Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Is this a policy or a guideline?

If this is a guideline, it should be possible to come up with plausible exceptions to it. If not, then it should be rebranded as a policy to avoid misleading people.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We can be no stronger than WP:N, which is a guideline. (And guidelines don't need exceptions, they should be more descriptive than prescriptive to allow common sense and flexibility, which, as you'll note, I think most of the verbage in this is "articles should" instead of "articles must". This doesn't mean the guideline isn't "enforcable" (in as much as a guideline can), just that common sense needs to be applied to very unique cases (the odd singular fiction element with no notable aspects but needs its separate summary style page for some reason). --MASEM 11:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In practice, this is stronger than WP:N. No-one's collectivising African town stubs 'until sources can be found'. Are there any examples of common sense, flexibility or 'very unique cases'? --Nydas^(Talk) 11:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it stronger? The rewrite does suggest not splitting off topics until notability is shown or as determined by consensus for summary style articles; suggestion does not mean "requirement" but it helps if this was done to avoid merging or AfD or other editing wars down the road.

And I would say that to give examples (which I'm not aware of any, but that's not saying they don't exist) of what you are looking for would open the door for wikilaywerish on the terms of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Notability (period, not just fiction) is something that has to be handled case by case, using guidelines to judge a rough line of where it should be.--MASEM 14:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's stronger because the ideology of the fiction deletionist does not accept 'determined by consensus', 'suggestions' or 'rough lines'. You're describing a 'nice' version with little relationship to what actually happens.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an ignorable essay that is almost entirely incorrect. Ideally, it should be deleted or marked historical, since it encourages, supports and sustains massive neutrality violations. Finding examples and making comparisons is essential to ensure our coverage is not slanted.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We cannot write language that polices how an individual editor operates; we only suggest more routes for dealing with fiction content. You are suggesting actions that in trying to quell fiction deletionists would make this guideline stronger than WP:N. Again, there is only so much we can do here as a guideline.

Even if you ignore OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are people that will wikilaywer through any door they can to keep highly questionable content, as well as those to delete content through similar loopholes. The best we can do with this guideline (which is only on notability and not on editor behavior) is say "hey, deletionist, give these articles a bit of time due per the editing process to get them into shape; inclusists, be aware that deletionsts exist and thus make sure notabiliy is demonstrated." But we can't impose penalty or the like should either side avoid these instructions.

WP:FICT cannot stop deletionists. WP:FICT cannot stop inclusionists. What they do will continue to happen. We can only make sure that 1) what notability for fiction is better defined so that it is clear where a fuzzy line is drawn and 2) offer more routes than delete/revert cycles to help improve WP. --MASEM 15:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a disputed guideline. You'd never get community consensus to agree to this being a policy and it isn't intended to be one. Notability os guidance, this cannot elevate above it, since it is based on it. It rehashes policies, and the portions of it which rehash WP:EP and WP:NOT are policy, but the portions which rehash WP:N are guidance. It is policy that articles must be verifiable, have a neutral point of view and contain no original research. It is policy that they should not simply regurgitate plot and that they should be edited to improve them. It is policy that editors can list them for deletion or redirect them or merge them, and discuss those options and form a consensus and respect it. This page is guidance on how to bring fiction articles into line with policy. It is not policy. There are other methods to bring them into line with policy. They can be edited back to stubs, they can be ignored, they can be kept after a deletion discussion. Many things can happen. For exceptions, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation/archive. Hiding T 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nydas, you are pretty much right on here. Many times there are reasonable exceptions that can be made to do something that this guideline suggests not to do. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If we can find exceptions that have demonstrated themselves to have some consensus, lets see if we can include them. We just need to be careful to allow people to use the exceptions to allow a lot more than the guideline is aimed to provide. --MASEM 05:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One exception is the Pokemon lists. We have twenty-five of them, even though they are almost 100% in-universe.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguable a list of characters (broken into manageable parts). Regardless, that's a good point to include (as a demonstration of how to merge well). --MASEM 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not the Warcraft character list, then? Do we just not like the corny Warcraft universe as much? You call this wikilawyering, I call it neutral coverage.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between the brief blurbs that the pokemon lists have (including some demonstration of notability when appropriate) and the long biographic descriptions that the Warcraft pages had. Note that most editors didn't say such an article could exist, but that the content needed major cleanup according to the 2nd AFD. --MASEM 17:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Warcraft article was deleted because the people working on it refused to listen to anyone and just kept insisting that there were no problems. I think this is the case with many of the examples you keep trying to drag out. The pokemon articles were improved and worked on. Tolkien articles have a strong project group that at least tries to follow policy and work with people. Same with The Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, the project group is willing to work towards consensus. Many things get forced to AFD because people refuse to listen to criticism. Ridernyc (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nydas, again, Pokemon is a horrible example. Did you know we used to have something called the Pokemon test? For a long time we had individual articles for every single Pokemon out there. Since then a massive merge took place, where a lot the excess information was cut from the entries. Pokemon episode articles all got merged some time ago as well. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter that the Pokemon lists were 'improved and worked on'? They're still 99% in-universe, consisting of reworded Pokedex entries and almost nothing else. They completely fail the standards which are loudly demanded of other fiction. So what if there used to be articles on every Pokemon? It was the same for Warcraft characters.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

