Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/proposed-4-20-09/Archive 1

Archive 1

this proposal desperately needs a nutshell

The truth is it's a pretty long read as is. Making something concise is hard work. ("I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.") For this proposal to gain any traction it's going to have to do three things:

1. Be shorter overall
2. Clearly demarcate between the rule, and the rationale behind the rule, so people who really just want the rule can see it quickly.
3. Have a nutshell.

I figure the last one is the most important and relatively easy to do, so someone may as well write one up. Randomran (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Go write a nutshell then. And then I'll go for a concise intro. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Took a stab at a nutshell. It's excessively laconic, but I think it's better that way. Nifboy (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I altered it. I felt that one didn't adequately explain that plot info was necessary for a total understanding, nor did it also explain that the amount needed varies. It wasn't a complete nutshell.じんない 02:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Condensed it; three sentences is at least one-and-a-half too many for a nutshell. Nifboy (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Condensed further. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And now I'm sort of debating going back to my first attempt: "Emphasize the real over the unreal". From there the natural progression would then be simply "Real > Unreal." Nifboy (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that statement is misleading. If its a work of historical fiction than some of the elements in the story will be real. Also emphasize (as well as the current phrasing) do not properly give the context that summaries of the plot are fine in an article about a fictional work or element. Also the statements defy the basis of list articles which generally have far more plot, but still must have detailed real-world information. Just that the nature of them generally weighs them more to being plot heavy because while an individual addition might not have much plot info in it, the totality of it does.じんない 18:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) To me, the nutshell is a statement of principle. And the principle at work here is simply that real-world info is more important, full stop. Everything that follows is a matter of degree and clarification, which doesn't quite fit into a nutshell. And as Phil noted, not having plot isn't a problem in 99.99% of articles. Nifboy (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for working on this part, guys. The proposal has improved substantially because of it, IMO. Hopefully there are other ways to improve the clarity of this proposal, by making it both more concise and more organized. Randomran (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Articles may include plot summaries only inasmuch as they are necessary to understand the context of the work of fiction."

I see no reason for this; it restricts encyclopedic information, so I strongly oppose its inclusion. We may want to give advice about plot summaries, but there is no way in hell we should give this advice. Indeed, most of this proposal seems awful, I'm sorry. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it seem to you to conflict with WAF or other existing policies? It seems to me largely a restatement, though I will grant that perhaps the plot summaries bullet point is harsher than the proposal as it stands supports. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I've changed that bullet point to emphasize the point differently. Any other specific objections? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes? For instance, this one says:

• "Since we are primarily interested in fiction as a cultural artifact, the plot of the work of fiction is not our primary concern."

Whereas WP:WAF says:

• Whenever the original fiction itself is the subject of the article, all out-of-universe information needs to be set in the context of that original fiction (e.g., by including a plot summary)."

Not to mention that WP:WAF is a guideline meant to cover well-developed articles, whereas this is meant to cover all articles. Frankly, this seems to be written by someone who has no experience with writing articles on fictional works. It's all WE HATE PLOT SUMMARIES writ large, complete with deletionist screeds. Has anyone involved with writing this ever worked on fiction-related articles? (and before you ask: Creatures of Impulse - new article to FA in under a month. Trial by Jury, Agrippina (opera), both FAs. H.M.S. Pinafore, GA. Had several more on my old account. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the plot of the work of fiction isn't our primary concern - WP:NOT#PLOT gives us that, and even though this is intended in part to resolve the debate over the future home of NOT#PLOT, it is predicated on the assumption that NOT#PLOT is accurate - that plot-only articles are unacceptable. Now if you think there is language here that is excessively anti-plot, by all means, I want to fix it - I've long argued that NOT#PLOT is often excessively misread, given that part of NOT#PLOT is the clear declaration that plot summary should be a part of fiction articles. And my intention is that this proposal maintain that view - that plot summary is an essential part of fiction articles, but is not the main point of them.

As for my involvement (this is mostly a solo effort at present) in fiction articles, yes, I have worked on them frequently, thank you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles on fiction should contain discussion of external aspects for the purpose of complementing the discussion of the plot, which is the principal aspect

Fiction is notable as fiction, which is why people read it & write about it and come to encyclopedias to look for information about it. What about fiction are people primarily interested in? For what reason do they read it? In the classic statement by EM Forster in Aspects of the Novel , "We shall all agree that the fundamental aspect of the novel is its story-telling aspect" (heading, chapter 2). There are other aspects.As a librarian & bibliographer, I'm concerned about the physical aspects, such as the publication history. As a fan, I might be interested in the authorship. As a critic, in the reception. All these are important, and secondary to what really matters. The plot is an intellectual construct in the real world, expressed in physical symbols, about imaginary people. It exists in the world in the same way as any other idea does. We include these in our view of reality. The encyclopedia deals with the real world, not just the physical world. It deals with those fictions that exist. It emphasizes their most important aspects. The basis for an article about a fiction is an appropriate summary of the plot. The rest is also important, and our encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction is not complete without the treatment of the external aspects also. Also. DGG (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We can also quote the famous line from Gayatri Spivak - novels are not gossip about imaginary people. Forster's approach to the novel is based most fundamentally on describing its artistic effects on readers. An interesting topic, to be sure - but clearly not Wikipedia's - we are not in the business of recreating the experiences of novels for readers. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Novels are not gossip about imaginary people. Okay. And? Novels are not a lot of things. It's impossible to recreate the experience of reading a novel with a Wikipedia article anyway. Just like it's impossible to give a reader the taste of an orange from the Orange (fruit) article. The map is not the territory. Wikipedia is in the "business" of providing descriptions of a wide array of subjects; it's in the business of teaching, education, answering questions. Who is Gayatri Spivak? What is a novel? What is this story? What is that story? "One describes a tale best by telling the tale. You see? The way one describes a story, to oneself or the world, is by telling the story."

Is Wikipedia in the business of getting a critic's name out there, promoting their name, furthering their career? (and I ask that as an editor who has written the bulk of several "reception" sections[1][2][3]). Neutrality when it comes to reception, analysis, "real-world perspectives", is a myth. You cannot include "real-world perspectives" in an article without introducing bias. You cannot describe it neutrally, it is only possible to show a sampling of perspectives. There is nothing ever "fair" or "neutral" about it. While a recounting of a critic's perspective is required to understand their perspective, their perspective is not required to understand a fictional work. The meaning of a fictional work comes from the person reading/watching/experiencing the work. But what happens in a fictional work is often useful to understanding a critic's perspective. --Pixelface (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You claim: "The basis for an article about a fiction is an appropriate summary of the plot." No, no it's not. The basis is who wrote it and when, who published it and when, what real world impact it had, an so forth and so on. The actual fictional details are mere trivia unless there are reliable academic sources with essays on why it's important. Shakespeare is not Snakes on a Plane or Yogi Bear. If you want plot summaries, by all means avail yourself of the multitudes of wikis, blogs and other resources on the web where such things are more appropriate. DreamGuy (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

However, where disagreement lies, policy should only cover the common ground, or maybe a little bit towards one side. Presenting, as a compromise no less, an extreme form of one view is not going to move things forwards, or ever get accepted as policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The common ground has long been that plot-only articles are unacceptable. And there is a long-standing policy tradition supporting it. The problem is that we have been lax in enforcing that policy. But the suggestion that plot-only articles are acceptable, or that a work of fiction need not be covered primarily from a real-world perspective has a lengthy tradition of policy against it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Um.. see poll? I think there's consensus that a reasonably-developed article should include other things than plot summaries. I don't see "introduction plus plot summary = delete" - a step further than WP:NOT#PLOT - and the other parts of this screed against plot summaries ever flying. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The poll showed consensus support for NOT#PLOT as a matter of principle, and no consensus for putting it in WP:NOT. And this is far from an anti-plot summary screed. Give me a break - you're trying to pin me as a deletionist, which is an absurd charge. You cannot possibly successfully defend the maintenance of plot-only articles with no real-world content, since such articles will, without fail, violate WP:N and WP:WAF, on top of the still-policy NOT#PLOT, which there is not consensus to remove outright. That's a losing horse. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay, it may be fixable, but every single paragraph seems to have an anti-plot summary phrase or sentence in it. It's way too much, and it seriously needs dialed back a lot before I could consider this as a good statement of best practice. We can agree that we usually want plot summaries to be included, I presume. This policy says things that may be accurate, but it beats the reader so hard over the head that it has the effect of giving a strong impression that plot summaries should be deleted, as they're more trouble than they're worth. Furthermore, an introductory sentence can establish notability, thus putting articles with a plot summary and introduction well into a perfectly acceptable category. Wouldn't it be better to just say something like "All articles must establish their notability - articles that do not claim notability may be deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion. As a work of fiction cannot establish its own notability this requires at least some discussion of the work's real-life impact." - I doubt even the staunchest inclusionist would disagree if that was what we said. However, what if the article began, say "Hamlet is one of the most famous plays[cite] by William Shakespeare, considered one of the greatest writers in the English language.[cite]" or "Film is a 1957 work by Cecil de Mille, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture,[cite] and won its star, [Star], an academy award for Best Actress.[cite]" in both cases followed by a plot summary. Clearly, in both cases, notability is established in the introductory sentence, and, while by no means a good article, they should not be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The poll did not show "consensus support for NOT#PLOT as a matter of principle." And regarding your claim "You cannot possibly successfully defend the maintenance of plot-only articles with no real-world content...", it's clearly false.[4] Take Fictional history of Spider-Man, which survived two AFDs[5] [6]. Take Storylines of EastEnders (2000s), which also survived two AFDs[7] [8]. Take Ego the Living Planet, which was SNOW kept. You don't seem to understand WP:N either. An article that does not cite coverage is not necessarily about a non-notable topic. And if Wikipedia already has WP:WAF (which I question), isn't this proposal redundant to that? And WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus to be policy, not when it was proposed[9] and not now[10]. Wikipedia has over 1,000,000 articles under Category:Fiction. If you're not describing common practice, this proposal will fail, just like your previous bold move of a userspace essay to mainspace. --Pixelface (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. You're telling readers what the fictional work is about. The date of publication is, the publisher, even the author's name if you accept The Death of the Author — that is the "mere trivia." The play Hamlet is not Snakes on a Plane, and the character Hamlet is not Yogi Bear, but they are all fictional. If someone asks what is any of those, you must give a summary of a story at some point. How many featured articles related to fiction have you edited? How many have you seen? Ever see a plot summary in any of them? Plot summaries are in all of them. If you think encyclopedias don't contain plot summaries, I suggest you read one for once in your life. Your militant ignorance is not admirable. --Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore:

