restored to being a simple list, or the non-list content needs to be moved into an article called Minor characters in Dilbert, where the notability issues need to be addressed. Would you agree that is what needs to happen? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• No. Vanilla lists add little or nothing to Wikipedia; they're not informative, they're usually used as linkfarms, and composing the list is almost always an act of synthesis. WP:LAUNDRY has more reasons why vanilla lists are often undersirable. However, lists with a lead section that defines the inclusion criteria, a small (verifiable, real-world perspective) section on each entry, and perhaps a section at the end to summarize the lesser entries, are greatly beneficial. They allow us to include minor topics such as the characters in a work without having to have an article on each one, which would give the minor topics undue weight; and their lead sections provide a place where a (verifiable, real-world perspective) article on the overarching topic of the list can grow. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree again here. The problem with List of minor characters in Dilbert isn't one of notability. It's the (somewhat minor) OR that's present in that article (or what seems to be OR that lacks some sourcing.) --Craw-daddy | T | 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• In which case, I would have thought that the section on aggregate articles is redundant; such artilces need to be renamed and recategorised as lists, and the section Notable groups of topics merit aggregate articles should be dropped. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• That doesn't follow. A list-like article which is nonetheless not a list (e.g. Stargate SG-1 (season 1)) should not be labelled as a list. The section on aggregate articles explains how lists and list-like articles of fictional works or elements should be judged; It's not redundant, because a strict reading of WP:N doesn't allow for coverage of the individual elements, only coverage of the list topic. Consensus would seem to be that that strict reading is not the desired one, so the aggregates section clears that up. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would argue that Stargate SG-1 (season 1) is an article about a notable television season (althought that is debateble) with a list of episodes embeded in it. If season 1 was not notable, the list could stand alone as a list. I still do not why you need to have aggregate articles.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Aggregate articles - lists and list-like articles - allow us to include minor topics such as the characters in a work without having to have an article on each one, which would give the minor topics undue weight; and they provide a place where a (verifiable, real-world perspective) article can grow. Starting with a list, there may come a point when the content about the overarching topic is too great for the lead section of a list article, but not yet demonstrating sufficient notability for an article of its own. The resulting article still has the benefit of a list, but isn't strictly a list, and it would be inappropriate to remove the (verifiable, real-world perspective) content to force it to make it more "listy". To stay with my example, we could have an article on season 1 of Stargate, and a separate list of episodes of season 1 of stargate - but it's preferable to combine the two. If you'd prefer "list or list-like article" to "aggregate" article, I'm fine with that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the underlying principle is flawed; for example, the series won many awards, but I don't think that the season is notable per se. My view is that there are no notable seasons or episodes, only a series with a lot of notability, and unless reliable secondary sources can be found for the season itself (e.g. content is not inherited from series), then that article is likely to be merged Stargate itself, and the episodes placed in a list. Perhaps this is a bad example, but I think we need to be clear that an article should be about a single identifiable topic which is notable, and that a list is about multiple topics, which may or may not be notable. Aggregates fall between the two, and as such act as coatracks for synthesis, mainly plot summary. Such article are ultimately destined to be merged back to their overarching topic (see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft universe which has since been merged. I think I will conclude by saying that Aggregate articles are content forks which are created to accomodate plot summary. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Others would disagree. Here's just one example: Homer's Phobia. This episode won awards, including an Emmy. The "reception" section shows both positive and negative reaction to that particular episode. <shrug> Your mileage may vary. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's a correct reading of the guidelines as I understand them, but doesn't reflect the consensus on what articles to include. That's why we need the section on aggregates - to bring guidelines in line with consensus. I realise that's an argument you don't accept ("tail wagging the dog", above) so I suppose this is where we have to agree to disagree. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I feel duty bound to challenge that there is a consensus because most aggregate articles like Companions of the Hall are really terrible, and I think even you would agree that this is a good example of why this section needs to be dropped, and the guidelines tightened, not loosened. Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companions of the Hall, which parallels this debate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you're now saying "a lot of this sort of article exist that are crap, so that sort of article shouldn't be allowed". This is somewhat akin to saying "some people drink too much and cause problems, so we should ban alcohol". Never mind the fact that you are suggesting guidelines be pr[eo]scriptive, rather than descriptive. SamBC(talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, that's a really bad example for you to choose. That article was kept at AFD, so the consensus was to include that article. However, I agree that that article should be sourced far better; it only has two refs, and they're both for the same character. That's a point which I may not have addressed - that the coverage for lists shouldn't all be of the same few entries - so thank you for bringing that to my attention. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually it was addressed up to a point, but it's good to check these things. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Its a good example of a bad aggregate in my view. The article was kept (bad decsision in my view) because the current guideline is too wishy-washy when it comes to the amount of plot summary that is allowed. You can see it is still a terrible article because it repeats plot from the overarching article. Unfortunetly it is the type of content fork that will be exempted from WP:NOTE if we retain the section Notable groups of topics merit aggregate articles, which is why I would like to see this section dropped. In answer to SamBC, my earlier analogy that permitting aggregates and spinoffs is like drinking seawater of synthesis is better than your analogy that I am trying to ban alcohol. If we allow this section to be retained, the next step will be to write a guide called "Synthesis with style"!--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I don't think that between the current editors we are going to get anywhere on this. I think it is time we pop that question to WP at large, which admitted is going to likely have a huge impact on which way WP will go in the future. Thus, I've created the following RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 which is transwikied below in order to get a large amount of input. --MASEM 15:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:

• Should it be made clear the the question is about (spinouts of fictional elements) that lack sources, not spinouts of (fictional elements that lack sources)?
• What does oppose/support mean? I support the position that there's a dispute; I oppose the inclusion of all spinouts; I support the inclusion of some spinouts. Which section do I post under? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The question that is being asked specifically is what is bolded below: Are spinouts of fictional elements that lack any real-world, secondary sources, appropriate for Wikipedia? The assumption being that if there are sources, we can figure something out, but the question is specifically unsourced fictional elements in any regard. --MASEM 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That question is ambiguous - is it the spinouts that lack sources, or the elements? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the lack of any secondary sources, so that means all the elements, and any summarized lead, lack any sources. (if elements can be sourced, or the lead itself can be sourced, there is notability of some type). --MASEM 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that - but it's phrased ambiguously. Editors new to the debate may not understand. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What about primary sources? For a hypothetical example, say we have a fictional setting of Fooland, and the original author wrote (possibly with help) a "guide to Fooland" that did more than repeat and analyse the original works involving Fooland. That source is authoritative and reliable for the details of Fooland itself, but not secondary or independent, and thus does not contribute to meeting the notability criteria-of-last-resort in WP:N. Spinouts can have sources that are valid for WP use without having sources that confer WP:N's notability. Of course, they may still be notable by a more specific guideline. SamBC(talk) 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is generally considered unacceptable for notability from previous discussions on primary vs secondary sources. I could go out, write some fanfiction, post it to the net, then come back, post my notes about writing it, and that would make my work notable (ignoring the issue of reliable sources). This is basically the same argument why commentaries and interviews from the creators of a work is not sufficient for notability, though this information is included as part of the real-world coverage. --MASEM 17:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. It's not allowed for coverage-based notability, but is allowed as a source for purposes of verification and avoiding original research. Thus a spinout can be sourced and fine in terms of WP:V and WP:NOR without meeting the coverage-based criteria for notability; it could then meet some other criteria for notability, as WP:N gives the criteria of last resort. SamBC(talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are non-notable spinouts of fictional elements appropriate

There is currently strong debate over the concept of spinouts (per WP:SPINOUT) from articles on works of fiction that describe one or more fictional elements (characters, setting, etc.) without having secondary sources. This is likely a crux of the "inclusionist vs deletionist" issue that has been going on for some time, and achieving some consensus on it may help to defuse this a bit.