When the Pokemon lists were proposed, we didn't have WPWAF. Standards have moved on. It's like our featured article standards. Many of the original featured articles are no longer featured because they do not meet our standards. Even some of the current featured articles do not meet the standards. Does this mean we amend our standards, or make articles similar to those featured articles which do not meet the standards and then demand they be featured too, or do we improve all to the standards we have? Hiding T 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a better argument, though I believe that the fiction deletionists had already adopted the standards they use now by the time the Pokemon lists took their present form. I also sincerely doubt that any effort to delete the lists would succeed; they have the sort of entrenched support that Warcraft lacks. Which only shows what a hostage to fortune 'case-by-case' is.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not appear to be an issue of fortune, but instead of following. The concensus of those who follow/maintain one article needs not match the consensus of those who follow/maintain another (and obviously, neither concensous is static). This appears to be inherent to the design of WP's policies. -Verdatum (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is resistant to standardisation, pretty much by design and in practise. Look at the fudge we have on spelling, for example. I think one of the things you need to check at the door when you edit Wikipedia is the yen for conformity. SOme aspects it is possible to make standards and get conformity. In other areas it is impossible. That's just one outcome of an encyclopedia which is collaborated upon by no small number of editors and has WP:IAR as a core policy. Hiding T 22:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a violation of our neutrality policies to play favourites with articles, bending or ignoring the rules for stuff we like.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be missing it, but assuming "neutrality politices" refers to WP:NPOV, I see no mention of neutrality in terms of bending or ignoring the rules. What you are discussing sounds like something mentioned in another policy, WP:IGNORE. It's a much fuzzier policy, but it is seen as a more important one. -Verdatum (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built through consensus. Doing stuff based on the community's preferences is built into the system. Hiding T 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nydas, for the love of editing, listen to people. Pokemon articles were worse before, and now they are better. They've made large scale improvements to over four hundred articles. Reasonable editors are not going to expect the finished product overnight. You keep choosing examples that have shown great amounts of improvement and potential, so do stop using the most ludicrous examples, which only make you look the same. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What are these large improvements you're alluding to? The lists are 99% in-universe, have no real sources, no real-world info, no pictures and scant evidence of improvement.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Picked entirely at random, Kabutops from July 2005,[1] and today. Please explain how the latter is in no shape, form or instance, an improvement on the former. Hiding T 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The list entry is a rewording of the Pokedex plus a first appearance. It's verging on instruction manual material. The improvement is marginal, non-existant even. The Warcraft character list (also created by merging a lot of stuff) was deleted, despite being the same class of article and experiencing the same sort of improvement. I reiterate that the Pokemon lists are an exception to the guideline; the alternative is that the Warcraft character list was an exception. If there are exceptions, they should be stated in plain sight for everyone to see. If not, they shouldn't be exceptions.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you call that marginal then I can't see any value in discussing the issue any further. It's quite clear the community valued the difference to that and the many other pokemon articles differently. Hiding T 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet it was marginal for Warcraft.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The old article did have problems, namely the detailed in-game stats (which do not belong on wikipedia, really), and poor tone to some of the sections (written from a within-world point of view). However, much the rest of the content was actually useful and informative, especially the comparison between the game and the series. The newer list entry is effectively a joke, to be honest, in comparison with the previous content, with only a few lines of in-world description. This is a perfect example of a failed merge to list form, as in doing so, useful and referenced material (some from games, other parts from the animated series) was lost. Worst still, there was no reason to loose this content, once the overly-detailed in-world material had been removed and the infobox changed to the list entry style, what remained was small, compact, and of a suitable length to be a list entry. We wouldn't even be having these kind of discussions if the 'mergers' had been performed correctly. In many cases with modern episode and character synopses, the entries were small enough that, with only minimal editing, they could be used wholesale on a list. LinaMishima (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Pokemon project voluntarily made the decision to present the information in that way, I don't see how this is a failure. It's one thing if an editor with no knowledge of the topic trying to slap together several articles into one and of course fails to consider the better way to present it. On the other hand there was strong consensus and lengthy discussion of exactly how to present said information for Pokemon. They made the concerted effort to meet FICT, NOTE, and PLOT. They also used non-WP wikis (initially Wikibooks, but since has moved to here) to provide the fuller details. --MASEM 17:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So the exception is because they worked real hard on the lists?--Nydas^(Talk) 09:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been making the same argument in various places for 2-3 months now, it really is time to move on. You are free to think whatever you want but really it's not contributing anything and you have said it over and over and over again. No mater how many times it's explained to you why others feel the way they do you keep going back and dragging out the same 4-5 examples. It's circular arguments like this that are making formation of guidelines take months instead of weeks. Ridernyc (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You yourself said that the deletion of the Warcraft character list represented the 'real consensus' and then explained why fiction lists must also satisfy the guideline; Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 14#Use old draft as a starting point. Have you retreated from that position? --Nydas^(Talk) 10:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No my opinion has always been that consensus is flexible, and that a guideline can only try to reflect the average. The warcraft example was to show that trying to come in with a hard fast rule saying there is consensus for lists is flawed. I brought up one example to show a specific flaw in the guideline. You just keep dragging out the same examples to try prove some point and to be honest after months of this i still have no clue what your point is. Half the time it sounds like your arguing for inclusion the other time it sounds like your arguing to get rid of things. Consensus is far from fair and perfect. It's also flexible and fluid the way things are moving in a years time maybe the pokemon articles will be gone who knows. I've also pointed that I think this guideline will have 0 effect on what happens at AFD. There are things in this guideline that I disagree with, I compromise and move on. I don't sit here saying the same thing over and over and over again. If your looking for things to ever be fair and perfect you might as well move on because there are always going to be exceptions. Ridernyc (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is WP:NPOV. If we had fifty times as much coverage of Obama as of Hilary, it would be a problem. It is no different here. We can either apply harsh fiction guidelines fairly or we can relax them. I favour relaxation, since I have no confidence in the fiction deletionists.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Using WP:NPOV to try to say that must cover all topics equally is a slippery slope to saying that we must cover all topic equally. NPOV only says within a topic coverage should be balanced for all aspects; it has nothing to do with the relationship between topics. If we had an article "Democratic Candidates in the 2008 U.S. Presidental Election", I would expect roughly balanced coverage of Obama and Hilary and other candidates pertaining to them as candidates, but more information about both can be found elsewhere, and I would not expect to have balanced coverage of both outside of that topic. You are trying to express what is written in WP:BIAS in that our coverage of articles is unbalanced, and that's a fault of the open system that favors wealthier countries with more internet access over others. Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done to counter such. --MASEM 22:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to have poor coverage in, say, Spanish literature, for demographic reasons, it's quite another to kill off stubs and start-classes in fiction which we have poor coverage of. All the while pleading 'flexibility' for the stuff we like. Fiction is the topic. It's a broad one, but no less than Solar System or Sport.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

and here we are once again if you do not agree with WP:PLOT go there and try to change it. 10:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)

You're trying to apply NPOV which is meant to make sure that on controversial topics that all viewpoints are stated in roughly equal balance; it is not meant to try to balance coverage of themes within a very broad topic. Let's take Sport. Based on your arguments, we give every sport exactly equal coverage regardless of what that sport is. But of course we are limited by verification and no original research, so for fields of information for, say, ice fishing, curling or frisbee golf where there's not a lot (but at least some) sourcable information, we cannot expand these areas. Thus, instead, we would need to resort to limiting the complete coverage of football and soccer in order to meet how you are describing NPOV. The way you are stating how you think NPOV applies is a scorched earth policy - every subtopic of a topic gets one and exactly one article, no more, no less. For fiction, this means we can only talk about the work, no lists of episodes, characters, or even coverage of notable characters.

WP, through V and OR, can only cover a topic in proportion to as much as there is information out there about that topic. Ultimately, when WP is "complete", this will be the case, but because of both the electronic/online nature of WP, and that as one goes back from 1990 that information becomes more difficult to get means that we're easily meeting that goal for newer concepts and trying to catch up for older ones. Information does likely exist for older topics, but until someone does the leg work to get them, such articles lack sourcing information. If someone claims they are actively doing that, great, we won't get rid of the article, but if no one speaks up when someone challenges the notability or verifibility of an article, or demonstrates they are trying to improve it, then we have no recourse to remove it. The important part, which is where I'm pretty you are concerned with, is that each article is treated in the same way regardless of it's a new piece of fiction or not. If there is a Star Trek article lacking sources, not demonstrating notability, and doesn't fall under the summary style approach, it should be given the same fair warning as a similar Mr. Ed or The Honeymooners article, and after an equivalent period without such improvements, both should be deleted. What does happen, through the systematic bias, however, is that there are just many many more people watching the Trek articles than the last two, and thus they are likely to be fixed within that time period (I point to how fast Bart the General was corrected when Pixelface brough up its notability.) That is the systematic bias which we cannot counter without forcing people to work in areas they do not want to, or treating articles that lack editors as "special", and both approaches are against WP's editing policy. --MASEM 14:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a belter of a strawman. I want coverage proportionate to the importance of the fiction, not 'one article each'. For important fiction which has poor coverage, that means stubs and start-classes to encourage growth and attract interested editors. That's what all the fiction topics which have heavy (and sometimes good) coverage started with, long before they had Wikiprojects. Despite what you claim, this is not limited by verifiability and no original research (short articles, so what?), and dubious readings of other policies is overruled by the commitment to a neutral point of view.