• "Elements of a work of fiction that lack substantial real-world perspectives but are important to understanding the work can be merged into list articles." - nonsensical; would seperate off key information for understanding a topic into another article.
• "All aspects of an article on fiction must work to establish real-world importance, or to provide appropriate context for understanding real-world importance. Those that do not should be removed." is contrary to most guidelines. For instance, musical theatre articles generally contain a list of musical numbers. Under this incredibly misguided policy, these and other types of useful information would be deleted.
• "Since we are primarily interested in fiction as a cultural artifact, the plot of the work of fiction is not our primary concern." - WP:WAF says that we should cover both aspects.
• "This summary should be as brief as possible while still providing the necessary context to understand the cultural impact of the work." - Nonsense. No featured article was ever written with a plot summary that didn't attempt to accurately describe the plot, not just those elements important to real world impact.
• "Indeed, within literary studies, it is a mainstream view that the author's intent does not matter at all." - Cherry picking: It's a view, but I believe a minority one.
• "Remarks on things such as allusions to other texts, clear commentaries on real-world situations... can be based on the primary source..." - even given the half-arsed qualification, an allusion, by definition, is an indirect reference. This is an encouragement to original research.

On the whole, this barely reaches the level of an appallingly bad essay, to suggest that people who actually know what they're doing should be bound by this as policy boggles the mind. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that list articles of minor characters and the like are not an appropriate solution?

If that's wha's intended, thatr's fine. But it says things unrelated to real-world impact. A list of musical numbers, and many other such things which are basic information, are arguably such. At the very least, it's incredibly unclear. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am open to proposed wording that would loosen this to deal with this sort of standard material.

• Since this is a proposed policy, Id suggest that the parts with more exceptions be placed into a guideline instead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not married to policy over guideline. I think one page is more important than whether it is policy or guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• We should cover plot, but it is not our primary concern.

• This policy gives a strong impression it's anti-plot. Does it really need to talk about real-world focus and plot syummaries being bad every single paragraph? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Are there paragraphs that it is not a relevant point to? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Based on the vast majority of fiction articles I've read, sadly, yes, it does. Keep in mind that this policy is not really designed for the use of FA-writing fiction editors - it should not get in their way, and if you see anything that would get in your way, by all means, flag it. But the policy is more a cudgel for writers of articles like Byron (Babylon 5) - a lengthy plot summary article written despite the fact that *tons* of out of universe information exists for almost every aspect of Babylon 5. And in the face of so many articles of that quality, yes - I think that reminder is, in fact, necessary. Though if there are paragraphs where it seems redundant, by all means, point them out. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• This can be rephrased.
• You are wrong. At the very least, the view is clearly mainstream - and the fully opposing view - that the author's intent is in some way sancrosanct - is at this point fairly fringe. In practice most critics will split the difference, acknowledging authorial intent as important, but not as sacrosanct. This is the view that this proposal also advocates.

• The full opposing view is fringe, but that doesn't mean that discussions of the author's intent aren't present. Like many things, actual practice is somewhere in the middle, which would also fit in better with NPOV: We could say that we should include the author's stated intent, but also discuss notable criticism, even where it conflicts. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• The current language explicitly says "In the larger cultural context, the author's viewpoint is clearly a major view, but it is not the only one nor the authoritative one." I can add another sentence stressing that the author's view must be included if you think it needed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Indirect does not necessarily mean exceedingly subtle. If you sincerely believe that a secondary source is necessary, for instance, to catch the fact that Khan alludes several times to Moby Dick in The Wrath of Khan, you are just being pedantic. If everybody familiar with X and Y looks at X and agrees "Indeed, X is an allusion to Y," we do not need a secondary source to point it out, as it falls cleanly under the heading of "descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person."

• But that doesn't mean that we should put it in policy. That sort of thing is better left unstatte, to avoid encouraging excesses. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the problem is that there are people who want to forbid even the reasonable, despite the fact that policy clearly allows it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Beyond all of this, you are being ridiculously hostile and assuming of bad faith in a way that is frankly embarrassing. In what way does, to pick one of your featured articles, Trial by Jury violate this proposal? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I've re-phrased the plot section to clarify that the summary is still expected to be complete. My assumption is that your objection to the list section was that it appeared to encourage not covering these subjects in the main article at all? I've added that they should only be spun off if there is a reason not have them in the main article. I've also taken a stab at rephrasing your second issue. In all cases, you're picking on infelicities of wording and coming to the conclusion that I am a blithering idiot or an anti-fiction psychopath based on them, instead of simply assuming that I am in fact a reasonable human being who, in trying to craft a policy that covers over a million articles, did not always hone every phrase perfectly. With all due respect, chill the fuck out and assume some good faith. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was a bit hostile - it's just that it has so many problems, and harps on the plot summary thing so much that it rather seemed like, in order to deal with WP:NOT#PLOT being criticised, the solution was to make much stronger phrasings, to the point of putting any person working on fiction in shackles. I'd find it very hard to work under this as currently written, it may be that we can fix this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to my mind these are not so much stronger phrasings as more complete phrasings. But if you think a hedge in the opposite direction is needed, I am amenable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think a lot of this is really a disagreement in principle, because in substance everyone (DGG, Phil, Shoemaker) are much closer. The current proposal says that fiction must be written about in a real-world way, and that's the main concern. The other side disagrees: the part of fiction that people are concerned with is mainly the plot the element's important within the work. This argument obscures an area where everyone more-or-less agrees: writing about fiction in a real-world way is an important and necessary part of the article, whether this is the main goal or only one of many goals.
• Perhaps if people can't agree that "the main goal is real-world coverage" and "plot summaries aren't the main goal", then people might be able to compromise that "real-world coverage is a necessary goal" and "plot summaries cannot be the only goal". Randomran (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly accept that; they complement each other, and the exact proportions will depend on the particular subject at hand. I can think of a great number of works where more than a very brief sketch of the plot would be worthless (or, in some cases, such as early TV that has not survived, even impossible). I can think of others which would merit extensive treatment with extensive available secondary sourcing. What I cannot think of is many here that do not need considerable improvement. I share the view also that Phil and I would not actually be that far apart on practical cases. DGG (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise, I just think we need to be careful, because it's perfectly reasonable, early in an article's development from start to FA, for the article to pass through a phase where a plot summary gets added to a stub, say. If we say this is an undesirable state for it to remain in, that's perfectly fine. If we say that such articles should be deleted on sight, or have the plot summary removed or shortened, then we may well be removing good work that will have to be recreated when the article gets more real-world coverage. Certainly, we should set some hard-and-fast rules about excessive plot summaries, but if the plot summary develops a little faster than other aspects of the article, I don't see that, in itself, as a problem. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday. (Surprisingly?) The principle for deleting or merging a plot element back into an article shouldn't be the article's current state, but its overall potential. We shouldn't do a merge or delete until someone has actually done the legwork and concluded that no significant real-world information is available. Let's not make this an excuse to stamp out every stub. Randomran (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems a good-faith proposal by Phil

re this version

I've given this a first read and have made a few minor tweaks. While I have a few concerns, I do feel that this is something I can largely support. Of course, if it gets hauled-off in some other direction, I'm outta here. I will give it another read and see where this all goes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As expected, this puppy was just butchered. Jack Merridew 15:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll see - I want to be cautious about those changes, and make sure nothing major gets taken out. I hope you'll stay involved in the discussion - if you, me, and Shoemaker can all agree on wording, we're probably on very solid ground. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to review the diff I cited above that you've reverted (and ya, I was tempted). I characterized it as I did because I saw it as rather more than bold given the dialogue above this section. I had not seen the section below; I opened this section for editing directly with the popup gadget. Please remember, I'm 12 hours ahead of you; I then went to bed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

While I have no doubt about the good faith here, the entire idea that somehow fiction, as fiction, is unencyclopedic and not worthy of coverage is not reasonable or acceptable. Any article on a topic which basically says "don't cover the topic any more than needed to touch on the things surrounding it" is bogus. And yes, fiction, at its core, consists of characters interacting with others and their environment. If we can meet WP:N with our coverage of plot (that is, others have covered it) we should be free to write articles on it. To set a higher bar is foolish at best. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that notable fiction is not worthy of coverage; who's saying that? It's that coverage should be out-of-universe; a bit of plot summary to give context to the unfamiliar reader is appropriate, prattling-on in an in-universe manner is not. The core problem here is that too many editors of articles concerning fictional subjects have poor notions of how they should be covered. That's the bar that's being raised. Jack Merridew 06:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Prattling-on" in an in-universe manner is exactly what fiction is. By definition pretty much. To say that we shouldn't cover that as the topic of prime importance is like saying we should cover science by talking about how it impacts our day-to-day lives rather than by what it is. "Literary type using invented or imaginative writing, instead of real facts, usually written as prose." "The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline." Hobit (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've done some rewrites: a little bit was removed, but most of it was just focus issues. I think all the basic stuff is still there, though I de-emphasised list articles, discussing them in the context of types of information they're especially suitable to, since it's very hard to talk about them in a really general way without implying that things that should be in articles shouldn't be.

Feel free to point out or challenge any of my changes, and I'll try and explain my reasoning, and we'll see if we can compromise.

