Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 4

Rewrite proposed

User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction). It needs some tweaking and whatnot, but that's what we can discuss (among other things). — Deckiller 21:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a separate section on citing ficional articles. Wizardman 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing in fictional articles? That might be better off at WP:WAF. — Deckiller 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with several tennants of your proposed rewrite. I personally think this rewrite will allow for more greater individual interpretation and lead to the insertion of more non-encyclopediac content.

• The addition of "potential" can be seen to violate the tennant that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". You do not define the "potential" in "no potential for encyclopedic treatment". Wikipedia article need be fully encyclopedic, not show potential for it.
• "Obviously, certain aspects of the plot may need to be mentioned in the sub-articles on the fictional work, such as a cast of characters article." I totally oppose the addition of this line into the guideline. "Cast of character" articles are almost magnets for adding plot line--and there are certain sectors of wikipedia that add lots of it. This should discourgaed, not be encouraged.
• You put no time limit on the works in progress call. In general, I find that the Wikipedia deletion process gives editors who are working on articles, time to source them.
• I think we could more directly call for the use of Wikisource and Wikia.
• I feel this rewrite violates the renewed call for "quality, not quantity" by the Wikipedia leadership. I feel that it will result in the reveral of the process where many editors have successfully and appropriately merged individual articles on fictiona items into one. --Kunzite 00:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• The goal of the rewrite is to emphasize "quality, not quantity". "Potential" means that there is information available, but like you. said, a reasonable time limit to add this information sounds good. It is to take it a step forward; lots of these lists still have no encyclopedic potential, so they belong somewhere else (Wikia, etc). I'll reword "potential" to "availability" or something similar. (edit) Actually, potential can stay. Crystal ball deals with speculation, not a clear potential for out-of-universe coverage/availability of out-of-universe sources. It is made clear in the "obvious potential" section. — Deckiller 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• For your comment on cast of characters articles, the only cast of characters articles that will be notable will be those that can obviously (or do) take an out-of-universe perspective. Obviously, some explanation of plot elements are needed, regardless of out-of-universe perspective.
• Ideally, I'd rather make it mandatory that articles take an out-of-universe perspective (not just that editors need to provide compelling reasons that a potential for such coverage exists), but due to Wikipedia not having a time limit, such an addition wouldn't fly. — Deckiller 00:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• The rewrite also discusses how stubby fictional articles or those that can only have a few sentences of out of universe material belong in a larger topic (number 6). — Deckiller 00:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• If we keep the "potential" part, what do you suggest for a time limit to add that material to the article? 1-2 months? — Deckiller 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• What it boils down to is that most of the lists will be transwikied due to this rewrite, as they don't even have an availability of out-of-universe material. — Deckiller 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I thought transwikis could only go to WikiMedia projects, not to others like Wikia or WikiWhathaveyou. How do you maintain contribution history? --maclean 02:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Transwikis require redirects, which preserve edit history. These edit histories can be copy-pasted or linked. Info can be transwikied to Wikia due to the legal agreements. — Deckiller 02:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Would they be permanent soft redirects? Is there an example you can show me? maclean 03:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Category:Redirects from merges is a good example. A new category called Redirect from transwiki or something would have to be established, since a ton of in-universe lists would be shipped out. The redirects aren't soft redirects. The external links section of the most relevant page is how the two are really connected. List of terms in Xenosaga was transwikied to the Xenosaga Wikia; the article was redirected to Xenosaga and an external link to the terms category on the Wikia was provided. — Deckiller 03:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wow. That's actually a well-thought out solution. --maclean 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Many thanks. I polished the "defining notability" section to stress that it's an extention of the main notability guideline, and how "out-of-universe material" is the same as "material from secondary sources" as mentioned in Notability. — Deckiller 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• The biggest problem with WP:FICTION is its lack of enforcement (Keep? Really?), especially when going up against a Wikiproject. I support removing the major/minor distinction (or abuse); the most commonly cited excuse I've seen is that characterx is a major character because he is a main character for x seasons/movies/games. I interpret major to mean that it would pass WP:N's "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (is that what you mean by "obvious potential", it passes WP:N?). I would like to see more strategic use of bolding to outline options/procedure in Point 4, like I did here (point 3). --maclean 03:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That whole "major/minor" thing is gone from this rewrite. Basically, if topics within a fictional universe can adhere to WAF or have immediate potential/available out-of-universe sources (a substantial amount), it's notable. Substantial amount is a key; it seals the loophole of numerous out-of-universe stubs, which is a no-no. Obvious potential for out-of-universe coverage means it adheres to the main points of WAF (or has a potential/available sources to do so). Potential does not mean "future release" or "speculative" potential, but availability and whatnot. — Deckiller 03:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Feel free to integrate those changes on your userpage. — Deckiller 03:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, WP:FICTION is too weak in its current state to enforce AfDs because it's not united together with WAF. That's the essense of this rewrite: uniting WAF and notability, as it should be. — Deckiller 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed that bit about game mods being 'vanity'. Any guideline that excludes Counter-Strike should be changed. Chris Croy 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted: We're talking about "Fanfiction and unreleased fiction" (Counter-Strike has been released). Sections about privately made game mods are in fact vanity magnets, often enough featuring a "download here" link directly in the section. —AldeBaer (c) 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mm. The rewrite says mostly the same things as the current guideline, I think, which is fine, except for the elephant in the room. Specifically, the new guideline implicitly draws the notability standard upward for acceptable articles on fictional subjects, a matter where I'm not certain I see the benefit.

Anyway, here's a question. As it stands on Wikipedia, there are three rough ways for a topic to qualify for its own "article" assuming core policies like WP:V are met (not just in fiction):

1. A genuinely notable topic on its own. Most of Wikipedia; some character and settings articles certainly qualify for this outright as well.
2. A topic that, while notable enough for Wikipedia to cover it, wouldn't normally quite merit its own article (and would instead be a sourced section of another article). It has its own article anyway usually because either an appropriate merge target doesn't exist yet (usually fixable in the long run), or because the topic is a minor facet of three or more articles, and having the information in one place is better than either omitting it completely or repeating it.
3. Pure length reasons and summary style. It's part of the comprehensive coverage of a notable topic, but the article grew too long and spun off a child article.

I believe that the proposed guideline as it stands reads unduly hostile to the second and third type of article, with its demands for a more direct line to notability. For comparison with other areas of Wikipedia... #2 is illustrated by people like minor politicians, actors, and sports players. If things were cut and dry, a proper list/merged article like "Politicians of Cuyahoga County, Ohio" or "Players of the New York Yankees" would be the proper way to go with many minor people notable for nothing outside sports/politics/whatever. However, things aren't cut and dried; take an actor that participated in 6 different movies, with a minor role in 2 of them. Even if there's barely a paragraph worth of information on him or her, the only place to put it is in a new article. Sports players are traded across teams all the time. So it's hard to pin them down, and hence fairly minor people can get their own articles for the sake of proper organization of data and because there's no logical way to merge them.

As for number 3, it's admittedly much more abusable, and such forks are often an indication that the text simply should have been trimmed instead. Nevertheless, even if there is disagreement about how often this is necessary, it probably comes up often enough to be acknowledged here. I suppose this is also where there's general philosophical questions about where Wikipedia should go- many "articles" that are seemingly only in-universe are nevertheless justified on these grounds, since the concerns about notability are addressed in the parent article. Don't get me wrong; I believe that notability is important, but it should be considered on a holistic topic basis as well rather than only article-by-article. If a topic is notable, each and every article may not necessarily need to redundantly repeat that notability. Perhaps if such lists and articles were required to more directly state that they were children and not truly "articles" on their own, they would be more acceptable? Just tossing ideas out here. SnowFire 05:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, so articles have to take an out-of-universe perspective. This isn't an issue with, say, sports stars and whatnot. A story and gameplay can be summarized enough within a single article. Having subarticles for each in-universe topic encourages inclusion of every little trivial detail; that's why requiring out-of-universe information (just like the main notability guideline) creates a balancing act. Wikipedia can go into depth on subarticles as long as it's balanced by the encyclopedic coverage. It's a reasonable compromise. — Deckiller 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe your point two about articles spanning multiple fictional universes is an interesting one to bring up. I suggest we expand the idea of organization and notability a bit further to include exceptions like you mentioned. Fortunately, however, there would typically be plenty of out-of-universe information for the subject, since it appears in multiple works. Again, "optimal organization" can also mean having a relatively short article that encompasses numerous subjects, as long as it has enough out-of-universe content. — Deckiller 05:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the standard example in fiction of what I'm thinking of is probably minor comic book characters, considering the nature of that medium- maybe Zaxor the Invincible appears as a side villain in a few issues here and there across some different series, is the star of a very short-lived two issue failure spin-off, and then appears in a single sly cameo afterward acknowledging the character was written out. If Zaxor had appeared in just one series, he could probably be covered there (something like List of recurring characters in The Legend of Zelda series?), but that's not always doable. I'll try and think if there's a way to phrase this such that people won't jump on any character that appears in two or more games/books/whatever as an exception while acknowledging that simply appearing in a variety of works is at least an element of notability.

Also, this is slightly off-topic from the point I was trying to make, but you said [out of universe] "isn't an issue with, say, sports stars and whatnot." Well, it's as much an issue as in fiction. The facts that Joe Random hockey player was born in 1982, went to the University of Ottawa, and loves his family very much are not remotely notable, even if that's easily referenced. Their entire source of notability comes from the interest hockey fans place in hockey, exactly analogous to the notability a fictional subject gains from people interested in said fiction. (There are some obvious exceptions for people like Moe Berg or Michael Jordan, natch, just like the occasional fictional character has notability outside interest in the original fiction, like Mickey Mouse). Thus, while any "non-sports" information would certainly be nice for such articles, it shouldn't be necessarily required if their notability within sports is sufficient. The same goes for many other cultural activities (dance, music, recreational boating, etc.). (To be clear, ideally most minor sports figures would be merged, just as minor fictional characters are merged under the current WP:FICT, but as noted there's probably no good way of doing that in general.) SnowFire 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We'll just leave the off-topic part about sports to rest, since it was a communication breakdown. As for variety of works being an element of notability, absolutely. Showing that the character appears in multiple works is a tidbit of out-of-universe information, and there is likely to be more available since s/he appears in more works. But in that case, a recurring character list may be appropriate: there might not be whole sections of out-of-universe information, but each character section will have a few sentences of out-of-universe information, which may be enough. The problem is single-work subarticles that are entirely in-universe, as we're discussing below. — Deckiller 04:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to indeed draw the notability standard upward, because as it stands right now, too many all-in-universe subarticles/lists are around (most of which created as temporary "dams" for this info; right now, WP:FICT is defensive and not authoritative); these are full of excessive plot summary without any real-world material to balance it out. If an article/list cannot be transformed into a complete encyclopedia article, then it shouldn't be notable enough for Wikipedia; instead, it belongs on specific wikis. After all, even though we aren't paper, we are still a general purpose encyclopedia. — Deckiller 06:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I stated in User talk:Deckiller/Notability (fiction) I agree with the guideline as it is right now, there is a gigantic ammount of fancrufty articles being kept for the contempt of fans. Articles that can't substain even a small ammount of Out of Universe information don't merit an article, because if a character can't even get a reception how can it be notable? Potenial is not speculative in this case, one can judge if an article has or no potential as it is by reading it and looking for potential sources. The quality of these articles and as result of Wikipedia will benefit by a guideline like this. -凶 19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dark, you mean you like the rewrite proposal, not the current version, right? — Deckiller 20:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. -凶 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I may have to respond to this later more fully, because this is an in-depth Wikipedia identity question. I'll just leave off with one comment for now: different subjects have different levels of relevant "in-universe" information to understand them. For a very standard Mickey Spillane-style pulp novel, or a 1983 arcade game, the plot isn't really the thing. It may be possible to adequately summarize the actual work in a single paragraph (not that this has stopped certain articles from ballooning anyway). However, even eight paragraphs (a decent warning that a section may be getting too long) may provide only a cursory overview of exceptionally long and/or complex fiction (a trend that has accelerated in recent times). A comprehensive but well-laid out article may want to spin off excess in-universe information so as not to overburden one section; summary style. The additional in-universe info had best be justified by the real-world context in the parent article, but spinning off an article that is mostly in-universe is not necessarily wholly unreasonable. SnowFire 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The question of "legitimate subarticles" seems to be the biggest issue to resolve for this rewrite to be implemented. We all can agree that a logical interpretation of Wikipedia:Notability is that articles have (or, if already created, have obvious potential to have) significant out-of-universe information to be notable. Like you said, with subarticles, it may be necessary to cover further details for organizational purposes. The best compromise in that case is to also split some of the out-of-universe information, namely reception and criticism, and summarize the game's accomplishments in the lead. The subarticles Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and World of Final Fantasy VIII did that. Since the plots are so detailed to require more explanation, the critics or other sources certainly commented on it.

If a subarticle is required for basic understanding (not excess, like some of the Zelda lists and various character lists), then I'm sure it can be organized to meet the rewrite guidelines enough to compromise. The problem is that if we allow sub-articles to be entirely in-universe, then users will think it's fair game to add thousands of words about every minor detail (the problem in many superfluous fiction lists). Like you said, the complex plots have been increasing as of late, but so have the number of interviews with game designers (movies/TV shows usually have plenty of sources) and opinion polls/reviews. It almost seems that the amount of in-universe information required for comprehensiveness is directly proportional to available out-of-universe info (compare Category:Final Fantasy I to Category:Final Fantasy VIII). — Deckiller 04:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with SnowFire's laments regarding excessively complicated plots. A lot of my editing energy goes into maintaining the articles on Bleach (manga), a series where the author's idea of a minimalist acting cast for an arc is introducing 20 new characters, most of whom will be major to the plot of that section of the story. 6 years, 30 volumes, and 150+ characters later, providing a bare minimum of supplementary detail has probably added up to half a megabyte of text. This is after repeated rounds of deletion/merging for minor characters, concepts, etc.

For the sake of readability this obviously has had to be subdivided into seperate articles and lists, but for all intents these are subsections of the main Bleach article, and as such it would be rather difficult to prove "independant" notability for every single character and/or article, other than by showing that they play a substantial role in the series. As an added difficulty, author interviews and the like are going to be in Japanese, and while some of them will doubtless be published in English as the series progresses and increases in sales in the US, the English releases are years behind of those in Japan. Where does your intent stand regarding this sort of thing? --tjstrf talk 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For lengthy plots like Mangas with hundreds of issues and long-running TV series, there are generally real-world sources, but you're definitely right about difficulty finding/translating sources in other languages. I think that since these sources are available in some form, that proves notability and a potential that the sources can be added in the future per number two of the "non-notable topics" section of the rewrite. As long as the amount of articles and information is kept reasonably concise and consolidated and tags are added. The problem is whether all the sub-articles have available secondary sources in other languages. I think this scenerio, if a reasonable argument is provided, can be an exception (as long as some effort is made; perhaps the lead of every subarticle establishes the series' notability). The key is to keep the in-universe short anyway, and not create redundant retellings. But for random location and term lists (like List of Star Fox planets and locations), no real notability can be established, and if it can, it's in a form that makes it belong in another format or on another article. It's the trickiest thing to strike a compromise with, because explaining a detailed plot takes more space. I think, as I said above, a case-by-case basis and discussion can be best for these scenerios. — Deckiller 20:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean similar to how every single Pokemon articles starts with "Random pokemon #942 is a character and species in the multi-jillion dollar Pokemon media franchise"? I suppose that would work, though it's always seemed a pretty awkward way to start a page. Second, I suppose, to "X is a fictional character that deserves a Wikipedia article because otherwise the following pages don't make sense to anyone who hasn't already read the series", which would satisfy the demands for establishing this sort of "supplementary notability" well, but fortunately be forbidden by WP:ASR. --tjstrf talk 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the reasoning to give pokemon separate articles would be good enough, since most (90 percent) pokemon can be summarized in a paragraph with a picture (episodes can be linked if they have a role in plots to avoid redundant retelling). Plus, the amount of subarticles - regardless of notablility - should be directly proporationatal to the size of the work, meaning a video game with a complex plot wouldn't need numerous subarticles like a large novel series with a complex plot. Nobody could justify that pokemon has a complex plot, since two thirds of each episode is redundant, involving team rocket and friendship, with cookie-cutter random characters. Summarizing something huge like Bleach, on the other hand, may require an exception to "notability" as we mentioned above. — Deckiller 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, I agree with this proposal. I felt my ego rise a bit when I saw an article I worked on ;) (albeit about a third). I have one disagreement, a sentence in the lead: "If material cannot attain an out-of-universe perspective at all, it belongs in another article, or in another location entirely, such as Wikia or a similar Wiki". The material does not necessarily belong elsewhere. I suggest to rewrite to assure that it's not the definite location for this information. --Teggles 10:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I strongly oppose this rewrite. This is the type of unhelpful guideline that only serves to encourage people to delete well-written, interesting, and useful content from Wikipedia because they personally don't like it. The best notability policy on fiction would be this: If a work of fiction can be judged notable then it shouldn't be necessary for every element to be discussed outside before its inclusion in Wikipedia.

In other words, to write about Law and Order episodes you should have to demonstrate that the series is notable. Then you can write about individual episodes and characters as long as you cite the episodes (the primary sources) themselves.

That's a sufficient and reasonable notability policy that excludes nonsense material from Wikipedia without unnecessarily removing useful information from Wikipedia or burdening interested editors with the fear that their work will be deleted by someone with an axe to grind about how lame television, comic books, or video games are.

For example, take a look at Robert Goren.

Is this an irresponsible article of fancruft? I certainly don't think so. As an infrequent viewer of the series, I found it profoundly helpful. Note that the majority of the sources are from episodes. Some are what may be considered secondary material (interviews on season DVDs) but I could see people claiming that doesn't count as secondary material either. Advocates of this policy rewrite would delete and merge the content as such: "When all those characters are combined together, enough sources can probably be squeezed. The cast of characters article wouldn't be very long, either; when the OR, redundant story retellings, and trivia are weeded out, each entry would probably only be 2-4 paragraphs. " The result of this proposal would be to grossly reduce the utility of Wikipedia's entries by merging and cutting them based on an unreasonable and unnecessary standard that claims to be about notability but instead is arbitrarily biased against fiction and recent works. --The Cunctator 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability on this site is determined by verifiable real world information that is backed by reliable sources. Your point of view is much better suited to an alternate wiki (search on Wikia for some). TTN 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TTN. Wikipedia is a general, out-of-universe source. We must describe our articles from the context of the real world. The main notability guideline states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Reliable secondary sources for fiction are stuff like sales figures and interviews; stuff that adds real-world context to fiction. A basic understanding of the plot is of course necessary (and may require in-universe subarticles in rare scenerios, as discussed above), but there is a line between a basic understanding and a detailed database with OR and trivia. We don't mention every soldier of World War II's life story just because World War II is notable and the story is "interesting". — Deckiller 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure where you get this idea that people who advocate concice treatment of fiction have axes to grind or hate fictional series. The working model, WP:FF, has users who are passionate about the subject. But we also know that Wikipedia must cover things from a general encyclopedic perspective, which means both real-world and in-universe material. — Deckiller 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My perspective is essentially the following:

Wikipedia's goal is that every included subject possess comprehensive, accurate, neutral, balanced, internally weighted, and self-sufficient articles, capable of explaining their subjects without the reader needing personal access to its sources or subject. (In-line citations provide easy references, but you should never have to view an external link or reference in order to understand the Wikipedia article's content.) It is with these objects in mind that all content-governing policies are authored.

The view that in-universe content has no place on Wikipedia comes heavily into conflict with this goal. It is effectively saying that we write articles which are incomprehensible to non-fans because they are not permitted to explain themselves sufficiently for the uninitiated to grasp. This is the exact opposite of the intent of the WP:WAF guideline and its out of universe perspective requirement, which was laid down to prevent articles from being written with the presumption that the reader was a fan and that there was thus no need to establish context.

In short, purging Wikipedia of supplementary in-universe content will simply end up exacerbating the very problems that WP:WAF was intended to solve, articles being written that presumed prior knowledge of the subject. --tjstrf talk 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has said that it doesn't belong. It just needs to be balanced out correctly. It doesn't need to be a small, tucked away paragraph, but it also shouldn't be a full article. TTN 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it should be balanced, the question is where that point of balance lies. (Another thing that probably doesn't help the argument is that people tend to write about current and niche fiction rather than classical fiction.)

For an example of what I'm talking about that I think we could probably agree on, take the article War and Peace. It has a screen-length section marked "plot summary" at present, but since War and Peace happens to be really long and complicated, the section comes nowhere even close to explaining what happens. After reading through its minimalist staccato lines I am not only no more informed than I was before about what actually happens in War and Peace, but somewhat confused about the whole thing. The article clearly fails to be a self-sufficient resource as a result.

What would be the solution to this problem? Well, a Plot summary of War and Peace sub-article would fit the bill nicely, and would even enable the main article's plot section to take a more legible introductory/summary form in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. The end result would "only" be a better War and Peace article that doesn't confuse the reader, break off midway, and then say "sorry, we don't allow more than 5,000 characters of in-universe info, if you want to actually know what the book's about you'll have to read War and Peace yourself". --tjstrf talk 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that we're here to cover topics encyclopedically. Will an article on the plot really help our coverage of it or will it just act as a sort of shorter rewrite? Wouldn't a slightly longer and more in depth section help a lot more? To me, to read about the general plot points of the story is much more useful that getting more minute details of it (though, given the story in question, a plot article could probably stand on its own with reliable sources). TTN 23:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To add to that, is it really fair to put analysis on the writing in various Shakespeare plays by using plot summaries and reliable sources on the same level as why Ichigo wants to beat the crap out of an enemy just by using a plot summary? I know you didn't directly say anything like that, but by asserting that all in-universe info is notable enough to stand on its own, you basically are saying that. TTN 00:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Would a description of the plot help our coverage of the subject of War and Peace? Well, we shall see.

To start with, let's think about what it is that we're actually covering. The subject of the article War and Peace is a book. The book, War and Peace, is made of paper, cardboard, glue, ink, staples, maybe some cloth or leather if you have a fancy edition.

All of those things are described already in their own articles though, and the combination of them into a single product is already covered at book. Similarly, we have articles on war, on peace, on literary criticism, on movies, and so on. None of these things are unique to it. What then, about War and Peace, makes it unique? Why do we need an article on it at all? What makes it be War and Peace?

The answer is, of course, its unique trait, the ideas it contains. The unique ideas are what make War and Peace be War and Peace, and not The Lord of the Rings or book. We can change the presentation format, digitize War and Peace to not be paper any more, translate it into another language, and it will still be War and Peace so long as these ideas are still there. As War and Peace is a work of fiction, these ideas are known as a narrative, commonly referred to as a "plot".

These ideas, this narrative, the "plot", is the actual, defining, core, essential, real War and Peace.

In the end then, would information about the plot help the article War and Peace? Well, assuming articles are intended to be about their actual subjects, then it seems quite clear to me that this plot summary would not only help the article, but is the core focus of the article, its real subject, and if we fail to satisfactorily explain the plot we really do not have an article on War and Peace at all, but rather a collection of peripheral information.

To make an analogy, an article on a piece of fiction which doesn't actually describe the work of fiction itself is like a biography article on George Washington that told us Washington D.C. was named in his honor, and that he was born on a Tuesday, and how his friends thought of him, and that he was a "bipedal primate belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens", but not that he was the first president of the United States or that he led the colonial armies in the American revolution.

The purpose of out of universe information in all this is twofold: First, it provides context, letting people understand the subject within the framework it was written. Second, we use it here on Wikipedia to establish notability, as an indicator of which fiction has notable plots. And at base the plot is what makes them notable. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books), or even this page, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Every single criteria on there is derived from the plot. Sales figures? Those are a measure by which the commercial value of the plot is evaluated. Reviews? Publishers? Adaptations? Those are just types of professional stamps certifying that the plot is good.

In the final reckoning, fiction is made of plot, remembered for its plot, and notable because of its plot. (An interesting exercise would be finding if there is any fiction whose notability does not come from its plot, and where summarizing the plot would therefore not be a core part of the article on it.)--tjstrf talk 00:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By retelling the story, all we are doing is retelling the story. We are not providing any real information on what went into the plot, how it is utilized (symbolism and stuff like that), how it has affected the world, or anything like that. We're simply replacing the book while the main article covers that stuff. We are not here to replace it; we are here to talk about it. As I said, that one story could probably handle an article due to its overall significance, but most stories couldn't come close. This is really just your opinion, and it does not reflect any sort of policy or guideline (and it goes against a bunch of them), so even if you convince a couple of people, you have gotten nowhere. Unless you have more than that, you may just want to drop this. TTN 01:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as there are reliable sources for each part of the plot as presented in the article, I see no problem including it at appropriate proportion. War and Peace is a rather extreme example, where the plot is of course of great importance, which is precisely why it has been covered in countless secondary sources. —AldeBaer (c) 01:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And because there is such an abundance of sources directly related to the plot of War and Peace, it is a good example for an appropriate plot spinout, because the plot of War and Peace is, by sheer availability of sources, a notable topic in its own right. —AldeBaer (c) 01:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN: I realize that's not a commonly accepted opinion, but I believe it to be totally logical and consistent with the spirit of the other policies, including WP:WAF. However, since I also think that in many cases our plot coverage is in fact excessive due to including minute details not important enough to the work to merit mention, and a lot of what's there is badly written anyway, and it's possible to write articles that fulfill the goals of both covering plot and out of universe information (no need for "Plot of X" when you can write "List of X episodes"), my !votes usually lean more towards merge. --tjstrf talk 01:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does it fit WAF when both the nutshell and the opening are directly against pure in-universe information? TTN 01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm not arguing that we should be carrying purely in-universe information about a topic, though upon rereading my second-to-last post I can see how you may have gotten that impression. An article which had no out-of-universe info would be just as deficient as one which had no in-universe info. I'm arguing that in-universe information is of core importance to fiction articles, since the ideas in the fictional work are what make it. More practically, I'm arguing that the size limit for in-universe information should be the amount necessary to understand the work. --tjstrf talk 04:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There definitely should be a balance between real-world and fictional info. A full subarticle on just OOU or just IU is inappropriate in most situations. However, understanding the work should just be a general and basic understanding, since we can't replace the work (especially as a free encyclopedia). That's a major factor. — Deckiller 05:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuncator, what about articles like Gray Jedi, Dark Jedi, Dark side devotee, Sith, Jerec, Aayla Secura, Tremayne (Star Wars), Xanatos (Star Wars), Asajj Ventress, Sev'rance Tann, Yuuzhan Vong, Lightsaber combat, Force-sensitive or Holocron? I love everything Star Wars, but a notability guideline that embraces this gallopping chaos must be rewritten sooner or later, if only to comply with WP:NOT#PLOT —AldeBaer (c) 22:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is excellent that we have all those articles but it is bad that they are unsourced. Compare to Robert Goren and Nicole Wallace, which are properly sourced and written. So far as I can tell ("gallopping chaos") your real complaint is that You Don't Like It. Are you claiming that "Star Wars" isn't notable? That lightsaber combat, the Sith, Dark Jedi aren't obviously important concepts? Do you just not like video games? Do you think people who play video games should get to learn more about their interests on Wikipedia? Do you think they shouldn't get to contribute to Wikipedia? --The Cunctator 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• In summary, it looks like here are all the issues:
  • We all agree that notability is all about being covered in multiple reliable sources (which, in the case of fiction, contain real-world/out-of-universe information)

No we don't. --The Cunctator 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Then what makes a topic notable for inclusion? Becuase the writer likes it or finds it interesting? You have to prove something belongs in an encyclopedia; otherwise, people would be adding their fanfiction and other creations. You need reliable secondary sources to establish notability. — Deckiller 05:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • A few disagree that subarticles shouldn't necessarily be judged in the same vein; that they should be split for length purposes only. The problem is: what will keep fans from expanding it even further, to the point where it is a word-for-word retelling full of OR? The rewrite will help to reduce this and ensure that things are consolidated and balanced by out-of-universe/real-world information. I added examples of rare exceptions (detailed, lengthy plots, but I'm having second thoughts about having that as an exception). Part of it is even a safeguard against endless lists, which the current version advocates. Comprehensive overview =/= exaustive overview Category:Final Fantasy VIII or Category:Devil May Cry have succeeded in this. These are foriegn games, so heck, even sources are limited. Imagine if they were english games.
  • The plot can be the most interesting factor, but it doesn't make it the most important. Certain parts of World War II are certainly more interesting, but that doesn't mean it is the primary factor or the rest is neglected. As a general, real world encyclopedia, we have to have a balance. Otherwise, legal issues could come into play, and people will think anything is game. It's more professional and encyclopedic to attempt to consolidate the material as much as possible while still providing an overview (like in the above topics I mentioned).
  • There is also the matter of professionalism. An article/subarticle that covers real world and fiction world information appears more encyclopedic; I think this is common sense. Having such an aura will force newcomers to contribute at a higher standard; they won't just insert some poorly written details. It saves a lot of time in the cleanup department, and improves Wikipedia's creditbility, to have crisp, balanced text. As Jimbo once said, we're entering the Quality stage.
  • Wikipedia:Notability says "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines." The problem is that, when spinning off a subarticle, there is an obvious reason (too much to discuss for one page). If there is so much that has to be said about a notable topic, then there must be some sort of notable features of each individual part (notable being, in the case of fiction, providing real-world info).
  • Besides, there are other places for in-depth coverage of fiction. Wikias and similar places are perfect, and the Wikipedia Annex I'm establishing with User:Renmiri will ensure that copies of excessive (non-notable) fiction articles/lists will have a home (from there, individual wikis can take the info and incorporate it into their projects, or new wikias can be established). We are not evil people here; we don't want to screw people over. We want this to be resolved in compromise and with everyone winning in some way. We don't want to delete a single article (unless it's way out there, like fanfiction); deletion is the simpleton and pathetic route. I repeat: editors will not be losing their hard-work/information if they can't assert notability as Wikipedia requires; it will just be moved elsewhere and parts will be merged into a more general article/topic/coverage. The FinalFantasy WikiProject provides a Wikipedic (new term for "encyclopedic in relation to Wikipedia") overview of each topic (except 7 and 10, which will be addressed soon), with plenty of redirects from old in-universe pages and a Hall of Fame that reconizes older contributors. Links to Wikias and in-depth coverages of the games and series are provided in external links, and new editors are encouraged to edit at those places if they are not so interested in real world research involving fiction topics or concise/succinct writing for said topics. That's half the reason why people are defending in-universe: they don't want to see their contributions vanish. I started as an in-universe writer back in early 2005; I probably wrote hundreds of articles on Xenosaga when I first came. I know how to treat these good-faith, but potentially misguided users. There will be no deletion bullies under this rewrite, and the rewrite makes that very clear.— Deckiller 02:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There are other encyclopedias in the word. There are other places for in-depth coverage of mathematics. Why shouldn't we get rid of the mathematics articles? We don't limit our coverage of mathematics just because MathWorld exists. There are no zealots as strong as the converted. I think you have swung too far on this issue.--The Cunctator

A good thing you mention Math. I have several friends in the science field and they tell me "Wikipedia is great to find a summary to something (science related) and to find links to better coverage". Which IMHO is exactly what an encyclopedia that values quality over quantity should be. Wikipedia was NOT like that on fiction, particularly on new media (video games, anime / manga, TV/Movie, etc...) and had very comprehensive articles. Part of the reason was, I think, because there wasn't any serious non-profit, team based effort to do so anywhere else, so fiction lovers tended to end up here and create the impressive body of work there is here for several fiction topics.