It's all very well to claim that 'times change', but terribly convenient too, for the dominant culture on Wikipedia. Suddenly, creating fiction articles requires a mountain of paperwork, which never existed when all those Star Trek articles got made. Notwithstanding the 'flexibility' which is wheeled out for stuff we like.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea. A suggested modification, though.

"The Sith lord of Antioch who once got into a gunblade battle with Jean-luc Picard, on the planet of Kashyyyk until he was suddenly killed by Sauron" -- is not notable and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Rampant POV-pushing fanboyism for these subjects and a desire to inject Star Wars, Star Trek, and LOTR on Wikipedia -- almost as if they were a religion or political ideology (see Trekkie and Jedi census phenomenon) -- is childish and does not change this. If you'd like to write on these subjects, feel free to go over to Wikia.

It's understandable why a lot of people might see themselves as the Justice League, righteously defending the weak and innocent articles from the clutches of Lex Luthor. However, there's not really any reason to believe this. On Wikia, they recently announced the Annex, so that anyone can move any content like this here over there (just not completely word-for-word), so no actual information is lost.

It might be a good way to modify this policy by saying that no content can be removed unless the information has been moved to Wikia or elsewhere. Would that help seek consensus on this issue?

Now, I must be off.. The evil Mumm-ra is up to his evil antics again and this time, he's teamed up with Mojo Jojo.

Also, see Wikipedia:Don't be a dork. Zenwhat (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Are you telling me that I can work for Wikia for free and they can profit off my labor with banner ads and I don't get paid a thing? Where do I sign up? --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I reallllly hate to break this to you, Pixelface, but Wikipedia doesn't just allow this, it encourages it. You don't have to sign up, because by clicking the save page button you've already agreed to this: "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL" and "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Which is shown on every single edit screen. You don't have to go over to Wikia for someone to profit off your work, they can wait for you to do it here, and take all of it and move it over there, taking full advantage of your free labor. -- Ned Scott 01:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion, although allowances for no suitable external wiki should be figured out. In addition, I suggest wording the addition so that it is clear that wikia is merely an example of an external wiki, and that wikia is not necessarily the preferred choice. There is a degree of issue from some editors with wikipedia promoting wikia in preference, so we should be careful to avoid such an automatic bias in the wording chosen. LinaMishima (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Annex is a catchall for anything to be sorted out later. Mind you, I have not experienced what it would take to create a Wikia wiki but by the looks of it, it is rather trivial.

My concern (not my personal one, but one that's been brought up before) is that potential COI/tax issue that concerns people due to ownership issues. I know most say it's perfectly fine and I believe that, but others have stated that Wikia should not be mentioned otherwise that simply shows sponsoring of that for-profit site, which is why I've left it as GFDL-compat wikis. --MASEM 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, up until a few weeks ago, the Annex wasn't that great at all. As a wiki it's really nothing special, until they made it so that anyone can use Special:Import (on most wikis, including en.wikipedia, only admins can use Import). And for those that don't know, importing allows to preserve the entire article and its history. This is pretty much the main reason why I'm excited, from a purely utility standpoint. They also seem to be working on a program that will make it even simpler, allowing someone to just type in an article title and click submit. So basically, the Annex really isn't a wiki, it's a tool for other wikis. Once an article is on the Annex, you can cite the annex's copy for GFDL reasons, if the Wikipedia copy gets deleted, etc. Although I worry they haven't emphasized on their instructions to tell importers to modify the XML files, to prevent username conflicts. It's fixable, but makes for a lot of work, which would then miss the point of the whole easy-importing thing. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Masem, like Lina said above, we don't need to and shouldn't mention Wikia in the policy page, specifically. We just simply mention that users can add their stuff to outside Wikis, then give them a whole list of places they can add stuff: Anarchopedia, Wookiepedia, etc., etc.. Wikia would just be in the external links, so it's not anymore of a conflict-of-interest than the Wikia article. I know it's not a personal concern. People shouldn't even have to say that when announcing policy proposals because of WP:AGF. Zenwhat (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, as mention of external wikis is already there, probably just not specific examples. I wonder if it would be worthwhile (at least, to start an effort) to create a non-mainspace (meta? wp?) list of wikis (hosted at Wikia or otherwise) to provide people reference where information can be taken. --MASEM 17:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean like this? AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a starting point, but it's not readily apparent what each wiki deals with, nor is that page readily editable. I'm thinking a large-ish table (sectioned off by type of fiction) that lists the fiction and the wiki (and if it has a interwiki map, include that), and that can be added to if someone creates a new wiki. --MASEM 17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar, but I suspect Masem was suggesting a per-subject matter list, so that it is easy to find that the article "Extremogirl episode 7" could be moved to "Annex", "Extremowiki", "Supergirls wiki" "Cartoon wiki" and so on. I think this is potentially a really good idea, as it would actually help in matters other than just moving articles off wikipedia. LinaMishima (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I spread myself out a bit, since most of my on-wiki time is spent just following discussions, but I eventually plan on expanding WP:TRAN, which will hopefully generate a guideline page. That project page, or a guideline page, would be an ideal place to link to if people are worried about mentioning Wikia directly. Wikia would be mentioned, as well as advice specific to the Annex, but it would be listed with other sites as well (there's quite a few of them, actually). If anyone wants to help out with this, it would be greatly appreciated. Although, with all that said, there really isn't any COI or tax issue with mentioning Wikia. The Foundation doesn't even manage this level of stuff, and leaves it up to the community, which are seen as 3rd parties. -- Ned Scott 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A response to the original poster's comment here: "Rampant POV-pushing fanboyism for these subjects and a desire to inject Star Wars, Star Trek, and LOTR on Wikipedia [...] is childish and does not change this. If you'd like to write on these subjects, feel free to go over to Wikia." - I can't speak for Star Wars and Star Trek, but LOTR (that's The Lord of the Rings, in case people are confused by acronyms) does have a genuine, if small, academic community (and is older than both Star Wars and Star Trek, but that is beside the point - there is plenty of 20th century fiction older than LOTR). For a listing of scholarly works and papers since 1984 (up to 2000), see here. That pages states that the list "...is intended to augment two previously published bibliographies of Tolkien scholarship, Richard C. West's Tolkien Criticism: An Annotated Checklist and Judith Johnson's J. R. R. Tolkien: Six Decades of Criticism, which between them collect Tolkien scholarship from its origins until 1984." The post-2000 stuff is presumably collected in the "The Year's Work in..." sections in Tolkien Studies, for which, see here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

what consensus means: consensus is something that everyone can live with, though they may not altogether agree with it.