One thing we should probably consider before putting this to a vote is whether any of this should be in WP:WAF instead of a new policy: Policy is meant to be those things where exceptions are very rare, a few of these might be better handled at the guideline instead. Basically, discussion of best practice should go in a guideline, policy should handle the minimum we expect of our editors, which needs to encompass both a newbie making a new article and the Babylon 5 problem.

What do you think of this?

"Spin-off articles specifically dealing with the plot of a work may be occasionally useful as a subsidiary article to the main coverage of the work. Such articles should begin with a brief discussion of the work as a whole, and should generally include some (reliably sourced) discussion of the plot, covering any notable criticism or analysis, or discussing source material or inspirations."

I added that to WP:WAF a while ago, but it was reverted by someone who didn't want any changes while the NOT debate was ongoing. Expand that a little, and I think it'd be good policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to look carefully through your changes, but as Jack immediately objected, I'd like to take it slow on them if that's all right. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so long as they all do get discussed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the whole of the rewrite but the very first changed line, "Articles should include reasonably brief plot summaries to provide context, but notability must be established", causes me concern because there's a fair number of people who start frothing at the mouth at mention of notability, and undermines the principle we're trying to achieve, which is an emphasis on real-world information. Nifboy (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that if we can do this without mentioning the word "notability", then we're better off. Talk about independent sources, or talk about verifying the topic's importance from a neutral source. But don't talk about notability. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, just so long as it doesn't say that an article with an introduction that clearly shows it is notable. (e.g. [Film] is an 1947 film by [Director] that won the Academy Award for Best Picture.) should be immediately deleted. That's just bad. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK - I think I see one of the big things that needs fixing. Would you be satisfied if the "kill with a stick" aspects of the "no pure plot summary" bits of the proposal were expressly limited to elements of a larger fictional work as opposed to works of fiction themselves? Jack - does that suit you? Are you OK with overall works of fiction that establish notability being kept even if they're plot-only? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the wording, but probably could live with this. Basically, I don't think I, or anyone else, thinks that plot-summary-only and brief introduction makes for a good article, but it is one that many articles may reasonably pass through during their development, since it's very hard to make all the real-world discussion we want our articles to have make sense without a clear description of what's being discussed. Indeed, I'd say that an article that consisted solely of reviews and discussion of the impact without explaining what the work was about would be *worse* than the plot-summary-and-brief-introduction option: Real world impact is important to understanding the work, but only if what the work is is already known. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

An inarguably notable topic of the the (film), (director), (award) form; i.e. that's the lede followed by a few pages of plot summary and nothing more should not be deleted. Appropriate actions there would be tag the page for issues, stub the plot summary to a paragraph, and appropriate expansion as a proper article. If somehow sources are lacking, a merge/redirect could be appropriate until such time as the source emerge. As said above, the core issue is the tone of coverage; i.e. from a real-world perspective, not an in-universe one. For those who want the latter, there's Wikia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - so I'll clarify that distinction - that works of fiction that establish notability should not be deleted for just being plot, but that subtopics of a work of fiction that are just plot should be deleted or merged. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

how I feel this should proceed

No radical shifts, ok? Let Phil take the lead in actually updating the page. On many of these sort of pages, the damn target moves radically everyday; there's no keeping track of what one is commenting on and prior comments make no sense since someone has edited aggressively in the meantime. This was what I referred to as 'butchering'. And Phil, nothing too abrupt from you either, please?

I'm seeing this as a possible target of the WP:NOT#PLOT debate; there's no consensus to not have that as policy, just a possibility of moving it. Thus this should become policy before it is moved from NOT; booting it from there and then having a hoard gang-bang this into a llama is not going to fly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to WP:OWN the page, but yes - I'd certainly prefer to move incrementally through the issues.

Yeah, another vote for incrementalism. Regardless of how I feel about this proposal, it will be hard to build a consensus if we're making lots of bold changes. Let's pin down an issue at a time, and deal with it. Randomran (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

An example

I think this might be useful - I've chosen a couple things I've worked on, and adapted it into a short mini-article.

Creatures of Impulse (abridged form)

Creatures of Impulse is a stage play by English dramatist W. S. Gilbert, with music by composer-conductor Alberto Randegger, which Gilbert adapted from his own short story. Reviews for the play were generally favourable, but it was criticised for its loose structure and lack of a substantial plot. Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle opined: "Amusing, simple, and ingenious, 'Creatures of Impulse' is another, though a slight, addition to the successes of its author". The London Echo compared the piece to a "burletta of the stamp that was in vogue a hundred years ago, resembling Midas, perhaps, more nearly than that of any modern burlesque", and wrote that it "contains pretty music, and smart if not witty dialogue, a semi-moral and a semi-plot". The Graphic concluded that "Although it occupies only an hour in performance, the story is well told and the piece is exceedingly amusing" and praised the acting. Righton received special praise for his portrayal of Boomblehardt: "No character on stage perhaps ever made audiences laugh more in so short a time". In an 1882 assessment of the piece for amateur theatre societies, M. E. James noted that "The singing is a great addition. It is altogether an amusing bit of nonsense, and very original".

The Times review was less positive than most, saying that although the play was good, more was expected of Gilbert: {{bquote|As noblesse oblige, so does great success become liable to a certain penalty. Had the little piece we have just described been the work of some unknown hand we might have accepted it as an agreeable trifle, displaying more than common ingenuity in its invention, and, with the aid of picturesque costumes, lively setting, and a pretty decoration, gracefully concluding the evening's entertainment, although overweighted with a quantity of extremely undramatic music. But with the remembrance of The Palace of Truth fresh in our minds, we cannot help a feeling of disappointment when we find the author of that really poetical work coming forward as the writer of another "fairy tale," so immeasurably inferior."

That no one marries at the end of the play was a daring innovation for Victorian theatre, and the reviewer from Era mentioned his surprise at this.

Discussion

I think we can agree that, while this is an excellent, if somewhat quote-laden, description of the real-world impact,the lack of details about the work mean that it's hard to relate to the reviews, and, on the whole, it's eminently forgettable. We can glean some useful information from this - partially because I haven't removed all traces of plot from the reviews, but, that said, I think if this sort of article was common, we'd probably be discussing "Wikipedia is not a collection of reviews" right now, and emphasising the importance of describing the fictional work.

And that's what I think we ought to do: Strike a balance. Let's make it clear that, in general, an article should contain both information about the work, and information about its real-world reception (with, perhaps a few obvious exceptions where one is more important than the other) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a strawman to me. How's that work for something like Duke Nukem Forever, where you can't talk about the content of the work because it doesn't exist? Nifboy (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See "obvious exceptions". In any case, I hardly think it a straw man to use an actual article section from an FA to make a point. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we disagree as to the relative importance of plot and not-plot. To me, the plot is there as a foundation to make the not-plot make sense, and your example shows that rather spectacularly. I still don't think they're of equal importance, though. Nifboy (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to better stress that plot is an essential part of fiction articles. But on the other hand - and perhaps this should go in, in as many words - it is a far bigger problem to have no real-world information than it is to have no plot. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, certainly, no real world information wouldn't establish notability; but as we discussed above, I think that that's all we should say as a hard standard.

How about a compromise: Noone disagrees that an article, to be considered a decent article, needs to discuss real-world context in some depth. But not being a decent article, and being an article that should not be on wikipedia aren't the same thing: There's a grey area where the article may be a stub, may not be very good yet, but it still shouldn't be deleted.

A good solution would be to first talk about what an article absolutely must have, in order to remain an independent article. We can then have a section discussing what Wikipedia wants articles to have. This provides guidance and direction, but allows articles a little leeway in early sections of development.

All of us are broadly in agreement about best practice. I wouldn't consider an FA-push without discussing criticism, history, notable milestones in the author's development marked by this work, background, influences, reception, etc, in addition to the basic facts about the work. The only point upon which we differ is that I think we need to be a bit more careful, lest we kill off articles in an early stage of development. By setting reasonable minimum standards, followed by best practice, we deal with my objection, without compromising on quality in the slightly longer run. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually we have had for a while cases of the type of articles mentioned, Shoemaker's Holiday has described in WP:ANIME brought up before, ie where someone would create articles based on manga volume's verifiable info on title and chapters titles and 1-2 reliable sourced reviews and/or scores for notability without even mentioning the plot at all. Sometimes someone would later come and fill that part out, but not always unless it was pointed out. I'm not saying that starting an article like that isn't fine, but it certainly isn't what we want for a quality article. Therefore stressing that no plot is just as bad as no real-world information is the best way to do this. It should probably be added to the nutshell as well.じんない 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But no plot isn't just as bad. One is deletable, and the other isn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's move away from the unrealistic "No real-world information" - I've never seen an article that didn't have at least a couple sentences before the plot summary, so that's what we should consider. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's go with "no information discussing real-world impact." Which is far more common. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have, and sadly...i couldn't edit them because I didn't know what it was about.じんない 22:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy serialized works

The section on Lengthy serialized works says:

For example, a season of an American television show will run for almost 16.5 hours. Even considering the differences between media, this often involves a plot more complex than most novels.

and I don't see this as being the case. Maybe I just don't read enough novels with simplistic plots. Just last night I finished Divisadero (novel) — a novel with an extremely complex plot and whose article here does not do it the slightest justice. Even well written television shows have nowhere near the complexity of many written works simply because they have fewer words, even considering a show's entire season. There is simply more content in a printed work (which is likely why television is so popular;). So, it seems to me that the above excerpt from this page could be seen as setting the stage for an invalid argument that television warrants more coverage due to an assumption that there is more complexity inherent in a show's season when, in fact, that is not the case. And, of course, the same would apply to popular printed works with simplistic plots. To twist an old chestnut, popularity is not equal to complexity; simplicity being a route to popularity would be closer to the mark. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to agree with the straight aesthetic judgment there, but it's beside the point. Complex may be the wrong word - I will agree. Certainly TV rarely elevates itself to the level of some of the great novelists in terms of literary merit. But on the other hand, at least in an Aristotelean sense of a plot as a series of events, I am hard pressed to think of many books I have read that have more happen in them than happens in a season of Babylon 5. And I am equally hard pressed to think of many TV series that even come close to having the rich inner lives and characterizations of a great novel. So it becomes a trade-off.