There are several relevant policies and guidelines, these are likely not all that apply but are key points in current discussion:

• Article Size states that when an article grows too large, sections can be spun out per summary style.
• Notability states that significant coverage in secondary sources should be present for a topic to be notable; however, it is not crystal clear if a spun out article is a new topic or a part of the larger topic of the work of fiction. Notability also states that notability does not limit what content can be contained within an article.
• WP is not plot summaries states that articles that are only plot summaries are discouraged; they should have real-world coverage along with concise plot details
• WP is not paper states that WP is not bound by usual limits of paper encyclopedias, and thus can include information that would not typically be part of print encyclopedias.
• The first pillar states that WP is a combination of both general and specialty encyclopedias; it is understood that the latter could include the type of content in published encyclopedias for fictional works.

Now, while we can go to the policies and guidelines all day long and argue the issue back and forth, that is not getting anywhere: the current policies and guidelines are conflicting and both support and prevent the use of spinouts. Thus, it seems it is necessary to get a larger consensus on this aspect, considering what the current practices are and where the encyclopedia should go. (This latter point is admittedly a huge issue.) Even what exactly are current practices are questionable, depending on what areas of WP that an editor watches.

There is also a side argument that if spinouts are allowed, there should be restrictions on what those spinouts can contain. A complete allowance for any spinout, which could ultimately include articles for every major, minor, and one-time character, every episode and chapter, every alien species, magic spell, or plot element, is obviously not acceptable, based on the number of individual articles that are merged or deleted through AFD. However, when talking about lists of such elements, there's even questions of where the line is drawn as to being relevant to the show and being fan information that shouldn't be on WP; it is proposed a secondary guideline to WP:FICT be created to provide specific guidance on what content in spinouts of non-notable fictional elements are acceptable. It is agreed, however, that any such spinout needs to meet all other policies and guidelines (V/NOR/NPOV/UNDUE, etc.), otherwise, you have a mess of in-universe writing that needs to be removed. It should be assumed that when spinouts are mentioned, the quality of the article should be considered as meeting all WP standards, so the primary issue of concern is the appropriateness of the content.

There have been spinout lists and articles on fictional elements that have shown notability through secondary sources, as demonstrated through Featured Articles and Good Articles. However, the crux of the problem here is when no sources outside of those primary to the work can be used to support the spinouts.

So the question for this RFC is simple: Are spinouts of fictional elements that lack any real-world, secondary sources, appropriate for Wikipedia? This question should be answered considering policy and guidelines, and also considering the current processes for how such articles are deleted, and what effects may happen should we go to lax in allowing spinouts or too restrictive in preventing them. This is a !vote, but only to see if consensus can be established from a larger group of concerned editors. The result of this discussion will affect the inclusion of a section within WP:FICT regarding spinouts. --MASEM 15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum To clarify: there may be spinouts where some elements have notable coverage about them, or that the grouping itself has notability demonstrated by coverage (praised for the characters as a whole, but not individual characters); this RFC is not meant to address types of spinouts. The spinouts that are addressed here are those where both the overall summary of the article, and all individual elements, lack any notable coverage through secondary sources. --MASEM 17:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User statements

Statement by User:Percy Snoodle

Are spinouts of fictional elements that lack any real-world, secondary sources, appropriate for Wikipedia? No.

WP:PAPER states that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below." The "Content section below" includes WP:PLOT: "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."

WP:V states that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." WP:PSTS states that "Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims" - sources real-world context and analysis are therefore secondary sources.

WP:PLOT refers to articles, not topics, so the often-used and incorrect argument that a spinout article is an article on the parent topic, not the spinout topic, is irrelevant. It is also argued that consensus supports the inclusion of some spinouts that the bare notability guidelines fail to include. I do not dispute that, but I do dispute that real-world, secondary sources cannot be found for those articles. I have suggested two guidelines which use real-world, secondary sources to demonstrate that some spinout articles are acceptable. Finally, article size is not a relevant concern. If an article reaches the recommended size limit for spinouts, but none of its sections have sufficient real-world, secondary sources to justify an article, then that article has given undue weight, either to the plot details of the fictional work, or to unverifiable statements. Such an article requires cleaning up, not spinning out.

To conclude: If an article is to contain verifiable "real-world context and sourced analysis", it must logically contain real-world, secondary sources. Spinouts that lack any real-world, secondary sources, cannot contain verifiable real-world context and sourced analysis. By policy, that is not appropriate. There is no reason within those policies that we cannot meet the consensus for inclusion of fictional articles without including these inappropriate ones.

Percy, nothing that you've referenced suggests that only secondary sources are allowed. WP:V says reliable and published. WP:PSTS does say that about secondary sources, but it also (last I looked) says that primary sources are fine for some stuff. Analysis needs secondary sources is also fine. So, secondary sources are generally needed for articles on published works, but nothing suggests they are needed for articles on elements of that work. A source could be first-party (written by the original author of a book) and still give analysis of a character's motives or reasoning, and would be hard to define as primary or secondary. Actually, this all speaks to how jumbled this question is, as I note below. My own response has confused me... SamBC(talk) 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; there's a difference between "secondary" and "independent". WP:PSTS is a little vague, TBH. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes; a source can be third-party and primary, or first-party and secondary. An alarming number of people seem to think that third-party and secondary are synonymous. SamBC(talk) 20:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ignore any of what I just said that didn't make any sense, I'll come up with a response that isn't braindead later, probably, because I think this view has missed the point; in fact, missed both the point of this RFC (as I see it) and the point that actually needs talking about. I mean no offence by that, the discussion seems to keep hitting cross-purposes and getting confusing. SamBC(talk) 18:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

None taken. This is my answer to the question that was asked. It's the wrong question - instead of asking whether we want to include the worst spinouts, we should be looking into how to keep the good ones. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Further statement

Since other users are answering the question Masem should have asked, not the one he did, I shall too. That question is "Shouls some, all, or no spinouts be included?" I understand spinout to mean "an article created from the contents of another for reasons of size". Some spinouts should be included, many should not. We shouldn't say that they are included by default then give exceptions, since we cannot cover the undesirable articles with those exceptions without losing some desirable articles - in short, we please no-one, and harm the quality of the encyclopedia. Judging spinouts as part of the parent gives them this default inclusion. We should identify classes of spinout that are beneficial, explain why they are beneficial, and then extend notability to them; but require the others to demonstrate notability in the usual way. That way the beneficial articles are included and the harmful ones are excluded. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Randomran

I tend to be a minimalist. In Wikipedia, we spend a lot of time talking about how to build articles, but the idea of keeping the database elegant, clean, and simple is lost on a lot of people. "More is more" is the mantra. I think more information is generally good, but at a certain point it can overwhelm. You end up with articles that are simply unreadable because of an "include everything "mentality. "Water can float or capsize a boat". I think this is one area where we can and should prevent a flood.