Forgive me, but I'm confused by the point this topic raises. Is it suggesting a warning against non-canonical fan-fiction crossover references? Or something else? In general, I don't think it's a good idea to sacrifice readability of the guideline for the sake of presenting the information in a humorous manner. If my first thought was correct (which I doubt, but just in case), then in my meager experience, I haven't seen nearly enough (if any) invasion of fan-fiction content on Wikipedia to make it worth mentioning in a guideline (per WP:BEANS). Concerning making a policy to not delete content, only transwiki it; I'm worried that opens a very large can of worms. (I'm told) Numerous discussions have arisen regarding Wikia's commercial status, as well as the idea of a Wikimedia project giving a specific endorsement to a project outside of Wikimedia. I'm fine with a light reccomendation that deleted content be moved to alternative and more appropriate GFDL wikis, but not with making it any sort of resolute guideline for deleting content. -Verdatum (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a time where it was a problem, but not so much now. -- Ned Scott 01:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"what consensus means: consensus is something that everyone can live with, though they may not altogether agree with it," not exactly. That's only partially correct, since it ignores WP:IAR. If a proposal is accepted broadly by the community but it hurts Wikipedia, it should be ignored by individual editors. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not forget about this and take the discussion of change to WP:NOT?

I've been observing every day for months now and this discussion still really isn't going anywhere. WP:NOT seems to be one of the sole impediments to this guideline and goes against the consensus of the fiction editing community, so why not go bumrush their discussion page, get it reworded and then come back here to sort this mess out? - The Norse (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a minor discussion there, I'm not sure why all the people who keep claiming there is strong consensus to keep plot related articles don't go there and try to change policy. I've pointed this out several times here and I'm totally ignored every time. Ridernyc (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is desirable to try to modify guidelines, before modifying policy. Perhaps we reach agreement on minor matters.I haven't given up on it yet. But if we lack consensus to establish a guideline, we can mark it as no consensus, ands still not necessarily have to change policy. Eventually, it may indeed be necessary to resort to changing the policy. There are several aspects of WP:NOT which probably do not have sufficient consensus to maintained as policy. Possibly the entire page should be downgraded to a guideline. I'd support that, but its a much bigger question.DGG (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What they said. I'm trying to rewrite this with the idea that NOT is in stone. If when we start getting consensus and it obviously is failing because people dislike NOT, then we can start poking at that. --MASEM 00:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How dose it make sense to write guidelines before before policy. If the policy is changed all the guidelines will have to be changed. It seems since every guideline dealing with fiction is being rewritten right now it would make sense to deal with the policy first. i don't really think it matters, since every time this issue is brought to the attention of the larger community they seem pretty firm about plot summaries not being on wikipedia. I would just like to see it happen because I'm tired of the unfounded argument that there is a large consensus to include fiction. All i can say is every time is the issue brought up at Village pump, AN/I, ARBCom, AFD there seems to be no evidence of massive support for fiction. Ridernyc (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"the larger community ... pretty firm about plot summaries not being on wikipedia" Really???? It sounds to me like a small group of deletionists dreaming up a policy and then implementing that policy, while the larger community just wonder what happened to an article they are kinda sure was there last time they looked. Astronaut (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't confuse our actual community with the bad kind of fans and anons that plague these kind of discussions. If you were to poll most of the people that have no interest in fiction, I'm sure we would see quite a difference from the consensus people keep claiming to be seeing with all of the people whining about missing plot summaries. Just looking at the AN/I posts shows a big difference. TTN (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of repeatedly bad-mouthing the body editors who oppose your actions, you should actually provide some proof to support your claims of wide-spread community support. --Ckatz^chat _spy 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It went to ARBCom and has been discussed at AN/I, there has been 0 evidence that the larger community is against TTN. A few people complained about his actions and yes his actions and the way he dealt with things were questionable, but there has been no one saying that what he was doing was not based on an accepted policy. You can argue about the way he did things but you can't argue that what he did was based on policy and I have seen no widespread outrage about policy. Move on and give it up. Ridernyc (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Move on and give it up" is entirely the wrong tone to take here, especially given the number of simple observations that allow doubt still to be cast (the low ratio of readers to active editors involved with politics, individual fandoms each having low numbers but typically being discrete from one another leading to larger body not in communication with itself, the pure raw damage these moves have made). You are correct, what was done was based upon policy, however it is fair to raise the issue of the correctness of that policy and to encourage discussion upon it, and entirely incivil to not consider the wider issues I have mentioned. Rather than debate this here, I have requested that editors write essays on the issue of the harm of properly verifiable but 'non-notable' material which may be a NOT subject, and let me know where to find them. This topic is too big to go in the middle of existing dialogue in full. LinaMishima (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(To ridernyc) My belief (personal and impression of the editing community) is that PLOT isn't going to change. Since we're so close to finalizing FICT, I will soon ask for community consensus on it. There will be three reasons it will fail, if it does: 1) People agree to PLOT and NOTE, but not how FICT is written. That means reediting this. 2) People agree to PLOT but NOTE is bad, then we point folks to NOTE. 3) People think PLOT is bad, at which point we challenge the policy. (determining which case is which will not be clear-cut, however). I fully expect that if there are problems, it will be case 1, and we'll have to deal with rewrites to get it there. --MASEM 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree plots not going anywhere in fact i think if people start messing with it the community may respond by making it more stringent. Just wondering if we should have that battle first and get rid of all the annoying side arguments. Ridernyc (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Norse, you think discussion isn't going anywhere? Are you sure you're watching the correct talk page? If you want to challenge the policy, go ahead, you don't need anyone's approval from here. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, how does one get involved in policy discussions before it becomes policy? Is there a list or noticeboard somewhere with a list of in-development policies? Astronaut (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to WP:NOT and start questioning the policy, since that's the relavent page. --MASEM 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The dispute isn't with the policy, it's with the misinterpretation of it here.Torc2 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: is the misinterpretation in the current document at WP:FICT, or with the rewrite, or both perhaps? --MASEM 03:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"The dispute isn't with the policy, it's with the misinterpretation of it here." I think the same could be said for WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE. Very few comments on these talk pages even give a reason on why people don't like the guidelines. This is more about people losing an article they thought should exist, and assume that they can't possibly be wrong. It's fine when we apply these guidelines to My Little Ponies, but oh do you guys get mad when we fairly apply the guidelines to something that most of us like. Care to actually dispute any of the wording itself? Care to actually judge the guideline by its own merits? -- Ned Scott 03:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I did that in my comments to the "Why?" section. Torc2 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To respond do your comments in the Why section. WP:PLOT and WP:FICT were not mandated by some other policy or Foundation policy, they were the results of community consensus. Although, since then people have raised a very good point about how there are possible legal issues when giving a very detailed summary, since you are basically infringing on the copyright of the original work. What's her name from the Harry Potter books is even suing a website that is trying to make a print book using their web-contents to make a Harry Potter fan guide.

Regardless of any possible legal issue, you seem to have completely missed the part where this is something that the community at large decided long ago. Since then, these ideas have been held up by further discussions, AfD discussions, and other community wide discussions. (I hate to say it, but yes, see the talk archives). Recent disputes came about regarding independent notability, and how the guideline encouraged or discouraged deletion/ cleanup. The basic spirit, however, is pretty much the same.

