Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 31

Protected

I've protected the page to what I am guessing is m:The Wrong Version. It's been several days since I've last read anything on the talk page here, so I'm personally not sure what actually has consensus (if anything) but I've been stunned today by the gross incivilities in the edit summaries.

I know you all know better. Please work it out on the talk page. Thank you. - jc37 06:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• LOL. If only the admins would do the right thing for a change! Next time, don't guess, just protect the m:The Incontrovertible Version, so there won't be any more disputes. We will let you off this time, but let this be a warning to you!--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So I guess it's ok to make factually inaccurate statements on proposed guidelines. I can't blame Jc37 for that, however, who is just trying to avoid an edit war. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasons Against the Proposed Changes

Fans of all fictional works from television to literature use this website to find out more about the fictional works they are interested in. If many articles that currently exist are merged then they will have less information, and fewer resources. With more articles, each article is focused on to make sure it is sufficient for that subject. Whereas in a larger article that lists the information, for example characters, then collectively they may be fine, but each individual character's description is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.132.134 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, and there's a level of detail of covering fictional characters and other aspects that exceeds what is appropriate for such coverage; our first goal is to serve the general reader that may not be aware of what the work or character is but only needs to know the context of that character; the type of coverage that works for a fan of a show does not work for this type of reader. However, we want to encourage people to use off-site wikis if possible (including Wikia) to allow the development of more detailed coverage of fictional characters and the like, and freely link to those from Wikipedia. --MASEM 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Masem, we are trying to figure out the appropriate level of detail. it cannot be assumed that any one particular level is correct, though I do agree there is some level beyond which it is absurd to go. As Jimbo once said, "we make the intent not suck" As interpreted for this context, it would been that articles about significant elements of fiction that can be verified, and are written succinctly and clearly, have a place in WP-- in contrast to whatever junk may appear elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you saying that to him? How does that help? Both of you have a fairly good idea on where you two stand. Masem is making a simplified reply to some drive by newbie, not a political statement. Honestly, all of you are going mad, nitpicking at each others comments. -- Ned Scott 11:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why "our first goal is to serve the general reader"? Someone have change the first pillar? We are "an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs". Obviously specialized encyclopedias and almanacs contain topic that are beyond general reader interest, and there are also such type of publications that cover fictional topics (i mean non-fan publications, ie J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia or The Star Trek Encyclopedia), not only on real world topic like enzymes, asteroids and others you don't found (and doesn't expect to found) on general encyclopedias. If we want a wikipedia only for the general reader, we must delete about 2.000.000 of articles (and we continue to have more and more detailed articles than the "generic" Britannica).--200.68.73.193 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We're "an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs", which should not be interpreted as if wikipedia's purpose is to be a specialized encyclopedia itself. For what it's worth, works of fiction that have specialized encyclopedias written about them tend to have much real-world information to support even obscure subtopics, and as long as their articles reflect that in their used sources, the articles will be (mostly) fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Flowchart for WP:FICT

Has anyone done a flow chart of how WP:FICT interacts with other guidelines, or how this guideline works? I was thinking of preparing them myself, but before I set out, I want to make sure I am not trying to reinvent the wheel. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no-one has created such a chart. But I'd like to see one, actually, although it may be better suited for WP:WAF than here. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is an excellent idea to at least try, and I'd be happy to help. I prepared a hierarchy chart last year, showing the relationship of the various notability sub guidelines. I'll try to find the link. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be a bit outdated, but it might give a start point. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A flowchart? Is it seriously that hard to think about, people? -- Ned Scott 11:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Ned, this entire year-long bickerfest is the best example of the problematic, circular, illogical, endless deliberation on Wikipedia. A strong central authority may be necessary for Wikipedia to meet its true potential. But since I have nothing thoughtful to say, I'll take my leave. — Deckiller 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not sure you understand what I meant. I only meant that I felt it was rather simplistic on how WP:FICT interacts with other guidelines. I wasn't commenting about the debates related to those pages at all. In theory you have WP:N / the one for books/ films / etc that help you determine the notability of the main work, then you have WP:FICT for the sub articles within that work. That may or may not be how it actually works, but the theory is pretty simple. That is all my comment meant to be. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really commenting on your post; I was just commenting on the ridiculousness that policy debate has become. I guess it's one of those things that someone realizes when they return with fresh eyes. — Deckiller 21:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the preamble

I note that Percy has reverted this older version of the preamble three times [1][2][3]:

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

During our discussion of Topics for fictional works, he suddenly reverted to this version, on the grounds that "The medium is not the message, but one article can cover both":

For articles about books and films, see also Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (films).

I feel that we should discuss this here to see if there is a more general agreement for the change, as I think that the older preamble described the scope of guideline rather well, rather than trying to make it sound as if WP:FICT somehow supercedes them.

The orginal preamble was introduced by user:Ned Scott back in an earlier draft from September 2007, and appeared to be acceptable to Percy until today.

I would be supportive of a move to broaden the preamble to take in the portrayal of fictional characters by actors WP:BIO, and in games WP:TOY, as specific guidelines relating to coverage of these real-world media should be the first point of call for editors writing about them.