The key is *non-notable* spin-outs. Notable spin-outs are clearly acceptable. If an independent source has written a literary criticism of the settings in Tolkien's books, then an article about Middle-earth becomes notable. If an independent source discusses the characters of Star Wars, then an article about the Characters of Star Wars becomes notable. But if these details are only mentioned briefly in articles that discuss the fictional work as a whole, then the details of that fiction are not notable. Only the fiction itself is notable.

I'd go a step further. Isolating these details for the purpose of spinning off a new article constitutes original research. Yes, it might be verifiable. But it's wholly original to make observations about a character that has appeared in one or two video games. You're the one playing the game, reading the manual, and combining all the details to paint a picture of a character that nobody else has researched before you. It ceases to be original research if someone has identified that character or setting and written about it with a more specific focus. And when the person does that, not only does it give you reliable independent research to pass the WP:OR test... you also pass the notability test. Darth Vader is a good example of someone who deserves his own article.

If someone wants to go into detail about the fiction, then they should do it somewhere else. Not Wikipedia. And if an article is getting extraordinarily big because someone decided to do original research about a non-notable setting by watching every episode ... well, it's up to the editors to prune the article into a form that is readable. Yes, that means making educated assessments about what is notable enough to warrant inclusion, and what should be cut.

Just my two cents. I'd like to see WP:FICT tightened up substantially. Some of these articles are horrendous. Randomran (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

additional comment: Some people think non-notable, unverified, or original research by watching/reading/playing primary sources can be spun out simply because an article is too long. I disagree, strongly. One of the most important side effects I'd like to see from a clarified WP:FICT policy is that people start thinking about what warrants inclusion, and what doesn't. If the article is on a game or a movie, focus on the most relevant details. And yes, that means pruning unnecessary detail, rather than spinning it out. I don't want a messy, excessive, badly written article to be an excuse for splitting into 5 messy, excessive, badly written articles. Randomran (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Sambc

• Certainly not all such spinouts should be considered acceptable. However, I content that there are probably circumstances in which some are. For example, there may be other criteria by which to judge notability; there are likely to be situations in which there is broad consensus that an article is needed on a subject or subjects that meet no criteria for notability, although I expect those cases to be rare. This question is very hard to answer, as its phrasing has the suggestion of "all-or-nothing"; I veer nearer to nothing than all, but certainly would not agree to nothing. SamBC(talk) 18:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum I'd just like to remind people that a topic does not have to pass WP:N to be considered notable and thus merit an article; they have to pass WP:N or an applicable more specific notability guideline. That's what's written in WP:N, somewhat paraphrased perhaps. SamBC(talk) 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Another Addendum I'd also like to note that, IIRC, previous consensus in discussions, including at WT:NOR, has reached the conclusion that plot summaries based on primary sources are not necessarily OR, including synthesis. You can summarise plot information without making analytical claims. SamBC(talk) 12:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ned Scott

Some sub/SPINOUT/whatever articles do have real world context, but might not contain that information in the subarticle itself. This wording was once used on WP:FICT, and summarizes my own view on the matter:

Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should provide as much real-world content as possible.

We need a way to present this information in a guideline that is easy to understand and that doesn't give a free pass to anything and everything. We need examples. I do not think this is anything about "pro" or "anti" spinout articles, at least that is not the real issue here. -- Ned Scott 23:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Erachima

In addition to solidly seconding Ned Scott's sentiments above, I would like to point out that the primary responsibility of a Wikipedia editor is to serve its readers, not its rules. Readers are not well-served when the real information about a work of fiction is lost in an avalanche of plot details, and this is exactly what spinout articles help to prevent. I invite those reading this page to take a look at the lists of WP:GA and WP:FA fiction articles, and pick one arbitrarily to read. Now ask yourself: would merging this page's subarticles (lists of episodes, lists of characters, etc.) into it, and presenting all the content on the subject in one place, be a benefit to the reader's understanding of the subject, or a detriment to the reader's understanding of the subject?

It grates against every fiber of my personality to say this, but creating rules that are inconsistent on the surface (in this case, allowing the existence of a limited class of non-notable articles) in order to stay true to the underlying principles is a far better alternative than the reverse. As a final note for those who are fearing this exception will be used for the resurgence of Gundam or Pokemon-style collections of hundreds and hundreds of articles, rest assured, the community is intelligent enough to tell where "this list of recurring characters would be in the main page if the series weren't 15 seasons long" stops and "let's make a separate article on everyone who appeared in one episode" begins. --erachima talk 06:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Eusebeus

I largely agree with User:Percy Snoodle above. However, it is currently a matter of some practical necessity to allow spin-out list articles for fictional topics to provide coverage for characters, episodes and other such in-universe aspects. Percy, Gavin and others are quite right to note that these spin-outs would normally be proscribed by the rigorous application of our notability or verifiability standards, as well as our injunction against in-universe content {WP:PLOT). But those of us who desire more exacting encyclopedic standards (sometimes called deletionists) need to recognise that this is an important compromise with those who desire individual articles on every fictional character, episode, edition, etc... (which is what currently prevails and needs to be redressed). Thus: list spinouts of some in-universe elements are fine; further spinouts, however, should be very, very strongly discouraged. Eusebeus (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:B. Wolterding

Wikipedia is organized in terms of articles. This applies on the levels of presentation, organization, maintenance, and process. The topic of an article should be clearly distinguished from that of other articles; further, it needs to fulfill the notability criteria, which means it has been covered in independent sources.

Applied to fiction, I do not think that this should differ. A fictional work should be covered in only one article, unless there are sufficient independent sources that discuss subaspects as separate topics, in detail. In this case, an article on that subaspect can be "spun out", giving a separate article that passes WP:N. Notability of a fictional topic is supposed to be understood as notable to the real world, not as notable within a fictional world. Non-notable subtopics should be covered (if at all) in the main article about the fictional work. This has some positive effects, since it encourages shortening the fictional content to its essentials.

Handling non-notable fictional topics in separate articles is not a technical problem (WP:NOT#PAPER), but it is actually detrimental to the organization of the encyclopedia. For example, listing these (like other articles) on disambiguation pages, etc. gives these topics undue weight, and may distract the reader. Apparently it also encourages the inclusion of unencyclopedic content (WP:NOT#PLOT).