But I think the statement retains some accuracy. The issue, to my mind, is perhaps less one of complexity and more simply the fact that more happens in a huge serialized work - with no judgment made on the artistic significance of those happenings one way or the other. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Summary of changes 5/10/09

Because there are multiple threads, and I want to make sure people do not miss changes made to the proposal, when I go and make major alterations to parts, I figure I'll post quick summary sections for people. So here's what I did today.

• Changed the lengthy serialized works section to avoid language that suggested an aesthetic comparison between literary and televisual plots in favor of the flatter observation that more stuff happens in a television series.
• Changed the plot section to distinguish between articles on works of fiction with nothing but plot, and articles on sub-topics of works with nothing but plot.
• Changed the plot section to better stress that plot sections are important.
• Explicitly noted that an article with no plot summary has less of a problem than one with no real-world information.

I think all of these changes enjoyed agreement on the talk page, but if any are problematic, by all means, say so and we can discuss further. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I think the last point is one of those obvious things that sounds harsh when you say it out loud. I think it would probably enrage a lot of fiction enthusiasts who say "what? how could you say that no plot is less of an issue? that's the most important part for me!" If you look above at DGG's latest comment, it would be easier to get people to buy into the idea that plot and real-world context are both necessary, without saying which one is a bigger problem. The absence of a plot summary is a problem, but it's almost always easy to fix. An article that only covers the reception of a character would be easily fixable by summarizing a few parts of the primary souce, so this would virtually never be a reason to get rid of the article. (I say that while channeling my inner inclusionst.) Randomran (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• • "Explicitly noted that an article with no plot summary has less of a problem than one with no real-world information." I don't think we should say this explicitly. Certainly, it's true with the hard "no"s, but if it becomes "An article with a plot summary and very little real world information, I'd say that's usually better, at least for the readers, than an article with no plot summary, since the work itself fails to be described in the latter case. (with obvious exceptions: The Happy Land, for instance, has so many interesting real world aspects that it could easily work without a plot summary. Les Miserables, where most of the criticial discussion is on the plot and the philosophical issues it raises and discusses, would suffer much more. (and, indeed, that article is a good example of a plot-dominant article. It certainly needs more discussion, but most of the discussion is likely to be based on sourced literary analysis.)) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough to both of you - I'll go remove it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Main principles

Fiction must be written about as a cultural artifact in the real world, not in terms of the fictional world.

Fairly standard. Only thing that might cause problems is if someone might mistake this as saying the fictional world should not be described. Could be improved with a minor clarification, pointing out that analysis of the work counts as real world perspective. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles should include brief plot summaries to provide context, but these should not be the main point of the article.

I think that, in some cases, the plot is the most important element. Les Miserables, when it's more developed, will surely spend a lot of time with sourced literary analysis of the themes of the work.

Likewise, "brief" is a little bit of a questionable word here: 99% of plot summaries of opera I've had to work with were too short to give the appropriate context, not too long (this may vary in other fields)

How about "Articles should include plot summaries to provide context. Articles should also provide analysis, whether from reliably sourced literary criticism of the plot, influences, or important aspects of its real-world impact."

I think emphasizing that plot summaries should be as short as possible while still getting the job done. What about "succinct," the wording used at NOT#PLOT if I recall? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would help to clarify what we mean by brief, even if we end up with a gray area. Just say "people generally agree that concise means something less than ... but still more than ..." Randomran (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It really can vary a lot by the work, though. For some, a couple sentences might be ample, while others can require a page, whether through complexity or simply because the analysis in the other sections is sufficiently in-depth to require a lot of details to be put into the plot's context. "Succinct" might work, though I tend to prefer something like "not excessively long or detailed", that puts emphasis on avoiding unnecessary length, not on trying to make it as short as possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

An example may help. This was a long-standing plot sumamry in Stiffelio.

“ Stiffelio, a protestant minister, is the head of a sect and renowned for his goodness, faith and religious speaking. He is married to Lina, daughter of Count Stankar. During a long absence, Rafaello di Leuthold cynically pays court to her and there is an adulterous union. Stankar, hearing of the circumstances, tries to hide the fact from Stiffelio. He also sets out to avenge the dishonour to his family by forcing a violent confrontation with the adulterer. Lina, with all her weakness, loves her husband still, but he, a man of blameless life, is intensely jealous and cannot forgive her. A sense of guilt and terror is developed in the graveyard scene and in the third act. There is a bloody duel, and in the final church scene Stiffelio forgives his repentant wife in front of the assembled congregation. ”

This has now, thankfully, been expanded into a reasonably detailed, one-page summary, which is a standard length for the major operas: As they're usually performed in a foreign language, plot summaries are considered very important information, and something which most readers of said articles are looking for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable saying "a concise plot summary should be more than a TV Guide teaser and an explanation of the ending." But I'd be just as concerned about plot summaries getting too crufty. Let me offer a counter-example from an old version of this merged article:

“ Big was sleeping in his hut one night, when he woke up and saw that his friend, Froggy, had swallowed his lucky charm; the yellow Chaos Emerald. As soon as he noticed that Froggy had grown a tail, Froggy ran off, causing Big to chase after him. After trying to catch him in Twinkle Park, and then in Ice Cap, Big was able to catch Froggy on Emerald Coast, but Dr. Eggman's robot, E-102 Gamma caught him and ran away. Seeing that, Big tried to convince the robot to give him Froggy back, but without any positive results. Big chased Gamma to Eggman's Final Egg base, where he boarded the Egg Carrier. After finding Froggy on the flying fortress, he fished him in one of the many water tanks on the Hot Shelter. He was then teleported by Tikal into the past for a while, so she could pass him a message, just like she did to the other characters, about Chaos 4. When he got back to the present, he tried to get out of the Egg Carrier, but was caught by Dr. Eggman and Chaos 4, which then evolved to Chaos 6 when he absorbed Froggy (whose tail and Chaos Emerald had disappeared). Just then, Sonic appeared to the rescue. After defeating the God of Destruction, Big found the Tornado 2 biplane and decided to fly home with it, crash landing the plane right next to his house. Later, when Perfect Chaos destroyed the city of Station Square Big gave one of the seven Chaos Emeralds to Sonic in order to let him transform into Super Sonic. ”

We're talking about a simple video game, with a detailed scene-by-scene description of a cartoon character's fetch quest. I'm not saying that as someone who hates cartoons, quite the contrary. Just that their plots are generally quite simple, and this is needlessly detailed for a summary. And at the risk of sounding elitist, I'm actually a little irked that an entire Verdi opera had a shorter plot summary than one appearance by a video game cartoon. Again, that's not because I think one has more merit, but because I think one just requires more detail to cover it properly. I think it might be helpful to focus on the kinds of details that are (in)appropriate, rather than trying to give an absolute number of sentences. The video game example I gave obviously goes into too much detail, while the example you gave is much too cautious with the detail it avoids. Randomran (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not "Plot summaries should not be a blow-by-blow account, but should inform the reader of all major and necessary elements fundamental to the work. This should be made as succinct as possible, but not to the point that it leaves important information out."じんない 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems excellent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel pretty good about that too. My favorite part is when we rule out blow-by-blow accounts, which I think would deal with the bad article I pointed out above. But to deal with Shoemaker's Holiday's example, it might help to specifically rule out what he pointed to. I'm just not sure how to phrase that. "Not merely a two sentence teaser, with a spoiler for the ending?" Randomran (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel obliged to point out WP:PLOTSUM, which I got to guideline status a while ago, and which contains the explicated version of all of this. Touting it would probably be good. I'll go work out some language on the proposal though. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh you did did you? It appears that you marked it a guideline immediately after "rolling it out", that was opposed, then you tagged it again. You certainly got away with something, but I would not say you got it to guideline status. With people marking their own proposals as "guidelines" and with over 250 guidelines on Wikipedia, the term is beginning to lose all meaning. --Pixelface (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles on sub-topics of a larger work of fiction that do not present a substantial real-world perspective on their topic should be merged or deleted.

I'd suggest that this is problematic: The intent is to say that if an article exists that cannot be discussed using sources outside the work itself, then the article should be merged or deleted.

What it actually does is forbid such things as, say, an article on literary criticism of the work, since the analysis is on fictional-world aspects. I'd suggest "Articles on sub-topics of a larger work of fiction that lack sufficient independent sources to give any in-depth discussion should be merged or deleted." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That is, I think, a poor move, because it turns this into a fiction notability guideline, and imports all of the difficulties therein. I said that one point of this was to replace NOT#PLOT. Another point is to try to find an alternate way of cleaning up bad fiction articles beyond the never-ending notability wars. I don't think the current wording precludes literary criticism as a basis for a spin-off article, because the "types of real-world impact" section is there to carefully spell out that artistic impact is a real-world impact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Phil that there are merits to dodging the whole notability issue and just focusing on the kind of coverage. IMO, some amount of literary criticism and analysis would be a form of real-world impact. If someone were to talk about Spock and Kirk's relationship as some sort of symbol of creativity versus logic, I think that would make stand-alone articles on their characters appropriate, even in the absence of praise. Randomran (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point: Maybe we just need to clarify "real-world perspective" would replacing it with something like ...that do not include analysis, discussion, criticism, history, or other such discussion of the impact of the work..." be acceptable? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how analysis is not real-world perspective, although the wording is a bit misleading. It should be more that articles that have no commentary from or importance to the real-world. Commentary would be analysis and reviews. Importance would be impact on society, use in other media through cameos, homages, parodies, etc. Probably a lot more i'm missing. But possibly defining perspective might be another route.じんない 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say "wait until it's abused" here. Nobody, I don't think, has seriously suggested that analysis and criticism is not a real-world perspective, and the proposal, taken as a whole, clearly indicates that it is a real-world perspective at other points. I think clarifying it here bogs down the flow. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you know I love flow, and conciseness. But if it comes at the expense of clarity -- especially the kind of clarity that would ease people's worries about an inclusionist or deletionist conspiracy -- then it's bad. There's gotta be a short way to put it that will ease Shoemaker's concerns. How about:

• "An article on a sub-topic within a work of fiction should contain a substantial explanation or analysis of its real-world value, or else it should be merged or deleted."

