Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 30

Fictional elements as part of a larger topic

I dispute the content of this section which contains the following statements:

If consensus on a given work of fiction or fictional element is that it is of unproven notability, editors should seek to retain the information where it can improve the encyclopedia.

In exceptional cases, groupings of individually non-notable elements can merit their own supporting articles

I don't think agreement has been made on this points. If WP:N says "notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article", why would you seek to retain information on non-notable topics? Further more, why would we want to retain groups of them? Can someone give article examples of where these statements could be applied? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned with the first sentence... I much preferred the version that said something like "Non-notable fictional topics do not merit articles, but editors should seek to retain the information if it can improve the encyclopedia". For the second sentence, as has been pointed out before, WP:N recommends such groupings. These guidelines repeat that advice and go on to give guidance on when it's appropriate. All I think that needs doing is to give some guidance on what "highly notable" means and then that part of the guidelines will reflect current best practise. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Where does WP:N recommend such groupings of individually non-notable elements? And can you give an article example (ideally one that has been cited on this page before so we can refer to earlier disucssion). --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That would be footnote 8: For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ...". SamBC(talk) 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Percy's right about the second point. Regarding the first, I believe the intent of that sentence is that information that is of benefit to the encyclopaedia not be removed entirely, but instead moved to a relevant article on a notable topic, if possible/appropriate. Maybe that should be said explicitly, if it isn't already? SamBC(talk) 12:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should still say that non-notable elements don't get their own articles at least that once, so it can be contrasted with the exceptions that do. How about "Non-notable fictional topics do not merit articles, but editors should seek to retain any information that is of benefit to encyclopedia"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When you've got editors who consider plot-only articles totally acceptable for an encyclopedia (e.g. see discussions at WT:NOT), then your proposed wording is going to nip you in the butt. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good point. How about "Non-notable fictional topics do not merit articles, but information that is of benefit to encyclopedia can be retained elsewhere"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

...and how about linking "retained elsewhere" in that to the "Dealing with non-notable fictional topics" section so it's clear what we mean by that? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• What your suggestion boils down to is POV. Unless you can come up with a subject-specific standard relating to fiction other than GNC that is not based on POV (e.g. "it is of benefit to the encyclopedia" or "is exceptional" - who can define these catch all criteria?), it will not stand up to peer review. Foot note 8 is being taken out of context; it is being used to support the statement "If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context". At no point is it is not being used as justification for the creation articles about topics of unproven notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, when many users share a POV, we call that consensus - and consensus supports beneficial minor topic lists. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Indeed, mentioning things about "benefiting the encyclopaedia" are in some senses redundant except as reminders, as we are encouraged to do whatever it takes to improve the encyclopaedia. I wouldn't want to invoke IAR in a situation like this, as it ends up with disagreement about benefit, but the point I am aiming for is that almost all of our guidelines are written to be applied through consensus, such as on a talk page of XfD. It doesn't matter if there's a poorly-defined concept like "beneficial to the encyclopaedia" if it's something that we can expect most editors to understand and work with towards consensus. Plus we do have a definition (still foggy, but it always will be) for what we mean by "exceptional", IIRC. SamBC(talk) 13:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I do not disagree that lists are useful but determining what should be in them is best left to WP:LISTS. However if you are proposing that the scope of WP:FICT should be expanded to include certain types of lists, and these lists are exempted from having to be sourced by real-world content from reliable secondary sources when they deal with fictional elements, then make that proposal. However, I don't think you can give exemption from GNC just because a fictional element or groups of them appear in a list based on subjective criteria such as consensus, being exceptional, having merit or are of benefit to the encyclopaedia, criteria which cannot be tested in the real world. Since fictional elements can be atomised in to an infinite number of sub-elements, a real-world test must be set to determine whether they should be included in Wikpedia.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pretty much all of our criteria for anything are tested by consensus; the nearest thing to an exception to that I can think of is WP:CSD, and those are reached through consensus to form unambiguous (or nearly so) tests for the rare cases where we don't want to wait for consensus. Even those are subject to review of their implementation, at WP:DRV. Not everything has to be perfectly objectively boolean. SamBC(talk) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Not when it comes to fictional elments. It is just not practicle to poll every editor to obtain evidence that a fiction element should be included by consensus; even if we polled every single editor every day, we would never cope with the case load. It is therefore left to individual opinion to determine what is and is not agreed by consensus, so you back to subjective criteria. It is far better to stick with GNC, otherwise you are going to be up to your neck in subjective judgement. Can you give an example of articles that would be covered by these criteria? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nothing in that argument, or any of your others that I can recall, applies exclusively to articles on fiction-related topics; why do you believe that fiction-related topics should be handled differently? We all agree on a requirement for a balance of real-world information and no excessive plot summary or in-universe content, so why should fiction topics have special handling beyond that? SamBC(talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Because we can all form a subjective opinion about which ficitonal elements are covered by consensus, and even if our opinions conflicted, each of us would probably have a valid point of view. That is why we need to move away from subjective criteria, since the notability of fictional elements cannot be tested. For example, which is the notable topic, Terminator (character concept) or The Terminator (character)? By which subjective criteria can you judge? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, for that specific example, I've explained it to you once before, with references if I recall correctly; I certainly did some basic literature searches at the time. That was on the village pump, and by the time I stopped checking, you hadn't responded further. SamBC(talk) 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • However, to address your actual point, how is that different for fictional topic and non-fictional ones? Everything you just said holds true for non-fiction as well. SamBC(talk) 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, also, "which is the notable topic" is a false dichotomy; there's no fundamental reason that they couldn't both be. SamBC(talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• You said yourself in the discussion that you thought only one was notable, and I think you used GNC to say that the character concept was not notable. I think this is an example of a "groupings of individually non-notable elements", and in this way, you have sort of proved my suspicion: GNC is the only way to determine notability for fictional elements. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't claim both were notable, I said it was a false dichotomy to claim that only one could be. There's nothing inherent in the character/character concept relationship that implies that only one could possibly be notable. Further, I didn't say that the character concept wasn't notable, just that it didn't demonstrate notability. I also said that I had found academic studies of the character concept, but that in terms of presentation (not notability) I'd prefer to see the character concept stuff as part of the character article. I assume you misunderstood me; is it clearer now? I applied the GNC because it was sufficient, however, that doesn't mean that there would be no other criteria to apply. Any and all topics passing the GNC are presumed notable, within common sense. There was no need to apply anything else. SamBC(talk) 16:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So to wrap this discussion up, if one is not-notable, why would you seek to retain information on non-notable topics (other than duplication)? If one of these topics does not demonstrate notablity (say Terminator (character concept)), why does WP:FICT give an exemption to it?--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If a topic is non-notable, but material on it fits in an article on a notable topic, that material may certainly be included, as notability does not limit content. More importantly, how does WP:FICT give an exemption to it? I've not found such in the text as it stands. SamBC(talk) 15:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to SamBC's question, WP:FICT gives exemption to two classes of non-notable topics defined in the section Fictional elements as part of a larger topic, namely "where it can improve the encyclopedia" or where "groupings...can merit their own supporting articles". It seems to just about any non-notable topic or group of topics qualifies for an exemption from GNC under these two clauses, which need to come out of the guideline because they are so subjective that they could apply to any topic (wether related to ficition or non-fiction) at any time. There is no precedent for such exemptions in any other guideline either. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is GNC relevant to fictional topics?