And this was all before WP:PLOT was added, so it wasn't based on an interpretation of PLOT, rather, PLOT was added because that's something the community supported. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting allowing a level of plot summary that would infringe on copyright. (So please stop saying that.) What I'm saying is that an article about a series can have its in-universe information presented at a reasonable level from multiple angles: episode plots, character summaries, lists of minor characters, etc. Organizationally, these are often better off as separate wikipages, but they're clearly really all part of the same topic, so it's kind of ridiculous to treat them as totally distinct articles. I also think the more lenient and more objective criteria for WP:BAND or for albums at WP:MUSIC works better than the stricter criteria at WP:EPISODE.

What was a consensus then, given the level of dissent, doesn't have the same support as fully now. At various times, there has been consensus to stone witches to death, count slaves as 3/5ths a person, and (god forbid) outlaw alcohol. We learned from those mistakes and corrected them. These guidelines remain guidelines not because of overwhelming support, but because they're the status quo, and there's not enough momentum to change them.

I see a lot of criticism for people working on the individual shows from people who claim that their affinity makes them lose objectivity, but I see just as much fanatical devotion for these guidelines from the people who created them. Most people don't criticize WP:EPISODE or WP:FICT because they don't know it exists until someone invokes them to urinate on their parade. Torc2 (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I responded below on the same thing, but to make it clear: the proposed FICT does consider the need and appropriateness of summary-style list of characters and other associated fictional concepts, as part of the coverage of the topic, without requiring them to be notable. Consensus agrees this includes an episode list with very brief blurbs as well. Where a point of contention I am seeing now between here and EPISODE is that the current EPISODE (and bubbling up to FICT) is that a single episode article without notability is not appropriate ; such an article (as we are saying now) would not be part of a summary-style approach to a topic, since if SIZE weren't a problem, an encyclopedia approach would not include just simply the plot details of each episode. As you point out, this part is a point of contention at EPISODE, but given (albeit bad approaches to doing so) TTN's AfDing and mass merging of episodes, the consensus still seems to be that individual episode articles cannot be treated under the same exceptions as character lists for notability, and they much demonstrate notability for inclusion in WP.

I want to make sure that point is crystal clear, because even though that deals more with TV episodes, the same idea would also apply to comics and any other serialized fictional work, so what ends up at EPISODE needs to end up here. If this is fine, great, as the guideline points to that aspect. If this is not fine, then we need further discussion of it (I suggest a new section) to clear up how this should be handled. --MASEM 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Again I will mention that the best thing for us to do is deprecate this page and allow NOTE and PLOT to guide us. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that many editors have trouble understanding what to avoid, and what to strive for, with just NOTE and PLOT, that's really a bad idea. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ned, given that i have no particular affection for most of the articles being discussed here, almost all of which are on topics I have no personal interest in, I think I at least am motivated by what the best policy ought to be for those using wikipedia. do not appreciate the insinuation otherwise. But perhaps to some extent I agree with you that the importance of the work is relevant though it seems not everyone else does. This illustrates the difficulty we have, when there is no agreement of first principles. (am I right that by "NOTE AND PLOT". I think you mean the single portion of WP:NOT, WP:NOT#PLOT. Incidentally, i do not immediately advocate we should do away with NOT PLOT, just modify it. It contains the somewhat contradictory statements "not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." and "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate" there's a lot of room in the middle. The reason for modifying it is that the details of what length the summary should be is not properly a matter of policy. That's what we are trying to discuss here.

So I so I want to ask

. does everyone agree that WP ought to cover notable works of fiction in all media? (leaving out what "notable" means for the moment)?
. does everyone agree that this should include coverage of authorship, publication, critical reception, plot, characters,setting, and influence, among other elements?
. does everyone agree that these sections ought to be in proportion, (leaving aside just what the proportion should be)?
. does everyone agree that they should be documented in some appropriate manner (again, leaving out just what that appropriate manner should be)?

DGG (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC) If we agree on points 1-4 here, the next step is to expand the details if we can agree on them, or else leave the bare statements if we cannot.

I DGG (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I will add one more question based on where a lot of people are coming from (namely WT:EPISODE) (now that I see what Torc2 is getting at):

does everyone agree that an episode or similar singular item of a serial work needs to establish its own notability separate from the overall work?

I know this is the issue at EPISODE, but I think we need to address this (yes or no) here as well as the other questions. --MASEM 04:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone...barely for myself even, but I agree with #1, #2 and #4. I think #3 should be somewhat flexible based on the requirements of the individual topics. My main concern is with the total isolation of sub-articles from parent articles, especially when it comes to fiction. I think the assumption that it should all fit into one article or be slashed until it does is faulty, and this concern isn't over length as much as style and organization. True, many List of Character or List of Episode articles could be merged into the main article and fit under the...what is it now, 60kb limit? But...let's step into the just late 20th century at least. Hypertext was created for a reason beyond linking to more porn, and it's ridiculous to claim that our attention spans are too short to recognize two different Wiki pages could be about different facets of the same topic, or that the best way to format a topic is to put all its information on one long page and let the user read through it all until they find what they're looking for. Content shouldn't be treated any differently just because it's on the same page as the main article or because it's on a different page, and that's what's happening with having different requirements between "stand-alone" articles that are really sub-articles, and WP:NNC.Torc2 (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that we are specially allowing for non-notable, in-universe-content only subarticles, as long as they are reasonably written as one would split off an article in summary style in any other case (in addition to sub-articles that have notable content), and thus considering proportion and balance of the main article and its non-notable subpages. --MASEM 04:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good news, then. Torc2 (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1, not really covered by us, since we focus on the sub-articles, but yes, I agree.
2, yes.
3, no, I see where you are going with this, but there's going to be some situations where one element might be more emphasized than another. If this is about balance between "fiction" and "real world", it's too hard to try to define that as an amount of text. I've always thought about it as the plot summary giving either basic information, aiding realworld information directly, or giving context to real world information, or to a larger topic.
4, I think everyone agrees on this. Yes, we want real world information, but we also want to at least know who the main characters are, what the story is about, etc. I was playing around with an idea in my head about a questionnaire we could possibly give to readers (in some form, such as real life, or random internet people), and would ask them things we would think an article should tell you. Some of the things I think an article should tell is enough info to allow someone who hasn't seen the show to be able to (within reason) identify it if they were told a little bit about it, or saw it without seeing a title. I'd also include identifying main characters (not necessarily in a visual way, either), identifying a conflict or goal, etc. However, it's rare that we ever have to worry about this not being included (unless there is a general neglect of an article).
To Masem's question, yes, but dependent notability, not independent notability. There might be a situation were even this gets waved, but I've never seen a real example of that, and can only imagine that it would be rare. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume by "dependent notability" you mean that the episode does not have to redemonstrate why the series is notable and can start from there, but still has to establish its own notability beyond that? (As opposed to "inherited notability" where no additional notability is needed?) --MASEM 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It has real world information/context to justify the summary and organizational style of an episode article, but isn't notable by WP:N's definition. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on just letting this die for obvious reasons, but Ridernyc's comments about there being no evidence of people being against TTN and therefore not policy have been scratching at the back of my head for days. How could you possibly say that with what I'm assuming was a straight face? Considering how TTN is acting on Policy(over-zealously), and he's almost sure to be the most infamous and hated user on Wikipedia, the base of the community is against the policies that he's acting upon. Why don't those users act on changing policy then, you ask? That's because, believe it or not, the majority of Wikipedia users know or care little about them and only want to work on articles they like, so when a big, bad meanie like TTN rolls around everyone thinks he's a vandal making nonsensical actions and by proxy think the same of the Policy. These are the same users, the base of Wikipedia as a whole, who just get laughed out of or ignored in Policy discussions should they even attempt to participate in them. In order to get anything done on this site, you need to have a ton of time to waste on knowing the ins and outs of every Policy and Guideline and post gigantic walls of text about them, and the only people who do that are the ones who ignore the base of Wikipedia and what it wants in favor of forging unpopular Policies and Guidelines with other users of the same "class". This is the problem with Wikipedia and the end of my tirade. - The Norse (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not help a collective effort to try to change consensus when people go to policy pages and argument variations of WP:ILIKEIT. WP's mission and goals are very much different from the typical perception that people have of it, and to change those missions or goals there have to be very clear reasons for doing this. Unfortunately, when people come here and say "But I come for WP for the X" (whether that is fictional character coverage, episode details, or trivia), that doesn't help to say how we can adjust our policies and guidelines to meet with that while retaining the key requirements - the five pillars of WP. --MASEM 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CONSENSUS are same idea with different numbers. Torc2 (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, appeasing the userbase and Wikipedia's spirit isn't that hard a thing to do. Whatever you guys were using the first half of last year seemed to be doing the "well-written compendium of human knowledge" thing pretty well and everyone was happy. - The Norse (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the new restatement of general notability guidelines, which require secondary sources for notability, made the old version incompatible with that, which lead to editors like TTN making large swathes of edits which caused this guideline to be challenged further. We can't go back to the previous version unfortunately, unless the general notability guideline is changed back to how it was, and I doubt that will occur. --MASEM 20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my original statement. That one rewording caused tons of problems and was probably done by a small handful of admins, violating the consensus the user-base had since the project's inception and should really be changed or at least discussed. - The Norse (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