I'm not sure if that really improves anything though. Randomran (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the concern correctly, it's that literary analysis and critique is not clearly real-world perspective - so your phrasing probably worsens it. The issue is that the nature of "real world perspective" requires an entire section to explicate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. Analysis of the work is, in a sense, still an explanation of the value of the work to the real world. But it's one of those things that's hard to explain. I'm out of ideas on this one, except what you've already done: explain that in the main text. Randomran (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Elements of a work of fiction that lack substantial real-world perspectives but are important to understanding the work can be merged into list articles.

As above, the intent is good, but there are important things we want in our articles like lists of musical numbers and so on that shouldnt' be removed to list articles.

Suggest: "Sub-articles on a work of fiction that lack substantial real-world perspectives or analysis but are important to understanding the work (such as discussion of minor characters in a long-running series) can be merged into list articles."

I think this is covered adequately by the actual section on lists, and does not need the example in the bulletpoint list. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new principle

"In some cases, it may be useful to spin off some element of a work into its own article, to allow it to be discussed in more depth. However, some real-world perspective or analysis from independent sources should be included in all such articles: For instance, an article on the plot of a book should include reliably sources literary criticism and analysis, analysing and discussing the themes and style of the work, and other such things that scholars deem notable about the plot and writing.!

This may be over-wordy, but providing guidance like this would probably kill a lot of controversy straight off the bat. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection, in principle, to some form of that being included. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the principle can be safely rolled into point 2 and/or 3; the parts of the work (plot, characters, narrative, style, etc) that get emphasized in the article(s) are directly proportional to the independent sources' discussion of those parts. I hesitate to use the word "scholarly" because of the differences in media coverage between Shakespeare and Halo. Nifboy (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, we try to avoid the usage of scholarly because of its impact on more modern media which tends to not have that level of scrutiny for most things.じんない 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a minor point. Replace it with "commenters" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to go with the first half of this - I don't think the "for instance" is helpful in bullet points. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

you are moving too fast here. This has been the point of issue for several months now. This would, as Shoemaker's Holiday points out, kill a lot of argument, but it would do it by eliminating a lot of articles. Fiction is notable as fiction; to me, that implies that major items in major fiction are most appropriately covered in major articles, and as long as WP:V is met, there should be no requirement for "real world impact" or any synonym of it, at least with respect to character articles. Since in conjunction with the question on lists, this eliminates even combination articles with subarticles on character, it also cuts down the attempts at compromise. Most people haven't seen this yet, but I think the likelihood of getting consensus is not very high. I am going to make a positive suggestion here which to me represents a considerable and unfortunately necessary compromise that I am only willing to even consider for the sake of getting something settled. : we require it for individual but not combination articles. DGG (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes for 5-12-09

Based on Shoemaker's comments above, I have made two changes.

• A brief version of his proposed new principle is included in the bullet points.
• More language based on WP:PLOTSUM is included in the plot section.

These changes largely fall on the side of pleasing those who are seeking a looser guideline, so I welcome comments from Jack or others to make sure that neither of these are excessively transformative. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Practical examples

How would this proposal apply to the articles within Category:Babylon 5 characters? How would it apply to the articles within Category:Babylon 5 episodes? How would it apply to Spoo? --Pixelface (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Spoo would survive this because of the information supporting the claim that Spoo had real-world impact as a sort of cult fan-favorite concept. Many of the other B5 articles would have a rougher time - Benjamin Kyle, Lennier, and Londo Mollari, for instance, all decisively fail the guideline, which is a real pity, since there's ample sourcing for almost any B5 topic given Straczynski's verbosity. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And Valen? --Pixelface (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me to fail due to a lack of real world impact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So what's the appropriate course of action to take with that article according to this proposal? --Pixelface (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Add real world content, merge to a list, or delete. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Impact

I can accept that fictional works are cultural artifacts. But so are clay pots. Does Wikipedia go on and on about the "real world impact" or "social impact" of pottery? Some fiction certainly has an "impact." But any descriptions of "social impact" will be skewed by the individual writer of that description, and the society they originated from. And they can't speak for their society, they can only speak for themselves.

What are myths? What is folklore? What's a fairy tale? What's a nursery rhyme? What is fiction? Stories. Descriptions. Symbols. Are circles real? Are triangles real? Is the word the real? Those are all symbols too. Does writing about those subjects require "special care"? Does writing about The Treachery of Images require special care? This proposal says elements of fiction are not covered, which is totally opposite of Category:Fictional, which has over 60,000 articles under it.

How does this proposal differ from Phil's "pronged" FICT proposal from November that failed to gain consensus? Prong 1, narrative complexity appears to have been re-styled as Lengthy serialized works, Prong 2, Importance within the fictional work appears to have been re-styled as Elements of fiction, Prong 3, Importance of the fictional work appears to have been re-styled as Fiction as cultural artifact and Types of real world impact, and Prong 4, Availability of real world perspective appears to have been re-styled as Types of real world impact and Real-world information. So what's different? The current proposal uses the word "impact" 15 times (ignoring the table of contents). In January I mentioned that Phil's FICT proposal at that time mentioned coverage several times, just like the FICT proposal from June 2008 that failed to gain consensus. Isn't "impact" and "All of these impacts must be verifiable through reliable secondary sources" just a re-branding of "coverage"? Can we please stop putting fiction proposals in the microwave? --Pixelface (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I see lots of real world impact for pottery, including a history section, an explanation of its development, and several applications. Real-world impact is one of those make-or-break things for every topic. Most of us know you don't think that real-world impact is important for fiction, and repeating it over and over has not been productive or helpful to anyone, including you. Instead, why don't you try proposing a guideline where real-world impact isn't necessary, and see how far it gets? Nobody is stopping you from coming up with a proposal if you honestly believe consensus is on your side. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I can't really think of a topic we cover that doesn't have demonstrated real-world impact. Except for fiction. And, I mean, I just can't see a viable argument that the reason Buffy Summers is important for Wikipedia to cover is because she saved a lot of made-up people from a lot of made-up vampires. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

… and in the Buffyverse, Buffy often slays vampires with stakes made of wood.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has over 2.8 million articles, Phil. Think harder. What's the "real-world impact" of fiction itself? Why should Wikipedia have an article about Buffy Summers? What is Sarah Michelle Gellar known for? Was the cast of Buffy the Vampire Slayer all in your imagination? --Pixelface (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No Randomran, "real world impact" is not "one of those make-or-break things for every topic." And don't say what you know about me because you're completely wrong most of the time. Speaking of articles you've worked on, what's the "real world impact" of Gameplay of Final Fantasy? Look at the articles within Category:Pottery. What's the "real world impact" of Blue and white porcelain? What's the "real world impact" of ash glaze? What's the "real world impact" of fiction itself? What's the "real world impact" of The Inverted Forest? And the word "impact" isn't used even once in WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV.

You're right, I am free to write my own proposal. But there is absolutely no point in writing a proposal that does not actually reflect consensus (like this one). That's why I wrote a survey to find out where consensus lies, just like WP:DR recommends. A survey that I asked Phil about right before he created his failed FICT proposal from November. Phil's already failed once. What makes this attempt different?

I'm free to point out the flaws in this proposal. And you're free to continually misunderstand and mischaracterize what I'm saying. And you're also free (and clearly willing) to ignore all the other questions I asked at the start of this thread, like, how does this proposal differ from the failed FICT proposal from November? Policies are supposed to have wide acceptance among editors and describe consensus. They are not an editor's personal wishlist. They are not decrees. --Pixelface (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Oriental blue and white porcelain was highly prized in Europe and America and sometimes enhanced by fine silver and gold mounts, it was collected by kings and princes." The other two do not adequately establish context or significance. Ash Glaze is probably an A7 at present. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A7 does not apply to articles about pottery, nor to articles about books. It is specifically limited to articles about people, orgianizations and web sites. A7 Specifically says "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on." I have seen several comments on this page that suggest that articels about fiction that do not claim notability are subject to speedy deltion. This is simply incorrect under curent policy. 70.106.108.146 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes for 5-13-09

Three for today.

• "Social impact" has been renamed "direct impact," as it seems to me that social and cultural are likely to be confused.
• The initial requirement for real-world impact explicitly alludes to the three types of impact in the subsequent section.
• Artistic impact has been fleshed out slightly to explicitly include scholarly analysis.

I do not think any of these make any changes to the policy's meaning. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A few more points...

Took a fresh look at it after several days and came up with some comments:

First, in the main point we seem to be drumming it too loudly that plot is not really wanted in the article; that its rather let in only because it's being forced to be in.

Articles should include concise plot summaries to provide context, but these should not be the only point of the article.

- here we beat it in by already giving context that it needs to be concise and articles aren't all that when we later on also add points about what else needs to be in, like it's really not wanted. IE, we are essentially slamming it for being the only thing and then slamming it if it gets to long. Then slamming it again by saying other stuff needs to be in. The totality of the main points is really anti-plot.