Information that establishes notability, including independent sources, should be included directly in the article. (Given that a Wikipedia article can cover 10+ printed pages, that should always be possible in terms of size.) Further, one should remember that the article should actually be written from these independent sources, and only partially (if at all) from primary sources. It happens only too often with fictional topics that sources are listed, or for some reason assumed to exist, but not actually used (or maybe not actually useful) for the article's content. Independent sources are not supposed to be a coatrack for including fictional, in-universe information.

One can debate whether, for reasons of presentation, Wikipedia should contain a sort of "lesser class articles", between a "regular", fully notable article and just a subsection in another article. These "lesser class articles" would need to be treated and organized differently, and clearly distinguished from regular articles. (Further elaboration and rationale here.) However, this is not current practice and would be a separate proposal, outside the current discussion.

In short, I think that spinout articles about fictional topics are in most cases not warranted. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana

Generally, if a section is so large as to reach a point where splitting is considered, it should have multiple independent reputable sources supporting it. Take an instance where the only supporting reference for such a large section is the subject itself, a reference from the subject itself or a single source. It is by far most likely that the section should be mercilessly trimmed and/or rounded out with additional sources. In almost all cases (lists are a whole other animal and we're permitted to use common sense), if a section has grown large enough to justify an article split, there should be enough independent sources to support it's existance as separate article (if basic content policy like verifiability and appropriate presentation is being followed).

Addressing the vexatious and persistent claims about a lack of fiction sources, it is (to be exceedingly mild) a horrid misconception that secondary sources do not exist for such topics. The "theory" that secondary sources don't exist for such articles is utterly false. There are a ridiculous number of periodicals that cover television episodes and events that provide episode summaries, production information, critical reviews, and so on. That does not even cover all available references, but rather just the common easily available bulk of references. Even short-lived programs that fail to catch on receive this coverage. Any series that manages to survive for even a couple of seasons tends to receive further in-depth coverage and materials of its own. Any popular series has a mountain of additional references getting into fine details and exacting analysis. This misconception is one of the most noxiously dogged falsehoods in the whole notability discussion. Do plentiful secondary sources exist? Absolutely. The main bulk of pop-culture editors may not be willing to go digging through periodical stacks to appropriately reference the information, but that's a whole issue separate from the simple availability of sources. Vassyana (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem is that those source (I assume that, by periodicals, you means listings magazines and similar), while acceptable in terms of WP:V and WP:NOR, are not generally acceptable for the last-resourt criteria of WP:N; after all, almost every TV show gets coverage in them. If you mean topical magazines aimed at genre fans, then that's valid. However, that then only covers TV shows, and these arguments can be mad with varying degrees of success about books and book settings, characters, etc, or game universes or characters, etc etc. Otherwise, you make good points that should be helpful in seeing a sensible path forward. SamBC(talk) 15:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Genre periodicals don't just exist for TV shows. Science-fiction, in all its forms, is covered in Category:Science fiction related magazines. My impression is that this sort of genre publication does not get picked up by Google and so it is correspondingly hard to source such material, even though the sources exist. For example, taking something off a stack of magazines here, I have Heroes & Villains a Beckett spotlight on superhero gaming. This contains articles such as Captain America: Proud Facts and Google does not seem aware of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• You've hit the nail on the head. Sources exist, but they are not easy to find through simple Google searching. Finding sources may require a trip to the periodicals stack, or otherwise acquiring physical copies of magazines and other print materials. I forgot about the "bias" of Google searching when making my statement. However, it's an important point, as it is the root of claims that standard reliable sources cannot be found. Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, this does swing both ways. People shouldn't appeal to "bad" sources just because it's effort to find the good sources; however, people who don't understand the topic area should assume good faith a bit and take the word of more knowledgeable (in that area) editors for a while when they assure people that, within a given milieu, a given topic is important/prominent. That doesn't mean sources never need to be found, but they might take longer than the normal AFD period. SamBC(talk) 09:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd agree. Generally, unless the current article is an unmanageable/unrecoverable mess of some sort (such as a POV fork), if the topic probably have enough available sources, then the article should be allowed time to develop. Vassyana (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Hiding

I proposed WP:PLOT. The intention was that it be used as a tool to improve articles away from being plot, rather than a tool to delete articles about plot. It has nothing to do with notability, never has, never will. It has to do with article content. WP:PLOT doesn't apply to this question, even though a vast number of people seem to assert it does. That's because an article can meet WP:PLOT and still not meet some people's interpretations of notability. The child of WP:PLOT is WP:WAF, a style guide telling you how to write an article about fiction. I also proposed the sentence about if an article topic has no third party sources, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it at WP:V. That's where notability stems from, and to further explain the issues behind notability, I wrote Wikipedia:Independent sources. That's remained an essay, and isn't in common usage although I think there are people who agree with the fundamental ideas. We need secondary sourcing to be able to comprehensively cover a topic. Now, this RFC asks, Are spinouts of fictional elements that lack any real-world, secondary sources, appropriate for Wikipedia? That's a tough question, because what is appropriate for Wikipedia is something Wikipedians can only answer through consensus. It means discussion, debate and give and take. It means judging the issue in context. It means the answer is different dependent on the article under discussion. It means the solution, is, has been and always will be, WP:AFD. This isn't a question one can answer one day, one time, for all eternity. That isn't the Wikipedia way. That's not we do, and it isn't what we are supposed to do. We have enough guidance. We have enough policies. If we can write articles that meet WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, isn't that enough? Shouldn't we respect our policies and ourselves enough that if we have to debate any more issues, we do it at AFD? Do we really need to load the dice, pre-judge the debate and say that some information has no value to us? Isn't that counter to the principles upon which Wikipedia was founded? That all information and all voices should be heard through the wiki process. Are we to close the door on some set of information? Or are we prepared to be a work in progress for perpetuity? Hiding T 16:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

I'm saying this as a generality: I'm okay for spinouts that are technically non-notable to have articles they can't be adequately summarised in a parent article. As far as fiction goes, I'd say around 500 words of real-world information should suffice (balance the plot/production scales). For example, this or this would be suitable spinout articles (second one added as PiC is currently just notable), this wouldn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Gavin Collins

Are spinouts of fictional elements that lack any real-world, secondary sources, appropriate for Wikipedia?
I would say no, not only for the technical reasons outlined by Percy Snoodle (above), but also because it would be a terrible disservice by the writers of this guideline to promote a dishonest and misleading opinion that says there is a category of article in Wikipedia that does not need real-world, secondary sources. New editors who refer to WP:FICT as a source of guidance to create or add content to spinout articles will be ultimately doomed to disappointment when they see that, over the long term, their work will be cut out, merged or deleted because the content of articles without real-world, secondary sources is always going to be replaced by content that does during the lifecyle of a typical article.