Now Jimbo has changed the ball game. Regardless of his reasons, we have to find a way to at least do what a good encyclopedia does (summary + links to better coverage) without losing the countless hours of work our projects and editors have done in the past. I think Deck's rewrite addresses both points by emphasizing, transwiki, i.e. the the use of other public Wikis related to Wikipedia to house the prior detailed work, while summarizing the old content here at Wikipedia. Renmiri 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you grossly misinterpret Jimbo's statements. Also, he may be a GodKing but he's far from infallible. You're also mistaking Wikipedia for a dead-tree encyclopedia. Wikipedia can have its cake and eat it too -- it can have broad coverage, concise entries, *and* specific, detailed coverage. There's no need within the Wikipedia mission to support Jimbo's wallet by linking to Wikia articles. --The Cunctator 20:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• PS: I see Deck mentioned the Annex, which was created with the sole reason of being a haven for well written Wikipedic fiction articles] that get too detailed for Wikipedia for one reason or another. We both know how it feels to have tons of work hours merged, and how it feels to take it somewhere else and have it broken up into little pieces by different editing policies you are unaware off. We want to provide a place were Wikipedia editors feel welcomed and feel they found a good place for their hard work. Renmiri 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please omit ridiculous "zealot" and "converted" nonsense aside. Mathematics is a real-world topic. It's used in the real world, and important to history. A plot from a video game requires a general summary for basic understanding; excessive details belong somewhere else since we are a real world encyclopedia (therefore, we must balance in-universe and out-of-universe). Also, going back to your mathematics issue, our formula pages don't list every detail as to how the formula was created, or similar information. Just like we shouldn't go into every detail on a work of fiction.

• • Subarticles (and even main fiction articles) are like solving a puzzle. The key is to find the best way to organize material so the general plot facts are organized, and real-world coverage is sufficient. If separate articles on main characters fails to establish individual notability enough, a "main cast of characters" article will be better off. If there is still a lack of information available, then it needs to go back into the main article because there's no encyclopedic treatment — just a plot retelling. Problems with a "list of locations" article? How about a World article that treats it not as a list, and allows for discussion on critical response/development of graphics and creator influence — stuff that helps to establish notability! There might be exceptions as mentioned above, but this should be the general and logical rule. The problem is that this requires a lot of thinking and work and research; it's not just rehashing a plot from memory. Things are covered in the proporation of their notability, which is why my friend Elonka Dunin doesn't have dozens of subarticles dealing with her life. — Deckiller 02:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Summed up nicely, but could've done with less words :D seriously though, some people will never be convinced, simply because they are not open to being convinced. A shame & a fact. —AldeBaer (c) 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm obsessesed with concise writing, but I felt the need for a steam-of-conciousness approach to cover it from numerous angles. (Not to mention I had no time to revise) Plus, the WP:FICT rewrite sums it up, and I don't want to copy and paste it :) — Deckiller 03:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are the one not open to being convinced. It would help if people didn't make arguments that assume false premises or incorrectly draw conclusions. --The Cunctator 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one being convinced? I was on the other side before. I'm also one who tries to compromise as much as possible; others even call my work "fancruft". — Deckiller 05:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think this proposal is a great idea, we need to define what is notable in a fiction article and that a Wikipedia article should be well balanced. Deckiller's proposal gives plenty of good examples of what a good or FA fiction article should include and be balanced correctly. It doesn't seem to me that this is encouraging deletion of any existing materials, deletion is a last resort. In fact, it seems to encourage the opposite, that materials can be included elsewhere for the betterment of other projects. DarthGriz98 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• WP:FICT currently states that its our goal to "to describe the works, not simply to summarize them". I agree with this completely. I'm completely opposed to going through books/tvshows and retelling the story. I really dont think an encyclopedia is the place where one should turn to to get a rehash of a book or a tv show. So, if somebody misses the latest episode of Lost, he/she can turn to wikipedia and read a recap of the episode. Corpx 08:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Section Break 2: Bride of Section Break

Deck's rewrite improves upon this guideline significantly. If implemented, it would help eliminate the rampant original research as well as simple redundancy in the form of personal interpretation of fictional works.

Cunctuator linked Nicole Wallace, which is an excellent example of these problems. According to whom is Wallace Goren's nemesis? Why are four episodes "summarized" in detail, when they already have their own articles?

The idea that all aspects of a fictional work are notable because the fictional work is notable misses the entire point of WP:N. WP:N doesn't exist because people are worried Wikipedia might have too many articles. WP:N exists so that we aren't writing articles based on low-quality sources or personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To summarize the above discussion, there are two concerns being raised

• The Cunctator’s concern is that this limits coverage and universal comprehensiveness within Wikipedia.
  • To counter The Cunctator: using alternative wikis this doesn't limit overall available coverage or universal comprehensiveness on the internet.
• Tjstrf's concern that this doesn’t give enough latitude to defend complicated or intricate plots.
  • To counter Tjstrf: this guideline doesn’t really address weight of plot within an established article but would remove entire articles about plot elements not supported by sourced analysis (Patrick "Paddy" Dignam vs. potential for Leopold Bloom). --maclean 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• How does this proposal sit with the neutral point of view. Because as far as I can see, it places itself in contradiction to it, presenting in a guideline the view that certain sources can be biased against. Hiding Talk 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Um. What? How does Deckiller's proposal conflict with WP:NPOV? It requires independent coverage (points of view that can be attributed properly, which is what we should be doing), not personal interpretation (the unsourced point of view of the Wikipedia editor writing the article, this is bad). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability is subjective. Per the neutral point of view, we can't be subjective. You're biasing against certain sources by demanding independent sources. It's perfectly possible to write an out of universe article on a fictive topic using only primary source material, which also keeps within the bounds of WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you can satisfy all of those policies, then anything which rules such an article invalid is adopting a point of view on certain topic areas, and is therefore violating the neutral point of view. You've got to realise this is going to be an incredibly divisive guideline. I'd be surprised if you get a strong consensus for adopting it. Hiding Talk 16:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't really subjective: either the subject of an article has been covered in multiple reliable sources or it hasn't. We can dispute the reliability of sources, but then again, we can also dispute over a number of things like whether a point needs a source, or whether a section is OR (and that doesn't make it a violation of NPOV). — Deckiller 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, this isn't a bias against certain sources, because out-of-universe information is generally only available in reliable secondary sources (interviews are probably an exception, but I group them with secondary). The other sources are fine, but they are used to describe the in-universe parts. We cannot show that something deserves inclusion without providing real-world information that shows it's worthy (sales figures, extensive critical response, etc). — Deckiller 16:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of plots: Retelling a book's plot is actually a breach of copyright (may be classed as a derivative work) if it's there to retell the story. Fair use allows references, quotes and explanations for critical comment on analysis. It is not meant to be a replacement for reading the book itself, so, tjstrf's complaint that the plot restriction means "if you want to actually know what the book's about you'll have to read War and Peace yourself" is exactly right. You do have to. If we make it unnecessary, then we've probably breached copyright. Gwinva 15:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless we're talking about War and Peace, which is about 50 years too old to be copyrighted. ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

True (I wondered who would pick up on that), but in such a case, a detailed plot explanation belongs at Wikisource or Wikibooks or some other wiki, but not here: WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. If copyright law gives us a format/convention for articles on coyrighted books/films/episodes/comics then we should apply the same rigour to the rest of the articles. After all, we're creating an encyclopedia, not a plot-summary collection. Gwinva 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Hiding: A subarticle on plot doesn't have to have sourced analysis of the plot (although it should include it if available); it just needs out-of-universe information. Perhaps critical reception on how the plot was received, or how the plot was conceived by the writers. And were were forging some potential exceptions to having a need for this above. How does requiring reliable secondary sources to show that an article is notable violate NPOV? This is just an extention of the main notability guideline. — Deckiller 16:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See above. And the main notability guideline is flawed as well for the very same reasons and is just as divisive. Part of the problem seems to be people misunderstanding that a guideline is not a policy, part of it is that people are now utilising them as inclusion criteria. And I'm not seeking exceptions for articles on plot. I'm demanding that the four content policies be respected, and that if I can write an article in keeping with WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:NOT, someone not build an "I don't like it" reason so that they can remove it. All I want is the fair level playing field we used to have. Hiding Talk 16:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And how do you propose we write a neutral, verifiable article that isn't original research without coverage in independent sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't propose it, I've done it. Why do you propose such articles shouldn't appear in Wikipedia even though they do not violate our policies? Hiding Talk 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Where? I fail to see how you can do that without personal observation and interpretation of the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That you fail to see it does not make it a fact. Like I say, why do you propose such articles shouldn't appear in Wikipedia even though they do not violate our policies? Hiding Talk 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In two years-ish of editing Wikipedia, I've never seen anyone write an article without either references or personal observation. I don't think there is a third road. Deck's proposed guideline is a roadmap on how to satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR.

You claim you have another way. I'd like to see an example. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like an answer to my question. And I never said I didn't have references. A primary source is still a primary source, and can be utilised as a reference without introducing original research. Our policies even state this, or did last time I looked. Deck's proposal is a way to delineate "I like it". Hiding Talk 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources should absolutely be used, especially for in-universe information (and especially if secondary summaries are poor or unavailable), as long as it doesn't stray into interpretation. However, there has to be a way to show real-world importance; an article that consists of a plot summary and a cast of characters could be something for a made-up movie, or a fan-made movie, or something that hasn't been covered anywhere. Notability is, like A Man in Black said, a road map to satisfying WP:V and WP:NOT. It's the best objective way to determine if something belongs on Wikipedia or not (by applying the policies of WP:V and WP:NOT). — Deckiller 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See, now we're into I don't like it territory. Has to show "real-world importance" is demanded in which policy? And means precisely what? As to something being made up, you've seen the article on the Upper Peninsula War. We tend to find made up things, reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Peninsula War I don't think notability helped us delete that article, do you? Hiding Talk 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So you analyzed the subject wrote an article based on your conclusions from that observation? (I realize I'm putting words in your mouth, but you aren't offering any counterexamples to prove your point.) Deck's proposed guideline requires that we have something other than personal observation and interpretation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As you say, you're putting words into my mouth. You'll have to forgive me for not accepting ownership or arguing in favour of them, as they are not my words. Here's a thought for you though. When you observe a critical review in a newspaper, and then summarise that view in Wikipedia, aren't you writing an article based on your conclusions of that observation. That's why we have WP:V, so that we can verify that the source supports the claim made. If I claim a book is published in 1942, and I cite the book itself as the source for this claim, how is this different from you stating that The New York Times noted the work was well received, citing the newspaper as source? Either the book states the year of publication or it doesn't, just as The New York Times either said it was well received or it didn't. Both are based on personal observation. And I notice you still haven't answered my question. It'd be nice if you did. Hiding Talk 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Examining secondary sources, analyzing them, and summarizing them is the point of this project. Examining article subjects, analyzing them, and reporting our conclusions is not. I'm not saying that interpretation of sources is bad, I'm saying that personal observation of article subjects isn't the business of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You've ducked my point, failed to answer my question and also made an assertion which is your opinion and not based on Wikipedia policy. I think I'll retire at this point, I can't see us actually talking about the same things anytime soon. Best wishes, Hiding Talk 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The four content policies are respected by this. WP:NOT describes how articles shouldn't just consist of a summary of the work's plot, and WP:V describes how articles should contain material from reliable sources. Naturally, NPOV and NOR apply. The spirit of this guideline is to satisfy WP:V and WP:NOT (and of course NPOV and OR are always necessary). Establishing notability isn't violating NPOV, because it's not putting bias on anything; any reliable secondary sources (and sources like interviews as well) are fine; positive/negative criticism be balanced as always. Plus, if we have an article based on just the work itself with no out-of-universe information, how can we determine if it's worthy of inclusion, especially since it violates WP:NOT (plot summaries) and potentially WP:V? — Deckiller 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you fully. You seem to assert that it's impossible to write an out of universe article based on just the work itself. Since I myself have done this, and have not breached WP:NOT (plot summaries, a clause, it should be noted, added by myself to WP:NOT) or WP:V, I do in fact assert that people who wish to delete such articles do so as they do not like them, and that notability guidance built on such a basis is therefore subjective. Hiding Talk 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you link me to that article? Also, this has nothing to do with not liking articles or topics, it has to do with ensuring an encyclopedic coverage of topics by satisfying the content policies and the idea that we have to show that a topic belongs on Wikipedia. If anything, Notability is objective, since it requires proof that the topic has been covered in reliable sources. It's the best objective way to satisfy WP:V and WP:NOT. — Deckiller 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict-above comment has altered dramatically whilst this reply was written) I'm trying to sandbox an article to FA status, I'd rather not dig through my contributions looking for examples to suit you. I had hoped my word would be enough. It's fairly easy to write an article which states the nature of the fictional work, the year it was published, the publisher, any creators, an out of universe plot summary, critical reception and even cover authorial intent if the author has a blog, without using independent source and yet also not breaching policy. Like I say, to me this proposal is subjective and amounts to "I like it". Hiding Talk 17:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why the guideline uses the term "out-of-univese information", since the differences between primary and secondary sources can be odd at times, and fictional topics are usually less covered in typical secondary sources. However, I'm fairly certain critical reviews and information on sales figures, etc. are considered secondary sources. — Deckiller 17:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention sales figures. Critical reception can be sourced from the interior of a novel or a publisher's website, neither of which are independent sources, one of which is the work itself. I'm unclear what your point is regarding out of universe information. Hiding Talk 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're doing all that, Hiding, then it sounds like you are using reliable secondary sources, and if all those things you mention are possible, then it meets notability requirements. The key is 'critical reception'. What is critical reception if it's not from a secondary source? Gwinva 17:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've already stated that I haven't referred to secondary sources. I'm using a reliable primary source. Hiding Talk 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a dispute over the main Wikipedia:Notability guideline, which it has. I'm only interested in providing a logical extention to WP:N for fiction, not a reform of WP:N. Please take that to WT:N. — Deckiller 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Been there done that, I think I was the one who made it a guideline. You seem to be making the point that you'll disregard my comments though, so I can't see any point in continuing. Can't say I understand your arguing style, seems to be that you cut people off if you don't like their points. Still, all the best, Hiding Talk 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I just don't have the stomach to debate the main notability guideline when all I want to do is provide a rewrite of WP:FICT. — Deckiller 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Which transforms the current guidance dramatically and to which all my points apply. I don't feel that your rewrite takes into account the differences that fictional subjects have from real subjects, and I think there are flaws in the guidance. I've made my arguments, I'm happy to withdraw, but I object to the fact that such arguments can be overlooked. I also think it will be hard to get a community wide consensus built to support this rewrite, but maybe once you start listing this for discussion in more prominent places the truth or otherwise of that belief will emerge. Hiding Talk 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• But anyway, the point of this rewrite is to set the guidelines for all these subarticles and lists that list every minor detail about the plot (and mention nothing else) — it's not so much about the articles on the main works themselves. — Deckiller 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As you pointed out, that's already done at WP:NOT. Hiding Talk 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly, but people fail to realize this, and keep pointing to the current version of WP:FICT instead, which contradicts WP:NOT. — Deckiller 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Whether it may contradict it or not doesn't matter. WP:NOT trumps it as policy. This is simply guidance. If that's the issue, deprecate this page. Hiding Talk 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of the rewrite

• Alright. I'm going to go back to square one and devise a rewrite rooted in WP:NOT and WP:V, not WP:N, so that it will be more acceptable to everyone. Its focus will be on fictional material itself, not the works, just like the current WP:FICT. — Deckiller 19:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to withdraw my objections, if that helps any? We do need better guidance on this than the current page and yours is probably the most even handed. Hiding Talk 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure. I'd still like to give it some tweaking when I get back from Wikibreak. But I think it won't be a wikibreak as much as a large reduction in my time on the 'pedia. Real life issues have been catching up. — Deckiller 23:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Back in business

I'm back. I made a few tweaks to the rewrite (User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction)) to emphasize WP:NOT and that it's for topics within a fictional universe. Right now, there are a few people fundamentally against it, but not a majority; pretty soon, we'll have to sample the pro-in-universe WikiProjects and see if they can agree. — Deckiller 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the "Examples" section could be tweaked around or something? I can't put my finger on it, but the way that it has been set up has always bugged me. TTN 19:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of it either. I think there should just be four examples: either Category:Final Fantasy VIII or Category:Devil May Cry (both Featured Topics), an example of a good "in popular culture" article, maybe an article that has obvious potential to establish notabiliy, and the Xenosaga example of transwiki/merge. — Deckiller 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So, should that be turned into prose instead of a list or just left in a "good, probable, bad" order? TTN 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, maybe the whole thing can stem from Category:Final Fantasy VIII. It could just be a paragraph or two that shows why certain topics in it exist (the character and world articles), explain how they were before (how they were merged and rewritten), and compare them to others (like how some of the other FF "world" and character articles have been merged into the main topic). Then you could stick some miscellaneous stuff in afterwards (the Xenosage transwiki). That could work out well. TTN 20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. — Deckiller 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Where do I give a "nay" or a "yay"? If this isn't it, then I apologize here. I must say, reading your proposal, I find it funny that it almost mirrors what many editors have been saying over at the WP:EPISODE guideline and at the review of television episode articles page. So, on that note, I will say you will have a fun time trying to get this to pass. Reason being, there is a huge crowd of editors that believe notability is inherited when it comes to just about every piece of fiction. I like the examples sections, because it shows how sometimes things could easily warrant their own article, but there just isn't enough written about them, and so merging them to a larger topic enhances the quality of both articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's going to be difficult to pass this. If I have to, I'll turn it into an essay :)

I always find it interesting that some people believe that "having its own article" is some sort of holy grail and the topic becomes "second-class" when it's merged into a larger article. I think if we can get over this mentality and more in line of Jimbo's "quality, not quantity" idea, we'll be in better shape. I have no idea how to do that though. I read the proposal a few weeks ago but I need to reread it to find some issues. Axem Titanium 21:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Long lists are a pain to read. --tjstrf talk 21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but that also plays into the organization idea mentioned in the rewrite. While short little articles are bad, so are extremely long ones. Heck, if those extremely long articles have notability established, then splitting it into two articles will usually mean the same proportion of real-world info. — Deckiller 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Question? Should one include the idea that simply saying "this is a fictional ____" (fill that in with 'character', 'event', etc) does not negate any other in-universe tone throughout the page. I've seen pages that operate by introducing the character as fictional in the opening sentence, yet writing things like "biography" or detailing events from the films, all under the guise that so long as they say it's "fictional" from the start then it isn't an "in-universe" tone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's more of WP:WAF territory; the rewrite just wants real-world content, not necessarily an out-of-universe perspective. But I agree that it's being used too much as an "easy way out". — Deckiller 16:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't "real world content" and "out of universe" perspective kind of go hand in hand? I understand what you are saying about it being more of a WAF issue though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to look more at how we're doing both guidelines, and how they relate to each other. Both pages have proposed re-writes right now. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing so far, Dec's rewrite looks pretty good. There's not a lot that I can say about it that hasn't already been said. While the greater detail is good, it might not be a bad idea to maintain an intro with a really simplistic punch, which is one of the really strong points of the current WP:FICT. Nothing particularly in my mind, just thinking out loud. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, but then again, it is pretty to the point where it needs to be.. -- Ned Scott 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

gah! so much stuff to respond to... I just wanted to say that you're specific POV on how WP:SS is to be interpeted seems a little askew. Creating sub-articles never had anything to do with notability. The problem occurs when WP:SS butts heads with WP:N... personally, since one is a long established policy, and the other is a relatively new guideline - i'm inclined to think WP:SS should win out. Sometimes a explanatory subtopic is just too large to properly fit it into an article.

Take for example the whole pokemon issue. My personal feelings aside, it's a reasonable thing to say that many individual pokemon are not notable based on our guidelines of having info on them independent of the source (Pikachu is an icon... Cleffa is not). Recently a merger has occured, eliminating the oft-targeted species articles. So now we have lists. But the List of Pokémon (181-200) is hardly any more notable, and thus no more deserving of an article than Hoppip based on notability. Therefore, our underlying logic for these pages' existence isn't on WP:N, it's on WP:SS. We have these lists in their own articles because putting it into the main article is too large. Add to that the fact that they exist in multiple media.

This is why mergist approaches are sometimes looked down upon by people who are claiming it will "improve" the encyclopedia. Info simply isn't merged, it's removed outright - so context is lost. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So we basically need to say when it's ok to have a sub page for SS? That doesn't seem to hard to tweak, and I'll give it a shot myself. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Subsidiary articles

I think this proposal is an excellent idea, but I'm concerned about a procedural detail. As Deck wrote above, "While short little articles are bad, so are extremely long ones." I think we should tweak the wording somehow to make it clear that subsidiary articles that were split off for article-size reasons need not demonstrate notability independently of their main articles. So, for example, if Kencyrath (TV Series) is accepted as notable and is justifiably long, then List of Kencyrath Episodes is automatically notable. OTOH, Restormir (Kencyrath) is not notable. Also, articles that are too long because they have too much plot summary etc, should be condensed, not split. Hmm, these guidelines might be hard to write. Comments, please? CWC 11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I've seen many people argue that "a plot is encyclopedic enough to warrant its own page".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this rewrite is trying to stress that one of the logical ways to control sprawling subarticles is to make them establish individual notability, as that would ensure a balance of information and keep sprawling lists and whatnot in check. Of course, the notability standards for subarticles is slightly weaker (I.E. it translates to just having substantial real world information available about the subject). — Deckiller 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd react very negatively to the argument that "a plot is encyclopedic enough to warrant its own page". I agree that all articles and lists should have to be notable. I also agree that we should keep the number of articles down to a minimum, only splitting off articles for size reasons. (BTW, I really like the idea of using notability policy to encourage merging.) I'm only worried about a minor procedural-ish detail regarding biggish articles that were split off for size reasons. Even then, I agree that "having substantial real world information available" is a good approach. I'm just quibbling about the wording, I guess. This proposed change is a great idea, and I strongly support it. Cheers, CWC 19:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the other argument that seems to be passing around is the "Notability is only a guideline, not a policy, and thus we don't have to follow it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite again

I can't say that I'm a fan. The listy format and overuse of bold text, italics and brackets do not make it easy to read or understand. It looks like it was made to be pointed at to win debates. The examples are painfully slanted, with science fiction and video games being too prominent.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the concepts addressed in the rewrite? They are drastically different than the current WP:FICT. As far as the formatting, I don't prefer this format myself, but others have recommended it. Finding the best non-scifi and video game examples might be a good idea to ensure balance. — Deckiller 05:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles about fictional appearances of real-world topics

Whoa....I complately disagree with that section. This is trivia. Even if its properly cited, it'll be in violation of WP:FIVE Corpx 05:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural impact is fine as long as it's treated as an encyclopedia topic, and not a list of trivia (that section clearly says trivia lists are inappropriate, regardless of notability). — Deckiller 07:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can you give an example of a couple of those in existence now? Corpx 06:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• The only good examples are on extremely notable topics, like Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc or Cultural impact of Elvis Presley. These topics are so notable that notability for the impact on popular culture can be established itself (I.E. the cultural impact of these subjects has been covered in multiple independent sources). As long as they are written from an approach that is not indiscriminite, it shouldn't be an issue. Perhaps the section should be removed entirely, as appearences in fiction "should" be only one part of cultural impact articles. — Deckiller 06:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit does not change the policy or anything but a list of examples. The example listed was outdated and was done to an article that has drastically changed after being found to contain no verifiable third party sources or any grounds for notability.NobutoraTakeda 16:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I dont know how the Joan of Arc article reached featured list status, but the lack of references in there is troubling. Corpx 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly comment at...

I'm proposing a rewrite of the guidance offered by the WikiProject Comics, and would appreciate input from the wider community. Thanks. Hiding Talk 15:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Television article review process as a fictional article noticeboard

I've made a proposal to expand the review process of the television wikiproject into a fictional article notice board, to better clean up articles in line with this guidance and that at WP:WAF. I think we need an area where we can bring issues within articles to the attention of the wider community, and this seems a useful way of doing it. It would mirror notice boards implemented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process#Expansion. Hiding Talk 15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusion between main and minor

There is more than just main characters and minor characters in fictional series, you know. There are average characters, who appear every once in a while and do alot, but don't get much development, and major characters, who appear several times and has a large importance to the series along with alot of development. Can we please try to add more than main and minor to further improve this for future debates? User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares, 13:03 (Eastern Standard Time), 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If the rewrite (or a version thereof) passes eventually, it'll get rid of the entire main/minor character debate. — Deckiller 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be judged on the coverage the character receives from real world sources. If there's sufficient coverage, I think it warrants an article. Corpx 18:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivial/Incidental characters

Maybe it was my imagination, but I thought this guideline advised that trivial/incidental characters should be deleted no mater if they have their own article or part of a list. However, I don't see that prohibition on the guideline any more. Was this something that fell to the wayside, was it deliberately removed, or was it never part of the guideline and I'm just misremembering things? --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Basically its if the character in question has "significant coverage" from independent sources, it deserves an article. Corpx 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But that still doesn't answer my question about the prohibition on trivial character being added to List of X characters articles. --Farix (Talk) 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well since there never was mention of trivial or incidental character on the guideline, I propose the following change

• Trivial characters and trivial treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction should never have an article or be merged into a "List of characters." Instead, they should be deleted as unencyclopedic.