DING! right answer. Hobit (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins? What admins? Do you even know who is or isn't an admin on this very talk page? Are you aware of the consensus discussions that started guidelines like WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE? I think you need to review your wiki-history. -- Ned Scott 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Masem's explanation was only part of the reason for the rewrite, and I don't believe the rewrite to be the cause for TTN or other's motivation. Even if you disregard the changes to WP:N, there were many things that needed to be updated with WP:FICT that resulted in the way it appears today. -- Ned Scott 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Brothers Karamazov

I've removed the reference to Alyosha Karamazov, suggesting it was a 'good' redirect. Whilst I am loathe to remove examples of fiction outside the comfort zone, the idea that there is not enough real world info about the main character of Dostoevsky's magnum opus is implausible.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed--you got there first, but I've been intending for some time to write the article. 858 GS hits, including 2 articles and 3 theses with his name in the very title. This is probably true for all main characters of classic fiction--the academics have been working on all the possibilities. That's what they do, analyze plot and characters. Haven't even tried the many specialized indexes, let alone pre-Google. On the other hand, it might have been nice to leave it in to show the absurdity of the guideline. DGG (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start. There's mountains of information about the character, it should never have been redirected.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Where we are right now with the rewrite

Obviously, right now, there's a lot of contention over at WT:EPISODE and a subsequent ArbCom case on TTN and others behavior since that previous one. A lot of this does have to do with fictional topics, and while it is very likely the ArbCom will rule on anything directly content related, there is a parallel push to rethink and readapt the notability guidelines for television episodes. There is an RFC that is underway to try to define this notability guideline for episode, and while there's still an attempt to gain consensus whether an episode article is automatically notable or not, or what is sufficient for the bare information in an episode article, a further parallel effort to determine what is objective coverage for episode notability is also underway.

The last effort is rather important to what we've been saying for the rewrite of WP:FICT, specifically the point about using development information to demonstrate notability here. I offered that up since in FICT we were saying that this information is able to be used for notability, but overwhelmingly this seems to exclude its use at least for television shows. I would argue that if we are going to get any guideline to have consensus, there needs to be some consistency and that would suggest that we need to be consistent on the use or non-use of development information, or at least that information from non third-party sources.

I will also note that it seems that the trend from the TV episode stuff is that there is going to be a need to re-evaluate all existing TV episode articles to consider if they fall into the new notability rules or not (aka get rid of the current systematic bias). While such an undertasking for all fiction-related articles is near impossible without a highly concerted effort, I would suggest two routes: either, that for a grace period of 3-6 months from a certain date that we encourage everyone to improve fiction topics to include notability, and that any fiction-related topic should be given a free pass to remain on the assumption that people are working on it; after that grace period, we restart the processes suggested for dealing with non-notable topics. Alternatively, we create a grandfather clause that articles created before a certain date (sometime shortly after propsed FICT gains consensus) should they be determined to be non-notable should be given more time that normal to develop that (3 months, at least) compared to about a month for any article created after that date. --MASEM 12:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My question is, let's say there is a new guideline accepted, and we wait 3 months for the older articles to be improved, how do we know that once those older articles are taken to AFD, we wont have another disputed tag put on this criteria and be right back here again? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

First, we make sure that we are seeking consensus as a guideline for the rewrite is announced as widely as possible (appropriate project pages, VPP, etc.), so that the consensus for it is well known. From the date we start counting 3 months (or whatever) we perform a similar announcement that the grace period has started, and likely repeat again with one month left in it, and when it's complete. Yes, there will be people with their heads in the sand until the last minute, but I think that, particularly if we encourages projects themselves to take some lead here, there won't be as big a problem.

I should note that I'm not encouraging a mass AfD 3 months + 1 day after the indicated date. Just that after that point, we've tried to give editors as much warning that we reasonably can for that. I'm sure there will be people that will complain, but if we don't go as aggressively as TTN after these changes, it will probably be easier to mitigate. --MASEM 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we do need a moratorium until the RfArb and the RfC conclude. I am not sure think they will help any more than RfArb has helped in the past, but we should take into account whatever is said there in attaining our compromise. How to proceed then will depend on what our compromise is. I can guess that it may well call for reinforcement of many articles, and we need to allow a minimum time for this; it may also allow for reinstatement of many articles, and we probably should do this slowly and cautiously as well. Judgesureal777 is correct that no matter what we decide here, it may be seen differently when in practice action is taken with respect to it, but there is no way we can avoid that, except to the extent that being flexible and non-prescriptive will decrease the number and importance of such cases. The actual WP policy is after all what takes place with articles--our goal here is to try to get this reasonable consistent and reasonably acceptable. Perhaps this time around, instead of victory going to the last person standing, it will be a compromise by universal exhaustion. I hope we will all remember the compromise when strength returns, and not start from the beginning again. But consensus can change, and the probability of this increases with the degree of dissatisfaction with the original consensus. That's why I support a consensus that can be as wide an umbrella as possible. DGG (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that a grace period would be good for all articles (not lists) on fictional topics, with it expiring midnight after the last Doctor Who episode of the fourth series airs. Once Doctor Who is over for the year, the chances of new articles being created about episodes is virtually nil until Autumn. Will ^(talk) 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note: this is WP:FICT, so there's more than TV episodes involved, so there's no real good break point, though I do think getting it done before whatever may be the US fall season starts would be a good thing. However, we have to see how these processes play out. --MASEM 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"there is a parallel push to rethink and readapt the notability guidelines for television episodes. " I have to disagree with that. There is a push to rethink how we handle such situations, which is very different. -- Ned Scott 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At least, I believe that to be the main issue here. I have no problem with re-evaluating the notability question. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Who mentioned afd?