At the start of an article's lifecycle, it might comprise of original research, then go on to be improved somewhat to the point where primary sources are cited to create a synthesis, and lastly to be replaced with real-world, secondary sources. However, if we say that spinouts don't need real-world, secondary sources, then they will never have to reach maturity, since the guideline says they can exist in a sort of perpetual limbo pending improvement. Attempts to encourage cleanup will have no impact on spinouts as currently defined, since they are exempt from the process of review, critisism and improvement: if real-world, secondary sources aren't required, then any attempt to edit, merge or delete these articles will be prevented from taking place.

At the time of writing, WP:FICT states:

"A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources of real-world coverage 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. It is usually inappropriate to spin out an element or elements from a spinout article that lacks real-world coverage."

In the light of my comments, this needs to be changed to a more honest statement that provides clear guidance:

A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks real-world coverage from secondary sources is not appropriate, since plot summary describing a fictional element or elements that is comprised of synthesis of primary source material is not evidence of notability. It is also inappropriate to spin out a fictional element or elements that lack real-world coverage, since articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should not rely on an in universe persepctive as their primary frame of reference".

In the past, I don't think the guidelines have been clear about this point: a lack of real-world content leads to an over reliance on in universe content. As a result, the lack of clear guidance has given rise to hundreds (if not thousands) of spinout articles lacking real-world, secondary sources, all of them doomed to substantial rewrites, merger or deletion over time. In the case of Dungeons & Dragons spinout articles, the content of these articles is written in the publishers house style, from a quasi-mythical in universe perspective, as if this was normal. Contibutors to these articles, such as Empire_of_Iuz are frustrated by and resentful of any attempt to effect cleanup, and are shocked to be told that articles based on fictional subjects should not be based on a regurgitation of the source materials, nor an over reliance on an in universe perspective for their writting style.

However, these are not the worst of the bunch. If you have a look at The 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries, you will see that many of the spinoff articles such as List of Ancient Jedi have since been merged. I see no consensus for the current draft on spinouts; on the contrary, I see editors actually trimming content, and merging or deleting articles that to not have real-world, secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply by Ursasapien

• First, new editors never consult WP:FICT and virtually never consult any guidance before editing or creating new articles. They dive right in because that is what we encourage them to do. Some kind veteran may put a welcome template on their talkpage, but usually new editors just get bit by some "old crumudgeon" who bitterly complains, "Quit messing up my Wikipedia!" There is no organized program to educate new users or help them find projects they may be interested in.

• Second, articles are never allowed to grow from "original research, then go on to be improved somewhat to the point where primary sources are cited to create a synthesis, and lastly to be replaced with real-world, secondary sources." These articles are usually nipped in the bud by a zealous deletionist that is boldly improving the encyclopedia.

• Third, no matter how much guidance or how clear we make it, there will still be content disputes and the community will still have to make a decision on what we keep on a case by case basis. Editors will still create thousands of articles and "all of them doomed to substantial rewrites, merger or deletion over time." This is the Wikipedia way. We are constantly refining the encyclopedia and that is not a bad thing.

• Finally, this discussion has gone very far afield from the original purpose of this guidance. If this is a notability guideline, all it needs to say is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Perhaps it can go on to define significant coverage and give examples of what reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject means in the context of fiction-related topics. Then we are done. Fin! The rest of this is manual of style. By the way, the best television style guide was the old one that recommended you grow coverage of television subjects from Programme to Season to Episode, as coverage allows. This is all madness and we would get a lot further if we spent less time on guidance at this level and more time personally educating editors and improving the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Hobit

I would argue that "non-notable" spinouts are of course reasonable of highly notable subjects. For example, we recently had a vote at AfD (and an appeal) about an article which provided the plot summary of For Better or For Worse. The consensus of the !votes was to keep it, but the closer of the appeal went against that due to WP:PLOT. The base topic is extremely notable for all sorts of reasons, and the best way to write the article was to break it into chunks. We should be trying to have the best encyclopedia we can. And that means having things well organized and complete. No book on FBoFW would ever skip a plot summary and nor should we. Neither should we insist that on notable topic be restricted in format by WP:N. Spin out articles are exactly that, a formating change for readability. Hobit (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• That article does provide a substantial plot summary. If you wanted to spin that out, you could combine it with the criticisms section to give an article on the history of the strip, explaining which storylines evoked which responses in the real world, and including references for that; such an article would meet WP:N and not violate WP:PLOT. That's the sort of article we need; not pure plot summaries. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by sgeureka

I'll make this short: Are spinouts of fictional elements that lack any real-world, secondary sources, appropriate for Wikipedia? - Yes in the beginning of an article's life because wikipedia is a work in progress and you never know what sources exist and who will show up to put some effort into an article. But no in the long run (could be months, could be years), at which point I prefer tagging and a merge proposal with a last call for sources and/or volunteers instead of immediate AfD. When it is clear from the beginning (common sense) that no real-world sources exist at all for an element, the only type of spinout for the element is IMO as a list (basic list or aggregate list), although the new parent article must be known to have a significant amount of real-world secondary sources then. (This would stop the recursive problem of non-notability.)

As for the mentioned policies, guidelines and essays: WP:NOT#PLOT (which I interpret as referring to pure plot summaries; analysis and synthesis through plot is covered by WP:OR) is central from which the interpretation of the others follow: If a section is spun out for SIZE, it must be more than a plot summary. Significant coverage in secondary sources (1.5 sources, and independent sources==NOTABILITY) help to balance plot summarizes against real-world information (development, marketing, reception, analysis, etc.) and should be present in each article as much as possible - drawing in-depth conclusions/analysis from plot to balance summaries constitutes ORIGINAL RESEARCH and can be removed immediately. Because Wikipedia is NOT#PAPER and can cover things of specialized encyclopedias, it can contain even the most obscure kinds of information as long as the points mentioned above are reasonably met. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

We need to concentrate of the content of the WP coverage of a subject, not on how the articles happen to be divided. The overall coverage of fiction is limited to fiction that is notable in the real world, and is shown by sources such as reviews, best-seller status, awards, and so on. The coverage should include real world aspects and fictional aspects. In general, a considerable amount of the coverage will be about the fiction itself. As an encyclopedia, we provide information that the users might want and reasonably expect to find in a 21st century comprehensive encyclopedia intended for a general world-wide English-reading audience of very wide range of education, sophistication, and interests. When people want to find information on fiction,they want to find information about the authorship, production, distribution, reception and influence certainly, but they probably primarily want to find information about the fiction itself. They want to find out the plot of the various portions, the trajectories of the characters, the environment and setting of the work. They may do so because they have no information on the work at all--as for the many video, manga, and games about which I have become informed as a result of working on Wikipedia, or about specifics to accompany their viewing, watching or playing, or to identify cultural references and quotations. A traditional purpose of an encyclopedia in acculturation, not just formal education--finding out about new cultures and civilizations. I should be able to come here and find out about the latest children's serials to discuss with a visiting 8 year old.