--Farix (Talk) 11:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What qualifies as trivial/incidental?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would view it as a character that is only briefly mentioned in the story. However, you can see this discussion on deletion policy for clarity. The main issue, however, is that some editors thinks that characters that were only mentioned in one sentence deserve their own place on minor characters lists. --Farix (Talk) 11:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some examples, because it sounds really odd that people would actually try and put someone so "incidental" in a list or their own page. Obviously they are, because you're here...but if you know of some recent examples (or old) that I could look at to see what is actually going on that would be great.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

An example is List of minor Hufflepuff characters#Others. The section has been repeatedly removed and restored with Potter fans insisting that Wikipedia be a "complete guide to every Harry Potter character".[1][2] --Farix (Talk) 12:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How'd I know it was going to be the Harry Potter crowd. I agree, the deletion policy page should be cited and mentioned on this page as well. That is pretty ridiculous to be adding those characters. "Dumbledore mentioned her in passing" is basically what that boils down to. Those editors should be directed to the Harry Potter Wikia, as that is the place to include such trivial characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It was, yet a Potter fan said that the deletion policy is irrelevant because that line item wasn't incorporated into WP:FICT,[3] in short Wiki-lawyering. --Farix (Talk) 12:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. If a policy says you cannot do something, then a guideline cannot change that. If the policy doesn't say something, but the guideline does that is a different story. But in this case, the policy supercedes the fact that WP:WAF and Notability FIC don't mention it. Either way, it should be on both pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hence why I want to cut off that line of reasoning with the proposed addition to begin with. --Farix (Talk) 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

What's left to do to get the rewrite put in place? Are there any sections of the rewrite that everyone agrees with and could be put in right now? -- Ned Scott 05:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of polishing it to address concerns on this talkpage. Since it's all connected, it might be hard to implement it bit by bit. — Deckiller 10:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What are some of the major concerns that still need to be implemented? I'd like to get it up soon, as this current version is really getting on my nerves. TTN 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite is poorly written. I doubt that someone inexperienced with Wikipedia would be able to make sense of it.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you're taking talking about the syntax and diction rather than grammatical and spelling errors. Inexperienced should understand at least WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT at some point. As this is sort of built off of them, it really should be easy to understand (better than this version certainly, which even administrators misread and get confused over). Even then, we have experienced users to explain these to others as they edit and make mistakes. TTN 11:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hence why I said "it's a matter of polishing". Copy-editing comes after the concepts are established. — Deckiller 15:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The overuse of lists, bold text, italics and brackets make it hard to understand what the concepts even are. Am I right in thinking that it is trying to say that notability is never 'inherited'? Why is a rewrite needed for that? --Nydas^(Talk) 18:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I guess we're ready to revise and trim. — Deckiller 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the new guideline at midnight UTC (8:00 EST I believe), which is 5 hours from now. The only issue raised in the last month has been the list format, so there shouldn't be too many problems — especially since these are the concepts being used throughout Wikipedia as of late. — Deckiller 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Implemented. — Deckiller 00:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Example cases

It would be illuminating to see how the rewritten guideline would apply to various examples:

• Kamelion. A Doctor Who companion. No sources, notability doubtful. Probably mentioned in various A-Z Doctor Who books.

• Valen. Babylon 5 character. No sources, real world notability doubtful. Important character in-universe, although he only appears in one episode.

• Charlene Robinson. Kylie Minogue's character in Neighbours. Zero out-of-universe info, but quite likely that notability is established in offline sources.

• Puck (Shakespeare). Crappy article, but the character is iconic. Probably needs offline sources.

--Nydas^(Talk) 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Valen: the character itself has no significant real-world information available, so it cannot be kept. However, some of the details may prove useful for articles with real-world information (or availability), like the episode article or the Jeffrey Sinclair. The article will then be redirected to the most relevant parent article, probably Jeffrey Sinclair. Covered in: first point of "Non-notable topics".

• • Kamelion: very little real-world information is available; it belongs in a sub-article that can yield more real-world coverage. An article on Races of Doctor Who may do the trick, but preferably not in a list format. Then, if a Races of Doctor Who article cannot show notability, then further merging should take place (if even possible). Covered in: first point of "Non-notable topics"

• • Charlene Robinson and Puck (Shakespeare): both of these characters probably have solid potential to provide substantial real-world information. If a user shows this obvious potential when the status of the article is challenged, then the article(s) can be given reasonable time to develop. Covered in: second point of "Non-notable topics".

• • This brings up a good point: I dislike the current examples section. Ideally, we'd have an example from each individual point in the guideline.

— Deckiller 19:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor quibble with WP:FICT#Fanfiction and unreleased fiction

The new text looks good, except that fan fiction is not necessarily deletable vanity (see Category:Fan films). To avoid confusion, I'd suggest inserting the qualifier often, and an exception for notable fan fiction that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — TKD::Talk 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good; feel free to implement the change. — Deckiller 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. — TKD::Talk 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks great; thanks. — Deckiller 00:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The occasional exception?

There are always exceptions. The Pokemon Lists are a good example; although they are a compromise, they still don't meet this revised guideline (each list doesn't contain significant real-world info). Yet Pokemon is so popular and so vast that something about each Pokemon should be mentioned. Perhaps a brief section mentioning that there may be an occasional exception (but not listing details to avoid loopholes and "gaming the system"?). Such exceptions could be discussed in-depth and defended if challenged. — Deckiller 12:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

'Occasional exceptions' could end up as special treatment for genres favoured by Wikipedians.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Sorry to disturb but I am a bit confused about this policy, do the subarticles relating to notable fictional works have to meet the general notability criteria of having "“significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” There are thousand of articles which would seem not to meet this criteria (artcles for minor characetrs, locations, objects, concepts, etc.). To take a few examples from one subcatagory, are Knockturn Alley, Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes and Ordinary Wizarding Level really notable or do they just meet the criteria because they relate to the obviously notable Harry Potter. I do not understand why this rule seems to be in place for works of fiction as it does not apply through the rest of Wikipedia. If a person is notable they have article, this does not mmean there should be artciles about their wives, children, pets, their local shops unless those items are also notable. Why does playing a minor role in a notable fictional work give notability when playing a minor role in a notable real life or event does not? [[Guest9999 14:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)]]

This update just went into effect, so many areas have yet to implement it (although several have been using these concepts for months or even years). This page was updated for exactly the reason you specify: we have too many subarticles on fictional things, without even mentioning their significance in the real world (if any). Subarticles (the primary focus of this update) have to meet the notability for fiction mentioned in the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Defining notability for fiction section. — Deckiller 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Won't this significantly alter our entire coverage of fictional subjects? It seems to call for the removal of virtually all articles on TV show characters, fictional settings, etc. - those that are in Lord of the Rings may get a pass, but most anything below that size goes zap - and the best-case scenario of merging all that still loses a large majority of the content.
Another question: is notability - significance - ever inherited? --Kizor 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with a debate

We've been discussing the issue of writing fictional characters for common foes of the Mario Bros series of video games specifically Goomba and Koopa over in the WP:CVG. The discussion about it can be found here. The argument is to whether to take articles that describe the foes' appearances and actions in the various games and merge them down significantly to a paragraph of so in a common list of foes in the Mario universe. There is some heated editing debates but when you look past it, we have the following problem.

Both foes are as ubiquitous in the Mario series as much as Mario himself. They are notable by most gamers outside of their universe, but you never find such out-of-universe references that talk about them from reliable, verifiable sources. We can quote game manuals over and over, including official Nintendo guides, but these all are within the universe. By a first blush through the WP:FICT policy, these characters fail the usual tests and thus should be merged, but given the lengthy discussion, we are definitely on a gray line between acceptable and not. (I can see it being both ways).

At this point, we're having an edit war between one that wants to merge now because it immediately fails the WP:FICT tests, and another that is reverting back immediately (that's a different issue as you can see others trying to step in to cool heads). However, we are now looking to get other opinions outside of the CVG project, and I figured here is one of the better places to start. Are these articles definitely not notable out of their universe and thus shouldn't exist, or are we missing a subtlety of the policy? Thanks. --Masem 00:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Finding sources might be hard, but I suspect they exist. Reasonable potential should always be considered, and with that in mind, I wouldn't say they fail WP:FICT. They might both need some trimming, but that's it's own thing. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, seems this is about Koopa Troopa, and not about Koopa. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Question When you say: They are notable by most gamers outside of their universe could you expand on that comment? How do you substantiate this? This might well help clarify the question you raise above. Eusebeus 13:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The way I'm saying this is that most gamers, and likely some non-gamers, know what a Goomba or a Koopa are if you don't specify what gaming universe or the context of the game that you're talking about - while Mario may be the iconic representation of Mario games, these two enemies/characters are well enough known to understand they are from the Mario universe. Of course, should you try to do the same for a more general cut of the population, you're going to find a lot more people that recognize Mario and utterly fail to know what Goombas or Koopas are.
    • The problem is.. this is what I (and most other gamers) know simply being immersed in the video game culture, but its not something I've read, or watched, or seen in any reliable source. It's like trying to justify at what point an internet meme is notable. The problem is also hurt by the age of the games; back when the first Super Mario Bros. came out on the NES, there wasn't much in gaming literature and it's unlikely that literature would have focused on the development of the foes or given them out-of-universe context (as opposed to what happens now when most popular games get a zillion pages of interviews to explore every detail out-of-universe detail). Hopefully that helps to expand on what I was trying to get at before. --Masem 13:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • • So we know that Goombas are highly significant, but we can't prove it well enough to satisfy the rules? Simplified a bit, it seems that you're saying that it's clear that we could improve the encyclopedia, but the rules get in the way. Is this far off the mark? --Kizor 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Pretty much sums it up; wouldn't say "rules" more so "policy" which generally means there's a bit of flexibility. --Masem 23:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
          • This is the sad fate for many popculture and internet subjects. -- Ned Scott 23:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the answer. While I admit to never having encountered these before, should that be the case you may well be able to find larger cultural references that could go at least part way to providing a rationale for deserving encyclopedic treatment per the elaborated guideline and serve as a platform for wider debate. Absent such context and a clear out-of-universe demonstration of notability, however, a merge per WP:FICT (as you note above) is likely the preferred solution. Eusebeus 18:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This 'in-universe' notability issue

I'm aware there has been a lot of discussion on this but I want to propose something. I think it relates to the 'in universe' issue. I'd like to see something along the lines of what Snowfire, tjstrf and The Cunctator have been saying. As it stands, requiring notability from secondary sources outside is a perfectly fine justification of whether a fictional story, T.V show, or movie should have an article in Wikipedia. It falls down, however, when applied to specifics within the article, and to sub articles/sections relating to it. According to the strict interpretation of these rules, the only things notable about a show are its effects on the real world. An article on a T.V show, for example, would list only the title, actors playing characters, the ratings, and any impact the show has on popular culture (quotes, influence on television, or future dramas, and the impacts on the station's bottom line.) Such an article would be seriously devoid of context and useful information.

I think what is needed is a rule that sub articles should only be a matter of length. Whether a section should be created (for example, characters, episodes) should depend on the understanding/value/notability of that section within the fictional universe. Most importantly, it should be mentioned if it adds to the understanding of the fictional work. Thus, a large section of text requiring a separate page would not be appropriate for a character that appears once, or a minor character, or a single set used once, or a minor episode that doesn't advance the storyline significantly. A paragraph on a smaller character is fine, while an article-sized section on a primary character is also fine. A list of episodes is excellent, but an article for each and every episode probably isn't. It'd be more like undue weight than notability, since the aim would be to create a full and balanced article and sub article set which describes the show. I guess the section could read like this;

Notable topics

Once the notability of a work of fiction have been established, the detail of subsections within the article is a matter of notability within the universe. What is important is whether the subsection adds to the understanding of the notability-established work.

A topic should not be given undue weight within an article. Specific examples;

Characters;

• Minor/occasionally recurring characters should not warrant more than a paragraph or so, usually in a list of characters.
• Once appearing characters do not warrant a mention at all, unless in a section on the episode or character they affected.
• Major/primary characters of books/television shows/movies with sequels may warrant enough text to comprise an article, though this depends on the amount of relevant, value-adding information on them.
• Major characters in a once off movie do not normally warrant a separate section. A short list of characters should suffice, and details on character development can be seen in the plot summary.

Plots;

• Episodes of television shows should usually be presented in a list, with short summaries (No more than a couple of sentences) describing the major events in the episode.
• Major episodes of television shows which provide large advancement, character development or are considered especially notable due to popular reception or cultural impact may warrant enough length to justify an article.
• Plot summaries of books and movies should not exceed more than a few paragraphs, and do not warrant enough length to justify a separate article.

Locations;

• Locations are generally not important enough to warrant anything more than a mention in the summary of the television show/movie/book.
• Occasionally, pivotal locations in television shows/book series may warrant a more detailed section/article. Examples include Hogwarts, and Springfield in the Simpsons.

By default, topics within a fictional work (characters, places, items, concepts, etc.) should be covered in the article on that work of fiction, unless an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long, then the concepts are split into succinct sub-articles that maintain such an encyclopedic treatment; However, the material should be well organized; excessive sub-articles lead to disorganization and unbalanced coverage.

---

Obviously, the details would need to be decided. Giving specific examples and more details would help cut down on the confusion surrounding the issue. I think this will remove the cruft and unimportant crap, while retaining a useful base of wide and interesting information that makes Wikipedia the first resort for information on anything. Iorek85 05:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of different situations to consider, but in general this is good advice. Something to think about. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much concur with the above. >Radiant< 13:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just had a read and agree with most of what you're saying here. Thanks, Jack Merridew 14:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Kizor 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand where this approach is coming from, as some fictional universes have no real-world information on certain aspects but could use a sub-article for description. The problem is that this would basically revert back to the old WP:FICT, which contradicted WP:NOT and WP:N. It would encourage and pardon the tons of poorly written lists which are nothing but plot summary. Wikipedia is a real-world encyclopedia, so we need to cover things from the perspective of the real world. People interpret this guideline in ridiculous ways, and lowering the standard would just lower the interpretation to levels where a random list of terms would be considered "notable". What we need to do is teach fiction writers how to write economical, succinct overviews of the plot—not loads and loads of rambling subarticles. Sometimes, an "in your face" notability guideline is the best way to do that (but then you'll have the people who ignore it outright). Then we have the issue of being subjective with "in-universe notability". Determining what is significant in the fictional universe can be subjective, and can lead to a ton of gaming the system. With "real-world content" being a standard, at least it's left up to the sources (like most encyclopedia coverage), not the editors' interpretations. — Deckiller 14:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This essentially stems from my merge attempt of characters whose real world notability is very iffy (though the discussion totally fell through, so it isn't even worth it). The sections are almost 80% OR and general one-off gags are used to build them anyways. That is what people would try to put off as "good" information. TTN 14:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that an entire episode should have its own article if there are major story arcs going on. That means absolutely nothing, without context. It also becomes an issue of "what's a major storyarc?" The proposal appears to say "if there is a lot of IU information about this subject, give it its own article". I've seen people say "well, this character is so notable, even though he's minor, that he deserves to have more IU information than a major character in the series". This proposal seems like a justification for that. Also, not all major characters, even ones appearing season after season in a television show warrant their own article. There is a reason we have sister sites like Wikia, for times when the only real information about the character is nothing but fictional story arcs. There may not be enough real world content to justify a separate article on every major character, thus it would be better suited to have a link to a Wikia that includes all those story arcs that you are mentioning.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, as I said, the details (independent of the in/out of universe notability) should be decided. You'll find there are articles on every episode of the Simpsons, which I think is particularly overkill. However, I think there is a reasonably clear line between what episodes are major, and those that are not. Especially high rating episodes, those which have gained media coverage or criticism, or those that advance the plot significantly are important because they add to the understanding of the show. Examples could include Who Shot Mr Burns in the Simpsons, or Three Storeys in House. I actually got the idea from The O.C#Milestone episodes.

Deckiller, I perhaps should make it more clear that the only reason for including information on a specific thing to do with a show/movie/book is that it enhances the understanding of the show/movie/book. Perhaps it is too vague, but the reason we need this is because the notability rules, as they stand, prohibit any information on plot, characters, or episodes, unless they are specifically notable in the real world. I'm not just talking about removing plot summaries (or shortening them, as you correctly argue is needed) but removing every article or section on anything that hasn't affected the real world. As TTN pointed out, this comes from Scrubs; he's arguing that all of them should be merged into a list, but why stop there? Unless characters have specific, referenced, pop culture influence outside of a fan base, according to the rules as they stand, they shouldn't even be mentioned. Laverne, for instance, has nothing to do with the outside world. She is not notable in any way, outside of Scrubs. Bart Simpson would warrant an article, I suppose, but even then, it wouldn't include who or what he is, just that people say "Eat my shorts" and "Aye currumba" sometimes. This is the problem I have with "out of universe" notability. I completely agree that we should make sure a topic (as a whole) is notable outside of universe, but the subsections should have to satisfy the criteria that they add to the understanding of the topic, not that they are notable in and of themselves. As for rambling summaries, you're right, many of them are far too long. But my proposal specifically states "should not exceed more than a few paragraphs". At the moment, I don't see the notability rules relating to their length anyway, only to their total removal. Maybe it's just because I'm not understanding the rules properly. Iorek85 00:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Real-world information doesn't have to show significance in popular culture; it can show how the character/concept was created, how the actors/voice actors enjoyed or hated the role, what the critics thought, etc. But I understand that you feel it is hard to give a fictional universe justice in one article. Perhaps the best way to handle this is a case-by-case basis; that is, have a general minimum WP:FICT standard, and have individual WikiProject standards based on WikiProject consensus. I'm still adamant in my approach, but I can understand if the whole of Wikipedia is not ready for that standard yet. — Deckiller 00:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While I'm behind Iorek's proposal, thank you for the maturity in your last sentence. Being a heavy-duty Wikipedia editor tends to come with a single-mindedness that is seldom amenable to compromise. Everyone here has seen, or as I must have, been, someone insisting that their way's the only possibility, come hell or high water. --Kizor 09:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to show the advancement in plot, try Wikia. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan guide to your favorite television show. Saying "well these advanced the show considerably" is original research, unless you have reliable secondary sources to back you up, in that case what you have instead is a review of the episode, and thus, you've satisfied the guideline plenty.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the 'occasional exceptions', as outlined above, applying to the Pokemon lists?--Nydas^(Talk) 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm? That has seemingly nothing to do with paying Deckiller a compliment - are you sure that you responded to the right person? No matter. I'm intensely aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please don't assume again that I don't know, care about or value that, and we'll get along far better. I do RC patrol; I spent half a workweek on the Virginia Tech massacre; I'm not an enemy here. -Kizor 14:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a very interesting and important discussion. I think that in general, attempting to excise all detail on an otherwise notable fictional universe that isn't specifically referenced by out-of-universe independent publications would result in a lot of articles that fail to provide adequate encyclopedic treatment of their respective topics. So I think that Iorek85 is onto something when proposing that in-universe notability be determined by whether it significantly adds to the understanding of the main (notable) fictional topic. That may mean a paragraph or paragraphs in the main article itself, or it may mean creation of a spinoff article following Wikipedia:Summary style. Thus it seems perfectly legitimate and encyclopedic to me to have spinoff articles from a notable fictional topic that cannot pass WP:FICT as it is written today on their own, yet are nevertheless valid to include in WP in order to ensure proper encyclopedic treatment of notable fictional topics. So, how to decide which topics contribute "significantly" and which do not? My thought there would be that the most knowledgeable editors focused on the particular fictional universe in question develop a consensus around that, ideally as part of a relevant Wikiproject. Certainly WP:FICT as it stands today doesn't represent the actual practice of most editors who write about fictional topics and is directly contradicted by numerous AFD results, suggesting something may be amiss with the guideline as it exists today. Thoughts? Fairsing 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What IU information needs a completely separate article to be able to understand the main article? An article devoted to episode X of show Y does not lend to better understanding show Y. You can explain a show in a paragraph or two from an IU POV, other than that, it should be all OOU.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of stuff. A good example is something like Batman, who's been in maybe 2,000 comics. Now, there's lots of refs than can be found for some related articles like the Joker, but good luck finding refs for older information that's still important to the character and his supporting cast. Now that there's a bunch of comic review sites, In todays internet climate, I can find enough refs to establish notability on single issues of current comics. On the other hand, I can't find any references for important story arcs, characters, or even entire series of comics from before the internet. Luckily, we're a wiki, so through a community effort we can create well formatted pages, spinning off articles as necessary, that deal with all this, and include the info. - Peregrine Fisher 02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That isn't Wikipedia's place. Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia, not a website to recount the fictional life of a character. The entire concept of "imporant story arcs" is all based on references. Just because you think it's important does not mean that it is. We have to have verifiable evidence that shows it is important, and a scale that's larger than just fictionland. If someone wants to know what happens in a story arc, they can read the comic book, or go to a comic book forum. This is where people lose track of what Wikipedia is. We are not here to rehash plots. People forget, we have a Wikia for such things, and it's quite simple to link to a Wikia page that contains all this IU information that is not suitable for an encyclopedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the question here appears to be a disagreement of what exactly being an "encyclopedia" means when it comes to fictional topics. Bignole above articulates a narrow definition that says basically, topics must be verified as "important" on a scale larger than just "fictionland." (By "important" I am assuming Bignoble really means "Notable"). In other words, verified as notable by references in mainstream media, not just specialized sources focused on the fictional topic in question. Others (e.g. Iorek85) are essentially arguing that specialized sources focused on the fictional topic in question are in fact valid for establishing notability, and are therefore articulating a broader definition of what it means to have encyclopedic coverage of fictional topics. Part of your own personal view on this question probably depends on whether you define Wikipedia in your own mind more narrowly as only a general encyclopedia or more broadly as a general encyclopedia combined with numerous specialized encyclopedias. (See here for an example of a specialized encyclopedia on a fictional topic). The rules for what is "notable" in a general encyclopedia and a specialized one naturally differ, with a more narrow definition in the former than the latter. For a specialized encyclopedia, notability as determined primarily by highly specialized or in-universe sources (what Bignole derisively refers to as "fictionland"), may be perfectly adequate.

So, the debate here, really, is about the definition of what Wikipedia is, and how it should treat fictional topics. The reality today is that Wikipedia is in fact both a general encyclopedia *and* a collection of numerous specialized encyclopedias, on both fictional and non-fictional topics. For example, only a highly specialized encyclopedia focused exlusively on Bats or perhaps the fauna of New Zealand would have an article on the New Zealand Lesser Short-tailed Bat. Just as only a highly specialized encyclopedia would have an article on the fictional character Rom (Star Trek).

The practice today used by the vast majority of editors of fictional topics is to treat Wikipedia as both a general encyclopedia and a collection of highly specialized encyclopedias, and to use specialized "fictionland" sources as perfectly valid for establishing notability. The Rom article linked above is one good example from the Star Trek universe, and here are 10 more examples, each from a different fictional universe: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. There are hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands) of such articles on Wikipedia, and AFDs on such articles are routinely closed as "Keep" (see here for one recent example). Thus, the de facto policy of our beloved consensus-oriented encyclopedia is that in-universe or highly specialized sources (Bignole's "fictionland") are absolutely valid for establishing notability of fictional subjects. In other words, the guideline document WP:FICT is not anywhere near representative of WP actual practice. It is a guideline that practically nobody follows. So what good is it? And what should be done?

One possible course of action would be for the relatively small number of editors who actually support WP:FICT as it is written today to attempt to enforce it. This would be an impossible, futile crusade to fight. For example, if an editor were to start an AFD on Gallifrey, I would predict that the "Keeps" would outnumber the "Deletes" by about 100 to 1. (I'd do it myself to demonstrate the truth of this except I'd be in violation of WP:POINT). Yet "Gallifrey" clearly fails WP:FICT as it is written today. The article is supported by numerous references, but all of them are in-universe or highly specialized, or fan-supported, sources.

A second possible approach is the status-quo. In other words, retaining a guideline that is routinely ignored by hundreds of editors and does not reflect the reality of Wikipedia on an indefinite basis. A small cadre of folks who truly believe in WP:FICT as it stands today (and I respect that point of view even though I disagree with it) can feel good about the "official" standard and maybe once in a while manage to get an AFD through on a particularly obscure topic. And meanwhile, hundreds of editors will continue to ignore the published guideline and develop their own norms on what constitutes notability with no effective centralized guideline, leading to widely divergent standards in each fictional universe and leaving Admins who close AFDs with no effective guidance on how to adjudicate a proper outcome, other than basically a popularity contest / vote count. This second approach (which is what we have in place today) strikes me as highly unsatisfactory.

I would propose that a more sensible approach here is to recognize that notability for fictional subjects needs to be seen through a different lens than for non-ficational subjects, and that WP:FICT should reflect that reality, not some theoretical, unenforceable construct that is totally unrepresentative of what Wikipedia actually is today and what it will be for the forseeable future. A general set of guidelines could be written for what constitutes an "important" topic in a fictional universe (and included in a new, re-written WP:FICT), and then specific notability standards for each fictional universe could be developed from these general guidelines by the appropriate Wikiproject. Ok (phew), so what do you all think about that? Fairsing 17:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Wiki is both general and specialized, and that is what it is talking about when it refers to "not paper", that we can encompass more the general topics the Britannica would do. But, that does not detract from how you determine if the topic, even specialized warrants an article all to itself. That is the key. No one is saying that things should not be mentioned, just that you have to know how to do it. It may be best to list most characters in a "List of characters for X" article. Specialized encyclopedias, like Star Wars, tend to focus on the IU aspect of a topic, where it is a clear consensus that the priority of an article should be real world relevant. If you have an issue with what determines notability, then I suggest you start at the source, which is the general notability guideline, because you are only going to create more problems if you try and change this guideline to reflect a view that contradicts every other guideline and policy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So are you arguing for approach #2 above, that we continue onwards forever with a guideline nobody follows and AFDs are routinely closed as "Keep" despite the fact that the article doesn't meet the standards set out in the guideline? In other words, you are arguing that the status quo is the pareto optimal outcome? If not, what is your proposal for moving forward and doing things differently? Fairsing 18:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Having participated in endless nominations and re-nominations and re-re-nominations of articles being deleted for notability concerns, I can safely say that life would have been much less of a headache under Iorek85's simple, no-nonsense proposal. I endorse this proposition wholeheartedly. MalikCarr 02:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I must concur with my colleague above. This is a much better policy than the current one, and will make it far easier to write good articles all around. Jtrainor 23:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Very much agreed with this proposal, it would make a real, working, clear, enforceable policy that nearly everyone could agree on the application of, rather than a formula for endless XfD and policy page rehashings of the same dissonant idealogical views. --tjstrf talk 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Relocating material

Hi,

I would first like to say that, in my opinion, the rewritten guideline is much better than the previous version! For me, it clearly points out what an encyclopedia should cover about fiction, and when.

Now for a concrete case: Browsing through the backlog of the Notability wikiproject, I found The Entente: Battlefields World War I, an article about a video game. It contains purely in-universe information, and refers to a small number of sources, also with mainly in-universe information. So it clearly fails the new version of the guideline.

I would usually propose articles like these for deletion, tagging them with Template:prod. However, let's judge by the guideline section Non-notable topics:

• No real-world material has been added since December 2006, when the notability tag was put on. So there does not seem to be any obvious potential for notability.
• Merging is also not an option: There is no direct parent article, and the material is mostly a plot summary anyway, and not worth merging.
• The next point is transwikification. Now there might certainly be some wiki on Wikia where the article could be moved to (I haven't investigated in detail).

So, instead of proposing for deletion, I am supposed to transwiki. I don't have any objections to that in principle; but how would I practically do that? Is there a template that requests a move to the Wikipedia Annex, just like "prod" for proposed deletion?