However, I prefer the wording of the older version, as it makes clear that the primary focus of this guideline is fictional elements, and not necesarily on the media by which they are transmitted, and I propose returning to the older version, which in my view was more descriptive.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The "see also" phraseology is appropriate, as the current text does discuss works of fiction (independent of medium), but also refers people to medium-specific guidelines. WP:N makes it clear that multiple guidelines may apply in any given case, as they currently do in the case of athletes or academics (or anyone who was both, especially!). SamBC(talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this is all about, but the point of making that note was so that people understood that WP:FICT wasn't where you go to see if a movie/book/tv show/etc itself was notable. From time to time I had seen some confusion about that in other places, so it seemed to be a helpful note. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And my change was to the first paragraph of the guideline. I think Radiant! was the one who added the "see also" style link (not that it really matters, since both basically said the same thing). -- Ned Scott 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not true to say that WP:FICT isn't where you go to see if a movie/book/tv show/etc is notable - as it says in WP:FICT#Works of fiction, "A work of fiction is presumed to be notable if it meets the general notability guideline, the guidelines presented here, or the guidelines specific to its medium." Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• So what wording would you like to propose as an alternative to original preamble? --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since both sets of guidelines apply, it makes sense for editors to see them both. So I'd suggest "For notability guidelines covering books and films, see also Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (films)." Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be amenable to changing it aback to the Ned's orginal draft, which I think is perfectly good? I note one other editor would like it to see the old version (A Man In Black).--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as that would imply that this guideline only has relevance to elements, not works, that would be a bad idea as it would leave the preamble misleading. SamBC(talk) 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT is not for works, it is only for elements. I'm not sure where Percy or Sam got that idea from, but it certainly wasn't from this page. -- Ned Scott 07:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It might not have been, but it certainly is now; try reading it, it has a section on "works of fiction". And for what it's worth, I didn't add that section, quite a lot of editors have edited it with it there. SamBC(talk) 10:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we added that section just for the sake of completeness. It's certainly not the page's primary focus. --erachima talk 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no comment on what it should address, but it means that, right now, the page is inconsistent; the "works of fiction" section suggests that this guideline can qualify a work as notable, for starters. Perhaps it would be best to suggest that people consult other guidelines principally, but may find useful guidance here as well; either that, or remove any language suggesting works are covered, and clearly indicate that information on works of fiction is purely contextual. SamBC(talk) 11:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we need to at least say something on the notability of fictional works, simply because the way this guideline is named means that people will refer to it first to determine that, and that not every type of media that fiction exists on is covered by other guidelines. Providing a general clause that mirrors the same type of information that we expect from fictional elements provides a good continuity between the work and the elements, and we can still state, as it does now, that specific notability guidelines for a given medium can be meet and thus made presumably notable without meeting FICT exactly. --MASEM 13:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And if that does stay the case, the preamble shouldn't suggest that the guideline isn't relevant to works. We need to decide one way or the other, not have a preamble that says "this is not relevant to whole works" and then a section saying "here's some guidance for works". Also, works of fiction without more specific guidelines are still covered by WP:N, like everything else. SamBC(talk) 13:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My real beef with saying WP:FICT applies to works is that we don't have any guidance for those situations. Where's the advice/help for deciding if a work of fiction is notable? -- Ned Scott 03:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT#Works of fiction covers this. --MASEM 04:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think Ned is saying this needs to be made clear in the preamble, not 5 or 10 sections into the guideline. I propose we revert to his earlier draft, so that readers know what this guideline covers. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've made a small change in the preamble , if this is the case: FICT provides general guidance for works, but four other notability guidelines present more specific guidance, so this fact has been stated a bit better right there. --MASEM 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you mean this statement?

For specific examples where you may be able to help, see Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard.

Since there are no specific examples or where you may be able to get help at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, I do not see the point of this change. Could the old preamble be restored please?--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Ned's point was that if FICT didn't cover the notability of the work, then we need a preamble to state this. However, we DO have a very general case of a work's notability, so this is reflected in the lead. However, as there are other more specific guidelines for work notability depending on the medium, those specific guidelines are called out also in the lead and re-referred to in the general guidance section for works. Thus, it makes sense to not include any preamble mention of this; those coming to FICT to find the notability of fictional works will find a general clause on notability and then pointers to other more specific examples, all spelled out in the lead. --MASEM 10:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• LOL. Percy took out this wording[4] and Masem has put it back in again, but in a different place[5]. The two of you are like a pair of goldfish, nibbling as this guideline, but then forgetting what happened before 30 seconds previously. Couldn't we have the preamble just the way it was when it was clear and consise? I am getting the impression that changes are just being made for changes sake. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, Percy and Masem's wordings are very similar in meaning: this guideline covers works of fiction generally, those covered by other guidelines are covered by other guidelines as well as this one. SamBC(talk) 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• That is what this preamble said before Percy, Masem and Sambc decised to start this pointless round of editing. Please restore Ned Scott's original version, and discard all the trivial edits that have taken place. Simply moving the text around the guideline as if it were a hockey puck seems to me to be a exercise in folly.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Works of Fiction

• No - Ned is mistaken when he says that WP:FICT doesn't apply to works of fiction. It does. Not only does it have a section about them, but that section is where it's made clear that GNC coverage has to be real-world coverage - so it's a very important section. I'm sure Ned's edits are made in good faith, but they're in error. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not wrong at all. "Works of fiction" is a pointless section that was only added recently. WP:FICT has no real guidance for works of fiction. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No, Ned. It's a section with support from everyone but you (and possibly Gavin). That section is where the "real-world" part of "real-world coverage" comes from; it's possibly the most important section in the whole thing. Accept that WP:FICT has changed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If FICT becomes the new home of the notability aspects of EPISODE (which I hope it will), then FICT would indeed be about "works of fiction". Some characters that span many media (e.g. Superman) can also be considered a "work of fiction", although that's more arguable. I consider #Works of fiction as a good section to separate FICT from other guidelines that may give more specialised advise about a certain medium, but since FICT draws from all of them (i.e. every work of fiction has fictional elements or subworks of fiction where FICT applies), there is a certain need for "overview" which this section represents. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If Percy could explain why he introduced the section in the first place I would be grateful. When I read this section, I can't help but be confused by the fact that most works of fiction are presented through some form of medium (books, films & toys) for which there are seperate guidelines (WP:BK,MOVIE, TOY). However, not all media are covered by guidelines (television & radio programmes, comics), usually because they are presented in discrete portions, which WP:EPISODE never seems to have got to grips with. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not entirely sure it was me; that section was here by a different name when I got here. In fact, WP:FICT has covered works of fiction since January 30[6] But I would think that you of all people, Gavin, would think it was a good idea to have a section in WP:FICT that said that coverage for works of fiction had to be real-world coverage? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
          • To be honest, a reference to real-world coverage could go anywhere. The question must be, why do we have this section, and what significance does it have?--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
            • "Because there is consensus support for it" and "we've told you that already". Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
            • (ec) The greatest value, and greatest potential value, of that section is that it gives guidance that is not medium-specific. Works of fiction exist in many forms, and the guidlines for films and books also apply to non-fiction films and books. Thus, there is value in guidance that isn't media-specific. Plus what Percy said. SamBC(talk) 09:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• There may be a presumption of consensus, but that does not preclude Ned Scott from drawing our attention to the possibility that the assumptions that gave rise to this section being introduced to this guideline may be defective.