Yes, it is. This is, I think, in the end important - we have real problems with plot creep. We have few problems with lack of plot. Policy is written for the problems we have. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We write policy to condify consensus. It also seems very much to act against the spirit of WP:BITE because most of those long plotlines come from newcomers.じんない 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of problems — an ever-expanding maze of rulecreep; bossy, authoritarian, power-tripping, micro-managing editors; a cult-like and often hostile atmosphere populated on average by 26-year-old males; obsessive, anal retentive volunteers; scores of unsourced articles under Category:Medicine; vandalism to BLPs, etc — but "plot creep" is a relatively insignificant problem, if it can be called a problem. And policy is written to document consensus, not manufacture it. How is this proposal going to fix any problems? How can this proposal fix Fictional history of Spider-Man when most editors apparently don't even deem the article a problem? [11] [12] --Pixelface (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a wide swath of editors *do* believe there is a problem with that article, but that there is not agreement that deletion is the appropriate solution to that problem. This policy empowers those editors to merge the fictional history into a briefer section of Spider-Man until such a time as the fictional history is written from a real world perspective and has content worth spinning out. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Articles on sub-topics of a larger work of fiction that do not present a substantial real-world perspective on their topic should be merged or deleted.
• In some cases, it may be useful to spin off some element of a work into its own article, to allow it to be discussed in more depth. However, some real-world perspective or analysis from independent sources must be included in all such articles.

Here we have 2 conflicting statements at the very top. If it doesn't lack substantial real-world coverage it'll be merged or deleted. Yet 2 points below we say that there needs to be only some. There is a difference between a little and a lot.

You're right. I will change the first to significant, which, I think, captures the "not just trivia" aspect of it rather than emphasizing length unduly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate context, it should be noted, includes basic factual details of a work of fiction — major actors in a film or television series, runtime for a film, number of episodes for a television series, systems that video games were released for, etc. For specific guidelines on what basic facts should be included for a given fictional subject, consult the appropriate WikiProject.

The notation here does not really explain much about key elements of a plot such as setting, main events, etc. It lists more of the stuff you would find on the liner notes.

True - that is because this footnote is about stuff you would find on the liner notes. Setting, main events, etc are dealt with elsewhere.

Could you clarrify that it is on liner notes then because the phasing now would contradict factual information such as quotes of passages. Quoting what a character says in a book is factual if the quote is accurate after all.じんない 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Types of real world impact - I think that this may remove unintentionally 95% of the articles out there that only have reviews on them, reviews by journalists or experts, not scholars. There are also other real-world impacts a lot of articles use not really covered under any here, such as mechanizing and advertising. It is direct impact, but not the kind you describe at all.

I did not mean to have the language sound scholar-only. I'll make a pass on that and try to tighten it. I'm not sure how to address the mechanizing/advertising issue. Say more? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the only way to address merchandising/advertising issue is to direct it head on.じんない 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

An article that is primarily plot summary should not reach good article status. For articles on sub-topics of larger fictional works, if the article has no significant content beyond plot summary, it should be deleted or merged back into a more general article on the work of fiction.

I would reword to "A non-list article" because most list articles are plot and yet we have many that are good status and a few even feature.

I believe, however, that we have a separate good/featured process for lists, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. List of episodes or chapters, yes. List of characters, no.じんない 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Authorial intent and NPOV - we should also make certain that this isn't a license to exclude the author. Right now we have a disclaimer saying more than their view is needed, but also don't say their view is relevant.

Fixed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As with any article on Wikipedia, articles on fiction should make extensive use of secondary sources.

Should rewrite to emphasize that it'll mostly be in real-world impact, like As with any article on Wikipedia, articles on fiction should make use of secondary sources, especially where it related to impact, analysis and commentary.

Good call. Fixed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with these works, which often remain in the public eye and actively talked about for a longer time than individual novels or films, requires special treatment. Due to our policies on excessive article size, it is often impossible to cover all the significant aspects of these works in a single article. This is not, however, an automatic license to create spin-off articles.

- its a guideline, not a policy.

Good call. Fixed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

List articles - should probably strengthen it to clarrify that they need to show real-world impact for the items listed, but can do so through more general terms. じんない 00:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a significant change - in general there's been a rough support for a compromise that lists get a lower standard. I'm not sure requiring list elements to show real-world impact has consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Except characters. See above why.じんない 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, the featured lists process excludes lists of characters? What? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists

Yes. It has something to do with the amount of prose or something. Talked about here and somewhat here - It's important to note the one character FL character list was delisted and any revamp would put it more into line of the 2 FAs. For the scope of WP:VG it only has 2 FA character list articles and WP:ANIME has only 1 so if anything it appears the reverse is true; character lists may be held to a tighter standard (or people aren't adding in real-world context), or both.じんない 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Argh. I am going to ignore that problem and hope it goes away without anyone else bugging me about it, and fix it only if I have to. List policy seems like a black hole for this proposal to fall down. Suffice it to say that list articles are tolerated. Other people can deal with the implications of that empirical fact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

True, we do have to revise list policy, to differentiate the lists of notable things, where the information about the thing is in the linked article, from the lists which are really collections of subarticles where the information is right there in the subarticle=item in the list. I have just reverted a change you made on the basis of your argument--see below. The question is fundamentally that of making proper provision for information about characters. For smaller work, they can of course always go in the main article, but this is much more difficult for the typical soap opera. additionally, I think that guideline on splitting articles listed above no longer has consensus. DGG (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration phil, part of (though not entirely) the reason the fict notability guideline failed was it didn't want to touch list articles and at the same time other guidelines about lists were (and still are) attempting to be deleted in light of the this and the notability proposals. I'm afraid in at least one of these 2, and preferable here because it seems more appropriate here, that lists need to be addressed head on because punting it to other groups seems to be failing.じんない 03:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this page's endorsement of grouping minor characters in lists when they don't have enough real-world information is overly ambiguous? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...not really ambiguous, but going against what other content policies demand. A list of characters that does not have significant real-world information on it will be a target for a merge (probably not outright deletion). It will never become a feature article since FLC no longer considers them list, but their "list of characters" as an embedded list as defined by WP:LISTS and FAR demands significant real-world information. While this ins't exactly a proposed policy on how to write fiction articles, it is a proposal on what should be in. The difference from single item article is that while individually each character is limited to very little plot and factual detail (such as their actor), the totality of the prose for fictional character lists will be more centered around plot in most cases.じんない 03:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true, there's a disjunct, and this does set up tension between two policies. I am inclined, still, to see this as a potential future problem rather than a current problem. But I'll look and see if there are was to reconcile the language without any major debates in direction on either side. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt I believe to address this, especially for character lists which fall into the purview of articles, not independent lists, should be done. I think that one easy way is to under under plot make a note that individual elements of notability and/or importance may be discussed in more detail even within an article, especially in articles lists centered around them, such as character lists. You may also, under lists need to distinquish between lists of information such as episodes and chapters and lists with more prose such as characters. You may also want to contact WP:FLC and WP:FAC to get some clarrification on the wording.じんない 06:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes for 5/15/09

• Some small changes - WP:AS is now correctly referred to as a guideline, use of secondary sources is now clarified to say what they should be used for, the list of examples of artistic impact is re-ordered so that "scholarly" does not appear to modify all three terms.
• One of the opening bullet points has been changed from "substantial real-world coverage" to "evidence of real-world impact" to avoid this proposal being used problematically. This should both enable articles that have a good start on real-world coverage to develop, and avoids setting up a sense of a "eat your veggies before you can have dessert" relationship between plot and real-world impact.
• Language has been added explicitly saying that author viewpoints are important.

The second bullet point is probably the major one here - does this change defang the proposal. It is not intended to, but on the other hand, I am concerned about this being used as a "it has a sentence of real-world impact so you can't delete it and I can put in as much cruft as I want." Does the rest of the proposal adequately guard against this? Does it need a section about de-crufting articles? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with them all except the first one. I have reverted that. I do not see agreement that articles of aspects of the work need real-world impact. There might possibly be compromise on "need information about real world aspects". Impact is a very strong word. so was the earlier "substantial". This particular point is actually the crux of the dispute. Phil, the wording you have used makes it generally impossible to have a list of characters as a separate article. DGG (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean aside from the wording explicitly allowing that? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We are always going to have lists of characters; what is a problem is when the lists have been pasted-up from redirected spun-out articles and each character's list-item is comprised of four sections and totals twenty paragraphs and an infobox. I do agree that the depth and granularity of coverage of “aspects” or “elements” of works is a key sticking-point here. The hard truth is that “aspects” of a work that have received little or no significant coverage in reliable sources get relatively little coverage on Wikipedia. This is not specific to fiction; this is the general rule, and fiction does not warrant some special exemption.

Oh, and yes, de-crufting articles should get a mention; that too is concern widely held.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fiction does warrant special treatment exception,because of the importance of much recent fiction about which relatively little is formally written in conventional RSs. Fictional also warrants special treatment because its the only subject where the "real world impact" factor is concerned. This is another way of seeing the crux. Fiction is a special sort of imaginative art, and the elements of the art are important within the art. We analyze musical works in detail without having to show that a particular theme or movement has a RW impact different and independent of the work itself--we do so because it is necessary to the understanding of the work. The fictional world of an important work is per se important. as the core element of the work itself. There can sometimes be fictional works whose notability is because of extra-fictional factors, such as propaganda films, bit normally its the plot and the charafcters which are the important part. They deserve and require emphasis., Any rule which inhibigs this is wrong for the medium concerned. DGG (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I am hard-pressed to think you'll find anything close to consensus for a "special treatment" for fiction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fictional works and fictional elements are not given special treatment on Wikipedia and there is no need to give either "special treatment". Although one thing that is unique regarding fiction is that is written about in the present tense. Phil, you say that "I am hard-pressed to think you'll find anything close to consensus for a "special treatment" for fiction", and yet the introduction of this proposal (which you wrote) reads "Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of factual information, writing about things that are not real requires some special care." You also wrote that dealing with lengthy serialized works "requires special treatment." So are you admitting that this policy proposal (or that section) is unlikely to find "anything close to consensus"?