Just want to clarify why afd is being put forward as the solution to articles which need attention, as opposed to the noticeboard we're looking at implementing as part of this rewrite. If you think the information should be merged, place merge templates around. I even created a specific merge template for merging a lot of articles into one a while back, {{Merge-multiple-to}}. Just make the discussion link point to a section on the noticeboard, and then those interested in fictional articles and how to maintain them can contribute to the debate. Likewise, if you are involved in an editing dispute as to how to clean up an article, list it at the noticeboard, where a broad consensus may emerge. If you think an article analyses or speculates upon primary source rather than describing the obvious, post a pointer at the noticeboard and we can hopefully implement solutions through our dispute resolution and editing processes. AFD is not the place to solve editing disputes. Hiding T 13:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the noticeboard idea got a bit lost in the noise of everything else though I believe it is still a very valid idea. Is there anyone really opposed to that? If not, let's create it, I'll add it to the rewrite.

We should probably define what the noticeboard will and will not do as a top of the page message for it.

Mind you, even with broad consensus and announcement, people will still send articles to AfD (due to writing in NOTE) but maybe we can let the AfD people be aware if they see a fiction topic appear there, they close quickly close the AfD and send the content dispute to the noticeboard.--MASEM 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this discussion has been moving a little too fast for me to fully keep up, although I am interested in it. Is this noticeboard basically a centralized discussion for what articles should be expanded/merged/redirected/sent to AfD (as a last resort)? I like this idea. I would also find it useful for noting large categories that need a closer look for the possibility of non-notable articles. Usually when I find one I find several, and having a place to list these so they are not forgotten would be beneficial. By the way, Hiding, I noticed your Merge-multiple-to template about a month ago and have been using it in a few articles since then. Pagra shtak 14:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You got it - mind you, we would encourage that the noticeboard should only used if local consensus fails. --MASEM 14:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I.e. the noticeboard would also take the role of fiction-related dispute resolution instead of medcab? If so, great. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the whiteboard idea, but NOT if it is is written in a way that makes it seem like no fiction articles can go to AfD or that AfD's should automatically be closed and sent to the noticeboard. The Noticeboard is a godo place to go if local consensus fails, but there should still be the option to delete fiction articles (not all need to be merged at all), and unless the noticeboard actually has teeth, AfD may still be needed if users refuse to abide by the noticeboard or if the noticeboard ends up being useless because no one participates. ANI, argumably more important issues, regularly sees reports just get ignored or overlooked every day, so something needs to be available to deal with it. Peer reviews and FA candidacies struggle to get more than a few comments. What, if anything, can be done to guarantee this noticeboard won't just be another arguing spot for the local editors who couldn't reach consensus? Also, what will ensure the noticeboard doesn't just end up being filled with people who don't care about the guideline or policy, who hate the idea of merging anything, and so stack the deck?

Now, if the AfD is done purely after a content dispute, a recommendation of putting it on hold or closing if no sign that an attempt was made to resolve at the noticeboard might be okay, if and only if this noticeboard does actually end up being useful and well trafficked enough that decisions can be made. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be a step in the content dispute process, not a replacement for any other step. If local consensus at the article page fails, or if a larger coverage of topics at the project level, then they can turn to this proposed board for resolution; failing that, AfD or medcab depending on the proposed action. I would almost suggest we take the approach of using subarticle pages for each case, and make sure we have good bookkeeping (make sure all cases are addressed, possibly assigned to an editor to review, and subsequently closed). --MASEM 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a notice board is a great idea. The only reluctancy I would have with it is how it fits in with existing WikiProjects, with often serve as notice boards for their scope of articles. As long as we're mindful of that, I have no objection with trying the idea out. Hmm, along that idea, we could even set up such a notice board as an umbrella Fiction WikiProject, or even as an Entertainment WikiProject. Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 07:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fiction stubs are acceptable

There is no good reason for fiction articles, alone amongst all other articles, to be prevented from having stubs. The 'merge' requirement needs to be watered down to reflect this. A lack of stubs is deeply damaging to the growth of fiction where our coverage is poor, since it raises to entry barrier for new editors from 'editing an article' to 'editing a list and/or undoing a redirect' with the optional extra of 'fighting off fiction deletionists'.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

When fictional topics are just as likely to become strong articles as any other, I'll agree with you. Until then, most fiction articles are just pieces of hopeless fancruft. TTN (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason we are harder on fict-stubs is because they have the effect of spreading like fire. People start to assume continuity with them, similar to issues with succession boxes. And because they are stubs, editors are quick to fill the articles with anything, which most often meant trivial information and massive plot summary. Being a bit harder on fictional stubs does slow their growth, but it makes for far more healthier article growth, and a lot less work in the long run. -- Ned Scott 23:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban stubs because they could be misused? That sounds like a lazy excuse to me. Deal with bad content on a case by case basis, but don't just issue a blanket ban on stubs because it makes it easier to maintain a tight noose on content you don't like. Torc2 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Ned meant to say we ban stubs on fictional works - only that because fictional content can grow in unencyclopedic ways rather quickly, we still allow stubs but need to be more critical of their likelihood to develop into a good WP article so that the end result of fictional coverage is both well-written and encyclopedic. --MASEM 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but being 'harder on them' isn't really that far removed. We should not be disproportionately harsh on all fiction stubs just because there's a potential some of them could grow in ways we don't like. That's like cutting off all your fingers because you're concerned you might get a hangnail. Torc2 (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I did not mean to say we ban stubs, rather I just meant to explain why we seem to be harder on some fictional stubs. And the "potential" is not just some speculation, it's the result of what we've seen happen in the past. It's in no way a blanket evaluation or conclusion, but simply something to keep in mind. -- Ned Scott 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline as written isn't a 'bit harder', it effectively prohibits their use. Fiction stubs 'turning bad' should be less of a concern than discouraging new content and raising the barrier of entry for new editors.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia in general does want to "raise the bar" for quality. Discouraging bad content is a good thing. If this bar is to high for new editors, that's likely because they're not adding something that needs to be added. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think more detailed coverage of fewer subjects is an improvement over good coverage of a wider spectrum of subjects. No amount of fiction stubs will prevent you or anybody else from developing an article into FA status. What "needs to be added" is entirely at the whims of the Wikipedia community, which includes all those people adding stubs as well as the small circle of editors who argue on guideline talk pages. Torc2 (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing my point. It is not necessarily the existence of the stubs that is the problem, but the excessive plot summary that they very often encourage (which is content the community wishes to discourage, unless it is justified by real world context). Plus, splitting the same information into separate articles is often bad for organization, but simply done because it was seen in another set of articles. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this concept of "banning stubs" is not so much a guideline as a side effect of this idea. Articles on fictional topics should begin in the article about the work, and only be split into it's own article once either notability independent of the source has been established (paraphrase from the top of my head, forgive me) or it warrants it's own article per reasons of size. Both of these cases, by definition are not stubs. Stubs that are created by users unaccustomed to this guideline would probably generally be merge/redirected to the appropriate section of the source article. But again, no need to explicitly ban the practice. I see the potential for exceptions to this scenario, which is just fine. For real-world nonfiction topics, the concept of a parent article is often innapropriate, whereas for fictional topics, the parent is generally clear, so this method may be easily employed. -Verdatum (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's a 'side-effect', it's out of synch with common practice and will retard content growth and entrench our bias. The solution is to replace it with a fiction guideline which don't attempt a flimsy synthesis of notability and not plot, and takes neutrality and a worldwide view seriously.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Nydas, this implication that neutrality has anything to do with these issues is laughable. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That you can't understand the point doesn't make it laughable. It makes sense: pop culture typically isn't given the kind of academic attention that "serious" subjects are. By setting standards that require that level of formal analysis or commentary, you're effectively instilling a bias against popular culture. While we'll never eliminate this bias, we can certainly establish standards that don't encourage it. Torc2 (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not bias. The standards for fictional articles are not harder than other areas of Wikipedia, but Nydas thinks that because more people are there to evaluate fictional articles, that creates a bias. The fact that another article has not been worked on is not an endorsement of that article's condition. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"The standards for fictional articles are not harder than other areas of Wikipedia." I would beg to differ with this statement. Articles about other subjects can use primary sources (like articles on highways and roads) or are considered inherently notable (like albums that sell a certain number of copies). I would say that there are a number of instances where fiction is subjected to more harsh scrutiny as a result of our bias. Ursasapien (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We allow stubs for everything but fiction. That's harder. Fiction is unique in having a notability guideline which treats WP:N as a brick wall, rather than a starting point. That's harder. It doesn't help that application of these guidelines is patchy, at best, for certain dominant franchises (not all of which are important), but very hard on weakly defended, but important fiction.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(to Ursasapien) ... what? Fiction articles can and do use primary sources. (i.e. director commentary, sourcing the plot summary itself) I don't know what the logic is behind the album guidelines, but they don't have an issue with WP:PLOT by their very nature. Guidelines might give easier to follow advice because of the nature of a topic, but that is not bias. And lets not forget that these are sub-topics, and not independent topics.