1. I believe his view is that "works of fiction" refers to fiction as transmitted through the media of books, films, television programmes, comics and games. In this case, the term "work" assumes that a piece of fiction is physically discrete, and seperate from other works by virtue of a specific cut off point, such as the end of a film. However, it is not clear where comics or television series, which are not discrete and are part of an ongoing "work of fiction", fit into this scheme.
2. On the other hand, Percy's view is that "works of fiction" are independent of the medium of transmission, the example he gave being the story of Lady Chatterley's Lover, which he asserts is independent from the book. In this case, a "work" is not physically discrete becuase it is independent of the medium of transmission. Like the short story The Monkey's Paw, a work of ficiton can refer to one story in a book of short stories, or one story serialised in a magazine. However, it could be possible that when Percy refers to a "work of fiction", he may be mistaking the subsets that are really elements of fiction as works of fiction in their own right.

It seems to me that there is genuine confusion between both uses of the term "works of fiction", as both seem to break down when it comes to classifying serial works. This distinction is important when we consider episodes: are they works of fiction (which should have their own guideline such as WP:EPISODE, or are they elements of fiction which should be dealt with exclusively by WP:FICT? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this may be one of your most constructive points, Gavin. A short story itself shouldn't be considered an element of fiction, it should be considered a work of fiction; it is emphatically not a book, even if it is the title piece of an anthology (for example, The Bicentennial Man is certainly notable as a short story, probably more so than as a mediocre film, but the book entitle The Bicentennial Man contains other stories as well). Where a work is (originally) a book, covering the book (not a specific edition or copy, but the book in abstract) and the story together is only sensible, but there are cases that don't fit this form. What would be sensible is if the "works of fiction" section addressed such cases, even if by telling people to apply any/all applicable parts of the most nearly-applicable guideline (like applying WP:BK to short stories, which nearly fits in a lot of cases). SamBC(talk) 11:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alternatively, a short story could be considered an element of fiction: it is "short" becasue it was intended to fit in a larger "work of fiction", like a book or a series of stories in a magazine. It seems to me you can definetly argue both ways. What about Percy's point - is the story of Lady Chatterley's Lover a work of fiction, or did he really mean the book is the work, and the story (plus all the sub-plots, events and characters) are the elements? What makes this question harder to answer depends on your views about episodes: are they individually or collectively works of fiction? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say it's a false dichotomy when we're considering the topics of articles. An article on a work of fiction should cover the story and the medium of presentation. I wouldn't consider the story to be an 'element' of the presentation, or vice versa, and the topic of the article can be shown to be notable by coverage of either or both. Regarding episodes, I'd say that the episode's presentation is an individual entity, and the episode's story is an element of the series' story, but it can also be an individual story if it was written to be so, and nowadays most episodic works are written to be independent stories because that improves sales. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• It is an interesting argument, but I don't think it holds up. Take, for example, the Iliad. The Iliad is normally appreciated in book form, simply because that's how we receive it today. But originally it was an epic poem, presented as part of an oral tradition, which is why it takes the form it does (in particular the use of stock phrases which fit so nicely into dactylic hexameter). The "work" isn't the book - that is simply incidental and how it is transmitted. The work is the story, and the method of transmission (oral, printed in a book, potentially performed, screened as a really bad movie), is nothing but presentation. In terms of short fiction, a piece of short fiction may be presented as part of a larger volume (such as a magazine or collection), but the short story has value in and of itself, irrespective of what sits around it or the method of publication. Thus the story is often published in multiple places - a couple of collections, a magazine, on the author's website. That the value is in the story itself, rather than the notion that it is part of a larger work, is evidenced, I think, by the many prizes for short fiction, which take the work in isolation from how it was published. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think a point to consider to determine if something is a "work" or "element" is to consider how the creative idea was developed, namely, was the work created in a vacuum relative to other works, or does it depend on a larger setting. Most short stories are conceived on their own, and then may end up published in a collected work (such as Ray Bradbury's stories); thus, while the collective work may be notable, the individual stories themselves would need to be treated as their own works with their own set of characters, setting, and plot that could be discussed, and demonstrate their own notability to have a separate article. On the other hand, the bulk of most episodes depend on the overall series, and thus would be an element of that series. There is a blurring of the lines between "work" and "element" but that's why the requirements for sourced notability are similar; sometimes you can't easily distinguish between them. --MASEM 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• With reference to Percy, I agree that an article on a work of fiction should cover the story and the medium of presentation, but in terms of notability guidelines, the dichotomy is important, and this may be the source confusion. For instance, when we talk about the notability of Lady Chatterley's Lover, I think we would judge it strictly in terms of WP:BK, mainly because there are extenive reviews but also because the book was subject a courtcase (Regina v. Penguin Books Ltd.). The notability of the story line(s), its sub-plots and the characters, including Lady Chatterley and Oliver Mellors (her lover) would be dealt here at WP:FICT, because they are elements in the "work of fiction".
• In response to the learned Bilby, the Iliad is presented in book and film form (or even as a podcast, in line with the oral tradition) and in the real-world, I would agree with him that the work is the story. However, for notability purposes, the "work" is film and dealt with by WP:MOVIE, while the book is a seperate "work" and dealt with by WP:BK. Note that notability is not inherited or passed between book, film, fictional element; each one has to be judged on its own for notability purposes. Comics and podcasts featuring the Iliad are a bit of a grey area, but in my view, they are probably covered by WP:BK. However, the story itself, and the characters therein (Achilles?) are rightly dealt with here. In answer to Masem, I think we have to distinguish clearly between "works of fiction" and "elements of fiction", because in my view the "works" naturally fall into other notability guidelines, whereas I would agree with Ned Scott, the primary focus of this guideline is the elements, but that does include the story, and I think we should be working towards addressing his concerns. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Even assuming you're right about the story being an element of the work and the medium being the work - and I don't agree with that at all - this guideline should still apply to works. In some cases - cases that aren't necessarily books or films - a work will be notable for the medium in which it was published, rather than the story. This guideline is still necessary to make sure that we consider real-world coverage in those cases. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• I haven't been called learned before - that's so cool. I always imagined that those years of classical studies would be good for something (well, other than convincing archaeologists to go on dates). :) I tend to agree with Percy, though - while there are two lines of argument here, they're both heading towards the same place. And I think Gavin makes an interesting point - except that the Iliad is too nice an example for me, as almost all academic discussion is based around the story, not the particular publication (with the exception of the recent film, or occasional interesting discussions of particular translations). If I wanted to establish notability for the Iliad all my sources would be independent of the medium, and would treat the "work" as the story. But this is, I suspect, just an issue of terminology - the results would be the same from either perspective, I think, if I understand Percy correctly. - Bilby (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Although I bow to more learned opinions than my own, I think most people (including academics) ususally speak of the Iliad as if it were a book, and evidence of this is that they usually cite a specific edition or translation in their papers just to be sure that everybody knows what their source is. Although I would agree they are refering to the story, its origins and development, those sources would actually cite a book as their main source of reference (unless they are old enough to have heard the original spoken in pre-podast times). Note that I am not trying to pigeon hole the Iliad as a book per se, merely to suggest to you that as a "work of fiction", its notability is easier to establish through WP:BK as so many editions have been reviewed as such. Although Bilby may be right at the end of the day that a story is a fictional element which is independent of the media it is transmitted in, its easier to treat such works as "works of fiction" that are books, films or even podcasts, depending on which media people are familiar with.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The citing editions is a red herring here, as that's just a matter of clearly referring to a given translation, printing, etc; however, the point does stand that it's generally referred to as if it were a book, but again by hanging onto a frankly ontological point we are skirting the practical ones. What about short stories? There are most certainly notable short stories, and even where they appear in a volume with the same title, it is certainly not appropriate to refer to the short story as a book, nor the book as if it were just that short story. It is not the case that they are written to appear in a larger work of fiction. In the case of magazines, try picking up a copy of Interzone; you'll find a great deal in there other than stories, so calling the whole magazine a "work of fiction" is frankly incorrect— the same is true of every magazine I've seen that publishes short stories and novellas. When it comes to an anthology, the evidence is less clear, but I would certainly hesitate to call an anthology a "work of fiction", because it's not one work, it's an anthology of works, which may be notable as a book in itself (per WP:BK), but the stories will be notable (or not) independent of that. Indeed, in most cases, the anthologies aren't even the first publication of most of the stories in them, and in many cases they are by different authors! SamBC(talk) 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• In fairness to me, the citing editions is not a red herring, it is reasonable evidence that the notability of the Iliad would be best dealt with under WP:BK. You are right that short stories are not always compiled in larger works; they are sometimes "works of fiction" in their own right (i.e. novellas), in which case they are covered by WP:BK. But as regards books or magazines containing anthologies of short stories, I would take a top down approach as follows:

1. If you were seeking to provide evidence that a particular magazine was notable, such as The New Yorker, you would probably better off looking at WP:CORP;
2. Although this is a grey area, individual issues of the magazine are probably best treated like other real-world publications under WP:BK;
3. Lastly where a story in a magazine is notable in its own right (e.g. The Lottery), I would still seek guidance from WP:BK although I agree with Masem that the distinction becomes blurred between a work and an element of ficton, as would any method of categorisation if taken to an extreme level.

Despite the opportunity for cross over between WP:FICT and other guidelines, I think the key issue is that WP:FICT should be focused on "elements of fiction" only. I agree with Ned that WP:FICT has no real guidance for "works of fiction", and I think this is verbage that can be dropped from the guideline.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen WP:BURO and WP:CREEP cited a bunch of times for the sake of simplifying both WP:FICT, as well as related guidelines like WP:EPISODE. That clearly applies to this situation. First, we give no useful guidance for works of fiction, despite the attempts made with the section included. Second, other guidelines and the general notability guideline easily cover this issue, and have done so with little to no incident. Trying to make WP:FICT cover works of fiction, because of the page title, is clear instructions creep. Is there a problem that we are trying to fix with this application of WP:FICT? Is there an issue here at all? No. WP:FICT does a horrible job at helping editors determine the notability on a parent work of fiction, and trying to pretend that it does (or that it should) doesn't help anything. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think it's helpful to say that works of fiction need real-world coverage, you're in a tiny minority. Please stop (a) altering the page to reflect your opinion rather than consensus, and (b) calling me an ass while you do it. I'm not going to try to play the more-civil-than-thou game, but insults don't help your case, they just make you look petulant and childish. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Insults aside, there is a proposal on the table (from a teeny-weeny minority) that the "works of fiction section" should come out, and this should be addressed first. An alternative proposal is that we retain this section, but merge that part of the definition that says "For more specific notability guidelines on works of fiction presented in specific forms of media, see the following guidelines...." on the basis that they are more or less saying the same thing, and a merger would reduce the amount of verbage in this draft guideline. Any takers? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"If you don't think it's helpful to say that works of fiction need real-world coverage" Don't act stupid, Percy, you know full well that's not even close to what I'm saying. I'm saying that WP:FICT doesn't contain any helpful guidance, whatsoever, about works of fiction, and that other guidelines have sufficed in the past. Not only is there not a consensus to say that FICT's focus is works, but it's not even factual. And one slip-up in civility doesn't make your flawed argument correct. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And if you would stop assuming your baseless assumption that this has anything to do about my personal preference, you'd probably notice that I'm not opposed to making WP:FICT have some general over-view (at the very least, have a section that will guide editors on what other pages they need to look at for works-notability). And maybe, just maybe, you'd like to address some of the arguments I've brought up, instead of claiming that this is something personal. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the arguments you've brought up? How am I supposed to address whether or not I have "my head up my ass"? And today you're calling me "stupid". Grow up. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for my poor choice of words, and letting frustration get to me. If you are able to look past that then please actually look at the rest of my comments. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, accepted. Let's look at your points.

• "WP:FICT doesn't contain any helpful guidance, whatsoever, about works of fiction" - not true; nowhere else is the requirement that coverage be real-world-focused made for works. That alone is very helpful guidance. There's definitely room for improvement in that area, though.
• "other guidelines have sufficed in the past" - IME it's WP:FICT that editors have pointed to for works of fiction for a long time, longer than WP:BK has been in existence. Judging works by WP:FICT is current practise, so we should reflect that.
• "Not only is there not a consensus to say that FICT's focus is works, but it's not even factual" - that's a straw man, right there, in the word "focus". There is consensus support that WP:FICT applies to works and elements. We didn't cover the matter in the RFC or the polls, and perhaps we should, but users have been pointing to it in AFDs for years. I'm not saying it should focus on works. But I am saying that it shouldn't disclaim responsibility for works as it does in some of your proposed versions.