All this talk about "impact" regarding fiction is unlike how just about every other topic on Wikipedia is treated. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:5P — even WP:N — mention "impact" a total of zero times. The only subject-specific notability guidelines that mention "impact" are WP:PROF and WP:WEB. In WP:PROF, it's in a list of multiple criteria an "academic" can possibly meet in order to be considered notable. In WP:WEB, it repeats text from WP:NOT#INTERNET. WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:NOT#INTERNET mention "impact", but it's certainly not deemed a requirement in those sections. So why here? Why now? Why eight years after Wikipedia was founded? --Pixelface (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring synonyms. NPOV mentions the concept when it clarifies that not all views must be represented - merely all *significant* views. WP:CSD mentions it when it says "An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." The concept that articles need to show that their subject in some way matters is not new. I could readily change "impact" to "significance" in this proposal without changing the meaning of the proposal in the slightest. Would that satisfy you? Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

a few concerns

I've reviewed the changes since last week and this does seem to still be on-track; I do, however, have a few concerns.

• Up-top we have: “Articles on sub-topics of a larger work of fiction that do not present a substantial real-world perspective on their topic should be merged or deleted.” which has had “on sub-topics of a larger work of fiction″ added. This leave the question of whole works that do not present a substantial real-world perspective on their topic; i.e. large in-universe plot summaries and little else. Articles on whole works that persist in this form also need to be dealt with and since, given their “whole work″ aspect, there may often be no appropriate merge target, deletion is appropriate.
• I am still concerned about the “Lengthy serialized works” section. Just what are the “particular issues”? This is, of course, very related to the E&C issue. Many works may be lengthy, but sheer quantity of primary source material can not be the basis of quantity of coverage. The depth of coverage should be in proportion to the depth of significant independent reliable sources. For example, there are lots of grains of sand in the world but we don't cover them individually, we cover them in aggregate: sand, Cancún, for example. The boots-on-the-ground reality is that the serialized works are, by design, popular, and are intended to generate enthusiasm. So the enthusiastic show up on-wiki and often get ahead of the sourcing concepts of this site. It is necessary to draw a line in the sand that mere enthusiasm for a work can not be allowed to over-drive coverage of that work.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the first, I am uncomfortable with an article on an overall work of fiction that has its notability established being deleted for excessive summary. Which is why I narrowed this - I think it would be a hard sell to get people to support deleting an article on a notable subject for this reason, given the presumed ease of clean up. But this may point towards a need for a section on repair of articles.

In regards to the second, I understand the concern, but I'm not sure I'm persuaded by your argument. Yes, there are lots of grains of sand in the world, but they do not seem to me to form an interconnected whole in which the individual pieces contribute distinctly to an overall effect. This distinguishes them from characters in Star Wars. But I agree wholeheartedly that enthusiasm cannot be the driving force in coverage of the work. Which is why I try to walk a middle line in the lengthy serialized works section - yes, we understand that there's an awful lot to write about in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but on the other hand, just because it's in Buffy the Vampire Slayer is not a reason to write about it. I can see a case that the section is somewhat redundant, as it really just acknowledges that issues exist in this area and then reaffirms that the policy applies to them, but I still think it helpful, simply because we are always going to have fans who make the "there's so much to write about" argument, and having something to point them to that says "Yes, there is a lot to write about, but you've still got to write about it this way" is, I think, helpful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

re the first; I was not taking notability for granted and you are. Mebbe that's another page. Anyway, if notability is there, it then a question of cutting excess plot summary and adding other coverage. If notability is unclear, then deletion may be appropriate. While I'm not thinking of any specific examples, I'm sure that there are whole works that the reliable sources have ignored.

re Serialized works; I largely agree with what the section goes on to say about spin-out being a problem and to not get ahead of the sources. I'm wary of phrases such as “special treatment” because I don't see a special case here in the sense that serialized works get a pass that other works do not. If you're trying to highlight that such serialized works have presented Wikipedia with special problems, that needs to be clearer.

The “Elements of fiction” section, point 2: “Serialized works”, goes on to refer to “adequately cover[ing] the whole of the work” and I feel we need to be explicit in stating that we don't cover the whole of the work, we summarize the work and may cover some elements — as determined by the availability of significant independent reliable sources. And just was we're not going to have individual grain of sand articles, we don't need articles on every fictional alien species in the ever expanding Star Wars franchise; we would be better served by a well source article on the development of alien species for the franchise.

Off; dinner is served.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the first, I think someone trying to use the fact that this page only says specifically to delete spin-offs that are plot only as an affirmative defense for an article that fails WP:N is unlikely - but if you think it's really important, I can add language to that effect.

As for the second, I think it's less that the works have presented Wikipedia with problems as that there are legitimate problems with the works. It's not that those works have independently caused a horde of bad editors - it's that there's legitimate challenges to writing about them within the limits of WP:AS.

I'll see if there's a way to rephrase this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am basically not willing to use any language that says to delete spinoff articles, rather than recombine them, nor am i satisfied with any language which implies or says or accepts the statement that material can be cut if the article gets too long--no matter what WP:LONG says--if it interferes with what needs to be done, we should change it--or just say it does not apply here. I ask how to deal with a necessarily very long article on a an work with a complex plot; move the plot to a separate article, or keep the plot in the main article and move everything else somewhere else, or cut down on the treatment of plot. If it permits the third, I do not think there is consensus any more for doing that, . The second will technically meet the proposed rules but seems very artificial. The first is the plain way to go.

Fundamentally, I think we are asking for confusing to use whole notability approach to subarticles. An external source work treating comprehensively with a work of fiction will necessarily describe all the elements and will be able to be used as justification for a separate article for everything which gets a paragraph or so, no matter how minor. A short review of a work of fiction will almost always say something about the plot, and can be seen to justify an article on it. The notability of the elements of the works of fiction are not a mere subsidiary part of the whole, nor are they separate; its a complex relationship of both. If we are talking about their depending on the notability of the whole, it could just as well be said the notability of the work depends on the notability of the plot, or , in some cases, that the notability of the work depends on the notability of one or more of the characters. A character can be notable for being the hero of a novel.

I therefore can not accept and no not think there is consensus of accept the treatment of plot is only for the background of the treatment of the other material. This may be so in some cases , it may be the opposite in others. This is perhaps the basic problem. If some wish to insist it must always be subordinate, we might have no way or reaching compromise I hope this is not the case, and invite compromise language. I recognize some don't want language that will leave loopholes, but it is only by leaving this open that there can be compromise. ( DGG (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to say that, if an article on the plot of a work is spun off, it should include some reliably sourced discussion of or reactions to the plot, and a brief introduction to put the spin-offed article in context. Would that be a reasonable compromise? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that different from what the current proposal says? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly better and more reasonable than "Articles on sub-topics of a larger work of fiction that do not present a substantial real-world perspective on their topic should be merged or deleted." which seems to have gone back to hard-line wording after some work on compromise and improvement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, at least inasmuch as the policy definitely needs language supporting and encouraging efforts to improve articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] Agreed. If we give advice on good practice, then the commentary on bad practice loses all or most of its problematic sting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell

If you are not trying to achieve this, what are you trying to achieve? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This propoal "explains the role of fiction in Wikipedia, and explains appropriate approaches to covering it". How does it differ from this nutshell description? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is primarily about the type of information, rather than the type of source - beyond not violating our existing policies on reliable sources, which this does not, it is largely unconcerned with the particulars of the sources used. It is possible that only independent sources are adequate to this purpose. I suspect that this is not the case. The proposal is agnostic on the subject, an sets it up so that what is judged are the results, rather than the process - that is, if a reliable non-independent source can be found that provides evidence of real-world significance, that is acceptable. This in no way contradicts WP:RS, which has scant mention of independent sources.

It is also possible, of course, that an independent sources requirement is sensible separate from this proposal. I would oppose such a requirement. The proposal, however, is neutral on the matter, and it is in any case irrelevant to the purpose of this proposal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate from that, this proposal makes no effort to declare the inclusion criteria for the subject. It sets up one specific bar to clear. It is not a notability guideline, nor an exhaustive list of the inclusion principles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The proposed nutshell appears to be equivalent to a Notability guideline on fiction. While it's almost certainly worth having one, is that our primary goal here? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the crux of my objection - it is not our primary goal here. This is not a notability guideline, and trying to make it into one would be bad for the proposal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think GC may be unitentially mixing notability with verifiability of basic content inclusion.じんない 04:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that whether this proposal is about "the type of information, rather than the type of source", the issue is the same: what are the inclusion criteria for a topic to meet Wikipedia's content guidelines and therefore provide verifiable evidence that it merits its own standalone article? It seems to me that you can't cover fiction if you don't have any articles about it, and you can't have articles unless you have inclusion criteria. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the project made it for years without a single notability guideline, I think this is empirically untrue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't go back in time and construct exemptions from Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines by saying this is not a notability guideline. This approach has been tried before, but each time the walled garden approach always falls down. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, you're not making any sense. Are you seriously trying to argue that the only possible guideline on fiction is a notability guideline? Where is there a single exemption to existing policy in this entire proposal? You are tilting at windmills here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes for 5-18-09

• "Real World Information" section, which seemed, upon further reading, redundant, was removed, with its paragraph of new insight moved elsewhere.
• Sections were re-ordered.
• A section on what to do with problem articles was added, stressing the importance of improving articles.

These are biggish changes, and I'm sure the new section is going to need tinkering. In particular, Jack - is this too lenient? Is more about de-crufting needed? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the tardy reply, I’ve been focused on other things, largely off-wiki.

The “Articles that do not meet these standards” section is largely reasonable although I feel that the onus of seeking to bring dubious articles up to par needs to fall on those who believe it doable. If a casual look-see does not lead someone to believe in an article’s future, they should not be constrained from other actions. There will certainly be cases where the whole piece amounts to fancruft and where simple redirection is appropriate; this should be said somewhere. In such cases non-fans should not be burdened with much more than finding a reasonable target. In all cases of a heavy trim en-route, it has to be understood that someone not familiar with the work will not have a good feel for what’s worth keeping. In the case of a redirect, the old content is there and fans can go mine it. What we need to see, and encourage, is responsible merging by fans; a sorting of the significant from the trivial as opposed to pasting whole pages into merge targets or simply undoing redirects. I couldn’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen redirects undone months later by an anon with no improvement, no edit summary, with the edit marked as minor.