How we do it should depend on the amount of material and the importance of the work--always as limited by the resources available and the interests of Wikipedia editors. We should provide for people to find out what happened to specific characters without having to go through a list of episodes--and we should provide information about what happened to them all during any particular episode. There will be a good deal of duplication and alternative approaches. we're not paper. Even not being paper, we have to show some sense of discrimination--there is a difference between the running characters of a series, and the guest appearances, between the basic setting, and incidental elements. Some details belong properly in more specialized works--the distinction should be that if they are only of interest to devoted fans, they belong in a fan wiki. The detailed disputes over the of the names of the characters and places in Tolkien I expect to follow elsewhere--the general meaning and implication of all the names, a first reader of the work will expect to find here. I expect to find what the general nature of each individual monster in a game here; the details of just how to fight them, that would only concern me if I were to become a player, that can go elsewhere.

Most of the detail here is best sourced to the primary work. Some of it for major fiction will be increasingly covered in secondary sources also. There is considerable academic literature on Narnia, and an increasing amount on D&D; there will be progressively more as people to whom they are familiar become academics. The amount of true scholarship and perception in fan writing can be substantial--we ill learn to harvest it more adequately.

So in conclusion, individual section articles for notable fiction should be justified by the material they contain, and secondary sources for different details have nothing much to do with it. DGG (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jinnai

I tend to try to walk some kind of middle ground, though I do air for inclusion over exclusion per the faith that most articles I come across might have the possibility of notability. There is a limit to this, however, and I am more inclined to merge into lists or main article stuff that doesn't meet it, but not necessarily delete everything.

The problem is that Wikipedia is designed as an encyclopedia which means it must be able to give a good level of information to a general reader, but also enough for scholarly research, as encyclopedia are used for such research, even if it is only a first stop. WP:PAPER further states that we are not limited in size like a traditional encyclopedia.

That being said, there is a limit. As mentioned, WP:PLOT states that articles should not be listings of plot summaries. And in general, I agree. There are exceptions though for particularly complex plots or long and evolving series where a concise paragraph or three that FA articles strive for in plots actually harms the encyclopedic nature Wikipedia strives for because it reduces a complex plot that someone wanting to know about the series for casual or scholarly study would find lacking, but the length of the discussion is far to long to put in the main article. These cases may have no real-world impact at all. However, I would say that every case should be done individually.じんない 04:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Addendum -- Articles on minor, cameo, on-time characters or weapons, locations, etc. that do not have real-world impact or a serious impact on the work of fiction itself I would are defiantly stuff that should not be in their own article. FE: Many of the Gundam titles have individual articles on most of the Gundam, regardless of whether the individual mecha was important to the series, let alone real-world connection. That kind of stuff is better done in a list, or if there are only a few, in the main article itself.じんない 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Further Addendum WP:FICT goes beyond just saying that "Some spinout titles should be kept and some shouldn't." It also addressed sources, something that I have seen largely ignored by many here. It specifically addresses what are termed semi-independant sources, sources not from the primary source itself, but from works or people related to it in a manner as a database or expert. Wikipedia's WP:GNG and WP:N were designed to not allow such sources for non-fictional related works because conflict of interest of promotion or bias. Stuff like a DVD commentary or a fact book about the universe of a particular work do not, especially the latter, do either of those in general. In addition, their usage can help enhance the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia by filling in creation concept ideas as those who work on the project themselves are, in almost every case, the most authoritative as to what motivated them, not some removed second-party.じんない 07:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Any general comments or questions not reflecting an opinion should be added here.