So: WP:FICT has been applied to works and is likely to continue to do so whatever we decide here; I'd gladly see your suggestions for how to improve the guidance we give, but disclaiming responsibility in the lead section is not an improvement. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't feel my last edit to WP:FICT disclaimed responsibility, but understanding that is the impression I gave, I understand your objections now. And again, I really am sorry about the way I acted in the last few days. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all forgive that, Ned; after all, I'm not sure there's anyone been seriously involved in this debate who hasn't acted like a jerk at some point in it, at least slightly. Myself included. SamBC(talk) 11:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also apologise for my part. So, moving on: is there anything beyond RWC that we want to say about works? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whatn RWC is, but if you are agreeing that the section "Works of Fiction" should be merged with the definition that says "For more specific notability guidelines on works of fiction presented in specific forms of media, see the following guidelines...." on the basis that they are more or less saying the same thing, then I am with you. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RWC = Real World Coverage. I'm not saying the thing you say I'm saying, as usual. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• With regards my proposal that we merge the "Works of Fiction" section with that part of the definition that says "For more specific notability guidelines on works of fiction presented in specific forms of media, see the following guidelines...." , what is your view then? --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Creative Works

After looking at the practical aspects of the guidelines for Film, Books, and Web content, along with the part of the Music guideline dealing with the works rather than the people, it looks like these could all be merged into one guideline entitled "Creative works". I would base the format on the Web content format, which is simple and actionable. Certainly special cases could be detailed as at WP:BIO. Having one consistent rule-set would vastly simplify AfDs, especially for topics where multiple categories are now pertinent. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, as while it is possible to do such, it will become a very large page (as you would have to include what FILM, BK, WEB, and MUSIC (and likely TOYS) all consider as cases beyond the GNC, and you would have to have a section about FICT in general, and this long document will become extremely difficult for newer editors to learn to navigate. There have been efforts to reduce the number of notability guidelines, but last time best I can recall (late 07?) it basically was determined that the different sub-guidelines (not just creative works), while all upholding GNC, had enough sub-cases for notability that merging them was not a good option - either that, or it stalled and nothing came out of it.

It should also be noted that FICT at the topic states that it concedes to any more media-specific guideline that exists. So if someone claims something fails FICT at AFD, but someone else points out it meets BK (for example), clearly the case is resolved. --MASEM 15:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NO the point is that all these should function almost identically and there would be one consice set of standards. If you look at most notability pages there is a virtually identical lead section, followed by a justification section, then some fairly generic standards. The differences among the pages is generally the unworkable and precriptive special cases that follow these sections. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• You might be right. Despite the fact that WP:BK, WP:MOVIE etc have media specific guidelines that enable editors to claim that a particular creative work is notable, in a way these specific guidelines count for nothing if the article cannot be sourced from non-trivial, real-world content from reliable secondary sources that would confer notability in any case. Even if a creative work won all the awards in the world, a complete dearth of reliable secondary sources would tend to suggest that the work was not notable. Although creative works with that have won awards are presumed to be notable in most of the specific guidelines, it is impossible to prove that a creative work is non-notable, and the "unworkable and precriptive special cases" are general accepted as badges of notability. However, that still leaves the problem, how can you source articles that don't meet GNC? Masem, Percy, Sambc and others seem to think that primary sources are acceptable, but I don't because although primary sources can be generated by the promoters or authors of creative work very easily and great quantity, they are not reliable because they are Questionable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Because Notability applies to a topic and not an article, and supporting articles within the scope of a topic may not have to show notability though still must be sourced to primary at worst. Mind you, as the RFC from here earlier shows, unlimited supporting articles are not consensus, but instead exceptional cases. --MASEM 23:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well said Gavin! Primary sources are acceptable for content while primary research is not, but if all that you can put in an article is based on primary sources, then aren't you in essence doing primary research? Even in many cases where the notability is vaguely demonstrated by tangential mention in independent verifiable articles, most of the content ends up coming from primary research and non-independent sources. It a bit of a catch 22, but the subject specific guidelines don't seem to solve the problem. My feeling is that we should rally together to focus our energies on superior, consistent, but more liberal guidance at WP:N. I belive that cummulative primary sources should be allowed to demonstrate notability, but that's tricky. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is entirely acceptable to use primary sources within certain limits (WP:PSTS). However, the big thing here is the fallacy that any article meeting WP:V automatically meets the GNC. If that were the case, we wouldn't need notability guidelines at all. If you read WP:N carefully, including footnotes, you will see that it excludes certain categories of source that are perfectly acceptable in terms of WP:V/WP:NOR. This is why non-GNC criteria in subject-specific guidelines have a purpose and effect. Remember, a topic need only meet the GNC or a subject-specific guideline, that's one subject-specific guideline. A person who's an academic and a former athlete need only meet one of the GNC, WP:BIO, WP:PROF, or the one for athletes that I forget. Qualifying on a non-GNC criterion allows verifiable information to be included from sources that aren't acceptable for the GNC but are for V, such as directories. SamBC(talk) 07:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sam, can you be more specific? What footnotes etc. at WP:N exclude certain categories of source that are perfectly acceptable in terms of WP:V/WP:NOR? If there is a problem at WP:N let's fix it. We essentially rewrote it last year to take out a lot of unreasonable restrictions. I don't agree that the interpretation of the subguidelines is always to be more inclusive; I more frequently see them misapplied to be more exclusionary. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, that would be footnote 1 ("Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.") would certainly be one; some of those listed are, as it says, reliable sources, but don't speak to notability. Also worth mentioning is footnote 2 ("Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.") as trivial mentions are also perfectly verifiable and decent sources for facts and information, but don't speak to notability. What is worth saying, and I don't know if it's said anywhere, is that whatever evidence there is of notability, for whatever criteria, should be from a third-party source (primary is okay, as long as it's third party, that is, independent of the subject; for example, the Academy's own material on who won what Oscar is the best source there could be for that fact, and it is primary, but third-party when used as a source about the recipient). SamBC(talk) 10:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Sam, I've never been happy with some of those footnotes, but the retention of at least one you mention was a concession to the original author of WP:N, UncleG, when the guideline was essentially rewritten about a year and a half ago. Perhaps it is time to take the incredible energy that is being focused here back to WP:N and fine tune that to our needs. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I'd support those footnotes, as they indicate the difference between notability and sourcability. The very idea of notability is meaningless if all it means is "sources exist". Instead sources are required to show that this is something worth talking about, not something that has only been discussed in directories or in passing. The inclusion of a business in a local business directory certainly shouldn't be taken to indicate notability, as such directories are generally intended to be fully-inclusive, or in the worst cases fully-inclusive-of-anyone-who-pays-the-fee. If we took such things as indications of notability, that would be a complete disregarding of the actual meaning of the term "notability". Just requiring sources in order to be able to write an article is the realm of WP:V and WP:NOR, with WP:NOTE providing further restrictions. SamBC(talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Kevin, I don't think that cumulative primary sources could ever be allowed to demonstrate notability, and the reason why is hinted in WP:RS: material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. Even if an article uses primary sources in an academic way to provide evidence of notability, it is not peer reviewed, and therefore must be treated as Questionable Source at best; in my view, extensive citation of primary source material is more likely to be synthesis. Since is generally agreed that Wikipedia cannot be used a platform for original research, no matter how scientifically it is carried out, then Wikipedia articles cannot be used as evidence of notability; that would be an example self-referencing. However, I agree with you that specific guidelines are of little value (if any), unless supported by content supported by reliable secondary sources: my view is that if an article cannot make it pass stub quality for lack of content, or contains content but fails WP:NOT#PLOT, then it is of unproven notability until such time reliable secondary sources are added. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have long thought that we should have a stub-incubator program, where stubs which are determined to be likely to be notable are given safe-harbor for some reasonable time. Earlier in WP it was great to post a stub as a seed and watch it flourish. One of the problems is that a de facto system of recognition has grown into the AfD process. Newbies trying to fast-track to Admin know they can get recognition by becoming a quick draw at AfD, Prod, etc. The exigencies of spam and vandal control have taken their toll on creativity. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sources that might be considered primary sources are i think sufficient. In particular, demonstrated library holding in a large number of libraries is sufficient. (I dont want to be specific about how many--it would depend on the type--and at present its only easily usable for fiction in english published in the US)., Presence on a NYT or equivalent best sellers list is notability, and thats technically a primary source as well. So is winning a major award. DGG (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plot summaries