I dont think there is actually the least consensus on the relevance on the GNC. I see it as a rough guide in case nothing else works and we need to find some way of deciding, and I think that is in fact how it is used at AfD. It is sometimes said to supersede all other guidelines, as if meeting either WP:FICT or it is sufficient, and it is sometimes claimed to require meeting both, but either yields multiple examples that contradict both common sense and practice. Personally, I think its time we got rid of it--it is qualified so much by WP:NOT and WP:BLP and the quarreling about what exactly we mean by a RS, that in practice it offers no help whatsoever. For example, I could argue that since the work itself is an accepted RS for plot, the inclusion of any character in two places in the plot justifies an article. (I do not of course actually take that position) DGG (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That argument wouldn't work, because the work the character is in is hardly a source independent of the character, and the GNC requires independent coverage. SamBC(talk) 17:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies to DGG & SamBC for refractoring the discussion, but I do think this is a very important issue that warrants closer examination. I would argue the exact opposite, namely that GNC is possibly most relevant to fictional topics above any other, because of a complete dearth of fictional specific criteria which can be applied to demonstrate notability. I have challenged several editors contributing to this talk page to provide fiction specific criteria, but a convincing example has yet to be proffered (perhaps we should offer a bounty for new criteria?); instead this guideline provides a weak exemption, which is so subjective and non-specific that it could apply to any fictional or non-fictional topic you care to choose. Whilst there are topics which have specific notability criteria, these are more or less based on WP:V. For instance WP:TOY has at one very good specific criteria for inclusion ("A toy or game is generally notable if it verifiably...it is included in the collection of any notable gallery, museum, or other educational institution"). However, WP:V is easier to satisfy for real-world objects or people, observations of which can easily be recorded. Fictional topics are more problematical, as they can only be observed (actually they can't be observed, perhaps it is better to say they are described) from primary sources (e.g. a short story or a film script) or secondary sources that provide analyis (e.g. a review of a story, or discussion of a character's development during a film). Fictional elements are firmly wedded to primary and secondary sources of a descriptive kind from both the perspective of WP:N and WP:V, such that the only alternative to asserting existence and notability of fictional elements other than GNC is perhaps the concept of reasonable presumption of notability, a concept which has not been considered here.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Again these knots you are becoming entangled in is more due to the mess of the notability concept itself, rather than the fictional topics you are considering. Another black mark for notability, bin it and use our core policies. Catchpole (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• On the contrary, there is no better criteria for judging which fictional topics are encyclopedic other than GNC, because you can atomise fictional elements into sub-elements to absurd levels. GNC provides a subjective test which can be applied to fictional topics or groups of fictional elements, such that it is no longer worth breaking an article into sub-articles unless there is sufficient amount of real-world coverage from reliable secondary sources to justify an article on the topic concerned.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Awards, figures, rankings - relating to specific elements

To try and fine a general consensus on this point, I'm asking: is it conceivable that a work of fiction may receive an award that clearly relates to a specific element within that fiction, or for specific elements to receive rankings from reliable sources, and so on?

As examples, I would cite film magazines publishing lists of "top heroes and villains", as an obvious one, and computer game magazines and websites giving awards for components of games (such as levels or characters). SamBC(talk) 10:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe there are any, although I would be interested if anyone has an example that could prove me wrong. The example of the "best character award" that you cited in an earlier discussion is not actually an award at all, but is a Literary technique by which the authors of a magazine article have presented their opinions using the format of an award. The "award" itself is fictional: there is no prize (except perhaps being featured in the article) and no nominations, jury, or review process, and of course "recipient" (the fictional character or game level) is not real either. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The recipient not being real really doesn't enter into it; the recipient could just as readily be read as being the game, receiving the award for the character. I also don't think it's within our remit, given WP:NOR, to disagree with a reliable source when it refers to something as an award. This is the same way that most awards from game magazines work; either reader polls, or editorial decisions. We cannot, as wikipedia editors, determine that awards given through editorial decisions aren't really awards. SamBC(talk) 11:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, it is. One was nominated for an oscar for writing the work of fiction he was in! Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Something like 5th Spacey Awards or fan polls in general do in fact give awards/recognition to fictional elements (mostly in the style of favorite characters and episodes, but I've also seen this). However, none of these "awards" are major enough to establish notability for a separate article per se. Emmys and the Pulitzer Prize etc. are in almost all cases (hi, Percy) still awarded to the people creating the fictional elements. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I've added "It is not sufficient for an award to be given for a fictional topic or for a fictional work to have high figures according to primary sources, but these are often discussed in secondary coverage which establishes the notability of the fictional topic in question" in a footnote, which I believe explains the current practise with regards to awards and other similar figures. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would also point out AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains as an example, as I referred to above. SamBC(talk) 11:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• With regard to Adaptation., have a look at List of fictitious Academy Award nominees where I believe you will see that the nominees are not really fictious: either they were the subject of an identity mix up (deliberate in some cases, to hide someones real identity) or the nominees were real people using a Pen name. As regards fan polls, I think you can class them as evidence of popularity (or notoriety), but they can't be taken as evidence of notabality, as they are not awards per se.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article that you linked to says "in fact, there is no Donald Kaufman, and the screenplay was written by Charlie alone. Donald was the first fictitious nominee not to be a cover for a real person". Glad to see you're keeping up the level of research that made you so popular with the editors of RPG articles. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think you may be confused between the difference between a ficitious nominee and a Pen name. A pen name does not have to be one name. .--Gavin & Michael Collins (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nope, it's not me who's confused. You're failing to read the articles you involve yourself with, again. The article that you used to back up the POV that Donald wasn't a fictitious nominee says "Donald was the first fictitious nominee". Please explain how he can be the "first fictitious nominee" without being a fictitious nominee. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I read the article List of fictitious Academy Award nominees and understood what it was saying. Donald & Charlie Kaufman was used as a Pen name for a real person, Charlie Kaufman whose work on Adaption "earned him another Oscar nomination". The nomination of an Osacar to screenwriter who uses a plural Pseudonym is not the same as awarding nominating a fictional character in that film. I think you are confused by the fact that Pseudonym and the fictional character in the film were the name, but Pseudonym actual refered to a real person, not a fictional character. A quick reality check is needed here: fictional characters don't write real-world screenplays, screenwriters do. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case, did you read it, understand it, and then disagree with it? Seeing as it states outright that he was a fictitious nominee... SamBC(talk) 12:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So you read it and decided it didn't mean what it said. Interesting. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Come on guys. Do we need to keep adding fuel to the fire? If Gavin is the only serious objector, well... at some point we have to say so be it. Is that time near? Each editor has the onus upon them to work towards a consensus. Hiding T 12:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Gets my vote. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's beginning to seem like that's the only way we'll ever move forwards. SamBC(talk) 13:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that this isn't a productive system but my concern is is that we want a guideline that does not either create a game out of WP or allow for gaming of the system because people have to find, or have already, one bit of notable information and try to game the system for that. GNC is "significant coverage". I think there is a valid point in that rarely a fictional element itself wins the award from reliable sources (eg, I know VG sites give out "best character" awards, but these are edging on dubious), but even in the case that this happens, a single award would not be "significant coverage". This is not to say that if the actor or creator or whomever is the one that gains the award/nomination for the element, that this bit cannot be used as part of the GNC "significant coverage"; certainly I'd expect that that award among other details only strengthens the article (see, for example Gregory House and mention of Hugh Laurie's wins in the Casting section). But even sometimes, minor awards or noms can be mentioned in an LOC/LOE or the main article itself if that is the only evidence of notability.