• This is another of those times when I have to answer mu. The question is ambiguous if you have been following the debate, and somewhat misleading if you haven't. This question is only useful to answer if we can answer in isolation and without details, to see if there's broad agreement that some spinouts are okay sometimes, without attempting to find agreement of when. Plus, I seem to discern a growing sense that WP:FICT shouldn't address spinouts directly, but simply act the same as all of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. A seperate "spinouts of fictional elements" guideline clarifying WP:SPINOUT in this specific case would be a sensible step, but a separate one occuring independently of, but with reference to the result of, the resolution of WP:FICT. SamBC(talk) 17:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The point is not to figure out what non-notable spinouts are appropriate, but that if any non-notable spinouts are appropriate. If it is clear they aren't, that clause is stricken from FICT. If they all are, we leave FICT as is. If its clear that it's not a cut-and-dried issue, depending on the type of spinout, then a new guideline looks to be necessary for describing what spinouts are appropriate, and FICT is modified to point to that. Basically, figuring out if the question to that is "yes", "no" or "maybe" helps to resolve the issue of notability for fictional topics, with the possibility of a new guideline for more specific guidance for certain articles. --MASEM 17:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Given that something can be notable without meeting WP:N (if they meet a subject-specific guideline), there are two alternative and clearer questions:
      1. Are fictional elements ever notable without meeting the catch-all criteria of WP:N?
      2. Is it acceptable to have articles on unquestionably non-notable subjects, if those articles are spinouts?
    • I would prefer to approach each of those questions separately, rather than one question which, as written, seems to assume that the answer to the first question is "no". Or how about asking "Does notability equate to a) receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject; b) meriting an article on wikipedia; c) those two are the same thing; or d) something else?" SamBC(talk) 17:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I see where you're coming from, and while I agree it's an alternate way of stating the question building it up from policy/guidelines, this specific question is the heart of the inclusionist/deletionist debate, and thus is a direct question to get a direct answer. If it is apparent that the above questions come into play, we'll work that in, but this question is pretty much cut and dried and straight forward. --MASEM 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • My point is that it isn't; it's full of assumptions, and it's hard to reconcile what everyone means by their answers without knowing how they've interpreted the question. It's asking a number of questions at once and expecting only one answer. SamBC(talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, the question being "Are spinouts without real-world secondary sources appropriate?", to me, seems straight-forward; while this is about "notability", that's a term that does cause confusion, and could mislead people. "secondary sources" is pretty straight forward, and thus this is a pretty direct question. How it will affect FICT and NOTE and other areas, we'll figure that out once there's some consensus. --MASEM 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
            • The lack of a clear way to say "sometimes" or "maybe" is probably the biggest problem, then. I've rectified that. Seriously, the question is somewhat akin to "are articles about people appropriate?" – sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. SamBC(talk) 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Though the question is not black or white, there is a threshold that is: either no such spinouts are appropriate, meaning we strike that from FICT, or some (including, possibly, all) are, meaning we keep it in FICT, and possible write a new guideline to discuss other ways that may result from this (eg, like your suggestion of maybe primary commentary being sufficient for fictional elements). But the key is first is to find if consensus is on one side or the other of that line. If it's on the "no spinouts at all" side, the other questions that may be asked are null and void, discussion is over. If it isn't, we can ask those, with the establishment that the consensus is towards favoriting spinouts (as such not to retread the issue in this RFC again). --MASEM 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Unfortunately, that's not what this RFC asks. It doesn't say "should some, none or all spinouts be included", it says "should articles without real-world secondary coverage be included?" - That's a very different question. Also, the section should be removed if the answer is "some", since at the moment it includes them all. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • The only way it includes all of them is by ridiculous wikilawyering that goes completely against the intent of the page, and anyone who argued in earnest that their individual articles on cameo characters were justified under fict by being spinouts would be firmly WP:TROUTed. --erachima talk 10:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • It's against the intent, certainly. That intent, however, is not expressed by the guidelines. Whatever guidelines we make will be wikilawyered to death in AFDs - so we need to make sure that what we say is what we mean to say. At the moment, what we mean to say is "good spinouts should be included" and what we do say is "all spinouts should be included, but some people will complain". Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
                      • "In an article about a notable subject, if the inclusion of succinctly written in-universe content causes it to become unreadably long, and the in-universe content cannot be further trimmed without sacrificing accuracy or making it difficult for non-fans to be able to understand the article's subject, then sub-articles to contain this content may be split off even if their subjects lack notability in the traditional sense."
                        Is that closer to what you were wanting? --erachima talk 11:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
                        • That's much better, but unnecessary. If sources say that a subtopic is necessary "for non-fans to be able to understand the article's subject" then to my mind article is notable; that's why I wrote the "necessary topics" section. If sources don't exist to say that the topic is necessary, then it's just an editor's opinion that the subtopic is necessary, and an article on that subtopic would be a POV fork, and we shouldn't include it. "Necessary articles" are one of the classes of spinout we should include, but we still need a sourced demonstration that they are necessary. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
                          • POV fork? What? I'm not sure that word means what you think it means... [break]
                            • I suppose it doesn't quite mean what I'm using it to mean. Officially, a content fork is "another article on the same subject", which I've argued spinouts aren't, and a POV fork is a content fork created to avoid the NPOV rules. A spinout created to avoid the verifiability and IIFNO rules is just as bad, and for much the same reasons. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
                          • Also, as far as I can tell, your suggestion is equivalent to the soundly rejected idea of sourcing plot summaries to reviews rather than the original material, which was decided against both because of how inaccurate reviews can often be, and that primary sourcing of plot summaries is not original research since the series canon is a reliable record of the (non-existent) events. Either that or you're suggesting we prove it on the talk page, in which case, while that could be a helpful method of resolving disputes over what was necessary information, won't be needed in most cases, since both splitting out article sections and what qualifies as an important detail are questions routinely determined by consensus in all subjects. Or I may be completely misreading you. That post is a bit confusing. --erachima talk 11:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
                            • Perhaps you are. The spinout in question would state in its lead section that it was essential to understanding the parent topic; that would be sourced from a review or other analysis of the work. The rest of the article, which would contain a concise plot summary of the essential element, would be sourced from the original material. Clearer? Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the idea of "necessary topics", which is a concept based on Percy opinion of what or what is not "necessary" notable (which is what the creator of every POV fork claims), rather than built on reliable secondary sources. I also don't agree with the idea that plot summaries should not be based on reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Most plot summaries I have seen are based on a synthesis of primary materials (if they are not original research), and adding one or two reliable sources to a large mass of synthesis is an attempt to dress up a weak topic with a fig leaf of real-world content.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, I don't think you read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Some topics are necessary to understand others. It says "if reliable secondary sources describe a fictional element as necessary or critical for the understanding of a notable topic..." so the reliable secondary sources you're asking for would be there. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Everything (not just plot summaries) written at WP is "synthesis" from reliable sources; to use the actual text of sources, outside fair use considerations for quoting, would be inappropriate so it is editors' jobs to distill and reword information. It is to the degree of how much synthesis is engaged that needs to be limited, and for plot summaries, this is strongly aided by keeping them concise and using out-of-universe style approaches. There is no way otherwise to write plot summaries that would be appropriate parts of notable articles. --MASEM 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am not making myself clear. My understanding of what Percy describes to be a "necessary topic" is where notablity of a fictional topic is asserted in the overarching article, but the spinoff article may not have real-world content from reliable secondary sources. I understand that a synthesis of sources created to summarise real-world content drawn from reliable secondary sources is needed to write a good article, but a synthesis of primary sources used to construct a plot summary is a rehash of regurgitation of the original fictional content. An example is Star Fleet Universe, an spinoff article about a fictional universe. The overarching article Star Fleet Battles provides real-world content from reliable secondary sources about a role-playing game, where as the spinoff is comprised only of plot-summary derived from a synthesis from the game's modules which are used to play the game. If I understand correctly, Percy is proposing that spinoff article for Star Fleet Universe is justifiable, but I say no because the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, a guideline which WP:FICT in its current form conflicts with. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's only true if reliable, secondary sources state understanding the Star Fleet Universe is essential/necessary/crucial to understanding Star Fleet Battles and that the Star Fleet Universe cannot be concisely summarised in the main article. Do they? Can it? The answers would seem to be "no" and "yes". The 'necessary articles' section is intended as a partial replacement for Masem's well-intentioned but potentially-disastrous spinouts section; instead of including absolutely every possible bit of cruft just to get the good spinouts, it tries to establish what the good spinouts are. It doesn't exempt them from WP:PLOT or WP:SYN. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, that article is a good example of another category of potentially acceptable fictional-element spinout; it describes a setting that is common to a number of games etc, and to include any or all of the material in every one of those games' articles would be redundant. I would also say, as a potential additional-to-catch-all-criteria criterion, that might be a good criterion in general for WP:FICT – something like "an element is notable if it is a major factor in several (at least 3) notable products, where products include games, books/book series, TV series/franchises, etc". SamBC(talk) 15:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• The problem I have with this approach is that, if these categories of article ("necessary topics" and "major factors" type articles which need not have real-world content cited from reliable secondary sources) where to be endorsed by WP:FICT, we will be creating a category of article that is exempt from cleanup, bold editing, merger or deletion. This process of improvement is key to the functioning of Wikipedia, and if we stall it, I feel this runs against the consensus that improvement is more than just adding content.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's why we should appeal to reliable, secondary sources rather than editors' opinions to decide what is and isn't "necessary" or a "major factor". If such a source has described a fictional element in that way, then that's sourced information; as long as the source describes the importance in terms of a reader's understanding rather than importance to a character, then it's real-world information. That distinction may be an important one to make when defining "major". An element can be important to some characters without actually being important to understanding a story - that's poor writing, but it happens, and we shouldn't include things because they're important from a solely in-universe perspective. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's why I tried to outline cases of groupings/aspects where spinouts are appropriate in the spinout guideline, and which ones generally aren't. But again, as a guideline, we cannot outright say "Spinouts organized as such-an-such are unacceptable"; we can warn that certain cases are minefield and most of the time go to the bit bucket, but someone may be able to come along with a case that meets that type of organization, but that that everyone recognizes as an acceptable case. [break]

• The trouble with that list was that it looked at the type of topic and ignored the importance of the topic. Different fictional works require different levels of coverage; it's not enough to say that episodes of a notable, episodic work are generally acceptable, or that they're generally not, because neither is the case. If a work is very notable then they are, and if the work is only just notable then they aren't; and the best measure of what depth of coverage is required is whether there's coverage of the subtopics. That's how we need to phrase the guidelines: not "characters are generally acceptable" but "characters are acceptable if...". Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I know this would be great, but, once you take out "coverage in secondary sources" as a possibility for what is after that "if" above, you're left with almost no objective terms; though, however, I suggest, maybe back at WT:FICT, writing out possible cases, again noting that any indication of notability already qualifies and need not be included. At some point, we have to assume good faith that people that want these spinouts will limit spinouts to the most significant aspects of the work, and that we do have review processes (whether at AFD or earlier) that can track poor spinouts. --MASEM 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I still think that we should use a special template to "bless" spinouts (not as free passes, just that they've been recognized as meeting a standard for the spinouts, it doesn't protect them from future challenges) which would also allow review of such spinouts in the future.