(Obviously, I am not an editor on all the potential target wikis, and my current task is to clean the backlog, not to rewrite the article. So there should be some kind of simple solution, right?) --B. Wolterding 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a published computer game, with (bad) reviews in Gamespot and other places. It satisfies our notability criteria quite easily.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure it has been published, but where are the source that "contain substantial real-world content"? There are some in-universe sources reporting about the game's plot, etc., but that it previsely not what is intended with WP:FICTION, as far as I understand it. --B. Wolterding 18:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Annex is not completely up-and-running yet (although you can feel free to copy-and-paste articles there, since most of the templates have been imported). WP:FICT doesn't really apply to the actual works; it's mostly geared toward topics within a fictional universe, like character articles. If it's covered by multiple secondary sources (per the main WP:N), like video game reviews, then it's notable. — Deckiller 19:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Deckiller here. If it's been subject to substantial reviews (even bad reviews), they can be used as out-of-universe content. What this is primarily designed to prevent is a separate article on every minor character in that game. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Random test

According to the current version of WP:FICT, should Jesse Chambers be considered notable? I only ask because this guideline confuses me, and I'd have a better understanding if I could hear from the people who helped draft it their thoughts on a specific query. Ichormosquito 10:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In its current state, no; it belongs on a list. By potential, I have no idea. If you can find a reasonable amount of real world information (see WP:WAF#Secondary information), then, yes, it can stand on its own. TTN 22:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a list has more potential for real-world content. If nothing can be found for the contents of the list (which is doubtable, since these are popular comics), then further merges should take place. The key is to organize things in proportion to notability in both the fictional and real worlds; it can be a hard task, but alas, Jimbo has stressed raising the quality aspect rather than quantity. — Deckiller 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Pokemon lists are anything to go by, then lists have less potential for real world content. We've gone from a series of articles which were 70% fancruft to a series of lists which are 95% fancruft.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• We have? Do you have a link or two as an example? >Radiant< 08:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said here, the articles created the bare bones of an out of universe perspective by differentiating between the games, the anime, the manga and the card game. Now compare the Treecko list entry with the Treecko article. They're both bad, but the list entry is far worse for real world content. The worst aspects of the lists is they consist largely of fictional biology, filler information with little plot or gameplay role, let alone real world importance. The lists could be improved, but how does a paragraph or two allow more potential for real world info?--Nydas^(Talk) 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ow, both look bad to read to start. I'd argue that if a pokemon truely has out-of-universe information, adding a few extra paragraphs in the list form (eg Kadabra vs Uri Geller) if there's not much, or for truly notable ones, their own article (Pikachu), with enough blurb in the list to be consistent. But regardless, the list paragraphs must be written in appropriate prose, and probably will likely contain: the english/japanese name, their physical appearance, a BRIEF summary of their type and attacks, and a BRIEF summary of what they evolve to. If they appear in the manga or anime, then saying what #'s they appeared in is fine, but plot details are unnecessary. --Masem 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• What real-world info are you referring to, specifically? I don't anything in the article that is lacking in the list, except for trivia. >Radiant< 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The appearances in Pokemon Mystery Dungeon and the card game are a couple. Most of the biology information should be removed. Though even if the lists were cleaned up in this way, they'd still be non-notable.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think I disagree with your analysis, although appearances in other games are worth mention. >Radiant< 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Well, the lists bring it back to square one so that if an entry becomes long due to significant real-world content and an OOU perspective, then it can be split. — Deckiller 15:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not square zero? The lists ain't notable.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• And what about SPARTAN-II Project? Same deal? I don't see how that would fit on a list, though. Ichormosquito 20:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

I'd like to get some more opinions on some character articles that I have proposed a merger for. You can find the discussion at Talk: Smallville (TV series)#Merge characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with this page

The present version of this page is a prescription written by people who believe Wikipedia should get rid of most of its articles on fiction. This conflicts with the fact that Wikipedia guidelines are descriptive, and that many AFD outcomes directly contradict the suggested prescription. It is time to reword this page back to an accurate description of practice, rather than of what its authors would like practice to be. >Radiant< 09:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should gather a group of articles and their AfD results, and use them as examples of what is allowed and what isn't. - Peregrine Fisher 20:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD results have nothing to do with "what is allowed and what isn't." Many times they come down to counting votes, even though that isn't what they are meant to do, especially in contraversial areas (like The Simpsons) which have enough of a devoted fanbase of editors to sway even the concretest of deletions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Most Simpsons characters have been merged. Alientraveller 21:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposals and deletion proposals tend to have different outcomes, mainly because of the idea of deletion is "all the information is bad so it has to go," where as merging is more "most of this stuff needs to go, and when it's gone the article isn't enough to support itself...here is a better place for it."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

AfDs have nothing to do with what is allowed when prescribing, but have everything to do with what's allowed when describing. Right now it's a small number of editors at this page, and pages like it, pushing out against a large number of editors throughout WP, who are pushing in. We need to reconcile these two forces, and come to an appropriate compromise. - Peregrine Fisher 22:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot really say that only a small number of people believe that this is valid when we are only dealing with fiction articles, which attract most of the people that do not like this at all (i.e. fans). You would need a large WP:ATT sized discussion to actually be able to base any real conclusion. TTN 22:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, how can we determine what people really think? I imagine it's hard to get one of those watchlist notifications. - Peregrine Fisher 22:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We wait until WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS are completely revoked or changed to the point of being unrecognizable, as they are the foundations for the two fiction guidelines. They certainly represent the true consensus until then. TTN 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with WP:V or WP:RS. It's a notabilitiy thing, and in particular a fiction notability thing. I guess I'll stop discussing this and see if anyone else comes along besides the regulars, we know where we all stand. - Peregrine Fisher 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has everything to do with those two. How is notability currently defined on this site? Verified information from reliable sources proves that a topic is notable, so all three will have to be killed off at once for one of them to be killed off. TTN 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with V and RS. Wikipedia may not be paper, but we are also not an indiscriminate collection of information. We also strive for quality over quantity. If you cannot show that a topic has been covered significantly outside of the source material, with verifiable and reliable sources, then how is one to know that it isn't anything more than some favorite event of a few random people. There are about 300 million people in the US alone, and I'm not sure of the populations of the other english speaking countries. The whole point of notability is you have to show that a topic is actually notable beyond the few people that know it (if that's an audience for television, movies, readers, etc.) Otherwise, I could make a film and if I show it to my home town, I can easily say that it's notable because there might be 30,000 people that have seen it and love it. What does that show? It wouldn't matter if I lived in New York, and millions of people watched and loved it, the point of notability is to show that it is something signficant enough for an encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia is) to cover in an article. To be able to prove that something is in fact significant, you need sources, ones that meet the policies and guidelines created by this encyclopedia. As far as AfDs are concerned, the flaw is with that, not this page. Consensus was reached on the general notability page long ago, and his been the standard practice for some time. The shear fact that we've aloud a group of articles to ignore the rules we had previously set, and mushroom out into something more dominant than the articles identified as wikipedia's best, does not mean the page should change so suit that. If anything, it shows the problems we editors have in being consistent with out rulings. We're like 2 parents disciplining a child with two different methods. Except in this case, it isn't 2 different parents, it's several hundred (maybe thousand) parents, all with different ideas, that do nothing but confuse other editors. We have some people saying "this is the guideline, this is the policy, we should follow it," while others are saying "this isn't a paper encyclopedia, and 'disobey the rules'." What kind of conflicting message is that? What I've seen is that, instead of actually discussing things from the start, you have a set of editors who disregard what they don't like until it becomes such a huge problem that it borders on anarchy. AfD outcomes that contradict guidelines and policies are AfD outcomes who were closed by Admins that disregarded the guidelines for the AfD, since AfDs are not about voting and even if 20 people say "delete" and 5 people say "keep", if the "keeps" actually have the stronger argument, then technically the article should stay. It doesn't happen that way, and if anyone thinks Admins don't make mistakes, or act in a manner that is biased, then I feel bad for them. Admins are people, just like us regular editors, and they act as regular people do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If we made a description of the AfDs, the film watched by 30,000 would still be deleted. Harder to say about the 1,000,000 viewer film, but at least we'd actually have a guideline that reflects what we do with 1,000,000 viewer films. Maybe this too stringent fiction notability guideline is working for us, I don't know. It allows a lot stuff to be put up for AfD, then see what sticks. Say you have 100 articles put up for AfD, 50 of which are kept, and 50 deleted. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a nice clear guideline that said the 50 that will be deleted should be put up, and the 50 that won't shouldn't? - Peregrine Fisher 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If only it were that easy. Sometimes AfD does indeed have to sort it out. This page is exceptionally good in terms of description, however, in terms of describing how to clean up the tremendously excessive number of fiction articles. Now, that's not to say the works themselves aren't generally notable. Works of fiction which are even semi-popular will have reviews and the like written about them, providing us independent source material to work from. But let's examine how WP:V does fit in here: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." That means sources about the specific subject, not about the work as a whole. And that happens. There's ample source material covering Homer Simpson, Darth Vader, or Superman. We should have articles on those characters. On the other hand, we should not have an article on a character which has not received substantial independent source coverage. Note the importance of "independent". That means "not the work itself", and it means "not stuff published or approved by the publisher of the fictional work." Those are not independent sources (or as V requires, third-party sources). This is just an extension of V, and a long-overdue cleanup project to bring things in line with it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many viewed a film, unless there was some significance to it. 1 million is less than 1% of the US population, and far less than the entire english speaking population that Wikipedia EN encompasses. Unfortunately, if you have 100 go up for AfD and it's split down the middle, I will guarantee you that there will be some that are kept and some that are deleted that look exactly like each other, because it is all based on the topic. Everyone loves talking about The Simpsons in these types of discussions. They have a really large fan base because they've been around for 20 years, but an episode article of The Simpsons, that looks exactly like an episode article for Weeds (both of which, hypothetically, we'll say that all of us in this discussion agree should not be articles) will not receive equal treatment. The Simpsons have a far larger set of editors who control those articles than do the ones that control Weeds, in which case, there will be less argument from those who work on Weeds than on Simpsons. You don't have to say anything strong, useful, etc on an AfD if you just get enough people there to clutter the page with chatter. It will all be relevant to the article, but I've seen AfDs closed with "keep" for articles where the only argument for keep was more or less "not paper" and "useful", but there was so much of it, it didn't matter what else was said. That's the flaw in the AfD process. It doesn't matter how many guidelines and policies we have, and how many people may agree on them, if you get enough people to argue against it, then it does not necesssarily matter what the reason is for deletion. I don't believe in deleting episode articles, but I dont' believe in creating them on a whim either. I look at Heroes and they already have two episode articles created for the first two episodes of the coming season. Now, how are those two episodes so notable that their notability has arrived before they have. Looking at the pages, what is there? Nothing but a plot on both, one of which completely duplicates what's on the LOE page. But the problem doesn't rest with television shows. Film articles get created the moment there is mention of their names, even if that be in just passing. If we enforced the rules that were agreed upon from the start, AfDs wouldn't have been our problem, because the "usual practice" would have kept it at bay for the most part. But, the more and more we lower the fence, and let things slip by (whether for personal bias) that would obviously not have agreed with established guidelines and policies, the more people have a reason to go "well you let this article go, and we look just like that one does." Doesn't matter how many times you say "this isn't a 'others exits' is not a reason" card, people will always use it, and it can sway closures. Because the opposite is true. How many times do we here in FACs "well, I followed this article, which is FA status?" Hell, I know I'm just as guilty of using that one as anyone else. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; the point is, whether it's AfDs, GACs, FACs, or whatever the discussion you want, that type of mentality can sway the outcome, and does nothing but polute the system itself even further.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well apparently Simpsons episode articles stay, and Weeds articles go. Just that example might help people with what to nominate. Ironically, I feel the same way about these guideline talk pages as you do about the AfDs. I feel like dissenting opinions are drowned out because "fans" of these guidelines are the ones who participate in these discussions. - Peregrine Fisher 00:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What would the example prove? Show these examples and then go "don't try to nominate articles such as X, Y, and Z, because it will be a waste of your time, no matter if you are right or you are wrong, nothing with change with them....they are special." Yeah, that sets a good example. As for the guidelines, if we didn't have WAF and Notability, then there wouldn't be a point to having fictional articles at all. They'd all look like Freddy Krueger, Jason Teague, Futurama: The Wild Green Yonder, and Landslide (Heroes)... instead of like Jason Voorhees, Troy McClure, The Dark Knight (film), and Pilot (Smallville). But I guess that's ok, because, after all Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, which, after all, means it doesn't have to be as good as a paper encyclopedia either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of those fiction articles going to AfD shouldn't be going there in the first place, according to this guide (which says deletion should be only a last resort). Seraphimblade puts it well. Notability cannot be inhereted; such logic means we'd be taking a biased stance—that extremely notable have more in-depth plots that require more subarticles to summarize the plot. That is most certainly not the case. Now, a notable work may have significant real-world and/or secondary source content, like reception/criticism, development, analysis, etc; if such a balanced treatment creates length, then a subarticle is notable. Any decent business/technical writer can summarize a plot in a few succinct paragraphs, so there has to be a relatively objective reason for having whole subarticles on topics within a fictional universe—substantial real-world content is the answer. With this taken into account, then the only thing is defining "substantial" or exceptions (a case by case basis). Notability for fiction is one of the hottest areas of Wikipedia; there are so many opinions, and this guideline tries to find middle ground. Perhaps we need to go to WikiProject-specific fiction notability guidelines. — Deckiller 00:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: A lot of articles don't follow our policies and guidelines, but good and featured articles on fiction tend to have substantial amounts of real-world information, and ones that don't usually fail GAC/FAC. In fact, Bulbasaur and Torchic were de-featured somewhat recently for lacking real-world content. So the guideline as it stands is probably a pretty good description of best practice, although perhaps not the most common practice. I do think that there might be a bit too much immediatism with respect to nominating articles for deletion, but, as Deckiller said, the guideline doesn't encourage that. There is definitely a need in many cases for some time to figure out what to do with certain articles, and some topics have a lot of bona-fide real-world information that hasn't yet been incorporated. I think that WikiProjects with a viable long-term roadmap should be given some deference in executing their plans. However, given the standards of GA/FA and the ideal that any article that can survive AfD can theoretically become featured, I'm a bit uneasy about allowing looser WP:FICT standards on a project-by-project basis long-term. The devil's advocate in me sees a slippery slope and projects using variations of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the old Pokémon test, without any stronger rationale. I guess that, in principle, I don't disagree vehemently with allowing some exceptions, but I'd want them to be more conservative than not. — TKD::Talk 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Best practices" is definitely a good phrase for it. The Final Fantasy project has done a tremendous job with its "GA or bust" mentality, and the Pokémon project, once taken for granted as {{Pokenum}} articles, is also scaling back because of its de-featured articles. Nifboy 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, there are problems with this page, I think the guidelines don't reflect consensus accurately, but are instead targeted at achieving a goal, one which is at least somewhat disputed enough that it doesn't really work. Part of the problem, I think with the whole discussion is that I'm not even sure that there's a real argument for their position, it more often seems to me that they're just enforcing what they see as the rules, and not actively doing something because they have a reason why it's good for Wikipedia. Oh, and above, about the notability of the Heroes episodes? That demonstrates another flaw I see, not exercising common sense. Is there any real doubt in your mind that the upcoming episodes of that television series are notable enough to merit some coverage? The only concern I would have is for the possibility of rampant speculation, and even then, sometimes speculation can merit coverage of some extent. There things notable even if they didn't happen. I'm not quite sure where to go with regards to an actual policy, but I do think that the primary concern of any article on a concept within a work of fiction's first priority should be describing that concept. I don't object to coverage of other things, but I think they should be secondary. Taking a look at the examples, I consider Superman and the World of Final Fantasy VII to be almost tiresomely overladen with uninteresting commentary from people I don't care about. I don't know why, but it just seems to me that the articles used as examples are overwritten? Yeah, there are occasional problems with people writing sloppy, but I think there's a point where you try to polish things too far and end up leaving them way too thin and bloodless. I've also noticed a lot of people confused about what "in-universe" means. There are a lot of people who seem to think anything written about a fictional concept that isn't a quote from outside the work of fiction means it's in-universe, and even then, there's plenty of people who think such writing merit deletion, as opposed to cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break (2)

Why again is strictly enforcing the notability guidelines a good thing? I can't remember. Maybe that's something that should be added to this page. I didn't see it here, although I didn't look real hard either. Anyways, nice point Manticore about the Superman article. It's a real snore. You have to go to Superman (Kal-L) and other subpages to actually find out who the character is. Pages that could be put up for AfD based on their refs. It's funny how too much outside info can actually make a page worse. - Peregrine Fisher 08:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Our purpose here is not to tell you who the character is. That's the purpose of the comics themselves, or perhaps of a fansite. Ours is to give a general overview of the work and its impact on the real world, not detailed information about the fictional world. Strictly enforcing notability requirements keeps the fancruft out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't tell me why it's good. Looking at our articles, it also doesn't seem to be our purpose. It seems like your saying it's good because this (flawed?) guideline says to do it. It also seems to contradict Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started.3F. Ironically, that section of a policy, which says our polices are descriptive, is itself prescriptive and not followed. - Peregrine Fisher 08:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Our purpose here is meant to help you understand the show. And to do that, you need to know about the characters. You need to know what happens to them, and why. Why can't WP:V include the book the character is in? It is a reliable source about them, after all. Sure, interpretation and personal theories are original research, but I fail to see how a photo can be a reliable source, but a movie not be. Iorek85 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No you don't. You call Superman a snore, but what encyclopedia do you know of that has such information? It doesn't, because that isn't what an encyclopedia is about. If you find Superman a snore, don't read the article. If you want to know who a character is, in the world of their fictional universe, go read or watch them. Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic knowledge and that does not consist of these overblown plot summaries, original research on the motivations of a character based on their actions, details their actions in general. What value are those "more entertaining articles?" I see people using the argument, "we're here to attain the sum of all human knowledge," to keep an article...yet that stuff isn't knowledge, it's trivia. If someone was writing a paper, and they came to Wikipedia to look at what Wiki deems good sources, in an effort to help themselves find sources, what the hell does the article Superman (Kal-L) tell them? Nothing other than he's a Superman from a different universe. Ok, I just said that in one line. We are not here to provide fictional biographies, as you can find those already in the source material, or on fansites that do that for you. I'm sorry, but if you really think Freddy Kreuger is a better article than Jason Voorhees then I think you are on the wrong website.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Superman is far superior to the likes of Superman (Kal-L), and anyone who says otherwise needs to take a good, hard look at #2 of WP:IINFO. The latter article is nothing but a plot summary and does not at all reflect the real-world significance of the character. Editors need to realize that this is an encyclopedia -- we do not write about fictional characters as if they were real. In the creation of a fictional character, there is real-world background to its origins, why the character acts the way he did (in terms of his or her creator(s) determining their actions), and how the character has been received or has impacted the universe outside the fictional one. If you want to write your fancruft, please feel free to start up your own Wikia and leave contributions to editors who care about this: "Real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance." Plot summaries are meant to back these contributions, not the other way around. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Our purpose here is not to tell you who the character is." I disagree. It should be. If we don't do that, then we've got a serious problem. Does it have to be the entirety of the article? No, but reading Superman, it shouldn't be such an afterthought that one can read that article and still be wondering who he is. I think the role of Wikipedia should be to tell us who Superman is first. And that's not even considering the other faults with the article. And I'm sorry, but if I consider Superman to be a snore, or to have any other problems, I'll do my best to fix them, not ignore them and go read something else. Wikipedia *IS* a participatory process after all. It's not just a place where some group of folks can declare some things "anathema" and nobody else gets a word. I already fixed one obvious problem, but the rest may need some more work. I'm thinking FAR. In any case, telling folks to go elsewhere, calling their ideas fancruft? That's not good, that's the sort of exclusionary mindset that leads to conflict, not consensus. I suggest, if not accepting the other POV, to at least not refer to it in derogatory terms that only serve to insult, not to persuade. FrozenPurpleCube 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Superman has plenty of in universe information to tell you who he is and what he does in the fictional universe. This is finely mixed in with real world notability. However, it does not give you the in-depth coverage like Stefano DiMera or Emily Quartermaine. I, for one, think it is a great think because we should not be the place to catch up on your favorite character history in a particular TV show. Corpx 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And I don't think we should be the place to dump all the commentary that somebody has said on a character to the point where you're really scratching your head wondering what this guy actually did. Now it doesn't help that Superman is probably in 30-40 comics each year, some in-continuity, some not. I don't know that anybody would really want to read about the events of Superman 666, or even his role in the Amazons Attack mini-series (something that should go under Wonder Woman for sure, but maybe not so much Superman), but there could be an argument made either way. OTOH, there are clear things that do merit coverage, such as his role in the Infinite Crisis or the OWAW storyline. FrozenPurpleCube 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources explaining why Superman had a role the way he did in these story arcs, that would be great. Fictional characters don't act of their own accord; the writers at the time create the path for that character. Sometimes the writers are forthcoming with why they chose the character this way, sometimes independent, secondary sources need to analyze the reason behind a character's role. Plot summaries, as it has been said, are acceptable to back up reliable sources' thoughts on a fictional character's actions. I've read Superman and I have no idea what you think the article lacks -- it explains very clearly in many dimensions why he is the way he is. What do you feel is missing? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bzzt! You're missing the point! I don't want to know why. I want to know what. I consider the latter to be the important thing, because I don't care whether or not a fictional character acts of their own accord. I still want to know what their actions are. As for what Superman's missing, I feel reading it, I don't know what he's done, or who he is. Instead, it's washed out by an excess of commentary that leaves me wondering who the character actually is. Basically, I read all of that, and I see what they think, but not why they think it because the subject of the article has been left out of his role as the thing the article is supposed to be about. IOW, it's imbalanced, because while commentary may be important, so is the subject. I'm not saying a 50/50 balance is the goal, but not the current state either. FrozenPurpleCube 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The "what" can be provided with the "why" per WP:IINFO. How about this -- akin to the lists of episodes that we have, can we not list the story arcs of Superman with relevant publishing dates, writers, illustrators? There can be a brief summary of the context of the issues with the relevant real-world context. I don't know if it would be part of Superman, but more of a Superman's appearances article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Listing story arcs with that credit information? There might be people who have problems with that as well. There are enough folks who don't like TV episode lists. But the point I'm talking about though, is that the content should come without excessive context. Now given that Superman is a character with decades of history, and enough appearances and variations that the whole thing is incredibly complex, it is probably not something you can put in one single article on Superman, so we'd have to have separate articles anyway. (And there are at least half a dozen which are spin-offs already). But even with that necessity though, there's a degree of coverage which the main article should focus on. It doesn't quite manage it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If his actions on those events received attention from real world sources, then it should be. Editors have different ideas of what events do merit coverage and we end up with a bloated plot summary, so I think should be relegated to reliable sources to decide which ones do require coverage here Corpx 14:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that is precisely my point. This page is written not from the status quo, but with a goal in mind - and it is not a goal that everybody agrees with. It is easy to say that "there are so many Simpson editors that they can override our guidelines" but that is missing the point that our guidelines are consensus-based, thus if sufficient people disagree that a guideline applies in a certain situation, it follows that it doesn't. >Radiant< 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that while we have outside wiki's that would allow for trans-wiki information transfer, most editors are unaware of this. They feel that if you delete their well-honed in-universe information, you've destroyed their livelihood. Ok, that's a bit extreme, but yes, I've seen editors as aggressive that say that this information must stay when it clearly fails to meet notability guidelines. Maybe what we need to do is to make sure that when articles are tagged for lacking notability, that they are well informed that their information can be safely found a home at an appropriate (license-compat) wiki, and they can link to that in the main body or as external links so that their work can continue to exist and can go into more depth that WP itself does not allow for. All those TV episodes, video game character pages, and so forth, can find these homes, its just I think very few people are aware such homes exist. --Masem 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be in support of a goal to promote a better understanding of alternate places for in-universe information. For fictional subjects that encompass a universe, these would be acceptable. However, what about a one-shot book or film or comic that has no ties to anything else? How can such content be transwiki'ed? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not at all sure that "sweeping things under the rug" by moving them to another wiki is any kind of a solution. Second, in several cases, transwikiing is not actually possible because of divergent licensing. And third, I've seen several of such external wikis thrive for a few months, then fall into disuse and become a stalking ground for spambots. >Radiant< 14:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the problem of putting things elsewhere, which seems to have become the en vogue response to anything people don't like of late. I'm sorry, but while I do see some value in specialized resources on subjects, it shouldn't be the default response. At the least, it needs to be part of an improvement, not just a way to get rid of something. FrozenPurpleCube 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Still no explanation of why this guideline should interpreted strictly, other than WP is an encyclopedia. Well, a Superman encylopedia would definitely cover the IU as well as the OOU. Also, I find the idea of telling people to go to another wiki insulting. Some people think strict interpretation is the best way to help the encyclopedia, other people think that creating guidelines that actually take common practice (per policy) into account is the best way to help. At AfDs you can blindly rely on this guideline, here we debate the actual merits of this guideline. I would say that "this page does not reflect common practice" is an almost indisputable statement. That means, per policy, this page should be changed. - Peregrine Fisher 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to remember, that not only is Wiki not indiscriminate in its information, as some editors like to disbelieve, but it is also not a substitution for watching, reading, or hearing a program. Wiki is not here to be your personal go-to-guide to find out the most current event that happened in a comic book, or a television show, or a film. Even though that has been what it has degraded to. Manticore, you may not like reading the OOU information, but that's encyclopedic. I suggest not picking up the Britannica anytime soon, as you'd fall asleep. If you want to know what happened to Superman in "The Man of Steel" issue #114, then go buy it, or borrow it from a friend. Fictional information is only meant to provide context to real world information. That's why Wiki is, for the upteenth time, an encyclopedia and not a fanhouse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there is a huge difference in opinion about what an online that everybody can edit is, so please don't use WP is an encylopedia as shorthand for whatever your reasoning really is. Why is a strict intrepretation good? I'm getting the feeling that some people just like it. - Peregrine Fisher 16:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And I think your comments here are a bit uncivil. They're certainly unpersuasive. Instead of saying why what you want is good and valuable, and makes for a better article, you'd rather throw derogatory comments at me. Do you see why that doesn't work? I've done my best to explain my position without insulting anybody, instead describing it as how I feel, but I'm feeling quite insulted by your comments. And note, I've not mentioned anything about specific issues of the comic. The cases where the content of an individual content would be included are rare, not common. I'm talking about something else here, and I'd rather you try to understand it, rather than just dismiss it out of hand. That sort of thing doesn't lead to consensus. Seriously, it doesn't feel like you're here to talk with other editors, but rather, that you've decided your position, and aren't even interested in showing the reasons for it. And as far as it goes, I think as far as possible, Wikpedia should offer you enough to know what a book or television show or film is about, if it leaves you wondering that, then all the commentary in the world won't do you any good. That's the real problem here, as I see it, the focus on commentary has gotten to the point where it excludes informing folks what the commentary is actually about. FrozenPurpleCube 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and while the Britannica does things one way, I can find other encyclopedias and reference works that do things another way. See for example: [14]. Now you may wonder why they do things one way, and EB does things another, and even assume it's an either/or choice. But it's not. We can, and should do both. FrozenPurpleCube 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is split between those who advocate the approach listed on this page and those who feel any notable work can have hundreds of pages on its plot. With respect to WikiProject-specific notability guidelines, I was thinking the reverse; certain Wikiprojects could have stricter guidelines for notability for fiction (should this guideline's standard be lowered). There's too much fundamental division over our fiction guidelines that WikiProject-specific ammendments would serve as an excellent compromise. I would settle for that. The basis for this guideline is that the previous guideline was in direct contradiction of WP:NOT and WP:N. It was rewritten to serve as a logical extension of those two pages, not the exception. — Deckiller 17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact that everyone can edit does not mean we should allow everything that is edited. Again, this isn't a place for a substitution for those types of things. Look at what other editors have deemed "wiki's best", and look at what isn't deemed that, notice a stark contrast in article quality, structure, information? I do. You guys say that this is a guideline imposed by a small number of editors, but you're assume that everything that believes it, and follows it, also imposes it on every article. Some people do not bother with actual writing, but with reviewing. Some people sit on other parts of Wiki and impose it there. The fact that people ignore it is irrelevant to the fact that it is still what is used to identify "the best articles on Wikipedia". Now, there is a difference between what is "best" and what someone likes. As Manticore pointed out, Superman is "a snore", to him, and others I'm sure. Superman (Kal-L) is not a snore, but it certainly isn't the best quality article either. Neither is the article on a lot of fictional characters. Some are fun to read, but have no encyclopedic value whatsoever. People get hung-up on this idea of "continuity" in a fictional universe, and that is irrelevant to the real world. This guidelines and policies are a reflection of what is relevant to the real world, and not to fans of said topics.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the guidelines and policies are a reflection of what some people think is important to their way of doing things. This does not show that it's relevant to the real world, let alone that it is the best way to do things on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There was enough consensus to enact the new version of WP:FICT. The case with AFDs is that when a fictional topic with no real world notability gets nominated, all the fanboys come with a barrage of variations of WP:ILIKEIT to drown out any policy/guideline based objections. These editors feel that anything related to their favorite show is inherently notable and so guidelines do not apply. As for in universe plot information, I strongly think we should be the Cliff Notes for the work and be the substitute for reading/watching the material Corpx 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think assuming anything about consensus is a bit premature, given this long discussion. It is possible that was the consensus among one group, but then, when it's met the larger range of Wikipedia editors, it's not being agreed upon. In any case, I do think you should avoid referring to other Wikipedia editors as fanboys. That sort of thinking isn't conducive to resolving a discussion, but is rather dismissive and insulting. The editors may be inexperienced and biased, but calling them fanboys? It's not going to come across well. Especially since it's far too easy to dismiss anybody as a fanboy even when they are making a good argument. And as far as it goes, certainly a shorter version is appropriate, but we can manage more than one or two lines as well. How much more? Depends on the situation. FrozenPurpleCube 18:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that consenus does not take into account common practices on wikipedia. Basically it's the 10s or 100s of editors here vs. what is really going on with the 10s or 100s of thousands of editors who are actually writing our articles. Who knows the exact numbers, but it's like the <100 editors here want 100,000 editors to all move to wikia, based on their personal definition of encyclopedic. I think we can find a better compromise than that. - Peregrine Fisher 18:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but please show me some empiracally supported evidence that there are only 10s or 100s of editors here, and 100s of thousands that think differently. You have none to support that theory. You want to know the numbers, create a poll. Just to point out, articles surviving AfDs does not support the numbers you are saying, and it doesn't support a theory that it is the leading opinion. What it supports is simply that there are more people attending AfDs in defense then there are in attack of an article. Not every editor, for or against this guideline or any other guideline and policy, watches the AfD page...or has every fictional topic article on their watchlist.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to count the individual users who have contributed to this talk page yourself. Then you can compare that with any of the statistics pages you like on Wikipedia you like. I don't think there's any real reason to dispute there being only a limited subset of users involved in this discussion, or almost any other discussion. Whether we should set up a process like was done to try to get everybody involved with WP:ATT or not is a tough question. In any case, perceiving AFD is a defense of an article is one thing, (and it may need to be avoided in a lot of ways) but it should not be taken as an attack on one. That sort of thing could set up a battleground atmosphere that's not healthy at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 18:31, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Look at Emily Quartermaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Calling almost every contributer to that article a fanboy (or fangirl) is not too far off base. The article is 45kb, with not one citation to anywhere and 99% plot summary, yet people keep adding updates upon each new airing.