I’ve a new theory. We’ve a long-standing policy re WP:OR. I believe part of the appeal of writing about fictional works is that it allows a form of original research. Editors watch the show (or read the book, but why kid around with the edge cases), and expand a plot summary, add some detail they liked. This leads to fans covering every character, prop, elements, &c. Not the recurring question about “Weapons lists”. Do we need a List of weapons in Les Misérables? Of course not, even though shots were fired.

The larger issues on-wiki about “E&C” and “spin-outs” “inherited notability” will never be sorted until a line is drawn with Les Misérables above it and DOOM not. And for a lot of subjects, there will be wide agreement as to where it falls. Many editors, however, resist this distinction because arguing that something below that line is in the same category as something clearly above it serves to tie the object of their obsession to something that floats. It’s no accident that WP:ARS uses a life saver ring.

While composing this, I came across the following:

• The Rifleman's Rifle

How would it fare if given a hard look?

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a tougher case, because there is real-world information, but it's unsourced and speculative, to say the least. To my mind, it's a prime candidate for an up-merge - grab the useful information about the iconic Western gun, move it to the series article, and unless the useful information starts to become a distraction to the main article, problem solved and solved well.

I disagree with you to some extent about OR, but part of this is that I am a firm believer that we need to avoid the temptation to be overly strict in our policies on OR as it relates to literature - a lot of people want to enshrine a "primary source can be used only for plot details" theory of sourcing, and I think that that is itself something that leads to excesses of cruft - whereas if we encouraged readers to actually think about works of fiction on a level beyond second grade assignments to "draw a picture of your favorite character" we'd get better articles.

As for the larger issue, I agree - but my hope is that by dealing with the issue of what is an unacceptable fiction article regardless of notability we can at least dramatically reduce the pool of articles we need to apply notability to, and thus clarify the issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Victor Hugo create some new weapons when he wrote Les Misérables? No. He created Jean Valjean and Javert and Cosette. Speaking of weapons, the writers of Star Trek created phasers, photon torpedoes, Bat'leths, etc (those articles were redirected to a list of weapons by Matthew[13] [14] and EEMIV[15]). But moving information into another article does nothing to improve the information itself. There's no reason those topics could not have separate articles. Would it improve Wikipedia to delete the articles about weapons in Doom like pistol, brass knuckles, chainsaw, shotgun, minigun, rocket launcher, plasma rifle, and BFG 9000? All but the last two are actual weapons. And they can all be written about without using original research.

Have you considered that "The larger issues on-wiki about “E&C” and “spin-outs” “inherited notability” will never be sorted." Period? And maybe that's why fiction proposals continue to fail? And that the equivocation of the word "notability" may have something to do with that? In addition to snobbery?

Why shouldn't Wikipedia have an article about The Rifleman's Rifle? Have you ever seen The Rifleman? If you personally feel Les Misérables is more important than Doom, fine. But how do your personal feelings on their relative importance have anything to do with whether or not Wikipedia can or should educate readers about those topics? This proposal would apply to Cosette, cacodemon, Richard III, BFG 9000, Javert, and Doomguy equally. And what's the "real world impact" of "cruft" and "fancruft"? The reification of "cruft" is more damaging to Wikipedia than any articles under Category:Fiction. --Pixelface (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that the 1892 Winchester was not created in 1958, so the situation is more analogous to Les Mis than Doom. Beyond that, I have no objection on the face of it to any of the proposed articles you mention. However, with no real world information, there is nothing to say about them that is not untrue or lacking in any relevance or significance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor point: I will note that the List of Star Trek Weapons that phasers and the like were redirected to would fall under article, not list, rules similiar to character lists. That means the list must also show notability as ab article, not a list as it would be brought to up at FAC, not FLC, if it eventually makes it that far.じんない 06:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that the decision of FLC to deal with that article means that FAC would touch it - I don't think FAC would accept any article with "list of" in the title. So that may be an orphan in that regard. But this is a serious deficiency with FLC - I have no idea how, exactly, they justified simply ignoring a swath of list articles. But the fact of the matter is, FAC does not cover lists, and an article called "List of X" is clearly a list. If FLC is holding to a practice that ludicrous, it clearly needs to change, and I have few qualms about simply ignoring what is clearly a severely broken process. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SE got around that by simply dropping the "list of" from the article title and creating articles that are only mostly lists: see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Personally, I like the evolution away from pure lists into something resembling a complete article, but it's a rather advanced technique that goes above and beyond normal practice. Nifboy (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And when it works to do so, those articles seem to me to be subject to FAC and to the standards for articles laid out here. And it's laudatory - the SE project has long been a model on fiction, and taking the time to improve your list articles to actual articles is a prime example of it. But for the normal cases, it seems to me that any page that is saying an article called "list of X" is not a list is not a usable policy page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANIME has 2 character lists, both of which still contrain their "List of" beginning as FAs. They are the only 2 feature character lists as well for the project. Therefore they will accept them as lists, but they will hold them to the standards of articles.じんない 08:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Addressing Advertising and Merchadise as far as impact

This was discussed earlier, but the best way to address this would be as a subheading under direct impact. Ie it the fictional item is or was part of a spinoff or large franchise for merchandise, which can include other works of fiction or related items, such as action figures. Advertising is usually in the form of promotions, either release info promotions, contests, etc. If we don't put in under direct impact, then we'd have to find some other term as it is used currently as valid content information.じんない 00:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Stalled?

I haven't seen Phil around in some days (perhaps due to an unrelated issues). Does anyone else have any major input here? Should we continue, put this up for comment or what?陣内_Jinnai 00:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm around, though for the moment taking a "limited activity" break. Probably this could use another attempt to garner comments - ping some relevant WikiProjects perhaps? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea sounds like a good idea. Would still like to see some way to address merchandising and advertising though.陣内_Jinnai 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There's been loud opposition to licensed properties establishing notability, but that is different from real-world impact as such. To my mind, though, the real-world impact would come from information about sales and the like - it is not a lot to have licensed merchandise for a product. It is a lot if that licensed merchandise sells very well, because that provides clear evidence for cultural impact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally that's not how it's been used though. The products existance needs simply be verifiable by either the original source or a commercial outlet beyond the local mom-and-pop store. Fanmade items, unless they receive press coverage reliable beyond a local area is also fine (the issue came up with a doujin game recently in the GAR sweeps). Stuff outside of direct media consumption (books, games, movies, songs, etc) like figures, t-shirts, etc. and advertisement usually go on character (list) pages, if they exist, atleast for the Wikiprojects I frequent. Sometimes the former do as well if the center around a particular character.陣内_Jinnai 22:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat hesitant on putting advertising and merchandise on the same level as anything else under that heading: Aggressive marketing is not the same thing as actual impact. In particular, I really don't want to have the Pokemon discussion again. Nifboy (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I mean, I'm perfectly willing to accept discussion of merchandise in the abstract as part of a fiction article. I just don't think it meets the minimum threshold for real-world impact. It is also not irrelevant to real-world impact. If that makes any sense.

If so, I can add a section about merchandise and the like that notes that a brief overview of existing merchandise is appropriate, but that it is not in and of itself sufficient unless that merchandise has been commented upon... but I'm not sure that such a section wouldn't be a bit much. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Advertising as in Mickey Mouse becoming a mascot for Disney is important to note. As for products, the creation of products is used as real-world impact for items. It is minimal, but in an AFD if merchandising can be shown for character lists then they usually aren't merged. Actual articles require moe substansive information, but merchandise can help prop up a lack of character creation or reception section.陣内_Jinnai 19:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WAF

Hello? Don't we already have Wikipedia:WAF? All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is about content policy. WAF is a stylization guideline.陣内_Jinnai 02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Before you ask, its not a notability guideline either. Unlike the game "Paper, Scissors, Stone", its none of these, it is a guideline/content fork - it beats everything :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a fork...unless you want to claim WP:V is a fork of WP:N and/or WP:RS. It's itended role is the same as the former for the guidelines like FICT and WAF.陣内_Jinnai 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, asking Gavin to explain this line of argument in any sort of reasonable fashion has proven very fruitless. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you ask the question, what is Wikipedia:Fiction?, no one can give you a straight answer. He says it is a content policy, but it does not contain any new principle that is not already contained in Wikipedia's existing content policies; from this perspective, it is just a synthesis of existing policy. If this is not a guideline fork, then it is not a policy, becasue it does not contain anything that is orginal. It is all rather childish in my view. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now our policies on fiction are contained in several disparate pages, often with minimal explanation, such that an editor looking to do better on editing fiction is poorly served by our policy, and such that rules lawyering is fairly easy, since an article only ends up violating one little bit of a guideline here, and one sentence of a policy there, and anyway, everybody knows there's no consensus for WP:N to apply to fiction, and so on, and so forth. This consolidates them into one page that clearly explains the policies, sets them up in relation to one another, and is a simpler, clearer, and more enforceable version of what we already have.

Your cry of "content fork" seems like an attempt to get around having to actually explain why this is a bad thing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lists issue

As I look more, the lists issue is a complete mess - there doesn't appear to actually be a FLC policy against character lists as lists, but rather an institutional predjudice, with individual WikiProjects trying to situate their lists as lists or as articles.

I have little desire to standardize this mess in a policy, as it's a style guideline issue, but I think the current "list" section avoids that by merely noting the broad acceptability of list articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I don't really want to entrench that practice or start a war (though I do believe it is prejudice since character articles will almost never reach the level needed to be a FA (and GAN doesn't cover them because they are "lists").陣内_Jinnai 02:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)