• If the blessing isn't a free pass, it's not necessary. We can avoid the overhead by making the standard for spinouts a standard for an article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• The other possibility, and this is a significant departure from status quo, is that we strongly push editors to employ other wikis (including Wikia, despite the assertions of COI issues), make sure that meta keyworks work so that intra-wikilinking can be done cleanly, and basic completely say no to any non-notable spinout or even certain notable spinouts (the ones that are weakly notable); instead, if that type of info is going to be spun out, spin it out to the wiki, and freely link to it. I point out that this is a departure for two reasons: first, obviously, is that the inclusionists will completely dislike this, though I think making sure that interwikilinking is as freely done as possible will help soothe that aspect, but the second reason is that interwikilinking as there are people that think that wiki links fail external linking guidelines. However, I strongly assert that if this is even close to the direction that we need to go, there needs to be recognition of external wikis as being nearly equivalent for purposes of "building the web" as WikiDictionary or WikiQuote, particularly those that are GFDL (allowing for cross-content transfers if necessary). --MASEM 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would be willing to support that. In addition it would also help sooth a lot of complaints from editors who are told to move the stuff to an external wikia already, but don't dare link back to Wikipedia. Considering Wikipedia is the primary source many people start looking for information, including fiction (2007 seen anime searches almost to the same level as general reseach queries, let alone other fictional related items). This would go a long way to solving the contentious issues.じんない 08:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• To me, it sounds like a good idea. It may not even be limited to products; there might be an important item to a few characters (like Light Sabers are to three of the characters in Star Wars, say) or other sort of fictional element that deserves coverage because it is important to multiple other notable topics. Since we should appeal to sources rather than editors' opinions to decide what is and isn't a "major factor", it's very similar to the "necessary articles" criterion; perhaps there's a more general principle we can express there? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it is a good idea to create these categories of articles because in answer to SamBC's earlier question, I don't think it is acceptable to have articles on unquestionably non-notable subjects, if those articles are spinouts. I think what Percy is saying is that there are articles where there may be many editors asserting the notability of a particular topic is a given, where in fact the notability of the topic is debateable or contraversial. I agree that a topic's notability may unproven, but I don't think that means we have to cater for that category of article in WP:FICT. [break]

• We're not saying that non-notable topics should be included; we're saying that some topics are notable because they're major factors in other notable topics. Notability is not the same as coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Notability is not the same as coverage, agreed, but it is really good evidence in support of an arguement that it is. Here lies the crux of the debate: if you can come up with some other form of evidence other than real-world coverage from reliable secondary sources is evidence of notabilty, that is good, but without it, I think you are presuming that a strong or well argued opinion is, and I disagree with that viewpoint.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble parsing "Notability is not the same as coverage, agreed, but it is really good evidence in support of an arguement that it is" – taking it literally, it ends up almost like "A does not imply B, but A does imply B", which is a contradiction, so I'm sure that's not what you meant. SamBC(talk) 17:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A lot of criteria for a lot of things require some subjective judgement on the part of editors. So a criterion saying "significant component or aspect of several notable whatevers" isn't really problematic. People can disagree under WP:N as to whether coverage is sufficient, and people could disagree under that as well. I may suggest this back at the main talk page shortly... SamBC(talk) 17:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• For example, The Terminator may be a notable film, but is The Terminator a notable character per se? In my view, The Teminator is just one of many intersting characters in the notable film The Terminator and its sequels, rather than being a notable character per se. The spinoff article Terminator (character concept) implicitly asserts that this fictional character is notable, but it does not cite real-world content from reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability in accordance with WP:FICT. I am not so sure the Terminator is notable on his own, as without the success of the film, it is arguable that he is just a stock character based on Gort or some other bad-ass cyborg. However, until reliable secondary sources and real-world content is added to Terminator (character concept), I think notability is unproven, but I don't think WP:FICT should be making that decision without evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Terminator article you point to is an interesting example of an aggregate article; in theory it claims notability across its various components, though I'm not sure it has quite achieved it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• It hasn't achieved it, and nor should we pre-empt what will happen with this article in future by saying it is acceptable in its current form. Who knows, maybe critics and academics of the future will come to the view that it is Sara Connors that is notable, and that the The Terminator is just a stock character? In anycase, I don't think WP:FICT should endorse the article: let editors bring real-world content to the article, or merge it with a more notable article if none can be found. As WP:FICT stands now, we are pre-empting those discussions by assuming every spinoff article is justified, when in fact is may or may not. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I agree - that's why the spinouts section has to go. As long as it's there, every article is notable. Not just the Terminator, but The Man Standing Behind The Terminator For A Few Seconds. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's a total strawman and you know it. Get a clue. --Pixelface (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hello again, Pixel. Still not got the hang of WP:CIVIL, I see. It's not a straw man - I'm not saying that Masem wants that to happen. I'm pointing out an unintended consequence of his spinout guidance. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• What is the criteria for inclusion under inherited notability? Is there a fair, objective test that can be applied? --Phirazo 17:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Inhertied notability in relation to fictional topics is highly subjective. Since fictional topics do not have real-world existence, it is impossible to provide proof of inhertited notability without making that claim on the basis of personal opinion, as fictional elements don't have contections to each other the real-world (except through reliable secondary sources). For example, a sportsman or woman is deemed to inhertit notability from their sport if they participate at professional level in accordance with the guideline WP:BIO. However, there is no fictional equivalent method of establishing a connection between fictional elements, say Jedi and Dark Nest, because there is no physical connection between the two; only by making aasertions based on opinion could Dark Nest be deemed to be notable. As a result, the article Jedi has become a coatrack for lots of fictional elements with unproven notability. Alas, this guideline as it is currently written encourages this type of article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• There's no single criterion for inherited notability. Some of the specific notability guidelines, for example WP:BK and WP:PROF, give instances in which a topic can inherit notability; but otherwise the presumption is usually that notability is not inherited. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would eliminate any links to essays that use the word "cruft" per Verdatum and DGG and also must note that myself and many others dispute the notion that notability is not inherited. In the case of sub or spinoff articles that are still verfiable and relevant in the context of a paperless specialized encyclopedia on fiction, notability can indeed be inherited. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)