Of all the people who care about the coverage of fiction of wikipedia, on the big picture scale (as opposed to only caring about coverage of their favorite show), I think the consensus is to not turn Wikipedia into a fan site Corpx 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

An article being frequently updated is not inherently a bad thing, timeliness is one of the things that Wikipedia receives a lot of coverage for...sometimes good, sometimes bad. But then, sometimes we get complaints for things not being fixed for months on end. So I'm not going to say it's a problem. I do think referring to folks as fanboys is a problem, as it's more of an attack on people than it is the expression of problems with a page that can at least give folks some idea how to improve it. Same with fan sites. Yes, there are fan sites that are nothing but poorly written tripe, but there are some fan sites that have quite professional work, and are exactly what Wikipedia should strive to be, a useful repository of information. (The nature and scope of which is in debate, but I doubt anybody disagrees with the bare principle). FrozenPurpleCube 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't to anyone specific. May I again point out that the current consensus of the site is reflected in WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. Until those are changed, this is not changing due to the obvious fact that this is built off of them. Besides that, please stop arguing that one side having a larger number means that this needs to be changed. For one, we don't know if there is a larger number of fans or not. If you were to poll all of the people that don't edit fiction articles, there would be a good chance that the fans are a very small minority. And assuming that the people that want every minor subtopic of fiction covered are the majority, it still doesn't matter until the basic core of this site changes. TTN 18:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So I'll ask you the same question I asked Bignole from above under "This 'in-universe notability issue": Are you arguing for approach #2 as I described above (status quo), that we continue onwards forever with a guideline nobody follows and AFDs are routinely closed as "Keep" despite the fact that the article doesn't meet the standards set out in the guideline? In other words, you are arguing that the status quo is the pareto optimal outcome? If not, what is your proposal for moving forward and doing things differently? Fairsing 18:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, those are basically WP:IAR keeps based on the barrage of WP:ILIKEIT votes and do not really hurt the credibility of this guideline. In the long run, I think that most of them lacking real world notability will be deleted Corpx 18:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

AfDs don't represent anything at all. They depend on the people that end up voting (Yes, it is a vote no matter how many times you place an exclamation point.) Sometimes an article is deleted right off, while an even worse article is kept unanimously (as Corpx describes). It fluctuates way too much to declare any sort of consenus towards "free for all fiction" (which again, the main policies and guidelines of the site are against). Beyond that, we ignore people that scream WP:ILIKEIT and discuss with the ones that want the articles to meet this eventually. TTN 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The most likely result is the gutting of franchises without enough admins to defend them, whilst Babylon 5, Final Fantasy, Doctor Who, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc sail through unscathed. So we go from biased to insanely biased.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Admins aren't the problem. They are just there to decide the consensus at the AfD's closure (though if some did obtain more "balls", we wouldn't have as much of a problem). It really depends on the number of fans for the larger series, but for smaller ones, it depends on who is browsing the listing and their watchlists. TTN 19:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

An admin (or other experienced Wikipedian) who is also a fan can swing a contentious AfD with their comments. You can bet that we'd get more swinging for Babylon 5 articles than, say, CSI.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider verifiability or reliable sources to be an issue here. I certainly support having a source for information on a work of fiction, but then, I include that work of fiction in the acceptable sources. I think we can all agree, for example, that Luke Skywalker lived on the desert planet of Tattooine without any need for third-party sources. At the most, you might go to the novel or script for that, and you might also find that it can be cited that he dreamed of leaving his Uncle's farm. This is not the sort of thing that's hard to verify, and I do think it's important to knowing who Luke is. Notability is, and while some people demand notability as an individual thing to apply to each concept (see the folks who want lists of television episodes deleted), I don't think it needs to be. One we've accepted the notability of the base work in the real world (ie, something beyond a bit of personally written and published fiction that nobody else notices), then we can consider what's needed to cover the work of fiction adequately. And that's something that varies by circumstance. FrozenPurpleCube 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To Fairsing, "nobody follows?" Um, I follow it. I'm pretty sure that you can see from this page that people follow it. There are people that follow it, and people that ignore it, and if you, Peregrine, or Manticore (the latter of which shows a lack of understanding of significant statistical figures) want to show, with empirically supported evidence, that the real consensus is against this page then please do so. The result of an AfD does not show that. It shows a consensus in that discussion, but since AfDs are not broadcast all over wiki, I highly doubt that's evidence of anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for insulting me once again. I hope this doesn't offend, but I feel you really need to leave off the personal comments. Perhaps you could try to address whatever your concern is in a more informative fashion. Really, I think you could take a more constructive approach to communication than making statements that are really nothing more than negativity. FrozenPurpleCube 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I did no such thing. If you were insulted, I apologize, I merely pointed out that your comment about "just count the editors of this page" shows a lack of understanding, or at least a lack of seriousness to the issue at hand. 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs)

Well, if you didn't mean to make an insult, I think you should have avoided the personal comment, and perhaps you should have asked what I meant then, if you didn't understand it, or simply didn't understand why I was saying it. What do you not understand about it? You asked for empirically supported evidence about the number of editors here versus the numbers that think differently. It's relatively easy to establish how many editors are participating here. This number is a lot smaller than the number of editors on Wikipedia. That means to me that, like usual, this is a decision only by a small group, not by the larger one. If you want to know what that silent mass-majority thinks, I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious to you, but I did point out that we can't know for sure. Just that it's possible that it's not in consensus with the current statement on this page, as evidenced by the ongoing discussion here. Thus I'm doubtful of any claims that there truly is a consensus, is there something wrong with that? Basically, I'm just not taking it as a foregone conclusion that the current rules are the way we must do things, and that's why I'm asking for reasons to do things that way, as opposed to simply assuming they are the way to do things. Which is the impression I'm getting from a lot of this discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the accusation that there is some overwhelming number of people that disagree with the notability guideline and the WAF guideline. The amount of people talking here has not bearing on that accusation, as the number here would not even be a representative sample of the entire Wikipedian population, or even those that stick to fiction topics. If you understand what I mean by "empiracally supported evidence," then making a comment about "counting the number of editors here" makes no sense. I assume it was sarcastic, and if you were serious then my comment was accurate. There's a possibility of anything, but if you want to make the statement that there are more people who do not agree with this guideline, then you have to back it up. You can point to 1 million articles that contradict this guideline, but again, that proves zilch. Why, because any one person can create any number of articles that they want. You can say "The Simpsons articles contradict this," yet, one person could have created them all, and thus only one person actually disagrees with it. I'm not saying that is the case, just that this is why I'm asking for empiracally supported evidence to show this "vast majority" of you that disagree with this guideline. If you cannot show it, then you cannot claim it (or really that your claim has not merit) and thus I see no reason why the page needs to be changed, or disregarded completely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying that there may not be a consensus for a set of rules isn't an accusation, an accusation is a case where you're saying somebody did something wrong, that there's some sort of guilt or blame here. I'm certainly not saying any such thing with regards to the issue of consensus here.. I might think people are mistaken in how they're interpreting the situation, but that's only error, not wrongdoing. To repeat, I'm simply saying that there is a discussion here that reflects as existing disagreement as to the applicability of the guidelines on this subject. Thus I think it is possible that there isn't a consensus as to the best way to proceed. This is not any different from any other discussion where the number of participants is small compared to the number of editors at large. If you wish empirically supported evidence for what people want, then perhaps you might want to set up a poll of some kind. Me, I'd rather try for a discussion on the issue at hand, and what kind of guidelines would be appropriate for Wikipedia, rather than trying to find out what the average Wikipedian really thinks. That seems like a lot of effort for a not really needed outcome come, when it seems there is a dispute here already. Still, if you do wish to go that route, perhaps you might talk to somebody involved in the WP:ATT poll and see how they went about it. FrozenPurpleCube 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the accusation was that there is a small number of editors pushing a guideline that only they believe in. It does not necessarily have to deal with "guilt", but I do believe the accusation in this case was that there was an overwhelming majority that says this guideline is "wrong". I don't have to set up any poll, I'm not trying to disprove established consensus. The guideline is already established, and I'm not the one saying that there are 100s of thousands out there that disagree with it, or in the least they are just not following it, which would be two different scenarios. There is clearly no consensus on this page that this guideline is wrong or that it is right.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be saying this a lot: Until you change WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N, your own interpretation doesn't have an effect on things. Notability is currently defined by information verified by reliable sources (which doesn't include the source work). This affects everything, including fiction. If you want this guideline changed, you need to change those first. TTN 19:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, I think it's not an issue in regards RS/V, because they're not really applicable here. I don't think anybody is seriously arguing that things shouldn't be verified, no matter what's included. Thus they aren't significant issues here, as the question of how to apply notability is itself the part that's in doubt. Not the issue of sources. In any case, changing Notability or V, or RS, need not go from the top down, sometimes it can work from the bottom up. It might need to eventually *lead* to changes there, but it need not start there. That is perhaps, another matter though. FrozenPurpleCube 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First, the "it's all WP:IAR" argument here is way too simplistic. For example, here is a recently closed AFD where the closing Admin specifically referenced the on-going lack of consensus of what constitutes enclyclopedic notability for fictional topics (in this case related to Dungeons & Dragons). But more importantly, am I correct in understanding that what several of you are saying is that "Yes, we don't really care that the guideline as it exists today doesn't reflect the reality of what actually happens (in articles, AFDs, etc.), and that hundreds and hundreds of articles are going to persist on WP that don't meet the guideline because there isn't true consensus support for it, and hopefully "eventually" non-conforming articles will be deleted, and that's just the way it's going to be? To which I would reply, can we not do better? Is there not the possibility for *actual* consensus here? (There's no need to demonstrate the "statistical" lack of current consensus, the presence of hundreds (thousands?) of non-conforming articles shows that in practice there is no consensus support for the guideline as it exists today.) Let me put it another way: Are you satisfied with things are as they are today? If not, what will you do to improve the situation? Fairsing 19:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As with the AfDs, the current status of the site shows nothing more than the fact that we have been lazy, so the garbage has just been piling up in the garage. We have started to take out the trash, but all we have is a horse and buggy, and the dump if fifty miles away. It is going to take a while because of that. TTN 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the current state of things doesn't actually reflect consensus, nor does it serve as a really effective guideline that I see as satisfactory to me, or effective in helping improve Wikipedia. I don't know that there's a possibility of actual consensus, as it seems to me, there's a problem with getting the discussion going anywhere. I think it's gotten to a point where folks might be talking past each other. Or worse, talking at each other. For example, calling things garbage above. Perhaps not the best choice of words, since it declares something as such, wihtout explaining why it's garbage. Many times people dismiss things as trash that just need a little cleaning up. FrozenPurpleCube 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(dual edit conflict) It's always a slow process to implement change on Wikipedia. Two suggestions on improvement come to mind -- work to improve articles on fictional subjects that are tied to strong fan bases so there can be some kind of ripple effect. Secondly, forthcoming fictional subjects need to have their articles nipped in the bud. Once a TV show has had a season or two under its belt with episode articles of nothing but plot summaries, it's hard to reverse. Articles should grow from a central article -- if a character from a fictional subject has a much longer listing of real-world context and what-have-you in his entry compared to the rest, the character may be spun off per WP:SS. It seems that all possible branches are pre-established without reflecting the real-world notability, so this is apparent with cases like what Bignole pointed out about Heroes -- notability of the episodes are immediately established by the editors to warrant their own articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, is there real doubt in your mind that the episodes of the show won't merit inclusion? I find that hard to fathom. Note, I am not saying that the current pages are ideal, or even on the right track, I'm just wondering why you think it's really a notability question, as opposed to a "What's the best way to handle this" question. FrozenPurpleCube 20:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that pilot episodes and finale episodes would have more attention than the intermediary episodes, but obviously it would depend on the independent, secondary sources covering the episode(s) to determine that. A lot can be said about a TV show's preparation and its intent with overall story arcs in a show's article, and the episodes play that out. If numerous reliable sources focus on an episode due to controversial scenes or the death of a character, a more detailed plot summary seems appropriate to back that independent coverage. I just consider excess in-universe information to be extraneous; without real-world context to compare to, there's no indication of whether the information really matters. I think it's very easy to believe that a fictional subject may be notable as part of a fan base, and Wikipedia's tools allow the carving of a niche for sharing that information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm seeing a bit of discussion of the issue how to cover television episodes, but I'm not really seeing much in the way of a direct answer to my question. I'll rephrase for clarity: Do you have some real doubt that even though those episodes are not currently aired, that they will merit inclusion in some form or another? I'm not asking for details on how you think they should be included, but whether or not you feel there's actual doubt as to inclusion at all. Why am I asking? Because I'm finding it hard to fathom why folks are bringing them up. I think a more useful course of events would be to improve the articles overall, rather than worry about the information about episodes that haven't yet aired. Should I take your statement above as an agreement that that's the real issue here? FrozenPurpleCube 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE tried to set the criterion for episodes, but "fans of the show" believe they ought to be able to come to an encyclopedia in order to read up on the plot of the last episode, as well as other cool trivia associated with it. Forget WP:EPISODE, but most of these episode pages even fail WP:N due to the lack of real world coverage. These said "fans of the show" take any AFD as an attack on the show and in my opinion, fail to look at it objectively. Corpx 21:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it probably doesn't help that some people perceive a nomination for deletion as an attack or taking out the trash. That kind of attitude can rub people wrong. FrozenPurpleCube 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To respond to you about your question before, Manticore, I think that episodes deserve their own articles if there is sufficient real-world context behind a single episode -- production, criticism, et cetera. I mentioned addressing upcoming fictional subjects because it seems to me that if a new TV show turns out to be popular, the articles of a similar popular TV show would be used as a guideline. That's why I advocate future maintenance in addition to establishing articles of merit about existing fictional subjects. By ensuring that a fictional subject has a controlled start with its article(s), then that, in my opinion, would encourage that same editing process down the road. In the years and decades to come, we'll have more and more fictional subjects emerging. I've found that if you start an article well, chances are that the pattern will continue. I work with articles covering future films, and it seems to me that their well-cited nature more frequently encourages editors to back their contributions with similar citations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as it goes, there's a lot of water under that bridge, so planning the future is going to involve a lot of fixing the already existing articles. But that's a problem for more than just television episodes, and I think an issue that doesn't really reflect on the concept of notability at all. It's more a question of "How to encourage good articles" than anything else. Also, I hope you don't mind that I refactored this bit of discussion, which really looks clearer above the section break. FrozenPurpleCube 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break (3)

Should the guideline conform to common practice, as stated by the policy? - Peregrine Fisher 22:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to answer that, perhaps we should ask, what's common practice, and what's *best* practice? These two are not always the same. Heck, we might even need an answer to what's acceptable practice. FrozenPurpleCube 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, common practice seems to be describing fiction in enough detail to understand the subject, splitting off subpages as needed for the best formatted articles. Best practice seems to be having 30+ 3rd party references per article. - Peregrine Fisher 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable practice is what we need to come up with here. It's somewher in between, but I would say it's basically a more concise version of common practice. A lot of fiction articles are overly long, I will agree. - Peregrine Fisher 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. Iorek85 22:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Please show that is common practice. As I've said before, 1 person can create as many articles as they want. Even if you have 100 people creating articles as they see fit, they can create enough articles to alter the view of what is "common practice". Best practice has nothing to do with having 30 3rd party sources, please do not exagerate. A lot of fict articles are not just overly long, but lack real world content altogether.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Well, one way to get an idea is to go to User:WatchlistBot and click on the articles link for the films or comics Wprojects. I clicked on some of the films at the beginning of the alphabet and it looks like maybe 60% don't have notability asserted, and maybe 50% would not pass notability. The comics pages have even higher percentages, as you can imagine. - Peregrine Fisher 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you are missing what I said. That doesn't mean it is "common practice" so much as "unchecked practice". Speaking hypothetically as it would suggest a serious lack in life and too much time on my hands, I could create 18,000 film articles of (we'll pretend I'm good at this editing thing) great FA quality. That's over half of the articles in the film project. You would assume that it's common practice just by simply looking at so many great articles that they all look like that, when in fact it's just the practice of one person. In this case I'm not saying "one person" created all these articles that contradict the guideline, but that you cannot assume it is "common practice" when a group of people can create any number of articles together, against whatever they do not believe. It isn't so hard to believe. Someone who likes Family Guy may like The Simpsons. They see how The Simpsons are set up and they follow that. It becomes a domino effect. Soon enough, there is an overwhelming amount of articles, articles that most people do not even know the names to, that are not following guidelines and policies, simply because they followed someone else that disregarded it. One can just as easily say that the common practice for FA articles is to follow these guidelines.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is an interesting and important discussion - many good points raised. To go back to Radiant's original point, I am (unusually) in disagreement with his view: the guideline here is prescriptive insofar as it encapsulates other wikipedia policies that have emerged as a result of consensus. Since many fiction articles are fan - driven, it is understandable that the prescriptive elements of those policies would chafe and that, indeed, in individual AfDs, the emergent praxis might run counter to the iterated guideline. But as we have seen in other instances (e.g. wikipedia is not news), policies have been implemented, despite strong sentiment to the contrary in individual cases. The use of an out-of-universe standard for asserting notability is critically important to the establishment of an encyclopedic standard. Otherwise, what was an encyclopedic project becomes simply a repository for fandom in various guises. To this end, I agree almost in toto with the points raised by User:TTN and User:Bignole. Ultimately, the fiction guideline, as written, is a good faith and accurate implementation of more general policies concerning notability and verifiability that, themselves, are the result of longstanding, hard-fought consensus. True, many, many articles will be merged or redirected through the rigorous application of this guideline as written, but that I see as a good thing. Strengthening the standards for inclusion is ultimately beneficial (evidenced by the WP:BLP policy) since it improves the overall quality of the content. Eusebeus 23:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would tend to agree with Eusebeus here (and I generally don't disagree with Radiant). "Lots of people do it" is not always the end-all argument. A lot of people vandalize, that doesn't mean we're going to go put {{rejected}} on WP:VANDAL for lack of consensus. The rewrite here is good, and addresses the way we should be writing about fiction. We should be sticking mainly to its out-of-universe impact, with a brief plot summary only long enough to summarize the story and put it in context. The reader should get a general overview of what it's about, not a character-by-character, blow-by-blow walkthrough that would obviate the need to watch or read the work itself. (Or in other words, Superman should state in the plot summary that it is about a fictional superhero with many superpowers, including flight, superstrength, and X-ray vision, an alternate identity in a human guise as a reporter named Clark Kent, and a love interest in a coworker, Lois Lane. What it shouldn't be is "In Issue #1, Superman...Later, in Issue #3, he...".) If the plot summary is eating up the whole article, it is time to trim, not to split. This makes that clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In so far as an issue by issue guide isn't the thing to do, I agree, but that might not be for the reason you think. It's because Superman doesn't have a coherent singular plot, but rather dozens, if not hundreds of them, depending on how you count the stand-alone issues. Giving an accurate picture of his story is perhaps a task that must be broken into appropriate segments, and an issue-by-issue way would be as tedious as covering Shakespeare's plays by scene or Jordan's books by chapter. A worthy task, but indeed, not the purpose of Wikipedia. However, I think that's not where the problem lies with regards to a dispute on articles on fictional subjects. I think we may be focusing too much on this one character whose own notability isn't in question anyway. My problems with Superman are more related to how it's written than anything else. Perhaps it might be useful to discuss other articles instead? FrozenPurpleCube 00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bignole: there's 34,000 film pages, 9,000 comic pages, and probably something similar for anime, television, and books. Something on the order of 100,000 articles. We'll never know how many people it took to create those articles, or how many have contributed to them, but it seems self evident to me that it's a very large number of people. If you don't think it's a large number of people, then I guess we agree to disagree.

Eusebeus: you're reasoning seems to be editors, if they are "fans," don't deserve an equal voice in wikipedia. Also that the guidelines are good because it matches your definition of encyclopedic. These are opions that are probably shared by a lot of editors on this guideline page, but don't mesh with common practice, something that which by policy, this guideline should reflect.

Seraphimblade: you seem to feel that comman practice is best ignored. Also, the vandal issue#1, issue #2 arguments are red hearings. I would like this guideline to better reflect common practice, and CP is to revert vandalism and not allow issue by issue summaries. - Peregrine Fisher 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, except for some doubt about the number of people who actually edit fiction articles, I feel like I'm starting to understand why this guideline doesn't reflect common practice. It's because the editors here don't like the common practice. Now I would like to hear some arguments why that is enough to ignore common practices. - Peregrine Fisher 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Peregrine, you have not shown common practice. You have shown current quality. Look at the new film articles that come out. More and more are following these guidelines, citing secondary sources or being merged to a larger topic until the film actually starts production. Look at the television episodes. I believe there is a review going around assessing the quality and notability assertion of all these episode articles and whether they need to be merged or what. Did you ever think that what you call "common practice" is actually the worst practice? I didn't say this is the best practice, I'm simply saying that it doesn't seem to occur to you guys that all those articles you mention tend to be the poorest quality articles on Wikipedia. Notice the articles that follow these guidelines tend to be the better quality. If you start creating guidelines that contradict other guidelines and policies, then you are going to create your own chaotic situations. If you change this guideline to reflect a contradiction to the general notability guideline, then where are people to point to in an FAC? "Well it says one thing here, but says another over here". There needs to be harmony among all the guidelines and policies. Currently there is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't mention one other thing where there needs to be harmony. Between the editors and guidelines/policies. I'd say without that, any other agreement is of limited value. And when editors don't agree, perhaps it might help to make a persuasive case for a change. So far, I'm not seeing much persuasion here. FrozenPurpleCube 00:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Firstly, Peregrine, let's not load the question. Common practice of recent, as shown by the above discussions of Wikiprojects, defeaturing primary-source-only articles, and widescale merges and deletions of branch articles off of work of fiction, show a clear case of common practice the other direction, toward cleanup. You are stating as fact that this is common practice, when indeed it is just as common of practice and of opinion that we've got to scale back fiction, quite a bit. And really all this is is cleanup. When you submit work, you agree for others to edit it. That includes for them to alter it, trim it, merge it, or even to remove it entirely. Those who write articles do not own them, other editors may certainly move, merge, and trim them. That process should be applauded, not hindered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"I'm beginning to believe that the editors here don't like the common practice." Well said. Kyaa the Catlord 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'm beginning to think this whole common practice issue is a bit of a distraction here. (There was a reason I was concerned about it being undefined, and it doesn't seem we can agree on a definition). Maybe we should move onto asking "What's best pratice, and why is it best" or "What's acceptable practice, and what's not, and what should we do when something isn't acceptable?" . Those, I think are more important questions than worrying over what's common and what's not. FrozenPurpleCube 00:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, since you're coming to a guideline page and complaining about the guideline, I would assume that it should those that disagree with it that should discuss why they disagree with it. Everyone here that disagrees with you, seems to pretty much agree that following these practices are in the best interests of the articles and Wikipedia as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would follow that those who do agree with those policies, do feel those policies are in the best interests of Wikipedia. That would go with assuming good faith, and not assuming they're out to cause harm to Wikipedia. Since those who don't agree probably also feel their beliefs are in the best interests of Wikipedia, it's not really an issue that resolves anything. I suppose those whose goals are to cause harm to Wikipedia would be best ignored, but I don't think there's anybody here openly claiming that. So maybe we should get back to the questions I asked? Care to answer them? FrozenPurpleCube 01:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I answered them. I did not claim you, or anyone else that disagrees with the guideline is out to harm Wiki. I simply stated the obvious, those that disagree should be the ones to explain why they disagree and what they propose to change. You are asking people to change your mind, whereas you are the ones requesting the change. Explain exactly why you think something needs to change. Explain what you think needs to be changed and how you would like to see it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see an answer, perhaps you could repeat it? As for my answer, I think it'll work best in response to yours, thus I'd prefer to wait for a response from you. This would also help me be sure I've got an accurate picture of your position. If you don't care to answer, then maybe you could just leave it for somebody else. Finally, I didn't claim you said anybody was out to harm Wikipedia, I merely pointed out that saying "Because these editors feel this way is best for Wikipedia " is not a persuasive argument. Thus it's not a decisive point, and bringing it up means nothing. What would really be an answer is saying *why* they believe it's in the best interests. Do you not care to do that? If so, just say so, and leave it to somebody else. FrozenPurpleCube 01:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with it because it doesn't allow for the optimal formatting/splitting of articles to explain these fictional subjects. There's an optimal way, and it isn't effected by the number of outside sourcese. Right now, you can only split optimally if you can add some refs to the new page, which should have nothing to do with it. You add a few refs and wasn't a good way to split magically becomes a good way. That doesn't make sense. - Peregrine Fisher 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be split to "explain these fictional subjects?" What cannot possibly be summarized that it has to exist outside the article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Information that your side will say is unencyclopedic, and I would say is crutial to understanding the fictional subject.