But this is why it is very difficulty to come up with alternate clauses outside the GNC; passionate editors, determined to keep an article, will either waste a lot of time seeking one source that may weakly pass these alternate ones, or have that source and will defend that it is now notable if it is brough into question. Yes, such editors will to the same with non-notable lists or elements, but I think the improved wording of FICT makes these cases less fuzzy to make the fate of such lists more predictable. This award thing is..not necessarily bad, but I think not of the spirit we necessarily want to promote. --MASEM 13:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Consider the context they are currently mentioned in, in the current draft text, not the suggestion of awards as an actual criterion; the current phrasing actually says that awards, figures, etc, are only applicable to the notability of an element if they are specifically relevant to that element. That could be expanded upon, but gets harder and harder to agree the more it is expanded. SamBC(talk) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• I did add a footnote explaining that the award still has to provoke secondary coverage.. I've tightened that to say "if significant" so that's less of a loophole. If we're still concerned, there are two ways we can further restrict awards: We can ask that they be "significant" awards, which makes them easier to dismiss, or we can ask that they be notable awards, which at worst moves the question elsewhere but at best can give a very quick indicator of whether the award counts because you can check whether it has an article yet. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I not only agree with Masem that Percy is seeking one source that may weakly pass as evidence of notability, but I don't think he will find one at all. I can see there are examples given earlier in this discussion that there are instances of fictional awards being awarded to fictional characters, or that some popularity polls are carried out to identify popular characters, but there are no real-world awards being made to fictional characters (and I don't include fictional aliases in that category, just to be clear). As I have said before there are no real-world criteria to establish the notability of fictional elements other than GNC, because they can't cross over into the real-world where they can be observed and measured. Hugh Laurie is a notable award winning actor, but the character Gregory House does not inherit that notability from the award. The good acting that enables us to associate the actor with the character is not the same as saying the character is notable as well: only GNC can establish notability, say for example if someone writes a paper saying how well written the character is from a fictional standpoint. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Gosh, first you do it to that list, now you're doing it to me. I never said anything like that. I said that awards might be evidence of coverage, but that the coverage is still required. What part of that is weaker than the GNC? Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• And I am saying no such awards exist that could be used as evidence, so your premise is superfluous.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• You're still doing it. I didn't say that the award could be used as evidence. I have even said that the award can't be used as evidence. The coverage that it provokes is evidence. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• And I am saying no real-world awards for fictional characters exist, so whether they can or cannot be used as evidence, your premise is still superfluous.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's irrelevant. I'm saying that awards may provoke coverage of fictional elements. The Academy Award for Best Actor goes to the Actor, but the character is mentioned in the award and often described in more detail in later coverage. If it does, the element is notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Why am I still feeding the troll? I'm going to sign off for a while.. I'm sure you'll feel free to keep putting words in my mouth. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Inclusion in a list of recognition, like the top 100 heroes and villains linked above, is certainly of the same ilk as an award; does that not satisfy your desire for an example? After all, the current text refers to awards, rankings, etc. SamBC(talk) 14:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That is an example of a poll. Polls are a good indication of popularity, but not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • What exactly has given you the impression that it's a poll? They were selected by the American Film Institute, based on criteria listed at the list's webpage. In fact, the "cultural impact" and "legacy" criteria speak very well to the wikipedia concept of notability. SamBC(talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Because the real-world awards were not given to any fictional character. I note that Arnie got two for portraying our friend the Terminator (character concept), but that was for his real life acting. Note that none of the fictional characters were given an award, nor where they there to recieve it (obviously if they are not real, that would be a serious impediment to them getting to the ceremony). For this reason, I would class this as an poll, rather than a fictional award.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Wow; you make a reasoned (if not, IMO, valid) series of points, and then draw an unrelated conclusion. The fact of who or what received the awards is not connected to whether it's an award or opinion poll, and the evidence certainly indicates an award; to draw a parallel regarding your substantive point, Academy Awards for Best Picture are awarded to the film itself, but collected by production staff; in the case of this list, the entities named in the list are the characters, and second to this a film the character was in. Congratulations on your mining of misleading quotations. SamBC(talk) 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mean to go into such specifics, but I think I take your point; although there was no nomination process, as there would be for films, directors and producers, you are saying this is an award, not a poll, nonetheless. However, I go back to my earlier point that this "award" can only be classed as fictional since it is made to a fictional character, for the honour of being one of the 100 heroes or villans can only be a treated as being a real-world award in the hands of the actors for their acting skill used in their portrayal of the winning characters. To be honest, I would much rather this guideline did not mention awards given to fictional elements, whether they are fictional, notional or implied by way of ranking, as the term award suggests some form of measurable or observable excellence that is objective in nature, where as the concept of an excellent ficitonal element is highly subjective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reframing it in that context makes no difference to its notability impact: if the award is given to the role rather than the character (in spite of the group claiming they're awarding the character...), the only change is that we now must describe the Terminator because it is an intrinsic and vital part of understanding the topic "the portrayal of the Terminator" rather than the Terminator itself.
  And awards are no more subjective in the case of fiction than anything else. If they are given by reliable sources, we can use them. --erachima talk 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• You might be right. However, I could not help noting that this list was drawn up for a television special, which would have included lots of film clips, and hence I think the award has more to do with the notability of the films and the actors, and that context is important. In spite of the group claiming they're awarding the honor to the character...I would still argue this award should be used only in judging the notability of the Terminator in films or Terminator as portrayed by a person, which I think is picked up in WP:MOVIE and WP:BIO, rather in WP:FICT because it is the real-world representation of the characters in medium of films by actors that the academy of motion pictures is commenting on. Percy has said that the medium and the fictional elements are entwined, but I think keeping them distinct is important, less we end up having to provide specific instances of notability covered by these other guidlelines. Although in this instance, the character and film is closely related, these awards seem to be more concerned with their real-world manfifestation. I acknowledge that I could be wrong about there being no real-world criteria for judging the notability of ficitonal characters, but it seems to me that if there are, there is evidence to suggest that they fall within the domain of other guidelines, and that the evidence of cross over from the real-world award to fictional notability is very weak.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The list was publicised other than the TV special, and the criteria of the award give no mention to the factors you describe; however, at this point, you give the appearance of grasping at straws. I invite you, however, to look at the guideline draft as it stands; it is explicitly stated that awards may be indicative of potential notability and may help with finding relevant coverage, but that they are not actually proof of notability in themselves, with text indicating that their may be extreme exceptions, needing exceptional evidence. If it were omitted, we'd have what we currently have at AfDs with any half-decent award being accepted as evidence of notability as often as not. So what's the problem with these bits of the draft? SamBC(talk) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (PS: what you said made more sense before you edited it more and caused this EC; the awards state that they are for a character, contradicting them is quite simply OR)

FICT currently says that "even where an element or group of elements is notable, it may be more appropriate to include the information in an article on the work itself". So all the back-and-forth about the notability through awards is really a pointless debate and just prevents us from getting ahead; either you have enough real-world information (not just one "it won an award" sentence) to support the article or not, and FICT applies as usual. I'd therefore rather leave awards out of FICT at this point. (I think someone else already said this.) – sgeureka ^t•c 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's my point, particularly when we talk about allowing for more specific guidelines to provide additional cases; one award in the context of all works of fiction to allow for notability is a very weak point. An award is part of the general criteria and that award may lead to more sources for that, but alone isn't sufficient in terms of talking about the fictional element. --MASEM 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Intuitively I feel you are right, as a fictional element is unlikely to receive an award unless there was extensive real-world coverage which could used as a basis for comparison and selection of an award winning character. My concern is that it is hard to distinguish a genuine award from a the Literary technique or television genre that use fictional awards a theme or a prop for trivial coverage of fictional elements such as "Heroes & Villans" or "Best use of Spandex in a computer game".--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "reliable sources giving awards that don't qualify as a type of reception information" doesn't appear to be an article in either Category:Literary techniques or Category:Television genres. Would you mind explaining exactly what you're attempting to refer to here? --erachima talk 07:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Masem; I don't remember any mention of awards in the GNC; it's mentioned in FILM and BK and others, but not the GNC, IIRC. SamBC(talk) 13:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant the general FICT criteria, not the GNC. --MASEM 13:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's not in the guideline referring to elements, then nothing written down will suggest that awards have any relevance to notability of elements, as this is the only guideline (or guideline-to-be) that refers to elements. SamBC(talk) 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. I'm hesitant against FICT mentioning any award as a means to demonstrate notability for an element, because what an award is for the various forms of media can be drastically different, but the suggestions given would imply they all give different weights. Now, I have absolutely no problem if a more specific guideline wants to include this to give notability to elements through awards. If the television project feels that award-winning actors lead to those characters being notable, great, that's fine. I just don't think this can be worded to be neutral towards any type of work of fiction, since the importance and credibility of the awards vary drastically, and results in us saying that a video gaming magazine's "Game of the Year" is the equivalent of winning an Oscar, in terms of having a notable element article. This will lead to people using blog awards to justify any character article, even though we know that's not right. --MASEM 14:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem. Using awards made to fictional emelements is of dubious value. All mention of awards, rankings, sales figures need to be removed from this guideline: they only apply to real-world media covered by WP:BK, WP:MOVIE and WP:TOY, not to fictional elements covered by WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Point-by-point on Gavin's objection to awards being considered relevant to fictional elements, ever