There is a parallel essay project at Wikipedia:Plot summaries. Should these be considered for merging? --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't actually an essay. It's a brainstorming exercise for the community. When it's finished, the community will decide what it is. Until then, you can consider it for merging, but I am unsure of the suitable merge target. WP:WAF, WP:FICT, WP:NOT, my user space. I think the best thing to do is see where it goes. It may well die a death and be mothballed. Hiding T 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reports on the death of WP:NOT#PLOT have been greatly exagerated. I think Hidings remarks are little more than wishful thinking.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please re-read my comment above. At no point did I suggest WP:NOT#PLOT was dead. In fact, at no point do I make WP:NOT#PLOT the central subject of any assertion, statement or otherwsie. As to any wishful thinking you wish to ascribe to me, before you attempt to summarise my opinion, please research my actions and comments thoroughly, else leave yourself open to accusations of misrepresentation. Otherwise, it may be better if you let me speak for myself. All I wish for is an inclusive consensus, the same thing I wished for when I created our policy on plot summaries that you insistently seem to claim I do not support. If these claims of yours are somewhat suspect and misrepresenting of events... Hiding T 13:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The general idea that wikipedia coverage of fiction must not be limited to plot summaries is I think generally accepted well enough to be policy. DGG (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• That is clearly not a view shared by Hiding [7]. Based on passed form, I would be making a fairly sound conclusion he is using Wikipedia:Plot summaries to extinguish WP:NOT#PLOT by the back door. I think what is not clear is why he is doing this. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Let's also look at the talk page discussion mentioned in that edit summary. [8] It appears I indicate I am acting as Devil's advocate. So you are alleging that an editor who created WP:PLOT, and removed it because he wanted to test that it actually had consensus, and who is actively seeking to engage with editors to build a consensus for what we mean by plot summary and how we treat them, opposes the very policy he created and has vigorously defended, for reasons you can't decide. Perhaps you can't find any reasons, because what you think is happening is actually the complete opposite of what is happening. At some point Gavin, you need to respect our policies on assuming good faith, avoiding personal attacks and building consensus. Otherwise, I don't think Wikipedia is the project for you. Maybe you need to exercise yourself in a proper debating chamber, something Wikipedia is not, per policy, see WP:FORUM. I am sorry you cannot understand my actions as someone who is attempting to engage with all views in order to build a consensus. Since I have pointed you to our policy on consensus many times in the past, I am at a loss as how now to proceed. Hiding T 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Deleting a Wikipedia policy is an act of vandalism in my view. Dressing up vandalism under the guise that you were "actively seeking to engage with editors to build a consensus for what we mean by plot summary and how we treat them" is misrepresenttion. In all candor, I think you should write an apolgy at WT:NOT and take responsibility for your actions, instead of hiding behind claims that you were trying build consensus, when your behaviour is evidence that simply disagree with current policy. I think you are skating on thin ice to say the least.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would call it foolish, but never vandalism. Vandalism defines (at least in the wiki-world) when someone intentionally acts to hurt the wiki. -- Ned Scott 22:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• You seem to be quite aggravated or frustrated over all of this Gavin. It seems you are adamant that you will not accept my reasons for my own actions, so at this point we are left with you calling me a liar, a situation untenable with WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I'm not over bothered, but it belies an underlying issue; you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia. I can't really keep pointing you to relevant policies. I need to ponder this for a while. Hiding T 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• I accept what has been done has been done, and I am not calling you any name, good bad or ugly. I just think you should appologise for your actions. Simply disregard my request if you disagree. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• No Gavin, you have called me a liar. But I don't mind. For example, you insist I apologise, but disregard the apology freely given in the talk comment I linked to earlier. Posted to WT:NOT on the 6th May I offer apologies all around. I can, once again, only point out how grossly you are misrepresenting events, and now have to wonder whether this pattern of doing so has any meaning. How to proceed from this point is something I will need to ponder. Hiding T 09:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both he and I just want to avoid a restriction on the amount of emphasis devoted to plot, not eliminate a requirement that other elements get their share also. We should avoid taking or assuming extreme positions as counterpoint to the opposite possible extreme positions. That is, we should avoid doing so if we want to compromise and get this settled and go back to writing articles. FWIW, I interpret the effort at NOT as an effort to avoid fighting over what the section meant, by removing it altogether. Actually, I don't think that was an altogether bad idea, though more radical than I hope will prove necessary. I don't think we need to fight over whether to apologize for what we said in the past. That is, not if we want to make any progress.