That's rather vague. What is crucial to understanding what? Example please. Remember, too much detail starts going into derivative works, and that's got its own issues.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem I have with this guideline is that discriminates against older subjects. You mention that the new film pages are being made to a higher standard. That's becuase it's possible, not because they are more notable (as in "deserving of an article" is my def). With the advent of the internet, one can find info easily for new media subjects, but not for old. I'm sure we could find 20-50 refs for the 100th grossing film from 2007, while the same can not be said of years past. That film is probably less deserving, since more films are made today than then. The same can be said of all fictional subjects, heck probably all subjects. - Peregrine Fisher 01:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That isn't always true. It depends on the genre. I agree that the ability to find things on films in general is increasing because of the internet, but it isn't true for every film. Also, what does that have to do with old things? I don't see too many AfDs for television shows in general. It's more along the lines of 2, 3, 4 dozen divisions to the article that get AfD, because no one has taken the time to develop anything as all they care about is getting some long winded plot section down.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It works the same with episode pages. I bet we can find 10 good refs for the season premiere of smallville coming up (wanna try?). We'd have to do it within a few weeks of the episode airing, though. So pouncing while the iron is hot magically makes that episode notable, and because no pouncing happened for last season's premiere it magically makes that one not notable. That isn't right to me. - Peregrine Fisher 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But that simply states that when the show premieres and has nothing to do with understanding the episode. It's clearly stated on the main article. Notability doesn't vanish, but announcing when an episode will air has nothing to do with notability. That's like Matthew's argument that simply stating an actor's name on a fictional character's page is enough OOU information for the article and everything else can be entire IU if need be. That makes a lot of sense. Again, what would need to be covered separately that could not be covered on a larger page? What does "Metamorphosis" need to be covered separately when Smallville (season 1) tends to do a good enough job covering it, and all the other episodes. Why is it that people feel that when they cannot find a way to work something into a larger topic that they have to make it its own page? Some articles work on their own, some do not. We never know about that with television shows because people rush to create articles for shows that have not even aired, and have nothing on the page except for an expected plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make myself clear, sorry. When the ep airs, that's when newspapers and magazines write articles about it. A few weeks later, they remove the information from their web sites, and you can't find the references that do (did?) exist. So something that was notable becomes non notable. That's a problem. - Peregrine Fisher 02:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Internet archives. If it was on the internet once it will always be there, in some shape or form. This almost sounds like a copout though, because anyone can simply say "well there was probably something there before, but it's been a year so that's why I can't find anything now." I find things. When did I write Pilot (Smallville)? Something like several years after it premiered. I found reviews for that. Not every episode of every show gets reviews, because not every episode is actually notable to begin with. Sometimes you get lucky and a studio will publish some books that help you with OOU content, or that point you in the direction to look. Sometimes you don't. If absolutely no one wrote about some episode in a series, should it actually have its own article simply to rehash a plot?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you use the archive for old newspaper pages you get something like this. I wish to god it wasn't so. - Peregrine Fisher 03:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Common practice is not always a good method of creating a guideline, at least not in the context being discussed here. What we should say is, this is common practice for those who are improving many of these articles. WP:FICT and WP:WAF take their roots in other guidelines and policies, and even without them, many fictional articles would still be out of line with those pages, but without any advice on how to fix the situation. If common practice dictated everything, then there really won't be a need to make any guidelines or policy in the first place. It is because we have a large amount of poorly formatted articles that we have these guidelines in the first place. The existence of a large problem does not make that problem the correct way. -- Ned Scott 01:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break (4)

I agree with the statements that this guideline was established with a biased, false concensus of those who were interested in the subject and does not reflect actual practice in the encyclopedia. This guideline MUST reflect the consensus of the actual editors of the encyclopedia, not simply those who desire to write guidelines. (Rather than writing for your own POV, how about we follow NPOV and adhere to what the greater concensus actually is? The vast majority of editors of wikipedia will never find this debate afterall.) I'm now going to actually return to writing this encyclopedia, rather than having a pissing contest over who has the bigger guideline/consensus. Kyaa the Catlord 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you also think WP:N is flawed? That requires "significant from independent sources" to establish notability. Why should articles about fiction be held to a lower standard and inherited notability? Corpx 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it works for non-fiction, mostly, but I don't work on non-fiction much. I know it doesn't work too well for things like schools, and other things that large groups of people feel deserve a page, but don't receive a lot of independant coverage. We aren't taking enough advantage of the Wisdom of Crowds. - Peregrine Fisher 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines, to me, extend from the first of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information) which are the overriding basis for any decisions on WP, even if the editor consensus is that it should be included. Yes, it doesn't mention notability specifically, but that can be inferred.

Even without that I would wager that if we allowed WP to flow by "the consensus of editors" without regards to WP principles, we'd end up with a lot of vandalized-to-be-funny pages, trivia lists up the wazoo, and enough fancruft to scare away editors that havehad a real interest in editing pages for a greater good. At some point there has to be a line drawn to prevent the "stupidity of the masses" from taking over the goals of the Wikipedia foundation. Notability of articles is one of those battlelines, and the current approach seems to uphold the foundations that WP is built on. --Masem 02:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well at least we have a clear indication here that this guideline is based on an elitist mentality that the proverbial "we" (a small group of editors who worked on the guideline) know better than the "stupidity" of all those many many editors working on fictional subjects. Personally, I find Masem's comment offensive. "Stupidity" is a loaded word that really doesn't contribute to this discussion and is borderline uncivil, so let's lay off that kind of language, ok?

More directly to the point, for those of you who really believe in the guideline as it exists today, would you truly want to assert that Wikipedia would be a *better* encyclopedia if we deleted or merged the 10 articles I linked to above under the "This 'in-universe' notability issue" heading, each of which is from a different fictional universe? I raise again the issue of Gallifrey as an example, but Mule (Foundation), Hawkeye Pierce, Shelob, or any of hundreds of other examples I could find serve to illustrate my point. How could you have an encyclopedic treatment of the M*A*S*H television show without a discussion of the character Hawkeye Pierce? Or an encyclopedic treatment of Issac Asimov's Foundation series without a discussion of the Mule? Answer: not possible. So one approach would be to merge these into the main articles, but then WP:SS encourages split-off into sub-articles when the discussion gets longish on a sub-topic. So what is a good editor to do? Ignore WP:SS or ignore WP:FICT for sub-articles? The answer is that most editors ignore the new version of WP:FICT, even when the sub-articles (like Hawkeye, or the Mule, or Gallifrey) don't satisfy the new version of WP:FICT as it stands today. So, defenders of the status quo, what is to be done about this? Delete & merge the Hawkeye, Gallifrey, Shelob, and hundreds of other similar articles, or perhaps come to a recognition that a hard read of WP:FICT as it stands today is 1) impractical; and 2) unwise from the perspective of making WP the best it can be, and adjust WP:FICT accordingly? Fairsing 03:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

→Point of note, I was not using "stupidity" to refer to any single person or the average user of wikipedia. "Stupidity of the masses" is a term related to the "wisdom of crowds", but generally to imply that when you put a whole bunch of people together to brainstorm or come up with ideas, and you give them all the tools but don't set guidelines, you generally end up with a bad product because a group of people can easily pursue divergent ideas just as easily as they can produce convergent ideas in a well-regulated form. (See , eg [15]). Which relates to what I was saying: without guidelines, WP fails chaotically. --Masem 03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would turn around and ask you how you can talk about Hawkeye Pierce without talking about M*A*S*H. Nifboy 03:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We have a perfect way of talking about mash in articles like that, citing the episodes the info comes from. Passes all the policies and guidelines except this frequently disputed and frequently ignored one. - Peregrine Fisher 03:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fairsing, just because it isn't appropriate to write up a bunch of IU informatin on Wikipedia does not mean it should not be mentioned somewhere. That is why we have a Wikia. No, it isn't sweeping it under the rug, it's moving it to a location where it is better suited. If you need extensive IU information to understand a character, put it in a place that does not have restrictions on plot (WP:PLOT). Regardless of whether there is an article for it on Wiki or not, you can have one on Wikia. I don't see why there cannot be an article for Jason Voorhees on Wikia that details all the IU information that is just not relevant in an encyclopedia. How is FICT impractical? It's obviously done quite a good job of making really great quality articles. It seems that when people cannot make something up to expectations, they just complain until it changse in their favor. There are other oppurtunities to explain information, but just done in a different location.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is a good question. First, WP:PLOT isn't relevant to the articles I referenced above, they have to do with characters and locations, not plot per se. But more generally, why would an encyclopedia *not* include a discussion of Hawkeye Pierce, or the Mule, etc.? If it is a general encyclopedia, perhaps not, but Wikipedia is both a general encyclopedia *and* a collection of specialized encyclopedias. Specialized encyclopedias on fictional topics (see one example here) regularly rely on in-universe sources. So, I guess the question of whether it should be in WP or relegated to Wikia is really dependent on whether or not you believe WP is *only* a general encyclopedia. Of course as WP is today it isn't just a general encyclopedia, and contains thousands of articles on both fictional and non-fictional topics that would only be found in highly specialized encyclopedias (earlier I gave the example of the New Zealand Lesser Short-tailed Bat as an article that would only be found in a highly specialized encyclopedia. So if we are going to be both a general encyclopedia and a collection of specialized encyclopedias, why not use the standards common to specialized encyclopedias on fictional topics? I.e. allow in-universe sources to establish verifiability, and exercise editorial judgement (as opposed to a rule-based or guideline-based approach) for determining notability? Fairsing 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. - Peregrine Fisher 03:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To Fairsing, verifiability with the primary source material will only verify plot information, nothing more and to understand a character you need more than that. Secondly, too much detail in plot information can become a deriviative work, and cause copyright problems. To what Peregrine said beforehand, that's a good way to regurgitate plot information, and nothing more. You cannot draw conclusions, critically analyze, provide perspective, or even fully understanding a character, as understanding something requires more than simple action. Again, if you guys want to change FICT, you need to change NOTE, as this page reflects that page and if you do not pass this page you surely don't pass that page. Allow me to predict the outcome of this discussion, as it's one that has happened before. Nothing. That is what will happen. The guideline will not change, and nor will the opinions or actions of Wikipedian editors. Even if you change or remove this guideline, it still will not change the actions and opinions of Wikipedians. The reason being, when you give an inch, they take a mile. The more you cut and trim policies and guidelines to reflect the lack of quality in articles, the more you will have to do it over and over again because people will strive further and further for less. It doesn't matter what you see as right or wrong in regards to guidelines, there will always be a group that disagrees with it. It's inevitable. You get a spring break at universities, but what happens, students think they are entitled to their professors giving them just a few extra days off before the break starts. You give a little, they try and take more. There is no way to please everyone, and I haven't seen anything that suggests that the majority are not pleased already. There are far too many articles on Wikipedia to be able to monitor everyone, and people have real lives (no one is getting paid here) and cannot devote their time to maintaining that every article follow every guideline and policy. So saying that its common practice is not accurate. Common practice is subjective to the area you edit in. For films, common practice is swaying to a completely different action, one that gets sources from the get-go, or that gets redirected/merged to a larger topic when there is not enough information. There is less of this "create it as soon as you hear about it" mentality. There is also a movement in the television community, as you are already aware. Are they all going to be the same no. Can you avoid someone putting an article up for deletion, no. It won't change. It's clear on this page that there is no consensus to change. If you feel there is something wrong with the guideline, that it needs deleting, altering, then I suggest going through the proper channels to attain a more widespread discussion on the matter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, for me, I think to understand a character, you need exactly one thing, the primary source. To understand other people's reactions, you probably need their material. But there are things Wikipedia provides besides that, namely information on a character. Is that understanding? Depends. I think it's something *slightly different* in nature, and something that unfortunately tends to get buried under a desire to provide analysis and quotes. FrozenPurpleCube 04:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd like to point out, there are actually encyclopedias and other reference works on fiction material that doesn't go so heavily into analysis, such as the one I named above for DC comics. There are also ones for Marvel, Dark Horse, Tolkien, Star Wars, Valdemar... FrozenPurpleCube 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mirror so why would we copy exactly what they have?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't want to log in again, but really, there is nothing remotely similar to what I was talking about in WP:NOT#MIRROR which refers to collections of links, source material, or the like. Try making an argument instead of just throwing out a link. At best, I can assume you were somehow confused and thought I was talking about copying such material, instead of using them as examples of other ways accepted as valid to present information on fictional material, but even then, I wonder. Do you have some specific reason why they're a problem? Or why Wikipedia shouldn't consider them as examples? (And really, WP:MIRROR only talks about how to copy and fork material from Wikipedia, it's got nothing to do with this subject. So I don't know why you brought that up, except perhaps linking to it by mistake on your part). 19:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I leave for a couple months, and come back to the same arguments that were going when I left, with people making the exact same points and not changing their minds in the slightest. How nice.

Bignole, if you think this discussion is a mess now, wouldn't pulling it into a wider circle just make it worse? Anyway, slippery slope arguments are irrelevant here, especially since having "too much" coverage of a subject is far less harmful to the goals of the encyclopedia than having too little.

For the people saying "use Wikia", Wikias don't get enough traffic and having them split off by series is far too specialized. They generally seem to die as soon as the guy who started it becomes inactive. Because of this, unless we intend to have an officially designated Wikia which covers all fiction, it will not pull in a large enough userbase, and this is a non-operational suggestion. --tjstrf talk 04:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to understand a character, you do not need to everything that happened to the character to get to the present spot in fiction. You need the basic relationships and other information that can be drawn from a primary source that does not require any kind of analysis or synthesis. I think this can be easily done without rehashing the plot of the work. All this is assuming that the character has received attention from real world sources that provide the analysis. Corpx 04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything? No, not everything. But since nobody is suggesting 100% total coverage, it's not a problem

It doesn't matter where you take it, it will never change. As for Wikias, even activity on Wikipedia articles die. The article doesn't go anywhere though. You are saying that if there are no enough people interested then it shouldn't be created? I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of fictional character articles with only a couple of die-hard fans running them, maybe they should not exist since there isn't a "large enough userbase." That isn't an excuse not to use it. If someone doesn't edit an article after awhile, do we delete the article? No.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• The issue of "common practice" is a coded shibboleth for notability and that is what needs to be under discussion here because that, at heart, is what this guideline strives to define. The widespread existence of articles that have skirted the issue of notability is a canard in this respect because notability is a guideline which is at the heart of defining the content we include - from that principle, other things follow (verifiability, sources, etc...). While I understand Peregrine's and other's point that this seems to be effecting an end-run around what has become standard practice for articles about fiction, in effect these articles themselves do an end run around notability policy. We have these problems in other areas - news events as articles, BLP issues etc.... Common practice would tell us that a news event covered in a variety of media sources is encyclopedic - but that, from policy, is not the case. Moreover that policy is itself the consequence of consensus. So to see this guideline in a vacuum is to miss the point: this is a translation - accurate in my view - of Wikipedia notability standards applied to fiction. The pervasive existence of articles that flaunt that standard simply makes the need for this guideline all the more compelling. Eusebeus 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bignole:

• "It doesn't matter where you take it, it will never change."

What are you talking about? The article? The issues and argument?

For the Wikias, I don't mean just editors, I mean readers. Articles on dead-end Wikias get no traffic and serve no purpose to anyone. --tjstrf talk 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we do a rewrite similar to what Iorek85 proposes above, that sounded reasonable. So you don't have to search this giant page, here it is again " A topic should not be given undue weight within an article. Specific examples;

Characters;

• Minor/occasionally recurring characters should not warrant more than a paragraph or so, usually in a list of characters.
• Once appearing characters do not warrant a mention at all, unless in a section on the episode or character they affected.
• Major/primary characters of books/television shows/movies with sequels may warrant enough text to comprise an article, though this depends on the amount of relevant, value-adding information on them.
• Major characters in a once off movie do not normally warrant a separate section. A short list of characters should suffice, and details on character development can be seen in the plot summary.

Plots;

• Episodes of television shows should usually be presented in a list, with short summaries (No more than a couple of sentences) describing the major events in the episode.
• Major episodes of television shows which provide large advancement, character development or are considered especially notable due to popular reception or cultural impact may warrant enough length to justify an article.
• Plot summaries of books and movies should not exceed more than a few paragraphs, and do not warrant enough length to justify a separate article.

Locations;

• Locations are generally not important enough to warrant anything more than a mention in the summary of the television show/movie/book.
• Occasionally, pivotal locations in television shows/book series may warrant a more detailed section/article. Examples include Hogwarts, and Springfield in the Simpsons."

- Peregrine Fisher 05:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:V (a core policy) definitively settles the question of using only the primary source (the work of fiction, or derivatives from it published or approved by its publisher or author) as a source:

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis added)

That applies to every article. If secondary sources exist about a work but not about the individual characters, we have one article about the work. If one character is covered extensively, we have an article on that and the work. And so on and so on. As to the bit above about "But older movies would get less coverage!"—we reflect sources, we don't second-guess them. If sources wrote less about an old movie than a new one, for whatever reason, we mirror that by writing less about the old one than the new one. We use information that's already available and covered by independent parties, we don't create it or "make up" for "deficiencies" that we perceive in good independent source coverage. That's not our job or place, that's undue weight and original research, no matter how noble the purpose may be. If you think old movies deserve more coverage of some type, go write a book on them. Or a blog. Or a website. But here, you can only bring in reliable, sourced material, and only in rough proportion to its actual amount of independent coverage. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That line appears to have been put in recently, probably a part of the latest misguided push. So a group of individuals has pushed some of their version of WP:N into WP:V, that's no reason not to have this discussion. There is going to have to be some untangling if we ever work this out to what it should reasonably be. - Peregrine Fisher 06:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's been in there as long as I can remember, actually. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not problem at all with that rule; the reason I proposed the above, however, is that when a subject is complex and long, it will require sub articles. Whether to create them, individually, should only be decided by length; if you can fit all the characters of a show on one page, excellent. They shouldn't have to each pass WP:V - only the 'parent' article should have to. For example, Scrubs (TV Series) should have to be notable, but J.D. (Scrubs) shouldn't. Whether J.D should have an article or not is up to, as I proposed above, length. Whether one can justify that much material, however, should be a matter of undue weight, and also if that much info is needed to understand Scrubs, the parent article. This proposal, then, follows the rules while still supplying the info needed. Iorek85 08:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But the catch, Iorek85, is that people do not start that way. They start by immediately creating a character article, just because they feel it needs it. No one stops and goes, "maybe we should start on the main article, then work to a "List of characters of XYZ" and then, if need be, split off from there. There is also the issue of editors wanting to put in every detail that happens to a character in a show, or film, or book for that matter. The majority of the times, there is a severe lack of summary style writing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the point I try to make below. For fictional works, it makes much more sense to start with the core work, write concisely and for scholarly understanding, and only expand when length is an issue or that notability becomes important. Working backwards (write everything, trim down for lack of notability) is a much harder job, and unfortunately one were faced with right now, but we can ask people to think about, if they had started from completely anew, how would the end product look, they'll be able to identify a common meeting ground. --Masem 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue with telling people from the start is, there's no one to tell from the start. Are we to sit at the "recently created articles" page and monitor for new fiction ones? Most articles get started by copying other articles, and if they are setting bad examples then that is what is copied. I don't know about any of you, but when I first started here I didn't read a single rule (needless to say my editing was terrible), and I'd be willing to bet that is how most people start. They learn as they go, and if you are learning from articles that do not set the best example of how to work out a page, then it just creates more articles with the same issues. That is why there is a lot of merging going on right now, and cleaning up, which causes complaining because people like their articles they way they are, no matter what any policy or guideline might say otherwise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, Bignole - you're right, people do that, and they shouldn't. But shouldn't this be what the page is about? Telling them that? I think it should be giving some guidelines on how fictional pages should be run, not how they shouldn't. Then, when we have merger discussions, we can point to this and say "this is what the pages should be like". Iorek85 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn that WAF did that. If it doesn't, then it should, because it is probably more relevant on that page. At least, I know the television guidelines say that, but I think WAF does also.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A question of interpretation

I've just finished reading the long discussion above, and I'd like to make a few points. First, and most important, I'd like to voice my agreement with Radiant's observation that this notability guideline is an attempt to prescribe behavior rather than describe it, which is counter to the spirit of how Wikipedia guidelines are supposed to be created. Does current practice contradict a strict interpretation of WP:N? Perhaps it does. But I think that an attempt to make Wikipedia policies and guidelines completely self-consistent is misguided at best. Policies and guidelines are part of a dynamic system based on practice, not a priori rules which articles must obey.

You'll notice that I say "contradict a strict interpretation of WP:N", not "contradict WP:N". That's an important distinction. A few miles above, Seraphimblade wrote:

On the other hand, we should not have an article on a character which has not received substantial independent source coverage. Note the importance of "independent". That means "not the work itself", and it means "not stuff published or approved by the publisher of the fictional work." Those are not independent sources (or as V requires, third-party sources). This is just an extension of V, and a long-overdue cleanup project to bring things in line with it.

It's certainly true that WP:V requires third-party, independent sources. However, the assertion that all sources which have been licensed or approved by the publisher of a fictional work is ipso facto inadequate is highly questionable. For example, I have before me a copy of The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion by Wayne Hammond and Christina Schull. It's a scholarly, serious concordance to The Lord of the Rings, and includes loads of useful information about Tolkien's characters and world. It's exactly the sort of source we should be using for articles on fiction. However, it's officially licensed by the Tolkien estate and Houghton Mifflin, the publishers of The Lord of the Rings. If information about a certain element of Lord of the Rings were found only in the primary source and this book, a strict interpretation would say that that element cannot have an article on it. This strikes me as absurd, and in fact we do have many articles which are sourced to licensed material of this kind.

Of course, Tolkien has been around for a long time, and acquired such a substantial critical apparatus that it's unlikely that the hypothetical case I came up with would come about; there would almost certainly be a mention of that element (character, place, what have you) in another secondary source. So let's consider something more recent. This is the first volume of a detailed two-volume guide to the short-lived television series Firefly. It contains loads of useful real-world information about the production of the series, the writers' intentions, the actors' opinions about the characters and plots: again, just the sort of information we want to have in articles about fiction. But again, it's officially licensed. That book has loads of information which could and should be added to the article Inara Serra, for example; but a strict interpretation of WP:N would say that this isn't sufficient to justify the article. Even a work of criticism like this could be considered inadequate, because one of the editors (Jane Espenson) was affiliated with the television series.

My point is that perhaps we should reconsider the interpretation of "sources independent of the subject" in the case of works of fiction. In the Firefly example, some editors would reject the books about Firefly as insufficiently independent sources. However, they're clearly secondary sources, distinct from the primary source (the television series itself). I agree that a work of fiction shouldn't be the only source used in an article about itself; however, I disagree with those who would say that no sources licensed and approved by the copyright holder of a work of fiction can be used to assert notability. The point of notability is to establish what the culture at large considers worthy of consideration. If something is watched or read by many people but not examined in any thoughtful manner, it's fair to dismiss it as non-notable. However, if the culture can support a critical apparatus for a subject, examining different aspects in detail, why does it matter what parts of that apparatus are published under the aegis of the copyright holder? Obviously the "owner" of a work of fiction will have a bias, which we should be careful to note and/or counter, as appropriate. But sometimes there will be encyclopedic, real-world information on a subject which is available only from a licensed source — and in a situation like that, I feel strongly that we should allow articles to be written, whether unaffiliated sources have covered the subject or not.

To me, this seems consistent with the spirit of WP:N: multiple sources are still required, to show that the culture at large is interested in the material. But it would allow us to write articles on subjects which, due to copyright laws, are largely controlled by their owners. I don't know exactly how the notability guideline should be written, to allow this sort of material; I'd rather be writing and improving articles than polishing policy pages. But I do know that the foolish consistency which the current incarnation of this guideline is trying to enforce will prevent us from having encyclopedic coverage of many subjects. And that's not consistent with Wikipedia's principles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one of my major points of the rewrite was to make it so that if there was significant real-world content supplied by non-independent sources, then the article could still stand on its own. In essense, it was to create a logical extension of WP:N, and not necessarily a strict interpretation or a direct contradiction (as the page once was). That's why it says "reliable sources" instead of "reliable independent sources". A fellow editor and I have been working on Star Wars vehicle articles, using the offical Star Wars database, interviews, and merchandise sites as a source of real-world information. — Deckiller 07:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused (and I think others might be as well) as to the way people are quoting Verifiability and Notability. As I read it, the threshold for fictional 'notability' is actually akin to 'verifiability', not that the section/article is actually considered notable (as in important). If that is the threshold, then we can have thousands of articles on the smallest things. You can get character summaries and episode guides from the websites of the stations that air them; I have a guide to the Simpsons that includes a detailed summary of every episode. Since they are third party and reliable, does that mean we can have an article about it? However, reading this guideline as that every article must, on its own, stand the test of notability, then almost nothing will make it, and certainly very few sub articles will. Iorek85 08:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that N and V are different: I can verify the plot, settings, and characters of a TV show by going to old TV Guides and using episode descriptions in the non-editorial factual tables, and technically without doing OR I could make a complete set of show, episode, and characters articles out of that. I've verified the show aired, and that such places and persons were in it. However, this does not demonstrate notability of the show or fictional elements. Not that this applies to every fictional media, just that there's a difference between the two.

Maybe another way to think about this is to reverse direction of how we're trying to reconcile these guidelines. Right now, we're aware of the large number of pages that may be affected by a strict reading of WP:N for fiction. Instead, what if we consider how one would completely afresh write an article about fiction? The keyword I would keep in mind writing these is concise.

• Is a fictional work notable? Rule of thumb is yes: every movie, book, TV show, comic series, video game, etc. should be taken as face value as notable. However, it may be that if a related set of works is only notable for one or two elements or for the common theme themselves, it may be wise to group these into an article on the common series/elements instead (for example, a block of children's cartoons may be notable for the block itself, but not the individual cartoons.) This distinction may not be apparent after some time.
• To not include enough about setting, characters, and plot concisely within a fictional work article is not appropriate. Some description of what the media is about is needed. However, this needs to be grounded in as much verifiable sources as possible following appropriate guidelines (secondary sources for support, primary for filling in gaps where needed).

• Likely, a "single shot" medium (a film, video game, etc.) will not need any other sub page to describe the fictional works. Characters and settings should be incorporated into the plot description as much as possible, breaking out details only as needed to help readability.
• A non-episode series (movie sequels/trilogies, video game series, book series) will likely have common major and minor characters, settings and other fictional elements. Again, to describe the plot for each portion of these series concisely, it is likely necessary to have reference back to the original work where common fictional elements to avoid repeating details (I'm not going to say how Harry Potter came to live with his uncle/aunt when talking about the 7th book, for example), or in cases where it makes sense, to break out these into a list common for the series. But again, the details of these fictional elements should be enough to understand the plot, and be backed with verifiable secondary sources that describe this element within the fictional universe with primary sources used to fill in the gap. If this can't be don't (finding secondary sources), then likely that element is not necessary to split of on its own.
• An episodic series (TV shows, comic series) are pretty much guaranteed to have such commonalities, so providing such lists will be more dictated by length of the series article over the number of common elements. A short-lived TV show can likely be self-contained in one page; one going on 20 seasons will likely need a sub-page, but there are always exceptions. But as with the other points, elements in this sub-page need their in-universe appropriateness to the plot or series theme described by appropriate secondary sources. A Simpsons character page will likely have the Flanders listed but not someone like Gil or Cletus (I don't know, I'm just building from these ideas). Again, what is important to concisely describe the show's fictional plot, not just because that character showed up once or twice. But key here is that the goal of the main episode article is to describe the show in general - not provide a timeline, not provide episode-by-episode blows, just enough to describe the work as a whole; this should also be reflected in the fiction elements: it is not necessary to list every single Homer antic, just anything that critically defines the character.

Now once you've got the in-universe information figured out and made it as concise as possible without losing needed information so that the reader understands the work in a scholarly manner, then one must go back through and now work the notability for those elements (Reception, history/development, etc. etc.), and describe the out-of-universe aspect of the fictional work. This may lead to situations such as:

• A fictional work may not be very notable with respect to what is presently available to search. (I would expect an article about Lost to have a lot of ready-at-hand reliable secondary sources than those about The Honeymooners or I Love Lucy, so quantity of notable sources is not the only measure). If the work is not notable and has no series it is connected to, then likely having lists of the characters and settings for it is well beyond WP:FICT, and these should be condensed down significantly.
• A singular element of a fictional work may have as much or more notability than the fictional work it appears in (Superman, for example). Then such parts should be pulled into their own article, with appropriate references to it in the ficitonal work's articles and sub articles.

Note that this may leave some "Lists of fictional elements" articles without notability, but given that I'm proposing these as being a way to reduce the page size of the main notable fictional work, the notability should be inherited from the parent. But this is why a creation of such lists has to be done with extreme care. Any character list can be broken off the main article and put here, but as I mention in the first example point above, if a work itself has low notability, then the list of characters is going to have even less and likely doesn't need to exist.

With these, then a lot of what I've seen being done follows suit:

• Individual Simpsons characters are being pared down to lists of Simpsons characters
• Pokemon individual articles have ditched in favor manageable list segments
• Movie articles are avoiding cast lists in favor of citing actors within movie text as to avoid creating a character section
• Other video game articles are taking significant action against "List of fictional elements" within non-notable, single-shot games.