I'm taking "awards" to mean, basically, "awards or similar plaudits" here

I'm going to try and summarise the points I can isolate; people should feel free to add more, including Gavin. Each point should be made atomic and concise so it can be considered; the reasoning is all present above, such as it is, and Gavin can add further reasoning in addition to the point itself if he wishes. This is just to stop the discussion being too knotted. Reasoning supporting or refuting each point should be added, preferably bullet-style, beneath each one. I'll let other people take a first stab. Again, I would suggest that Gavin not defend them until others have actively refuted them; not all of them may even invite a refutation. SamBC(talk) 17:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• We're giving Gavin far too much sway here. His points are derived wholly from his own personal opinion of fictional subjects, not Wikipedia's principles or consensus. We're not going to convince him of anything, and continuing this discussion will merely delay our real goal of developing a working guideline yet again. --erachima talk 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

remove the quibbling

1. "An award to a fictional element must, inherently, be fictional itself" -- not so at all --there are Academy awards for film music, for example, which is an element of the fiction; there are awards for production elements also.
2. "Any award to a fictional element can only be considered in the context of one representation (literary, visual, etc) of that element" what is this meant to avoid? In the case where a character for example appears in a book and a movie, thow to deal with this is a matter of editorial judgment--sometimes the clearest way will be a joint article showing the comparison. DGG (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
3. "Awards are given based on objectively measurable standards; fictional elements cannot be measured objectively (or at all)" not at all the case--awards are given on the basis of intuitive judgement of significance. There would be no reason for the academy award for Best Film is it were just a matter of adding up the box office receipts. The reasons for the awards in many cases are so impossible to express in rational terms that they are given on the basis of a vote among those considered qualified., and again the AA are a prime example. (in another field, so are the Nobel Prizes -- and almost every award in the world; if were merely objective, there would be no purpose in awards, they would automatically go to the highest value of whatever. )

disagree with the following addition

"^ It is not generally a sufficient indicator of notability for an award to be given for a fictional topic, or for a fictional work to have high figures according to primary sources; however, these are often discussed in secondary coverage which, if significant, may be used to establish the notability of the fictional topic in question. In some cases, however, a plaudit is of sufficient stature to represent sufficient coverage in itself; it is rare that such will have been given without coverage in other secondary sources, and exceptional evidence will be required to justify any element as notable on the basis of an award alone."

that is not the case--a truly notable award is sufficient for notability by itself. Similarly, true best seller status is notability, and primary sources if reliable and indisputable can be used to prove it. Popularity does not equal notability, but it can be one element. It represents what the general public thinks of as in some sense being notable enough to buy/see/watch. DGG (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with a winner of a notable award always being notable. Unless it's notable for some other reason, a winner of a notable award is in somewhat less notable than the award itself, so if the award is only just notable enough to merit an article, then the winner won't be. Perhaps this is another time to use the concept of "highly notable"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Percy, other notability guidelines say that major awards indicate notability, and general practice outside topics covered by that guideline usually supports it as well. I don't like the idea of award => notable in this case for other reasons, as shall explain below. SamBC(talk) 13:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do. I'd be happy for us to do so as well, so long as we give some advice on how to identify "major" awards; and I do think that the "highly notable" definition is a close match. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

DGG: part of the concern is the applicability of these thing to fictional element; is a character from a best-selling book notable because the book is best-selling? Another concern is the fact that there's an awful lot of "awards" from fansites and polls. I'd support modifying that note to say that some awards represent coverage in themselves; oh, hang on, I made that change. Is your problem with the "it is rare that such will have been given … exceptional evidence … etc"? SamBC(talk) 13:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Awards of sufficient stature

At the moment, the guidelines allow notability derived solely from awards. They do this in a footnote, which reads:

"In some cases, however, a plaudit is of sufficient stature to represent sufficient coverage in itself; it is rare that such will have been given without coverage in other secondary sources, and exceptional evidence will be required to justify any element as notable on the basis of an award alone."

While I'm happy for us to allow awards as direct evidence of notability, I see two problems.

1. If we're going to do this, it shouldn't be in a footnote
2. We shouldn't use vague, handwavy stuff like "in some cases"; we need to give editors something to check before they get as far as starting an AFD. The "highly notable" clause is an example of the sort of thing we need.

So - could anyone suggest where we should put this, and what advice we should give to editors on whether an award has sufficient stature?

To my mind, the footnote is a way of saying "awards are neither automatic evidence of notability, nor are they irrelevant"; there may be a better way of saying that. As I read (and intended to write) that sentence, it was "yes, awards suggest notability, but if something wins an award you can usually find better evidence". SamBC(talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence in the footnote says exactly that: "It is not generally a sufficient indicator of notability for an award to be given for a fictional topic, or for a fictional work to have high figures according to primary sources; however, these are often discussed in secondary coverage which, if significant, may be used to establish the notability of the fictional topic in question." - so if that's the intented meaning we can just delete the second sentence in the footnote. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no; it's more by way of elaboration, and if the text it's with weren't a footnote, I'd've put that bit in a footnote, but a footnote for a footnote just seems silly. I think it's worth elaboration because it stops people later coming to this talk page and saying "no, some articles should, look at this one, man!" Instead, it says, "yes, some are major enough, but generally there'll be something else written then." SamBC(talk) 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't say that. It says, "Some are major enough, even if there's nothing else written, but you need exceptional evidence". So rather than elaborating on the first sentence, it undermines it. I think what you meant to write was "In some cases, a plaudit may have sufficient stature to indicate notability in itself; but since such plaudits will inspire coverage in other secondary sources, we look to that coverage for evidence of notability." Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the above what you meant to say, SamBC? If so I'll make the change; since it requires coverage it may even satisfy Gavin. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly; it's hard to say. I think we need to make sure of the following things:

• Major awards for works will always be taken as evidence of notability of the work (this may be worth adding, as works can exist that aren't books, films, or games).
• Awards won't be misused (overused) to claim notability of elements.
• Elements that are actually notable will be found to be such; if an element has received a major award, it should be considered notable. However:
  • we need to avoid people claiming that awards are major when they aren't
  • we need to ensure that awards "for" elements are taken as such
• Elements that receive awards will almost always have other coverage if they are truly notable, but this isn't universal. We need to allow for this.