So I frankly think it's a question of who among us does want to make progress, and who wants to bring up whatever problems might impede it? I want a compromise as close as possible to my position as attainable, but in any case we need a compromise. DGG (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Troy McClure

Hey look, Troy McClure just became a featured article! That might make a good example of how a fictional character can be written up to make a good article. BOZ (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Check the bottom of the page, under "Notes". He's already listed, along with a few others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whattayaknow! To quote another Simpsons character, "woohoo!" BOZ (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guideline

I've added the guideline tag. Anyone is of course free to remove it, but I suggest people who think this is as good as it can be and that any more edits may as well happen with the tag on as off think through their position. All the best, Hiding T 14:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline tag suggests it has broad community consensus. There's no indication of that; there may be broad consensus here, but it needs acceptance broader than that. Plus, once it is accepted, it should be tagged as a notability guideline, not a general guideline. SamBC(talk) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consensus is not yet demonstrated and this should remain a proposal. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is probably worth putting this to a wider community discussion now, though; I would suggest archiving most or all of this talk page and then RFCing, advertising at VPP, etc. SamBC(talk) 10:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If this has developed as far as it can go, then I suggest that we should look at the end-product and determine the specific value added over WP:N etc. Could the project be better served by merging the better aspects of this proposal with Books and Film so that we have one comprehensive and consistent guideline for "Creative Works", rather than a collections of competing rule-sets? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think there are some important practical issues as well as fundamental principles to be resolved before this becomes a guideline. I agree with Kevin Murray that consensus is not yet demonstrated and this should remain a proposal. Also, this proposal is highly unstable, and there is evidence that the number of changest for this month will be greater than any month previous.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Book and Film would be a bad idea, because in those cases, there are specific cases where notability has been shown through means other than the general notability criteria (significant coverage in secondary sources); while these cases would stay when bringing all into a common guideline, there would be people that will try to read across the lines, and apply a book-based criteria to a video game, for example -- see the entire discussion about awards that shows that what applies to one form of media doesn't apply to another. Additionally, those guidelines include non-fiction works as well.

As for the specific value, it is necessary to map how NOTE and PLOT interact when it comes to works of fiction. While the same effect is there without FICT, it is necessary to explain how these interact to lead to appropriate encyclopedic coverage of fiction. --MASEM 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't agree! In each of the special cases in any subject specific notability guideline, an educated application of WP:N would yield identical results. Most of these special cases are the result of a poor understanding of WP:N at AfD. These are bandaids on a festering problem. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can you give a specific example of where a specific notability guideline arose or was applied to a case which was the result of a poor understanding of WP:N at AfD so that we can understand more fully what you mean? --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gavin I can't cite specifics but over several years of invlovement at AfD, I have not yet seen one article which could be kept by a subject specific guideline that couldn't have qualified by WP:N. Take almost any legitimate line item argument citing a subject specific guideline and see if you can't make the same argument work using WP:N. The only accomplishment of subject specific guidelines would be unverifiable stub articles. WP:V is the key to WP:N. The problem is that AfD is about WP:ILIKEIT not applying guidelines. Consider the adverse effects of WP:CREEP against the marginal benefit of a further guideline. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• The only evidence I have would tend to support your viewpoint: note the closing remarks of the admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set (2nd nomination) regarding awards as evidence of notability. However, I think in instances where there is insufficient content to meet the requirements of WP:N, I guess the specific guidelines provide examples that a topic should be presumend to be notable, although presumption is rather over reliant on a subjective perspective compared to WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we presume a topic to be notable, then how do we write the article without material from verifiable sources? If we have verifiable sources we satisfy WP:N. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of these additional notability guidelines beyond the GNC is that they can help newer editors identify what we mean by notability, and to make it easier to include things. For example, MUSIC presumes an album by a notable band will be notable. Yes, ultimately, 99% of such albums will have sources that support the GNC, but at the time of release, they may not. However, given enough time and volunteer editing, it is highly likely that such articles will be given the appropriate sources. Thus, a newer editor that wants to contribute can do so and may not be able to easily search for reference but can assert the notability of a topic that likely will never be deleted. Ultimately , sources for verification will/can be added, and technically this notability "shortcut" is unnecessary, but having these makes WP much more user friendly to newer editors. (Unfortunately, it is very difficult to provide a short circuit for elements of fiction that virtually guaranty secondary sources as noted by the awards discussion.) --MASEM 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Slight correction. WP:MUSIC says an album by a notable band may be notable, not will. Common misinterpretation, but there's a but difference.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how often I have to mention this... there are sources acceptable for verification that aren't considered evidence of notability; they may not be preferred sources, but they are accepted. For example, first-party sources, primary sources, and directories are all suitable for verification, at least of limited things, but not considered indicative of notability. Thus articles that meet non-GNC subject-specific criteria (the ones for athletes are a good example) can still contain verifiable, encyclopaedic information. Like I've said plenty of times, if this weren't the case, there'd be no need for notability guidelines, and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have them. SamBC(talk) 14:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• It may prove salutary to initiate over a set time (say a month) a series of AfDs on various articles that exemplify different aspects of the questions being raised here in order to gauge community reaction and perhaps solicit wider engagement. Editors who have weighed in here would need to participate systematically as well. But since AfD is consensus in the making at a very fundamental level it could help move the issue along. Apologies in advance if this comers across as idiotic or promoting division - not my intention. Eusebeus (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I like your concept, but I'm not sure that is a fair use of the time contributed by AfD participants. Maybe modify your idea to review a sample of past AfD discussions as a team to test my hypothesis. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think one would have to mount a huge disclaimer on the AfDs in question, indicating that opinion is being solicited with respect to consensus for fictional notability. Past AfDs will can probably be used to show everything and the kitchen sink, they are so inconsistent. AfDs for a specific purpose could perhaps aspire to greater consistency. Eusebeus (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't oppose this and will participate if you get something going. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We have enough discussions already on real cases. The last thing we need at Afd is additional work on imaginary ones. We can draw our conclusions from the material there already: and the conclusion I draw from having participated in what seems like half of them over the last few months or so (more likely one-tenth--they are remarkably tedious) is that except for the extremely good and the extremely bad, the results have a considerable element of randomness. They're probably not random, but they're close, and the factor determining it is the relative energy of the participants. the quality of the arguments has nothing much to do with it, for they're always the same. some of us want to maximize the coverage of fiction , and some want to do just the opposite. I'd be tempted to propose something in the middle, but every time I say something which seems to me the most basic common sense, like "it should depend upon the importance of the fiction" , or "some fictions are best discussed by chronological plot, and some by characters and many by a combination of approaches" or "the default option should be to merge but preserve content" or "as much as possible of what is removed should be kept in a redirect for future development" or "the real problem isnot division into articles but quality of writing" -- only a few people agree. DGG (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree! It mirrors the US justice system where victory is based on a good spokesman and a sympathetic jury. I just don't see further rules solving the problem. I believe in less rules and better training for the closers. Verifiable independent source material should be required and that's pretty simple. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD is pretty well flooded as is and so it would not be a good idea to use it to test possible policy consensuses. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, there is good verifiable source material for almost every one of these--plot and the like can be sourced to the work itself. It would be a very good idea for those who have videos and so forth going in an putting in timings (or, in other sorts of works,scene numbers if not lines). Judgements & other opinion of course need to be sourced from the usually abundant criticism for at least major works. DGG (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that my last minor quibble has been ironed out (mostly wording and tweaking of examples), I have read through the whole guideline again. Although I'd still wait a couple of days or a week for stabilization, the current version of the proposal has my support. I think we should advertise the proposal in some wider circles soon and see where it goes. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the tweaks from Percy and Sgeureka, and think this is definitely nearly there. SamBC(talk) 18:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that I made one small change in the footnote in regards to how these articles are named: "List of Y characters" where Y is a fictional grouping but not a work is a bad article title since you have to presume knowledge of Y; "List of Y characters from X" or a similar scheme where Y is based on the work of fiction X at least provides better context. --MASEM 19:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to resolve it, but what about the case where a division is fictitious, but not limited to a single work or group of works? I'm not certain of any non-silly example now, but I have a feeling there are some. Of course, categories might work, but at the moment it's outside guidelines to group shortcuts by categorising them as "fictional X". SamBC(talk) 19:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"List of X characters in the Y series" or "in the Y franchise" would allow for the larger series --MASEM 19:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists for franchises that I could think of: Recurring characters in The Legend of Zelda series, Ancient characters in Stargate, List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens (interesting merge tags on the last article-list). It seems this is not so uncommon. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I know some people are busy with WP:Plot summaries now, but these are the changes since May 10. It's been silent for a few days here on the talk page also. The "awards" debate died down without significant results in either direction (FICT remains vague), the notability of lists will likely remain a hot topic in the foreseeable future (FICT remains vague), and whether FICT should point to other fiction-related notability guidelines seems to remain a matter of taste and doesn't really affect FICT either way. Can we have another poll for whether it's time to de-dispute FICT? – sgeureka ^t•c 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think what has happened is that Percy has stopped editing the draft for some days, and this might explain the peace and quiet.--Gavin Collins (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Go read WP:NPA Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I was not attacking you if that helps.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Skype discussion for WP:FICT