Every one of these wikiprojects that deal with fictional elements can define their own guidelines on top of this, but when you think about building articles from the bottom up instead of trying to figure out what to pare down from existing articles, then at least to mean it seems clearer about what is appropriate for fictional works based on the discussions I've seen, what I've seen pass as GA/FA for fictional works, and what I've seen in works that I know will not pass.

(Of course, this approach does assume all editors are impartial to the fictional elements they write to be able to write out plots and fictional elements concisely. This is not always true, but that's why you at least hope there's multiple editors for fictional works that can help shape articles appropriately and help the other less impartial editors understand the need to go in the concise direction) --Masem 13:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Very nicely explained, Masem. Just one point I'd like to make in regard to what you said about cast sections in films. You are right that there is a trend moving away from character sections. However, instead of placing the actors' names in the Plot section in some cases, the cast section is instead used to convey real-world context about the actor and his/her role -- why they were hired, how they approached their character, etc. Otherwise, you state your case very well. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yea, that's perfectly consistent. A "cast" section (implying real world connections with a fictional universe) with why certain actors were picked, etc., is much more notable than a character list that just lists whom played what part that just is either there to re-iterate the characters in the movie and add those not specifically named out (as that's what IMDB is for). Same can apply to other casted roles; just because you can link an actor name to a character does not necessary make the character notable. --Masem 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Masem: Thank you, your summary above is helpful to this dialog.

Deckiller: I'd like to make sure I understand you correctly from above. Are you saying that non-independent secondary sources are acceptable for establishing notability on fictional subjects / sub-articles? For example, a while back there was a book published on the companions of Doctor Who. If my memory serves, it was officially licensed by the BBC. The work was written from an out-of-universe perspective and contained information on the fanbase's reception of companions, their relative strengths and weaknesses, discussion of the actor's portrayals of the companions, etc. In other words, a general reference book on Doctor Who companions (a secondary source written from an out-of-universe perspective), but one that was officially licensed by the copyright holder. Under WP:FICT as it is written today, would this type of source qualify as a legitimate source for establishing notability of a sub-article? (Others feel free to reply as well in addition to Deckiller). Fairsing 17:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say that alone it would not, because if you are using a single source for everything on the page, then it doesn't show significant coverage of anything. It's a good source for OOU information and real world content, but you'd need at least some other sources there to show that we are not simply copying from one text.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But the question is about the independence of licensed sources. I actually have at least two licensed books which could be used to provide OOU information and real-world content for articles on Doctor Who companions, and that's not mentioning years of back issues of Doctor Who Magazine, which has had interviews with the writers and actors, essays and analysis on the role of the companion, and so forth. But all these sources are licensed from the BBC. I'd like to see a notability guideline for fiction which would allow this sort of source — for out-of-universe information, mind you — be used to establish notability. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The current guideline allows those sources; they don't have to be independent. As long as there's significant real world information from reliable sources, then it doesn't matter whether they are dependent or independent; that is the compromise that we tried to set up, and that it was differentiates this from WP:N. — Deckiller 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't think this is particularly clear in the guideline as it is written today. Especially because right at the top of the guideline, it quotes WP:N with "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (Emphasis added). I think we need to clarify that in the case of fictional topics, "independent" may in fact mean indpendent of the original in-universe source, but nevertheless oficially licensed or from the same publisher/source as the work of fiction itself. I also think that the current guideline isn't clear enough on the difference between in-universe and out-of-universe sources. Perhaps some form of heirarchy could be included in the guideline, to show the *most preferred* types of sources for establishing notability, and then less preferred, but also acceptable sources? Fairsing 00:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this interpretation of notability depends on how notable the parent articles are. For example, a "List of characters in Memoirs of a Geisha" would not be nearly as notable as "List of characters in the Harry Potter series." The problem with this is that large, fictional universes, or TV shows, unlike books, tend to last a very long time (Star Trek and Star Wars are still going) and therefore end up with lots of lists, whose notablility would have been very small had they been one-time hits.--_ZXCVBNM 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The approach of starting from nothing and working outwards allows for this. Example: Gears of War is presently a one-time video game, and I had to work to get the plot and setting minimized to the bare needs. Someone has made a List of characters in Gears of War which I'm this close to nominating for deletion because, following the above approach I outlined, there is no notability to the characters to warrant a separate article. However, it is expected (but not yet confirmed) that Gears will be a heavily sequelized game series (each likely to be notable, but again, this is a hypothetical police). If, in fact, there are a good number of sequels, and characters and settings carry across it, I would happily suggest that a list of characters page may be worthwhile, shared across the series. However, I'm not 100% sure that this is necessary - this is a video game, there's a tiny bit of depth to the characters, but not quite enough to really justify it for what I know of the first game.

(Sufficiently notable, even if by inheritance) Lists of fictional elements ought to drop out of notable fictional works only by necessity. Necessity is likely only to be proven in time, and generally once necessity is there, it is never lost. The problem is that there's a lot of current trends on WP that there's no need to wait for necessity for fiction works to build these fictional element lists. A new movie comes out, people rush to create pages on the fictional characters and setting without pause. I think it has to be important to state that notability of a fictional element is something earned through time, and not simply because it exists. Look how many TV series get tons of press prior to the fall season and then in 3 shows are gone, no longer notable. I could use those press elements to build up all the character articles and settings, but a few weeks later, those are all for naught. I think it is very important to push a "wait-and-see" approach in deriving the notability of any fictional element of a media item that has yet to or has been recently released. Over time it may gain it, but otherwise, you're evoking WP:CRYSTAL.--Masem 19:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies on other topics, and verifiability vs. notability

Hmm. I believe that articles on fictional subjects should be held to exactly the same standards as elsewhere on Wikipedia - nothing more, and nothing less. The thing is, these standards are incredibly low. Notability is really easy to achieve; for other topics, the standard has generally been something like "other sources acknowledge the existence of this subject" (example: Simon Pulsifer, which somehow passed AFD multiple times). I actually kind of like the rewrite... except that many people's interpretation of it (including those above defending the guideline) seem to think that it excludes the vast majority of fiction articles, usually by repeating the "notability is not inherited" mantra that seems popular lately. Well, notability is not inherited, true... but if reviews and so on don't mention something like the main characters of the work, then the work must truly be minor and insignificant. This is not to say that the vast majority of characters (for example) in fictional works shouldn't be discussed in the main article or in a merged "Characters of" spinoff, but the proper rationale is editorial organization of information, not notability. As an example of this, when there was a dispute over the various Final Fantasy character lists awhile back... it took less than an hour to dig up a small "Reception" section for the Characters of Final Fantasy V list (the reception: They're kinda bland.). I'm fairly certain that similar feats could be done for most other character list articles, but I can't help but feel that there's an element of sophistry to it; isn't it clear from the Reception in the main article that it's a notable work, and thus people might be interested into why it's notable? And the list is clearly too long for the main article. It's easily fixed, generally, but eh.

The reason why Wikipedia has so many long and voluminous articles on fiction is because these articles (at least the well-maintained ones shorn of original research) pass the core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability in flying colors. No, really, despite others listing this as a problem above. In the real world, sourcing is hard. Sources may be biased, out of date, or quite simply incorrect; an article on a county fair with just one local newspaper article as a source would be highly suspicious, because that one article isn't enough to really be sure about how the fair actually went. However, the authorial voice in a book is a 100% reliable source about the book, and everyone across the globe has access to exactly the same material. If the work of fiction describes a county fair, then that's that; it's authoritative about itself, except in the extraordinarily rare case of misprints / multiple editions (and, from an in-universe perspective, sequels and unreliable narrators, but that shouldn't be the standpoint of articles anyway; out-of-universe, the county fair was unquestionably described as such in the book). So... all sorts of minutiae can be reliably sourced directly from the source (though some issues of interpretation, like themes and such, will obviously need to still come from secondary sources, natch). Much of it isn't worthy of inclusion, of course, but it's easily verifiable. The reason I bring this up is to remind us the intent of Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline rather than core policy. When people make an article on their garage band, the only sources are self-published or original research. The resulting article is thereby unreliable and also bad. The same problem exists with tiny religions or psuedosciences; no one respectable has cared enough to debunk the amazing new physics of Joe McNutball. That's why we have a notability guideline. However... these reasons doesn't apply as much to fiction, for the reasons noted above. A wholly non-notable self-published book might well actually be able to have verifiable content on its plot- it's just that the article as a whole will suck and should be deleted. However, a reasonably notable work of fiction which has had reviews that at least basically mention some plot points as notable may well have the notability requirement tied up. Let me stress again that any spinoff articles should follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and in most cases it's probably a bad idea to create them, but the problem would not be "notability" but rather simply "quality." This same standard is applied in real-world subjects; no one will complain, for instance, if a small yet notable town of 30,000 people gets a series of spinoff articles with "Economy of ABC," "Transporation in ABC," "List of mayors and town councils in ABC," and so on. The articles may be short and perhaps best merged, but no one will ring the notability bell. And 30,000 people is a fairly small number of sales for many works of fiction, I'll add, though admittedly a town has far more effect on its inhabitants than a play/book/video game/etc.

Lastly, one other note about Wikipedia not being on a deadline. For fiction not originally in English, special care should be taken before saying "I can't find any references, so let's give up and ditch the article." Economy of Manchukuo is an article with barely any references, for example... but it's on an obviously notable topic. Furthermore, not only would many of the primary sources be in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean, but they'd all be biased sources, meaning that the choice of *neutral* secondary sources is all the more important. And there may not really be any that everyone can agree are neutral, so the article may end up with a hedged "some Japanese secondary sources say this; the version in most Chinese histories says this, however." To sum up: properly referencing this article will be a difficult task. However, it certainly shouldn't be deleted; we're just recognizing it's an issue that may not be fixed for a long time. The same standard should apply in fiction; if it's hard to tell "no references" apart from "no references in English I can find, but they may be out there," then there's no harm with giving it plenty of time.

Okay, that was all rather essayish without actually addressing the problem. I suppose I should propose something. While I like the old guideline's editorial content and would be fine with reverting to that, I also like the new guideline, properly interpreted. Tentatively, I'd suggest changing the following lines:

"Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, articles about fictional concepts are notable if they contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources. These topics are also organized into complete articles instead of numerous small ones. To ensure that our articles are adequate for inclusion, notability must be established within a reasonable time of the article's creation. After notability is established, the article is presented correctly." Not sure where to start, but the phrasing is too harsh here for the wimpy standard that exists on Wikipedia mentioned above. And "presented correctly" (linking to the writing about fiction guidelines) is a weird statement, when in some ways that's the most important part of the text; many fictional topic articles should be merged, but because of the Manual of Style, not notability. Maybe: "Articles on fictional concepts are notable if real-world recognition from reliable primary secondary sources exists. However, such concepts are often best presented in a single cohesive article rather than many short stubs, even if they meet notability standards. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) covers the proper presentation of articles on fictional topics." Phrasing could use work, but that's the general idea.

"The article can be kept if an obvious potential for notability (i.e. an availability of real-world content from reliable sources) is shown, or such information is added to the article. If this obviousness is challenged, the sources should be shown or included." -> "The article can be kept if there is an availability of real-world content from reliable sources; these sources should be added to the article." I see the good intent of the "source or die" challenge, as certainly fancrufters will hedge and haw about "maybe there's something, somewhere!"... but it falls down for older material (where the required sources may be on musty library shelves not easily searched) and material where most sources are not in English. It's not a bad test for recent phenomenoms since the advent of the Internet, though, and in those cases, such a challenge would be perfectly valid (if there really are sources, show 'em). And let me add again that "real world content" can be interpreted pretty broadly here.

"Parts can be merged to a notable article to provide better context. If material is merged, the article is not deleted per the GFDL. In-universe information should be condensed and removed as necessary, and meaningful real-world content should not be deleted. If the article becomes too long and a split would create a sub-article that does not establish its own notability, then the content should be trimmed." -> "Articles can be merged to provide better context and organization of material. This is especially true of minor topics within fiction. Articles consisting primarily of in-universe information spun off from the main article for brevity should clearly be labeled with titles such as "List of..." or "Setting of..." in order to clearly indicate that they are appendices to a main topic, and not true "articles" in and of themselves." This is basically the same as the old guideline's "minor characters and things should be merged to make a notable topic, even if each individual entry is of dubious notability."

"Editors must prove that there is an availability of sources covering real-world information by: providing hyperlinks to sources detailing real-world information about the topic; outlining a rewrite, expansion, or merge plan; and/or gaining the consensus of established editors. Otherwise, the article will be subject to the options mentioned above. Place appropriate clean-up tags to stimulate activity and mark the articles as sub-par (but with potential)." -> "For topics of non-obvious notability, real-world information should be added. Consider enlisting other editors to help find such information, or to plan a merge and/or rewrite of the material." Less adversarial. Articles should be "subject to the options mentioned above" all the time; one of the options is "keep," after all.

Ack, this ended up longer than intended. These changes are very much suggested first drafty type things, but hopefully the intent should be clearer. SnowFire 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

SnowFire, I think that you're very much on the right track. (I assume you meant "if real-world recognition from reliable primary and secondary sources exists".) If detailed out-of-universe information from reliable sources exists, then it should be obvious that the subject is notable. 'Nuff said. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I appear to be in agreement with SnowFire in believing that the core principle of the current WP:FICT is sound, and that judging notability by the presence of reliable secondary sources is a logical extension of WP:N. However, comparisons with other extensions of WP:N, such as WP:BK, WP:MOVIE and WP:BIO, never mind WP:N itself, reveal a stark contrast in presentation with WP:FICT. All these policies are descriptive - key phrases include "is notable if it meets any of the following:" and "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". They represent true guidelines on Wikipedia: general principles which apply as a general rule, but which are certainly not prescriptive. WP:FICT, on the other hand, is highly prescriptive: "Articles about fictional concepts are notable if they contain substantial real-world content... These topics are also organized into complete articles... notability must be established... the article is presented correctly... Topics within a fictional work are covered in the article on that work of fiction..." This is not written as a guideline. It is written as if it were policy. In fact, it's even stronger than policy - this is written as a law. Even something as deeply ingrained as WP:BLP, where Wikipedia can get sued if it's not followed, does not have such strong wording.

The problem with this guideline at the moment is that, as it is written so prescriptively, it has risen above its station and has become a superweapon in AfD debates. SnowFire presents some excellent possible ammendments. Essentially all the firepower of WP:FICT is concentrated into 67 words:

Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, articles about fictional concepts are notable if they contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources. These topics are also organized into complete articles instead of numerous small ones. To ensure that our articles are adequate for inclusion, notability must be established within a reasonable time of the article's creation. After notability is established, the article is presented correctly.

This is the place where the key rewrite must take place. Of course the wording of the whole article must be changed, but once consensus is reached over the "main armament", the rest will follow easily. SnowFire suggests

Articles on fictional concepts are notable if real-world recognition from reliable primary secondary sources exists. However, such concepts are often best presented in a single cohesive article rather than many short stubs, even if they meet notability standards. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) covers the proper presentation of articles on fictional topics."

I agree with him that this is only a starting point, but it is clearly more friendly, descriptive and appropriate than the highly authoritarian current version. If we can agree that the current version is prescriptive, and that the final version should not be prescriptive, then we are well on the way to a solution to this debate. Happy-melon 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Notability guidelines are by their very nature prescriptive: they establish the basis for what should and should not be considered encyclopedic. This is why I am surprised that Radiant framed the problem - such as it is - in this way. How do you establish a guideline that is NOT prescriptive? So the real debate here is what, exactly it should prescribe. I think it will be tough to establish a notability criterion that is not grounded in an out-of-universe context. Insofar as that's the case, much of what is here strikes me as really quite unproblematic. Eusebeus 22:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• One of our best copy-editors recommended the guideline be framed in that manner ("is", "are", "if" instead of "should", "may", "could", etc) because it supposedly gives the text more authority. But if several users want to change that to "should be", "may be", and so on, then I wouldn't have a problem (it is a guideline, after all). — Deckiller 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Characters and Notability

Hello, back again. I was wondering if, on the case of fictional characters, that we say here "It is suggested that you do not compare a character to a series' main charatcers to judge notability, as main characters play important roles throughout the whole series, while most characters not considered "Main" usually don't." or something along those lines. And also have every fictional series make a list of characters the editors consider "Main" and the qualifications for being "Main", like Bleach (manga) did, though whether you post them on the article or not is up to them. There are FAR too many comments for deleting fictional characters that go "They aren't notable when compared to the main characters.", as only MAJOR characters can really be compared like that fairly. This could SERIOUSLY help Wikipedia's view on fictional charatcers in time to come once this idea is given some time. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not following you there. Are you saying we should compare them to the main guys? And what does that have to do with the rest of what you're saying?

Also, I wouldn't consider the Bleach merger good precedent for anything, since the created list articles are horribly confusing to read. --tjstrf talk 19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying the we should avoid comparing characters to main characters for notability reasons, as only a selective few can be fairly judged as such. And Bleach made the mistake of giving articles by rank instead of info and notability, which is why I started the merge craze going on there. (not a lie) And what did that last sentence have to do with this? Once who does and doesn't get an article is sorted out, which will take time, then we'll work on building up quality.

Anyways, my main point here was to try to make it so we shouldn't compare fictional characters to the main characters of the series to test notability, as only a few can be fairly judged so. To further help this point, each series should make a list of characters considered main through the use of a list of qualifications the editors will decide, such as what Bleach has already done. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with importance. If several independent sources offer significant coverage of a character, it's just fine to have a full article on the character, drawing from those sources. On the other hand, if they do not, or mention the character only in passing, we should mirror that level of coverage by mentioning the character only in passing. It has nothing to do with how they do or do not compare with the main character. (In many cases, even the main character should not have a full article, especially from less-notable works.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles?

Would individual episode articles be allowed for shows like Doctor Who? Most of (if not all) the Doctor who articles have several references from outside sources, most of which are official sources, but would the articles count as "Real-world content"? StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just found Wikipedia:Television episodes, which deals with this. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Break?

Okay, it looks like discussion has died down somewhat, but we have a large variety of opinions being addressed here. We're all out for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and we all want to figure out the best solution. It will clearly require a bit of everyone's opinions, even if we decide to implement Wikiproject-specific notability guidelines as I (and others) suggested as a possibility should consensus for this version not exist. I suggest we all take a break from this discussion, avoid controversial fiction actions for a while, and revisit this discussion in a week or two. — Deckiller 21:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't bother me, but for the heck of it here's my take on the discussion so far: some level of having a separate article for style/size/whatever reasons is generally acceptable. But, at the same time such articles still should follow WP:NOT#PLOT. Sourced or not, tons of articles that are mostly summary are something we generally avoid (note, I said generally). Even if we split an article because of the layout of the article series, notability should still be on the minds of editors. So to what extent should we allow split articles for style before it's become it's own topic?

My opinion, a List of Characters or Characters of is generally acceptable right off the bat for style issues, but when you start breaking it down character by character then notability should kick in. The same with a List of episodes, and maybe a few others. Regardless of if you agree with my specific opinion or not, I think the discussion should now be about what is acceptable for style and what requires notability, while still keeping the amount of plot summary in control. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 02:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm immensely disinclined to "take a break" for a week just when the discussion is dying down - surely this is the best time to complete a productive discussion and come to an agreeable consensus. The time to ask for a break (of a few days, perhaps) would have been last week, when the word count was going like a rocket. Now that everyone has calmed down, the people with only one thing to say have left, and a useful number of respectable editors have this page on their watchlist, we can hammer out a guideline that truly reflects consensus. Happy-melon 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the other side even shown that this needs to be changed? Fully objective evidence (i.e. something more than a personal interpretation of common practice) that shows that fiction is somehow exempt from WP:N would be a good start. Otherwise, it's just the same old "notability sucks" discussion that takes place there every month, but at a lower level. And we all know how those end up. TTN 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

While I don't at all blame you for not reading the whole of this bloated talk page, I'd have thought that you might have reached my comments, which are only a few paragraphs above. I do not believe that fiction should be exempt from WP:N, far from it. The fundamental foundation of WP:FICT is correct. My problem is the overly prescriptive (and in many cases proscriptive) wording of the current version, rather than the descriptive wording that is approved form and that you'll find is used for every other Wikipedia policy. The authoritative wording - "Articles about fictional concepts are notable if they contain substantial real-world content... These topics are also organized into complete articles... notability must be established... the article is presented correctly... Topics within a fictional work are covered in the article on that work of fiction..." - gives this guideline unnecessary, and undeserved, authority. This is not written as a guideline. It is written as if it were policy. In fact, it's even stronger than policy - this is written as a law. Even something as deeply ingrained as WP:BLP, where Wikipedia can get sued if it's not followed, does not have such strong wording - the conditional tense is still used, rather than imperatives. Discounting the "notability sucks" argument you mentioned, I think the majority of this discussion is about the overpowering authority that the current wording imparts.

The current guideline is (deliberately or subconsciously) written as a list of criteria that an article must meet to continue existing. It was written to make deleting some of the fancruft that litters Wikipedia easier. There are merits to that. Unfortunately it is also not the civilised way of doing things. The wording engenders an aggressive approach towards articles which assumes a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia. What I want is a rewrite to a less aggressive, more neutral, (above all) more descriptive wording, that preserves (let there be no mistake) the fundamental principle of using reliable sources as evidence for notability. If this is completed, an awful lot of the discontent at this policy will go away. There will still be the "notability sucks" attitude, which I believe is misguided. However I hope and think that most of the moderate editors want to see a guideline that is rooted in policy, but is also fair and neutral. That's why I think a rewrite is necessary. Happy-melon 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict - partially answered by Happy-melon. I agree with Happy-melon stance, recommendation, and viewpoint -- G.A.S 20:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree with the intended break.

Just to recap (As I am having difficulty following the complete discussion)

1. What is seen as wrong with the current version? Why are changes required? What is the main issue(s)?
2. What are the proposed changes to this guideline?
3. What will the consequences of such a rewrite be to the articles themselves?

Regards, G.A.S 20:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The main issue with the policy as it currently stands is an overly authoritative and prescriptive wording which implies an unhealthy pass/fail system and an inappropriate "guilty until proven innocent" approach.
2. A rewrite is proposed to bring the wording and presentation more in line with other notability guidelines, such as WP:BK and WP:NOTFILM, without changing the spirit of the guideline (that notability should be based on coverage in independent sources).
3. The status of an individual article in relation to the guideline should not be affected, however the mentality that "articles that do not meet the guideline should be deleted" will hopefully be replaced by a mentality that "information on a particular fictional universe should be condensed, restructured and improved such that the universe receives an encyclopaedic coverage". The issue is not really with the guideline itself but the way it is interpreted, but the only way to change the interpretation is to change the guideline. Happy-melon 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't really created to make deleting fancruft easier; the guideline stresses that deletion be performed only as a last resort. The guideline also stresses a reasonable time be given to articles/subarticles that do not adhere to this guideline; it doesn't say they should be sent to AfD left and right. I think what you are saying is that the "defining notability for fiction" section needs to be copy-edited to read with less of an authoritative approach. As the main writer of this guideline, I can assure you that I am one of those who addresses matters in a "civilized" manner; thus, the issue lies in a few word choices (i.e. the bolded words you mentioned above), and those word choices were an outside recommendation. I don't mind if it's replaced with the conditional tense. — Deckiller 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I can accept that it was not intended specifically for making deleting fancruft easier, as you rightly point out several checks and balances. However it would appear from the number of times I've had to tell people in AfDs to read the sections you mention and realise that WP:FICT is not an axe to swing at articles, that those checks and balances are consumed by the overall tone of the wording. I think that I'd like to see something more severe than a little copy-editing, as the issues are pervasive throughout the article (for instance, an overly strong focus on dealing with articles that don't meet the criteria) but my desire is not a rewrite that changes much of the spirit of the guideline. I'm working on something in one of my sandboxes at the moment, which I'll put up for consideration when I've finished tweaking it. Happy-melon 21:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks good so far; however, the current version of WP:FICT is not really concerned with the dependence or independence of sources (it uses the term "real-world content" instead, so that more of the possible exceptions are covered). — Deckiller 22:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I seen people, a lot, cite things in AfD that didn't back up their argument. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Issue: Content of guideline

Another problem I have with the guideline is that it describes what should be and what should not be in the articles, rather than being a specific implementation of WP:Notability.

SnowFire suggests that the rewrite should include:

Articles on fictional concepts are notable if real-world recognition from reliable primary secondary sources exists. However, such concepts are often best presented in a single cohesive article rather than many short stubs, even if they meet notability standards. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) covers the proper presentation of articles on fictional topics.

I agree to the degree that articles should be of high quality and (to a degree) notable.

Wikipedia:Article size prescribes that article length should be considered when editing (see a rule of thumb). As such it means that rather than having short stubs, a more coherent list may be more applicable.

Wikipedia:Summary style also covers this to a degree: A non-notable article may be notable as a part of another topic though, and a stub there would not be such a problem. If such an article grows to an acceptable degree and is sourced (primary or secondary sources), it should/can be split off per Summary style. (Considering WP:NOT#PLOT of course)

These changes should rather be added to WP:WAF and be removed from this guideline; it seems to be more of a styling issue. G.A.S 07:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Issue: Summary style vs. notability

It seems to me that Wikipedia:Summary style and WP:Notability are to a degree contrasting guidelines.

It seems that they can be consolidated though:

• If an article are very notable creating a stub article is acceptable, as it will grow to a high quality article through the input of many editors.
• If an article is not notable, creating a stub is not acceptable, as it will not likely grow to a high quality article (quickly), but it may be split off later (see also my comment in #Issue: Content of guideline).

This should be included in this guideline. G.A.S 07:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're going with this. But we should definitely look at to what extent do we allow sub-articles before notability really kicks in. I suggested above that notability should always be on the mind of the editor, and should really kick in when they go beyond stuff like a list of characters or of episodes. (and I'm sure there's more than just those two) It might seem somewhat arbitrary, but I think it's something we should definitely mention. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

True, for instance individual episodes regularly does not have more than plot content. If such excessive plot content are reduced to a concise summary, the article is too short to be seperate, and belongs in a list.

The same may be applicable to locations in fiction.

Characters on the other side, often have a lot of in-universe content, but can be presented in a out of universe view (unlike episodes).

If such info is appropriately sourced, to secondary and primary sources, such an article may be quite decent, although in essence still part of the main article. (See GA Sailor Mercury for example)

This would obviously be applicable to the main characters: once off characters hardly ever deserves mentioning (outside of maybe an episode list), and even less deserves a seperate article. Minor characters can usually only be provided in a list: there is too little information to justify a seperate article.

This guideline should acknowledge and reflect this fact.

Regards, G.A.S 06:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sailor Mercury is far better than most fictional articles, but it's really lacking in real world information, so I'm not sure if it's really a good example. If you are sourcing plot info, there's no problem. We don't really care about getting tons of sources for something you can learn by seeing the show. When we talk about getting sources, we're talking about getting real world information. Sailor Mercury really isn't GA level in a strict sense. Still, Sailor Mercury passes WP:FICT in that we know these real world sources exist (I'm not a fan of the show, but I know that there are a number of interviews and articles with the creators, voice actors, etc, especially for such a successful franchise). Sailor Mercury has far more potential than what its currently at, and this guideline wants it to reach that. -- Ned Scott 09:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly: currently it is in the strictest sense a sub article.

GA criteria requires broad coverage, FA extensive coverage. If the necessary out of universe content is added, I think the article could easily make FA class.

At that point it will be a seperate article, not just a sub article.

Regards, G.A.S 10:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

An attempt at a new wording

As per my comments above, I have been working on a new proposed wording for the guideline, which is now complete (in green, below). The text is enclosed on its own subpage to keep its page history separate - I would encourage editors to feel free to work on it until we can find a consensus over its content.

An analysis of changes

It is irrefutable that the proposed new version is substantially different in wording to the previous version. Let me summarise and attempt to justify the changes, in a loosely descending order of importance:

1. Descriptive wording - This is the primary change, as argued for above
2. Requirement for real-world content removed - When writing this new wording, I was constantly asking myself if it would be failed by existing fictional Good Articles with which I am familiar. I came to the conclusion:

• The requirement was not an extension of WP:N
• The requirement was almost impossible for any article to meet while remaining focused on the fictional topic
• The requirement unfairly discriminated against topics which have notability, but the sources for which are best included in a "Further Reading" or "External Links" section rather than as referable or includable material
• The requirement distracted editors from the main criterion, which is notability as expressed by prevalence of real-world sources.
• The requirement was not necessary to discriminate between articles which were notable and those which weren't, as the rest of the guideline was sufficient.