I'm just not sure how to ensure all of these are handled at once. But they should be. SamBC(talk) 10:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think the footnote is wrong altogether. It does not need exceptional evidence. Major stature, such as Academy awards, Pulitzer Prizes, and the like justify notability for the main work by themselves and have always and uniformly been considered to do so. This footnote could be taken to say otherwise. suggested rewrite for the whole section, footnote and all:

""Awards to the principle work do not usually indicate that particular elements will be notable." that's all that is needed. DGG (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That then leaves no mention of awards to elements; the footnote is entirely in the context of awards to elements, and essentially says "yes, they exist, but other evidence of notability is needed in those cases"; I'm not sure I agree with it, to be honest, and would actually prefer it to say that awards of sufficient stature are acceptable, but rare. The concern about fan awards and similar crud leads to the language about exceptional evidence. SamBC(talk) 16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

the evidence is needed for the notability of the award, not the award. (A useful practical standard is a WP article on it.) Any RS showing the award has been awarded is good enough--even things like IMDB, if uncontested. I understand what you mean, its a good idea, and now lets figure out how to word it. DGG (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes; that is what I meant by the wording about exceptional evidence; for an award to represent sufficient evidence of notability for an element of fiction (or fictional element, however you prefer to phrase it), there must be exceptional evidence of the stature of the award. I would also say that the award must be clearly relevant to the element itself, as there are cases where awards are given to a work but really apply to an element, and in such cases there must be exceptional (or at least very strong) evidence that the award is considered to be for the element (except any classes of situation which gain a general consensus). SamBC(talk) 20:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can you give an example? --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • An example of what? The example we've been using for a while (The AFI 100 heroes and villains) seems a perfectly good one. SamBC(talk) 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you mean awards given to a work that are clearly for an element, I feel this is demonstrated for the ENnie awards (prestigious gaming awards) with the following awards:
    1. Best campaign setting
    2. Best non-D20 setting or setting supplement
    3. Best setting supplement
  • All three of those would seem of "direct relevance" to the setting itself, regardless of whether it is the setting or the supplement that is awarded. SamBC(talk) 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• All of these are media specific evidence of notability, as described in WP:MOVIE, WP:TOY, and WP:BK. Do you have an examples that pertain specifically to fictional elements? --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Handling characters not worth an article

a number of editors have been placing WP:PROD proposed deletion tags on a large number of character articles. I can't judge the individual notability for shows I dont know, which is most of them, but it seems to me a better course in all cases would be to at least change to a redirect to a list of characters article or at least to the show. If any should instead be merged, the people who know the show can always do that slowly and properly so as not to include excessive material. The wording of the page at present says " An article about a character in a TV show that only appeared on-screen for a few seconds and is never referred to otherwise is probably non-notable; however, by using the proposed deletion process, someone may be able to provide the required notability" and this is certainly correct for a character appearing once for a few seconds--at least unless its a major celebrity guest appearance. But for anything more than that, a redirect would seem the way to go. Many of the articles prodded are clearly not the trivial type of character referred to on the page. I propose to add the Sentence. "If a more substantial role, the articles can be redirected to a list of characters or the article for the show, or merged into such an article." DGG (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of this is covered in WP:FICT#Fictional elements as part of a larger topic. However, this is also a behavioral issue. If a PROD is contested, then it needs to either be dropped or put to AFD, but really, the first step before a PROD or AFD if there's any possible likelihood that character is more than trivial is to tag the article and allow time for correction and/or working with the editors to help merge them. And even then, PROD/AFD is not right - it is , as you say, redirect and merge that should be done. Again, a PROD should only be done if it is clearly obvious that the character can never likely be treated in an encyclopedic manner - which really should not be that many cases at all. --MASEM 15:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Clariying (lack of) primacy of GNC

I have, as a "run-up-the-flagpole" suggestion, added the following to the end of the final paragraph of the section "Defining notability for fiction":

“ Some topics (especially fictional elements) that seem to have significant coverage may ultimately be deemed insufficiently notable to merit an individual article rather than a section in another article; similarly, there may be cases where an element does not seem to have significant coverage, but that coverage is sufficient to demonstrate notability. These issues are explored below. ”

It may well already have been reverted; I just wanted to get people talking. If this or anything similar is adopted, there'll probably need to be some (quite small) changes to later sections. Anyway, here's my rationale:

We say "case by case", which suggests that GNC isn't the be-all-and-end-all, which it isn't (even when there isn't a specific guideline); the new sentence clarifies that this works in both direction, and I think everyone here would agree that it works in at least one, and most would agree that it can work in both. "Issues are explored below" is based on the fact that we do discuss the idea that there may be other evidence of notability (although significant coverage is preferred), but that an element of fiction may, even when notable, be more appropriately covered in a wider article. SamBC(talk) 15:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• For fictional elements, GNC is the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to ascertaining notability, since no one has come up with any alternative criteria, other than those used in relation to the media in which they are transmitted or distributed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's not the case - you've just ignored all the ones they have. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Other reason to cover fictional elements: consolidation

Now, whether or not we want to call such topics "notable", there are cases where a fictional element can't be sanely covered in one place. One example might be the The Culture. Most of the material in that article is encyclopaedic, and rather more can be sourced than is. In fact, there are editorial issues with it, but it certainly makes sense for the article to exist even if the topic isn't notable (there probably is enough coverage of the setting itself to qualify, but it makes a good example in concept) as the material is very much relevant to the novels, but if it were limited to those articles (such as Excession and Player of Games) then there would be less value to readers, and the coverage would be, generally, less encyclopaedic.

On this sort of principle, I think we ought to have some sort of clause to indicate that consolidation of material common to multiple articles into a separate article is valid, whether we want to call the consolidated topic notable or not. I'm sure there are plenty more examples of this having happened, but haven't the time to go looking for them right now. SamBC(talk) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think we need it now. Let's try to get some agreement on the basic stuff first. Obvious a fictional topic can be encyclopedic, now thatthe challenges to the IPC articles has more or less died down. DGG (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • I think there are two things we need to consider:
      • Combining characters that exists across several works of a franchise that otherwise aren't common to a majority of the entries within it may be overwhelming and a bit of OR. It is perfectly reasonable to have "List of common characters in X franchise" (common being defined as being in the majority of said works), but when we get to some of those Star Wars lists, it's a bit too much ("List of Mandalorians"). Instead, there should be "List of characters in X films" and "X books" and so forth (eg, this is why the list of Knights of the Old Republic characters are fine, as that limits the list to those in the video game. Thus, for one work that is part of the franchise, the characters can be found in the "common characters" list and the list specific to that work. This does not, however, limit the use of categories to achieve the same breakdown across the franchise, using categories redirects and referring to these appropriately.
      • At the work level, if lists do have to be split, they need to be split as most naturally as possible and presented such that the title clearly explains the work and a brief introduction to set out that grouping is provided if it is not plainly obvious. The list of characters of race X from Stargate that sgeureka proposes feels natural for that particular show, and should begin by explaining the race, how they are introduced in the series, and the like before starting the list. A "list of Klingon characters from Star Trek: The Next Generation" would be appropriate, but a "list of crewmembers aboard the Klingon Bird of Prey Ka'pleth in Star Trek: Next Generation" would not be. I would almost argue that such lists should aim to meet all requirements of feature list candidates save for the lack of notability, thus using established guidelines to help with how things should be organized (though rewording them to apply to characters). --MASEM 15:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree that we should try to make natural splits, if splits are actually needed, but not where that places emphasis on a less-notable topic. The reason that the 'list of Klingons' might be acceptable where the second list isn't, is that Klingon is a "highly notable" topic. Perhaps that could be reflected in the groupings clause? And we should remember that splits are unlikely to be needed: if a character has no real-world relevance, then it's not necessary to mention them at all. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

reorienting the section

I've made a bold change to the wording on dividing up characters. It represents a sharp disagreement with the immediately above comments.. I do not see the virtue of necessarily dividing up characters into groups on the basis of real world, rather than fictional content. In series especially, many characters span the entire length of the run. characters in location or family XYZ seems a grouping that would often correspond to the material. the organization needs to fit the material. In some other works, grouping by unit of publication might make better sense. fictional characters are characters in fiction, and that is their importance. How to arrange them depends on the circumstances. I see the previous wording as an attempt to minimize coverage, by emphasising the unimportant real world details, rather than the important fictional ones. I altogether totally disagree with Percy that a character with importance in the fiction cannot be notable as such. There is no such statement in NOT, which refers only to the overall coverage. There has to be real world content in the overall coverage of the topic as a whole. Otherwise, the importance is often primarily in the fictional content. Apparently not everyone agrees, so the thing to do is leave in undetermined here. DGG (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced "appropriate" with "highly notable" so that there's some guidance on what "appropriate" would mean; without that, it was an exemption for all lists. I think the "Regardless..." section is style advice, and so might be better placed at WP:WAF, but other than that it's OK by me. What do you mean by "I altogether totally disagree with Percy that a character with importance in the fiction cannot be notable as such" - I don't think I've ever said that; perhaps you're confusing me with Gavin? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

WP:PLOT has been removed from policy, per Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. I suggest this page may need to be rewritten to accommodate that fact, or editors engage themselves in building a consensus on the issue at WP:NOT. Hiding T 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been put back in (phew). Reports on the death of WP:NOT#PLOT have been greatly exagerated. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As there is no consensus on its inclusion, it should be re-removed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight on groupings?