I've proposed having a Skype discussion regarding WP:FICT and related issues at Wikipedia talk:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

not yet held, as of May 31. DGG (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute at Glitch City

Moved to the Fiction Noticeboard. Please comment there. Ursasapien (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplication of guidance on article deletion

I have reverted Masem's additional footnote[9] on the subject of deletion, as this issue is already discussed at length in the body of the proposed guideline under the section Dealing with non-notable fictional topics. If Masem or anyone else has a proposal to reword this section (particularly to make it simpler or shorter), I am open to suggestions.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are asserting that a non-notable article can be tagged or taken to AFD, it is very important that AFD needs to be the last resort after other options. I know the guidelines says more down there, but in this location, it is written to make AFD seem like a first option, which it never should be. Something needs to be added there, maybe ("See other section for other options") because while it is true AFD is an appropriate solution, it comes off too strong as a one-or-the-other option. --MASEM 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; we should either not mention AFD (that is, after all, also duplication of other guidelines and policy) or mention that there are alternatives. SamBC(talk) 13:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• If a topic provides no evidence of notability, it can be merged or deleted at any time, and for many AfD candidates, that is exactly what happens, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that as it is down to the article contributor to cite reliable secondary sources in the first place. However, if you want to make an amendment to Dealing with non-notable fictional topics, do so by all means, but do be brief as this section is already to long and does not provide any guidance on the notability of fictional topics per se; in my view it should be much shorter.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I guess I'm struggling with. The line where I added the footnote was: Editors may request evidence of the notability of any article, including those on fictional elements, either through the addition of a {{notability}} template or through listing for deletion at articles for deletion, where consensus will determine any notability. Taking an article to AFD to request notability is a very very bitey approach; AFD is the last step for content resolution, and should not be initiated early in the process. Now, this can be changed in two ways; instead of "request", one could say "challenge the evidence...", when then AFD is appropriate, but this language is very bitey and negative. The other way is to keep it as request, remove the statement about AFD but still mention the tagging, and then as a new phrase "should an editor then believe the evidence of notability to be insufficient, they may then explore other options as listed below". --MASEM 15:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree that AfD determines notability or non-notability at all - there are many other reasons why an article might be deleted. There are also other procedures to reduce non-notable material (e.g. WP:PM, redirection)) but we do not need to cover them all here. To be honest we don't need to refer to AfD anywhere in this guideline at all, simply because an article can be recreated at any time, for example where good sources have been found subsequently. The phrasing needs to say:

''Editors may request evidence of the notability of any article, including those on fictional elements, either through in discussion on the article talk page or by the addition of a {{notability}} template on the article itself.

I have taken the liberty of moving this sentence into the section Dealing with non-notable fictional topics, which is the subject this sentence is addressing. I hope you will find this change agreeable.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)