1. Greater explanation of the nature of reliable sources - I feel that this rewording improves the legibility and comprehension of the underlying policy. I attempt to put increased focus on the requirement that the coverage must be "non-trivial", which was not very thoroughly covered in the old wording.
2. Clear restriction of the guideline scope - the rewording has excluded from the scope articles about works of fiction, which (as inherently factual articles rather than fictional ones) I feel are better covered by WP:BK, WP:MOVIE, etc, than by this guideline.
3. "Dealing with fiction" converted to prose - I feel this permits a more neutral coverage of the issues. More emphasis is given to reviewing articles within the scope of the coverage of the fictional universe as a whole. I'm tempted to add a phrase about WikiProjects here, but I think that might be superfluous. This concept has grown from (and largely replaced) comments about organisation of articles, subarticles and stubs.
4. Example section removed - I am neutral about the inclusion of the examples. I don't feel that they are a necessary addition to the guideline, but I am willing to be persuaded.

This page is an extension of the Wikipedia guideline on notability which deals specifically with fictional topics, as defined below. The guidelines set out below should be used to decide whether a topic warrants an article on Wikipedia. Topics that meet these notability guidelines usually make acceptable articles. Failure to satisfy these criteria is not a justification for speedy deletion.

What is a fictional article

A fictional article is focused on a topic that does not exist in the real world, but instead exists in a fictional universe. An article about a novel is not a fictional article, but an article about one of the characters in that novel is. The book exists in the real world, while the character exists only in that book. Fictional characters, fictional locations, fictional events (including alternate histories) and fictional concepts are examples of fictional articles.

The notability criteria for fiction

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Its mandate does not include comprehensive coverage of every fictional universe ever created. It should include only as much information on a subject as to ensure an encyclopaedic coverage. Wikipedia covers only notable topics.

Wikipedia:Notability is the guideline that defines notability for Wikipedia. It says:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

A fictional topic is therefore presumed to be notable if it has been analysed by independent sources in a non-trivial fashion. For articles about fictional topics, "independent sources" fall into two categories:

• Sources which consider the popular appeal, critical reception or cultural impact of the topic in the real world. Sources of this type include scholarly analyses, documentaries, and PLACEHOLDER. Note that while critical reviews and interviews are generally sources of this type, their focus is usually on the work as a whole, and any consideration of individual topics is likely to be trivial.

• Sources which critically analyse the importance of the fictional topic within the fictional universe. These sources generally imply notability only if they are reliable, not of questionable integrity and independent of the subject. Their focus should be on analysis rather than description.

Both types of sources should strive to be independent of the subject. Sources which are published by the author of the original work, or under the author's direction, are generally not good indicators of notability. However, sources which required the author's permission for copyright reasons are not usually excluded for that reason.

The difference between notable and important

Notability is very different to a topic's importance. A lead character may be crucial to the plot of a work of fiction, or a fictional universe may depend on a particular technology. These topics may be important, within the confines of that fictional universe. However, their importance within the work of fiction does not assert their importance to the real world, which is a crude definition of notability. "Importance in the real world", or notability, is best demonstrated by inclusion of reliable, independent secondary sources of the type indicated above.

Dealing with fictional topics

Some fictional topics can assert their notability on their own merits, and can easily justify their own article. A common feature of good articles about fictional topics is a prevalence of real-world content; a focus on the impact of the fictional topic outside the fictional universe. Such articles should conform to the relevant sections of the manual of style, and should be of an appropriate length. If it is not possible to produce an appropriately-sized article while remaining within the guidelines of What Wikipedia is Not, No Original Research and Proper Perspective, it may be necessary to consider merging the article despite its own notability.

More commonly, a fictional topic is not able to assert its own notability, and it becomes necessary to reconsider how best to approach the encyclopaedic treatment of the topic. Fictional topics rarely exist on Wikipedia except as part of a larger body of work on a fictional universe, connected to a factual article describing the work of fiction itself. When a topic is unable to assert its own notability, it should be considered in the context of this larger body. In many cases, while a very narrow topic (eg a certain character or location from fictional universe X) cannot assert its own notability, it may be able to support the notability of a larger topic (eg, "Characters from X" or "Locations in X"). In instances such as these, it may be prudent to consider merging similar topics into a larger article. Larger articles are not, of course, exempt from the need to assert their own notability, however it is often easier to do so with a broader topic than it is with narrower ones.

If a fictional topic is extremely important within the fictional universe, but is not notable outside it, it may warrant inclusion in the article describing the work of fiction itself. For instance, the details of a key character in a book may warrant inclusion in the article about the book itself. However, this is generally necessary only if a knowledge of the topic is essential to an encyclopaedic coverage of the work of fiction.

If it appears that there is no likelihood of the topic asserting its own notability, or of being merged into a larger topic, it may be necessary to consider removing the content from Wikipedia. If possible, the content should be Transwikied to another Wiki with a compatible license. Many prestigious Wikis exist for fictional content, often focusing on a particular fictional universe; examples include Wikia and Wookiepedia.These Wikis generally have lower criteria for notability, so articles on fictional topics are commonly permitted on these Wikis where they would not be permitted on Wikipedia.

Only if the options above have been considered and found to be impossible or impractical should the article be considered for deletion.

Other information

Fanfiction and unreleased fiction

Fanfiction is seldom notable, unless the work has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Examples of fanfiction include self-published works, topics found fan-websites such as fanfiction.net, or published by vanity press. Information about a player's character in roleplaying or MMORPGs and unofficial computer game modifications are very rarely notable unless the level of real-world following is extensive.

Fiction not yet written is generally considered speculation, which is grounds for deletion because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

Some common relocation destinations

• Wikibooks, Wikipedia's sibling project, contains instructional and educational texts. These include annotated works of fiction (on the Wikibooks:annotated texts bookshelf) for classroom or private study use.
• Wikisource holds original public domain and GFDL source texts. See Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks.

An ideal solution for comprehensive coverage of a fictional topic is to make use of all of the Wikimedia projects combined. An encyclopaedic article about the work of fiction on Wikipedia could give an outline of the fictional universe along with real-world content about its popular following and critical reception. Wikibooks is the ideal destination for a chapter-by-chapter annotation and a certain degree of literary analysis, while the full source text may be appropriate for Wikisource if the work is in the public domain. These disparate articles could be connected with interwiki links to join them all together into a cohesive whole. Note, however, that Wikibooks opposes in-universe books,so it is not an appropriate place to transwiki large quantities of in-universe material.

Fictional material unsuited or too detailed for any Wikimedia project can often be transwikied to an appropriate Wikia, such as Final Fantasy Wikiaor Wookieepedia. Other sites, such as Gaming Wiki, may also accept material. Transwikied material should be edited to meet the guidelines of specific wikias; do not just copy and paste. The Wikia Annex is a staging area for transwikied material and a place for non-notable fictional material that does not have another home; the original Wikipedia versions will also be stored there.

Comments and criticism, particularly per change 2 above, is requested. Happy-melon 20:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer notability established by substantial real-world content. Heck, this requirement is actually more of a compromise than requiring multiple independent sources, because a lot of interviews and other material might not be independent. This version of the guideline would actually result in an even greater cutdown of fiction, because a lot of material published about fictional universes is somehow tied to the publisher and/or author, or is only mentioned in passing in various independent articles. That is why we wrote WP:FICT to say "real-world content" instead of "coverage in independent sources"; afterall, there would be no reason to have this page if it was just the same as WP:N. — Deckiller 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• If I'm reading this right, it sounds like this would require everything to actually be a notable real-world subject in its own right, independent of the work it is attached to, rather than the current which seems to be based on the notability of both the element and work. Which is to say, an even more extreme bar to jump than the current version, and even more prescriptive since it doesn't reflect the current reality in the slightest. Speaking of which, I have yet to see a suggestion with better practical potential than Iorek's earlier draft. Why aren't we using that? --tjstrf talk 23:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• I think a comprehensive rewrite at this point may be premature. Better to articulate the main points of contention and establish the main points one by one, although the effort is appreciated. At a minimum, dismissal of the out-of-universe standard is going to be problematic. I suggest a resume of the debate with the main points highlighted before a rewording of the guideline is attempted. Eusebeus 03:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the choices, I prefer the current version of WP:FICT. I'm not saying it's perfect, or that we shouldn't do anything, but much of what people are proposing brings us a step forward and a few steps back. For example, we should not think of "fictional articles" as being different from real world articles. Yes, they're different in nature, but so is an article about an apple vs the history of a religion. And notability is partly being used in the context of helping to avoid massive plot (a slight over-lap with WP:WAF, but no guideline is an island.) I understand and generally agree with the idea that some sub-articles should be allowed for style reasons, but they are still a part of that parent topic, (basically they are a part of the parent article, but stored in a different document. If you viewed the parent article and sub articles as one article, would the size of the sub articles/sections be justified as being a part of the main topic? etc etc etc) -- Ned Scott 03:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the point you bring up is a pretty valid one. Quite often, we give undue weight to a work of fiction as a whole and subparts of it by writing too much. If the amount written about a work of fiction is outstripping the real-world sources available, or what's being written is mainly in-universe, it's time to start cutting, not splitting. Also, as there are now a lot of fan Wikias, transwikification of the in-universe material may be an option as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Undue weight is a concept applied only when dealing with articles that have opposing POVs. There is no such thing as giving a subject undue weight by writing too much accurate information about it as a whole.
        Indeed, the only paradigm under which that sort of statement makes sense is one in which certain types of articles are considered inherently inferior to other types based not on their quality of writing but on what concepts they describe. --tjstrf talk 05:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I disagree. Undue weight is a perfect way to explain the situation. Yes, on Wikipedia we tend to use the term when it's related to POV, but the expression works just as well in this different context. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • That's what I was trying to suggest before. Fictional elements of articles that contain such need to be written as concisely as possible, as to not give undue weight to the in-universe information. Only if by page length or additional notability of a specific element should more be written. The problem is that fans of fictional elements are usually editors of such elements (I'm one of those two), and tend to write a lot more than is needed from an encyclopedia viewpoint when most of this information can likely be found on existing websites or should be moved to appropriate wikis. Certainly any page on WP could end up this way, but fiction draws a lot more editors than scientific or historical elements. That's why its very important to stress conciseness and undue weight in fictional notability and writing about fiction. --Masem 05:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Running out of server space now, are we? If not, then that's nothing more than a politically correct way of saying we should get rid of articles on "inferior" topics because some people don't like them. That Wikipedia has more information about the USA than ancient Mesopotamia when Mesopotamia is more historically important does not mean we need to reduce the amount of info we carry on the USA because we're giving it "undue weight" in our encyclopedia. Unless we're talking about the setup of a potential CD release, there is no foundation to that argument. I'm sorry if it embarrasses you when the hecklers make wikigroaning blog posts. --tjstrf talk 07:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
            • We're not running out of space, but we're not a dumping ground for plot. Do not confuse the two issues. When I think of "undue weight" for fiction, I was thinking he meant that within the topic itself. As in, elements of plot being the main focus of such articles, rather than their impact on the real world, or facts about how these works come to be and how they were created. Personally, I don't care if Wikipedia has more fiction-related topics than all other topics combined, but those articles need real world information, something you can't just learn by watching the show. We're not here to retell the story, we're here to tell you everything that makes the story, the real people who worked on it, the real impression it made. What's more important, which character got to power level 50 or who influenced the lead artist who designed the characters? What's important, some run-of-the-mill, generic monster that whatever team fought on episode 5? Or is it about how the special effects they used were the first of their kind, and impacted the real world of entertainment? -- Ned Scott 08:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Both are important. A main article on a series that consists solely of in-universe info is useless. A main article on a series that consists solely of out-of-universe info is useless. The wish to avoid undue weight in these articles is the very reason why creating sub-articles to keep from drowning out the out-of-universe content in the main article is so useful to us editorially, and why guidelines forbidding the creation of such sub-articles are harmful to the encyclopedia. --tjstrf talk 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Sub-articles shouldn't be created just as dumping grounds. To an extent, I can understand a list of characters and so on, but those are not the kind of articles we're trying to improve with WP:FICT. We're trying to avoid the articles that are about different types of guns used in an action series, or character articles that go into more detail than is needed for basic understanding. Excessive summary should be cut back, not merged to drown out the main article. When we come along to a bunch of articles and say "these should be merged", that does not mean a completely raw merge.
                • Some "just-plot" info is needed for basic understanding, yes, but there's a limit to that. Our articles on fiction are not supposed to retell the entire story, giving the blow-by-blow. The reason we have these articles is to tell people things you can't just learn by watching a show or reading a book. That's why info that is just plot, and isn't needed for basic understanding, is not notable on it's own. -- Ned Scott 09:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• I think that both sides here have made important points. I think the key issue here is "encyclopaedic coverage" of the work of fiction. It seems that my wording of the paragraph starting "If a fictional topic is extremely important within the fictional universe, but is not notable outside it, it may warrant inclusion in the article describing the work of fiction itself" is overly restrictive. Indeed, the necessity of creating subarticles for complex fictional universes may be essential. However, I am unsure as to how best to reword that paragraph to prevent the creation of a loophole to permit anything that is "important" to the universe. I'd be interested to hear any suggestions. The concept of "undue weight" as suggested above may be helpful, if it can be properly worded.
• Vis "fictional articles being different to other articles", I'm not sure what the concern is. Fictional articles are different to factual biographies, to the same extent that factual biographies are different to scientific concepts. Restricting the scope of WP:FICT to ficitonal articles is similar to the restrictions placed on WP:BK and WP:MOVIE. However, while the question of whether or not an article is about a film is ludicrously obvious, "fictional articles" need a bit of definition. Although the idea of considering fictional articles to be entirely different from real articles is tempting, I agree that it must be resisted.
• Vis my removal of "real-world content", which I was aware would be the most controversial change; general consensus seems to be that this is not desirable. Some articles, however, have a number of reliable sources which indicate their notability, but it would be extremely difficult to include information from the sources in the article. The best place for such sources is a "further reading" section. It would be inappropriate to exclude such sources, or their articles, because of this. Perhaps it would be best to include both ideas as evidence for notability: either a topic must have received scholarly analytical coverage, or it must be able to include real-world-content from a wealth of (relatively trivial) sources which would not qualify under the other criterion. This makes sense: if a topic has been critically analysed, it is notable in a similar way to a scientific topic. If a topic has real-world content, its notability is obvious. Would including both options be a good improvement?
• Finally, general points at the beginning of the comments. The real problem with "Iorek's draft", which is well above, is that is it not really a guideline at all. It is a very extensive list of examples. You won't find any other guideline written like that. And a rewrite is never "premature" - the volume of discussion on this page proves that this policy is not considered consensus. The sooner the policy attains consensus the better. What is important is that the correction is not a patch job, but properly discussed before implementation. Happy-melon 10:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• I think there's a difference between "don't make excessive plot summaries" (which most people would agree with) and "don't write about characters/places/etc that have no real-world content" (which would, in essence, call for the deletion of thousands of articles on fictional elements). I'm not saying we should have articles on every minor character, but a "list of characters in <foo>" seems like a worthwhile article even if it has no bearing on the real world. >Radiant< 13:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There is general consensus I believe that Character and Episode Lists are perfectly reasonable repositories for the details of fictional works. It is the plethora of individual articles that is the focus of the guideline, almost none of which aspire to out-of-universe context. Eusebeus 13:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Just as a note in regards to the above common: For any guideline, I'd be careful to not state that "A 'List of Characters in X'" article is always appropriate"; only that if to meet WP:MOS and length guidelines, it is not unreasonable to create such a list, its notability being inherited from the parent (though OOU information is highly recommended whenever possible). Not every fictional work needs a special character list; it should only be borne out of necessity to be able to scholarly describe the plot. I'm not going to go create a list for a TV show that lasted all of 3 episodes, for example. Again, the problem is that newer editors will tend to rush off and create masses of fictional element articles for a new fictional work because they're following the examples that other established fictional works have them. It's important that we state that there's a reason why this lists are notable and relevant to WP, and why each list has to be considered on a case by case basis. --Masem 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it would seem that "real-world content" or "out-of-universe context" isn't such a good term for that, because a Character List likewise has no real-world or out of universe relations. WP:FICT has traditionally stated that short articles should be merged into lists, not that "anything without real-world content is bad". >Radiant< 14:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, WAF has required OOU content for as long as I can remember. Purely in-universe stuff belongs on fansites or Wikias. Given the existence of so many fan Wikias, transwikification might be a good option for some of the more crufty stuff though. The thing with in-universe is, we should have as little as possible to put the material in context. To put Superman in context, it is necessary to state that he was a superhero from another planet with multiple superpowers, that he has a secret identity as a newspaper reporter named Clark Kent, and that he has a romantic interest in a coworker, Lois Lane. It's not necessary to run through every little detail, splitting off subarticles for lists of one-time villains and various plot points. The whole idea here is to keep in-universe to a minimum, and get a lot of it trimmed and merged. Let the fans write the massive detail on the fansites, not here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think sweeping such articles under the rug is all that helpful, and I doubt there is consensus for that in the first place. The issue is that WAF calls for the rewriting of such articles, but FICT has recently been used to call for the deletion of such (which, incidentally, has not been particularly succesful). >Radiant< 14:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• It is not about sweeping them under the rug: it is about asserting a notability standard that should be met for individual fiction-related articles. Many such articles have been turned into redirects - not deleted, so the information is still there and the article can be recreated if out-of-universe notability can be established. There are many problematic articles per the current guideline, that is true. But to change the guideline as a response seems to me to be the wrong thing to do. (btw, we need to summarise and then archive this debate; getting extremely long) Eusebeus 14:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Masem's most excellent modifications

I think Masem has done a great job just above summarizing a reasonable point of view that differs only slightly from the existing version, but would mitigate the unnecessarily black & white / prescriptive nature of the current wording. I will quote Masem here for convenience:

Just as a note in regards to the above common: For any guideline, I'd be careful to not state that "A 'List of Characters in X'" article is always appropriate"; only that if to meet WP:MOS and length guidelines, it is not unreasonable to create such a list, its notability being inherited from the parent (though OOU information is highly recommended whenever possible). Not every fictional work needs a special character list; it should only be borne out of necessity to be able to scholarly describe the plot. I'm not going to go create a list for a TV show that lasted all of 3 episodes, for example. Again, the problem is that newer editors will tend to rush off and create masses of fictional element articles for a new fictional work because they're following the examples that other established fictional works have them. It's important that we state that there's a reason why this lists are notable and relevant to WP, and why each list has to be considered on a case by case basis.

Two key points I see in Masem's articulation here include:

• Sub-articles created to meet WP:MOS (or WP:SS for that matter) can inherit their notability from the main article, although OOU information is highly recommended whenever possible.
• Not every work of fiction deserves a "List of Characters in X" or a "List of Episodes" article, and the worthiness of such sub-articles needs to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. Some of the criteria for evaluating whether such sub-articles should be created include style issues to break up long articles, and the necessity of having the sub-article to ensure a scholarly/encyclopedic treatment of the overall work of fiction.

If wording that made these two points were worked into the existing guideline, and some of the absolutist language that's there today removed, I think it would go a long, long way toward improving the existing version. Fairsing 00:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. Else every person on the planet is notable, inheriting their notability from being a human on Earth which is in the Milky Way galaxy in the universe, all clearly notable topics. The idea here is to prevent undue weight, to encourage trimming before splitting, and to eliminate primary-source-only articles, which WP:V forbids. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be, and it is; In your example, only those humans which add to the understanding of the article, that are necessary for an encyclopaedic treatment of 'humans', and which are too long to fit in a summary in the main 'human' article, would have articles. As they do now.

Most of the time, sub articles created for length would already be notable, but some of them will be verifiable, but not notable. Primary sources should be fine, as long as they are not the only sources. Iorek 03:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue comes when people say "we have to create this article because it will make article Y too long," but key is that no one even attempted to try it the way this is assumed will cause an article to become too long. It becomes an excuse to have long plot sections for episodes, or heavily detailed plot information for character appearances, and less about how any of that relates to the real world. The actions should start by building a comprehensive article about the main topic, and then filter out. You don't act bass ackwards and create a character article before you've even developed the film or television article (or season or list article...as is the case when you deal with television shows).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Which is why my original proposal (and the current wording) includes "causes it to become long". Sub articles should only be created when the article becomes long, not before it does, as is standard procedure with articles on all subjects. Though I guess this isn't technically to do with notability, but style. Iorek 04:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I believe WP:WAF says that very thing. Though I cannot remember, so I'll go check......*returns* It doesn't. It should though, since that is the style guideline for fictional topics. It can be mentioned here, but I think that maybe this page should point to a section on that one which provides a bit more detail into what really constitutes justification for separation based on size. A lot of people simply click "edit this page" and look at the number given and then decide if the page is too long, which isn't an accurate assessment of article size (because of all the coding and spaces throughout the article).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bignole: as Iorek points out, it's not difficult at all to tell when people have split out the content prematurely. If they get to the point where they are making in-universe articles with no significant utility or possibility for expansion, then remerge them. That's the very thing that we're trying to write this guideline for, remember?
As for determining how long is too long, that's an issue of editorial judgment. The best rule of thumb is that if the article is written in legible English but you still can't read the article in one sitting without dying from the length, then it's time for a split. You could also try the prosesize userscript.

Seraphim: My equally valid opinion disagrees. Unless you have some sort of evidence to support your opinion here, then your view that "notability is not inherited because I say so" is duly noted and discarded. Even WP:NOTINHERITED disagrees with you here, since it specifically states that the creation of subarticles for "ease of formatting and navigation" is acceptable. --tjstrf talk 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with it for books and albums, either, which is actually all NOTINHERITED mentions it in context of. Schools finally got sorted, fiction's the current cleanup project, one thing at a time. A lot of albums need upmerging to parent band articles, as they are not in themselves notable, but that will come in time. Some of the cleanup work that needs doing is difficult for people to accept and kind of needs doing a piece at a time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you also hate WP:BK, which has as a specific criteria stating authors can be so historically notable that all their work is notable by default. --tjstrf talk 05:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's rare, if you look at the explaination they give. Few fictional authors fit that criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a case of officially recognized inherited notability, and even one instance is enough to refute Seraphim's claim that there is no such thing. --tjstrf talk 05:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

TJ, have you had a lot of experience on articles related to television series? I'm not being condescending, I'm being serious, because the reaction you get when you merge prematurely created articles causes a lot of problems. That was why the television review process got initiated, because there were tons of AN/I up, with editors complaining about the merging. There were edit wars out the whazoo, and lots and lots of fighting. As for article size, I know how to determine "actual article size" (it explains it clearly on WP:SIZE), and I know what SIZE's rule of thumb is for splitting articles. I was not referring to me, I was referring to people who do not know about SIZE, or misinterpret it, causing them to split articles prematurely (and then go through that whole thing I just explained about complaining and reverting). Creating of subarticles for navigation may be acceptable, but branching off 22 episodes a season, when you haven't even written a comprehensive season (or LOE) article first, is not acceptable. You can say "just remerge it" all you like, but until you've actually tried to do that in a bold fashion, and had to deal with the backlash and outcry from editors because of it, then I suggest a different approach.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"I" have a featured LOE, if that counts. I also understand that telling people that some dozen-odd hours of their work has ended up being against policy is difficult. However, in my observation most of those AN/I threads and edit wars were caused by the rushed and abrasive cookie-cutter editing manner in which the merges were conducted (for all their other merits, TTN and AMiB are hardly the most tactful of people), not the merging itself. If you actually take the time to educate, explain, and deal interpersonally with the (usually newbie) authors of the pages, rather than going "I'M FOLLOWING POLICY, RTFM!" then the merges can go through with hardly a hitch, a much better result than triggering angry defensive reactions and enraging the authors off to the point where they leave.

Incidentally, that LOE I linked makes an excellent example of a case of where sub-articles for style are quite useful, since the ability of the LOE to contain minimal plot summary while still making sense to non-fans is possible only due to the network of articles explaining what all the stuff it mentions actually is. I will admit that the subarticle count and content is more excessive than it need be (we're working on pruning them back right now), but they too were grown organically. If you look back to 2005, all the characters were in the main Bleach (manga) article. Then they were split out to a character list. Then only after that (when the character list was creeping up on 150kb) were a lot of individual character articles created. Though we initially made too many, a mistake that has been rectified by the creation of multiple character lists to merge all but a few of the previous short single-character articles into. (Manga franchise with 40+ major characters and an episode count of over 100 = 7th circle of hell, as far as Wikipedia's fiction policies go.) All this has been done with barely a peep of complaint. --tjstrf talk 05:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Smallville (season 1) proves that you can write a comprehensive article on an entire season, and not have to split every episode into its own article (which wasn't done on the Bleach LOE you linked), which is something not happening on other pages. The "complaint" also has to deal with the project of editors working there. I still get complaints about the Smallville season pages, and how "we should have an article for every episode." I'm in a discussion right now with episodes of Angel. There is a whole slew of articles going under review right now about that, doesn't change the complaints. If it did, we wouldn't be having this huge discussion on this page to begin with. Everything always boils down the simple fact of someone's article having been deleted or merged because of this guideline, or some other guideline that contradicst the existence of the article in question. It seems to me, that if we followed this guideline, WP:WAF, SIZE, and any other guideline that explicitely talks about starting from one and working out (instead of the other way around, as is currently done) then we wouldn't be having these debates because there wouldn't be a problem. If you took characters and developed them reasonably on the main article, then split that into an LOC page (which could be split by seasons if its for a show and you have guest stars or something), then there wouldn't be an issue. A point brought up (I believe it was by Seraph, but I'm not sure without scanning the whole debate) is that editors like to add every detail they can about a character's fictional life, and that is what leads to excessive lengths. If you look at FA character articles, most of the plot information is smaller than on articles that are not even GA, and the FA ones have more real world content around them as well. It's all about summary style, and too much weight being given to fictional information. If that was kept in check, a lot of the problems about size wouldn't be problems anymore. (off to bed, so there won't be a response any time in the next several hours).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely why I was saying it's a user education problem. (You're sort of preaching to the choir here.) Many editors don't know what TV episode coverage is supposed to be like, and then since their first exposure to the rules is some stranger swooping in and effectively deleting 12 of their pages, they never get the chance to be peaceably taught. --tjstrf talk 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(←)Generally addressing some of the comments above, when I wrote the above and the statement earlier up, it is a two pronged approach, and one with a timeliness element to it.

• We are about to enter a new TV season in the states, meaning that there will be a plethora of new shows; we are also about to hit the holiday movie parade and numerous new video game properties. Now is the time to establish the "expand fictional elements only when absolutely needed" rules that this discussion seems to be around as to help shape those new articles, identify common concerns for editors and the like, and basically to make sure these guidelines are sensible.
• Then, once we can demonstrate that these work, we need to make a strong effort to education other editors, and to have them take a serious look at their existing fictional elements. The hypothesis being "if you had to start from square one and rewrite all the fictional element sections of this topic again, knowing the new WP:FICT/WP:WAF guidelines, how would you do it?" . This is not meant to throw away what has been written, but to make editors take a serious look at their work, and prune and merge and delete as neeed, (hopefully) comparing it to strong examples that result from the first point above (this late 2007 inrush of new fiction). If this means making sure the major projects that deal with fictional elements are on board and outline/reference to this in their own MOS, so be it. As both Bignole and tjstrf note, you may encounter a strong resistance to change, which is why having a set guideline, WProject support, and strong examples of what works in your back pocket will likely help.

I think another key point of any notable/WAF proposal is that lists of fictional elements beget more lists of fictional elements; unless you plan to be editing your article on an hourly basis from newer editors, you should only use lists of fictional elements when absolutely necessary. If you can put information like characters in strict prose form, you get a lot less (from personal experience) drive-by additions and makes such articles easier to manage whether in the fictional element body or its own subarticle. A list really should only be used if you can fully exhaust what goes in that list - a list of episodes in a series, yes, a list of characters in a long-running TV show, not so much. And one other idea. Does it even make sense, lest even such a mechanism, to have a talk template that can be used on lists of fictional elements that have been split from the main work for purposes that have been debated by the editors, such that such "legitimate" splits can be tracks and thus easier to determine the issue of inherited notability? I'm thinking along the lines of how Template:ArticleHistory has various tracking elements on there to allow tracking back to oldid's and to conversation threads in the talk page. I'm not sure how necessary such is, if it's too much work, or what... --Masem 06:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)