I'm a bit concerned about footnote seven, which states that splitting into groupings (such as character teams or plot arcs, I guess) places undue weight on the notability of such groupings. Can anyone please clarify this for me? I had thought that per WP:SIZE and WP:SS such articles were allowable?? -Malkinann (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fictional elements as part of a larger topic provides groupings (such as long lists of non-notable characters) exemption from GNC provided that these groupings "in rare cases...merit their own supporting articles". The footnote says that you should not break such long lists into shorter lists of non-notable characters, but in practise there is no way to telling the long list and sub-list apart, and in any case, both are composed of non-notable elements, e.g. List of Mandalorians. My reading of this section and the related footnotes is that all lists of fictional elements are exempt from GNC, no matter how trivial or non-notable they may be. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's one way to look at it. The other is that while we're not sure how to define a criteria for what kinds of lists, at the very least we wanted to encourage lists over individual articles. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gavin's misreading it again. List of Mandalorians is dealt with in the footnote which reads "It is inappropriate to group elements into lists corresponding to less-notable subtopics of the work (e.g. characters with a given affiliation) as that would place undue weight on the subtopic." Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why is it "inappropriate"? Clearly List of Mandalorians "merit their own supporting articles" because they are fictional elements as part of a larger topic, which in this case is Star Wars. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, that's if you only read part of the guideline; read the whole thing, including what Percy quoted, and it says it's inappropriate. The guideline says "this can be a good idea, but in some circumstances it isn't". What's wrong with that? SamBC(talk) 09:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed. And it specifically mentions the circumstances that surround List of Mandalorians. They're a group corresponding to a less-notable subtopic of Star Wars; they're characters affiliated with Mandalore. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Gavin: The part I assume you're referring to is: "In rare cases, where none of the above steps can resolve the length problem without damaging encyclopedic coverage of the work, groupings of individually non-notable elements can merit their own supporting articles. This should be considered only for highly notable works[6], and the information within the supporting articles should not exceed the necessary depth of coverage for the main article's topic. Under current practice, these supporting articles are generally one of the following two types of list:
    • Lists of characters in a highly-notable work or series of works.[7]"
  • This is annotated by the footnotes 6 and 7; 6 defines highly notable, which indeed Star Wars meets. However, footnote 7 speaks against List of Mandalorians: "It is inappropriate to group elements into lists corresponding to less-notable subtopics of the work (e.g. characters with a given affiliation) as that would place undue weight on the subtopic." This significantly limits such lists, in fact, beyond current practice; we all seem to be agreed, however, that while such lists represent current practice, they do not represent current best practice. SamBC(talk) 09:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• It appears to me that the List of Mandalorians qualifies as a List of characters in a highly-notable work or series of works, regardless of footnote 7, since Star Wars is covered to extensively, and there is no chance that this list could place undue weight on the subtopic Mandalorians.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• So you're saying that because you ignore the footnote, you object to the rest? That's not an argument, that's just filibustering. Anyway, if you don't think it puts undue weight on Mandalorians, then why do you object to the list article? Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite. Malkinann asked when are such articles allowable. FEAPOALT provides an exemption for lists of non-notable characters from GNC which seems to make the list allowable. The foonote says that the list is not allowed because the list puts undue weight on the topic. The section and the footnote seem to be in conflict. Perhaps because this issue has not been considered before, nor have these clauses (and their footnotes) ever been applied to a practicle problem, this dicussion will appear long winded. However, since no examples are given in FEAPOALT, I think this needs to be clarified in a practicle way.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• How are the section and footnote in conflict? The section says that some lists are allowed; the footnote says some aren't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Would it be clearer if the footnote text were part of the section proper? Or some part of it? SamBC(talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think that the intent here is that instead of "List of characters in work X", grouping the characters as "List of characters in fictional grouping Y" overemphasizes fictional grouping Y (which is part of work X) that, unless Y itself is notable, puts undue weight on Y. The naming of these, typically "List of characters in X", generate make it clear this list supports work(s) X, and thus supported the exemption for being non-notable. When the list naming removes the notable work, or even if it emphasized the fictional aspect more (eg "List of Mandalorian characters in Star Wars") that's putting too much emphasis on the internal fictional distribution of the characters. Basically, these exemptions for nn lists should be encyclopedic support of the main work and presented to the general reader as to not require pre-knowledge of the work. "List of characters in Star Wars" would do that, "List of Mandalorians" would not. This doesn't mean that (presumably) those characters can't be covered in other lists, so its more likely a matter of reorganizing the information to make it less dependant on the knowledge of the work of fiction itself.
• This may point to advice we need to have in WAF, in that the creation of fictional universe (multiple works)-spanning lists that combine non-recurring elements, whether by some specific classification or not, is not a good idea. For Star Trek, I would not have Morn (the barfly in DS9) grouped alongside Nurse Chapel (TOS) and Porthos (ENT) as "List of Minor Characters in Star Trek", but instead have these in their own respective lists as "List of Minor Characters in (Star Trek show)". Similarly, the List of Mandalorians is groupping across at least several games if not more, and thus breaks in the same fashion. --MASEM 13:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Masem's captured the difference there; I'll add an example to see what people think. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• So which of the lists of Star Wars characters are not included and which should be exculded out of the Category:Lists of Star Wars characters? Please give some examples from this category as to how WP:FICT now applies to them.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Of those, the only one I see being completely appropriate is List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters, since it is a grouping by a work (the KOTOR games).
• However, this brings up an interesting idea. The fact that such exist mean that people are likely going to want to naturally try to sort on these though encyclopedic. This is beyond FICT, but what if we encourgae the use of categories (even on redirected articles) to provide alternate sorting that should not be used for lists. For example, a category "Star Wars droids" could be used to collect all pages and directs that specifically talk about droids, such that this functionality is still there, but in article form, we still have "List of Star Wars (Subtitle Name) characters" as the exemption lists. --MASEM 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, categorised redirects are usually a good thing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I tried that with two merged character articles, but this was reverted after some time[1] [2] because of WP:CAT-RD. Hence, this might require rewriting other guidelines. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• WP:CAT-RD specifically says that "Subtopic categorization" and "Categorization of list entries" are good things, so long as the list is of the good minor topic list form rather than the bad bareword form. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Damn, Percy beat me to it. I was about to say that... SamBC(talk) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec x2) And you two beat me to it when I realized it, but then why did the editor... Ah, heck, it's too confusing. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, for those examples, those particular redirects aren't supported by WP:CAT-RD, which says that redirects into lists of, for example, fictional characters, should only be categorised within that fictional setting. If the list they're in wasn't alphabetical (I have no idea if it is) then categorising as "characters in carnivale" would make sense, to provide an alphabetic sorting. If there are subcategorisations that make sense for carnivale characters (like allegiance to factions or something; I don't know the show) then that would also make sense, which definitely applies to List of Mandelorians; any of those that really belong in an extended list of star wars characters could have redirects pointing at them, and the redirects categorised as "Mandelorian Star Wars characters" or something. Great strategy, in line with any policy or guidelines I've heard of. SamBC(talk) 16:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, so that is cleared up then. I also support Masem's idea, but I think we should focus on getting FICT accepted again first. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 16:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• By my reading, List of Star Wars characters is included by FEAPOALT. It could be argued that List of minor Star Wars characters could be, but it seems to be misnamed; it's actually 'List of Star Wars characters of affiliations not covered by other lists' which specifically isn't included by FEAPOALT. Minor characters in Star Wars is a disambiguation page; I'm not sure how notability concerns apply to them but I suspect they're exempt so long as the pages they disambiguate are notable. The remainder aren't included by FEAPOALT but may be included by some other notability conditions; you'd have to check each one and look for references etc... Remember that notability guidelines don't exclude anything: WP:DEL does that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, if KOTOR is highly notable then List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters is included. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are non-article pages in the article namespace. Since they are not articles notability does not apply. Taemyr (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more the fact that the lists from that dab page would be against what we're trying to suggest here (they're grouped by an aspect of the fiction), so that there would be no need for that dab page. --MASEM 19:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that merging these lists is not such a good idea. To get rid of them you will either have to go after the individual entries on the different lists in order to cut the size of the combined list down, or delete the list of minor characters completely. Taemyr (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not so much merging all the lists, but instead of grouping by a fiction-based affliation, the approach I suggest is to group them by the specific work or series of works in the Star Wars series. For example, "List of minor characters in the Star Wars films", "List of minor characters in the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic games", etc. This dab to lists of minor characters may then be kept, but we're suggesting that a category may be better suited to map the works by content. --MASEM 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Another way for merging, which I am currently exploring with Ori (Stargate), is to merge the character list into the article of the affiliation/race. This works especially well when characters share the same in-universe traits (reduction of redundance) and real-life prosthetics (make up and costumes), or when the history of the race/affiliation can be told through the character bios (again reduction of redundance in some cases). The race/affiliation however would need to be somewhat notable to begin with. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to say what groupings are acceptable, as well as ones that aren't. I see two cases in current practise:

• Alphabetical groupings (e.g. by name A-M, N-Z or A,B,C...Z)
• Chronological groupings (e.g. by real-world year or season of a seasonal episodic work)

Both are only appropriate where a single list would be too long for one article. Any others to add to footnote seven? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• So far from this part of the guideline or the footnote being acceptable, I suggest it should be just the opposite: combination articles are generally preferred. (I dont want to use the term groupings in the discussion, which in this sort of context usually means fictional couples or the like ). I made a admittedly bold change just now to bring it make to a central position, rather than an extreme one: I removed the word rare' from the sentence at the top of this section. Think before you revert. if the guideline is too prescriptive it will never get agreement. The practical choice is between a somewhat vague guideline or none at all. DGG (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It did seem odd to say "rare" and then set out the conditions; I support your edit. Leaving "In cases" behind read oddly, so I've removed that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• I still don't understand which of the articles/list in Category:Lists of Star Wars characters qualify for exemption from GNC and which place undue weight on the subtopic, and how Percy made this judgement call. Here is a table : could somone fill it in?

List	Exempt from GNC?	Places undue weight on sub-topic?	Evidence?
List of Star Wars characters	Yes	No	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of minor Star Wars characters	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of minor Star Wars droids	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of Star Wars handmaidens	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of minor Star Wars Imperial characters	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of New Order Jedi characters	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of Star Wars Dark Jedi	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters	Yes	No	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of Star Wars Old Republic characters	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of Star Wars Separatist characters	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of minor Star Wars villains	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle
List of Yuuzhan Vong	No	Yes	Opinion of Percy Snoodle

• • You're just baiting us again. We try to answer and you ignore and insult us. Stop filibustering. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• In fairness its no filibustering. The section FEAPOALT is completely new, untried and untested. Unless some examples can be shown to work, and evidence is provided to show how you made your judgements, then how can I or any other editor understand what this section means? If you are unwilling to respond, perhaps someone will. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, it isn't. The section of FEAPOALT explains how the footnote in WP:N has been interpreted; in other words, it's already a guideline, and it's been tested in practise for ages. We're not telling editors how to behave, we're saying how editors have behaved. The other editors don't seem to have a problem. It's just you, keeping this "discussion" alive so you can continue to browbeat editors with your narrow interpretation of notability and slap tags all over the wiki to mark your territory. Please stop filibustering. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• No-one else seems to find it confusing, and the way you filled that table in certainly seems like baiting. SamBC(talk) 10:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• So if it is not confusing, fill in the table and provide evidence to support your judgements. FEAPOALT as a section is less than 10 days old and is definetly never been tried or tested. So stick to the topic of this this thread, by answering Malkinann's question: Can anyone please clarify this for me? --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "definetly never been tried or tested" still not reading responses, I see. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a question of anyone's opinion, it's a question of logically applying the principles which have been drafted; the real issue is that we've said that, as examples, grouping by work is okay, but grouping by fictional affiliation isn't. The real problem, is that we haven't explained any sort of principle that this is an example of. I would suggest that lists should be grouped by "real world" groupings, as a general rule, and not fictional ones. This would mean individual works in a series (or sub-series in a series), seasons of a TV show, alphabetical divisions in order to cut size, and so on, are fine. SamBC(talk) 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I suggested much the same further up. I've made an edit to show that it's real-world divisions that are OK. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Just checking if we're still on the same page, because I am beginning to doubt it: what counts as real-world division? Certainly, the in-article division in Characters of Carnivàle (#Characters affiliated with Ben Hawkins and #Characters affiliated with Brother Justin Crowe) points to a division of affiliation, but at the same time, the two story lines were completely separate until the penultimate episode, and hence there was a real-world division in story telling (i.e. each story line would work independent from the other one for a long time). Similarly, have a look at Races in Stargate; although most of its character lists are not necessary (I already have long-term plans to possibly merge them) - does each races' unique look and the episode separation (e.g. one ep is a Goa'uld ep, one is a Wraith ep, etc.) count as real-world division? On another matter, I just had a look at the character lists of plays in my old school books, and even there, the characters are divided in groups of in-universe belonging (e.g. for Hamlet: Hamlet's old school friends; ambassadors sent to Norway, noblemen of the guard, and others). So if, even with trimming, a section of in-universe belonging gets too long, may that list section still be spun out? I guess what Gavin is trying to get at is that not each affiliation requires its own characters list (with which I agree), but simply not allowing this also doesn't work for me, per above. Maybe the thought behind all of this just needs a little bit more of explanation in the guideline, or we can move the fineprint to WAF as a matter of mainly organization, not of content. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Within an article it can be divided however you like - notability doesn't limit content. It's just that you don't get to make new articles based on in-universe divisions. So the articles you link to aren't in error, but their sections are not candidates for articles under FEAPOALT, as that would give undue weight to not-highly-notable topics. That's not to say they wouldn't be candidates for articles under some other notability guideline; an in-universe affiliation sufficiently-notable mork might well generate enough coverage for an article which could support such a list. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that this is getting into a very WP:WAF-y area (as sgeureka notes); we agree on such lists, but the way they're presented is not a notability issue (though tied to it). However, I will note again we should not forget the use of categories here and consider that in how we group; the fictional space can be segregated by categories, while the list/article space should be more objective. --MASEM 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, where it leads to "which articles exist" it's at least partially in FICT's bailiwick; however, the important point here, I think, is the categories. If we're telling people, on this page, not to make lists divided by fictional affiliation (unless that affiliation is notable), we should also say on this page that categorisation of redirects will allow them to do the same. It's also worth noting, possibly in the guideline or a footnote, that it's perfectly reasonable to create redirects or fictional elements that have never had an article of their own, but do appear on a list. SamBC(talk) 14:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would go further than sgeureka: more explanation cannot justifiy an arbitrary division; footnote 7 needs to deleted altogether, as division category is a red herring. Percy statement that "you don't get to make new articles based on in-universe divisions" does not hold up to scruitiny, as division exist simply make it easy for readers to browse. It seems to me you could slice and dice the characters of Hamlet any which way you choose; this applies not-highly-notable topics as well. It seems to me that in-universe divisions of character, e.g Main characters from Remembrance of Things Past. are just as valid as any other criteria for categorising characters, if not standard literary practise. It does not matter if characters are divided into real-world divisions or not.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So you don't think that List of Mandalorians puts more emphasis on the topic of Mandalorians? Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd give List of Smallville characters (season 1) through List of Smallville characters (season 7) as an example for backup of Gavin's claim that supporting real-world- instead of in-universe organization won't help if we want to limit the number of crufty character lists. (I know Bignole is working on one unified character list, but he may need to go with two lists in the end too, just for size reasons.) – sgeureka ^t•c 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see that that's a valid example - if Bignole can fit it into one list, then the seven existing lists aren't exempted under FEAPOALT. If he takes two, then perhaps you could read it to say they are; that should be addressed. But it's not a real-world/in-universe issue, it's a size issue. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • FICT currently says "elements may be grouped into smaller lists according to a real-world division" - why not an in-universe grouping if the grouping is more-or-less notable? FICT currently says "It is inappropriate to group elements into lists corresponding to less-notable subtopics of the work" - either we see every subtopic as less-notable by definition, making every non-main character list automatically inappropriate; or we judge the notability of the subtopic (e.g. Smallville (season 1)) and conclude that List of Smallville characters (season 1) is also automatically justified - yet both is wrong. So, is that a problem with the wording (which is fixable) or with the idea behind (meaning we should get rid of it in some way, either by moving it to WAF or deleting it). – sgeureka ^t•c 15:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The reason to prevent groupings by in-universe division is that that places undue weight on the in-universe elements which form the division. I don't see why having a non-main character list is inappropriate; the list of characters is justified because the work is highly notable; not because the characters are all notable. However, it has been pointed out that the current wording (with grouping) can justify too many lists. I see two solutions to that - either (1) require editors to use the minimum number of groups, or (2) disallow groups: you get one list article from being a highly notable work; after that you need to show that the lists are justified on their own terms. I'm leaning towards option 2 - WP:SIZE should never be the only reason for an article; I don't want to see every fictional topic get one decent main article and a hundred rubbish lists. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
          • That I agree with, but with "after that you need to show that the lists are justified on their own terms", we need something that says how more than the one character list can fulfill the inclusion criteria. I disagree with the "real-world division" part as that leads to cases such as the Smallville character lists, or to IMO unnatural groupings (e.g. mixing characters of various races just because of the alphabet). Every other wording didn't work, and we removed it a week ago. So what are we gonna do? We can reduce/remove the current restrictions and go with your option #1, e.g. calling for editorial judgement, the need of notability demonstration in the list, or SIZE; or we can start another round of months-long debating the inclusion criteria of lists that will lead us nowhere. Even if we ignore inclusionists and deletionist for the moment, this guideline simply can't elaborate on the inclusion of lists beyond the vague "[extra lists] should be considered only for highly notable works[6], and the information within the supporting articles should not exceed the necessary depth of coverage for the main article's topic" - the various fictional universes are just too diverse in creativity and notability for a hard-and-fast rule. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Listing by race also leads to problems, like undue focus on non-notable aspects (where a race is non-notable). In this sort of situation, how about splitting into notable races, and then "others". This will also be more straightforward if the change I suggested at WT:WAF is accepted, as a number of entries in lists will reasonably be trimmed; do we want to mention every named character in every show? SamBC(talk) 16:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Actually, that's what I have been doing by creating Miscellaneous alien characters in Stargate. I am also looking into merging the character lists into the race articles were I believe a race is notable enough to achieve GA someday, but I don't know whether that will be my ultimate solution. I just don't want anyone taking the "character lists by race" to AfD for not fulfilling the inclusion criteria (like was done with the List of Mandalorians), while I am busy with improving other related articles. Maybe all I'm asking for is a sentence saying that smaller lists should be considered for a trim&merger into larger lists or articles, where possible or appropriate. I have no real desire in keeping most of these lists separate forever, but I reject the artificial pressure to remove the log(x) articles when there is already an incredible pressure to get rid of the x nonnotable articles on individual fictional elements (took me over 6 months to merge/delete 400 unnecessary Stargate articles, and I still have one or two dozens to go, not counting lists or articles that can easily achieve GA with some work). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
                • I'm not convinced that such lists would be appropriate - if the races are notable but not highly notable, then it's inappropriate to put them on the same footing as highly notable works by giving them lists. It's seems that we can't list every character in a work without putting undue weight on some subtopic; and if that's the case, I don't think we should try to list every character. It's looking more and more like we shouldn't allow more than one list under FEAPOALT; we can give guidance on what sorts of split are recommended in WP:WAF, with a footnote that the split articles are still required to pass WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • We're dealing with existing lists that don't establish notability, but sometimes/often could do so beyond a doubt if someone put effort into them. So what's going to happen with the lists until someone has the time to either establish notability, or to merge them properly? If these lists are labelled inappropriate, should we nuke all the character descriptions that would make the one character list too large (proper merging takes volunteers and time), or leave a sloppy-merged 2000kB list behind? I have created a non-crufty character article-list of 100kB for an obscure 24-episode show, so imagine what real-world coverage (i.e. notability) can be expected for popular/highly-notable TV franchises that have 300+ episodes (Doctor Who has more than 700). We simply can't immediately go from "major characters get their own articles, use your fan-driven judgement" to "all you're allowed is one character list for all characters because everything else is inappropriate without established notability". Let's take an intermediate step for some time called "major characters only get an article if notability is established, and leave nn lists for later". We already have enough fan drama merging major characters without established notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • We're not saying "all you're allowed is one character list for all characters because everything else is inappropriate without established notability" - we're saying "all that a highly notable work supports under this specific exemption is one list". If a TV franchise is sufficiently major, then there will be coverage or other evidence of notability to support more lists. Doctor Who is a good example - there's so much coverage that it's possible to write an article on episodes that were never made! Major franchises aren't a problem. If fans of less-major franchises with high character or episode counts will have to concentrate on their major characters and those with real-world relevance, then that's good: it improves the quality of the encyclopedia. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • I have tried to make this separation clearer that agrees with both my view and others including your view (I think). I never got into Star Wars, but I know that the Jedi are a highly notable fictional group, so a separate character list would make sense for them even if the list would not demonstrate notability and even though that would be a division by in-universe affiliation; the Mandalorians however, despite their belonging to the same fictional universe, are probably too minor to deserve a separate character list. There is a spectrum between these two fictional groups which should be left to the judgment of local editors. In the end, competing with the notability of the Jedi in a merge debate or an AFD is pretty hard. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
                        • Yeah, that looks pretty good for the most part. I think "combined with" was a bit ambiguous - it could be read as recommending two articles "in combination" rather than a merge as I think was your intention - so I've reworded that to point out that such lists can appear in other articles (per WP:NNC) but don't necessarily merit articles of their own; hope it's still in line with the other views. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
                          • I am perfectly fine with your re-wording. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I can see what Percy and Sambc are trying to do (which is well intentioned), but I agree with Sgeureka that this guideline simply can't elaborate on the inclusion of lists because any criteria we come up with will not stand up to peer review and will lead to never ending round of debate. For instance, "notable races" means different things to different people; for me "race" is a term that can only be applied to real-life people, and since fictional races are just a fiction, they will always be an arbitrary division used to group characters. I myself have devised a criteria which I think would usefully limit the content of lists, but at the end of the day, even if it were incorporated into WP:FICT, it would be just a criteria based on opinion, is relatively arbitary in nature (and therefore may not stand up to peer review), and in any case may not have any practicle application for a particular fictional universe. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a note, some people consider the whole concept of classification of races as fictional. Ursasapien (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a footnote for an example of this that I think does not presently have consensus. Please do not put it back until there is agreement on it. DGG (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The footnote stated (in different words) that lists should be named to include the work they are from; "List of Jedi characters in Star Wars" is appropriate since it identifies the work of fiction, while "List of Jedi characters" (the same content, just differently titled) is not since it presumes knowledge of what "Jedi" means. I don't see any harm in asking for this from lists, as it only helps to establish them as supporting articles. --MASEM 15:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)