(to Nydas) We allow anything with reasonable or apparent potential for growth. Along with that, sometimes things are merged for organizational reasons, for the benefit of the reader. Just because something is a stub does not mean it will be any more likely to grow than if it were in a list. I know, I've seen it happen again and again and again. I've even supported splitting off characters and elements from lists before we hand the content, because it was likely to have real world context. Is it harder to make crappy stubs that don't aid in article growth? Yes, and that's a very good thing. Is it harder to make stubs that only encourage excessive plot summary, and not encyclopedic information? Yes. Does this stop the addition of real-world context and information? Hell no, and I dare you to find a single situation where it has.

And again, the fact that this guideline hasn't been applied to every fictional article is an issue of man power, and not an issue of bias. If you can't understand it from what I'm saying, then read our article on bias. -- Ned Scott 10:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not allow things with reasonable or apparent potential for growth. Case in point: Alyosha Karamazov. For, what, two years, it was given as an example of a 'good' redirect, complete with the nonsense that the character was 'covered comprehensively' in the main article. Our fiction deletionists know very little about fiction outside the comfort zone, so they're always going to make mistakes like this.

It is bias, not 'just not got round to it yet'. Fiction deletionists believe that fancruft begets fancruft; yet they pointedly ignore the most high-profile fancruft in Babylon 5, Doctor Who, Star Trek, The Simpsons and the rest of the gang. Some of these are very slowly 'improving', but not fast enough, given the 'one month or else' timescales demanded of other fiction.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That article was a good example given the information known to the people who used it as an example. If someone knows of additional sources that contain real world context, yes, that will change things.

When editors evaluate an article, and all of the editors involved, on both "sides", are unable to find sources for real-world context, and all they have is excessive plot summary, trimming that down or redirecting / merging is a fair call based on what they know. A bias would be doing that when they did know of real world context, but didn't like that work of fiction, or didn't feel it was very important, etc.

You are confusing editors being familiar with something, with favoritism. That's not to say that there are not biases editors out there, but I don't believe it to be the result of this guideline, and I don't think most of those who helped developed it are biased either.

If editors are giving cleanup deadlines, that's bad. However, there is a difference between not having cleaned up an article vs a lack of sources for real world context. If there is reasonable potential for that real-world context, then editors should not be forcing issues because of a lack of edits to the article itself. Some do, and I'm sorry for that, but there are those that are working to change that. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Alyosha Karamazov is the protangonist in one of the most significant works of Russian literature. The correct thing to do is not redirect it, but to leave it as a stub to attract experts in that area. Encouraging and empowering people with little to no knowledge of fiction to kill stubs is the very definition of bias.

If you agree that cleanup deadlines are bad, will you support the explicit deprecation of the 'one month or else' doctrine in the guideline?--Nydas^(Talk) 10:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say this? -- Ned Scott 05:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't, but fiction deletionists interpret it as such.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If a ficton topic article has been violating WP:NOTE (or WP:FICT) for over 2 years, and is still nothing but a stubby piece of plot detail...exactly why should it be given an extra month? It hasn't attracted any experts so far. I believe if you can so the bare minimum of notability for an article (that means with sources) then a decent amount of time is warranted to fill the article out some so that it isn't just a mere stub of information. That's because, if you have 5 secondary sources that show notability, but the information only exists in a single paragraph amount of size, then it could be viable to merge it to a larger topic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there's no time limit for anything else, and no convincing case for fiction being special has been advanced. Who cares if it can be merged? All stubs can be merged, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Who cares if it violates a minor policy like WP:PLOT? Stubs aren't perfect. Who cares if it encourages other 'bad' articles? We might as well prohibit stubs on military heroes because they encourage stubs about generic soldiers.

If I create a stub for Tess Durbeyfield, the protagonist in Tess of the D'urbervilles by Thomas Hardy, there should not be any problem. In this case, you don't even need to use common sense or judgement to realise the character is notable, Google will do the thinking. --Nydas^(Talk) 11:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And if there's plenty of source material on that specific character to write a full article, please do! No one is saying no characters should have separate articles—characters as diverse as Mercutio and Buffy Summers have been the subject of significant sourcing regarding the character itself. We can and should have such articles. On the other hand, "X was the hero in $OBSCURE_ANIME. (insert 3 page plot summary here) (insert original research/speculation here) (insert trivia section here)" need to go, and go now. The source material isn't there. It's not that it isn't cited yet, it doesn't exist. Such an article will never be better than fancruft, because it can't be, nothing is available with which to improve it. Let fansites and fan wikis handle those. As to your military comparison—if minor military figure stubs were encouraging poor military bios on a massive scale, they would become a priority to take action on. They'll still get cleaned up eventually, but today we prioritize cleanup of fiction articles to stem the crapflood, because that's where it's coming from. Wikipedia may not be paper, but it's not the garbage can either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, fancruft is not the only cruft around. I would dispute that fiction content has ever been the primary source of crap articles. There are geographical stubs, school stubs and people stubs that have been languishing for years waiting for someone (some 'expert' apparently) to do something with them. One of the largest proportion of articles on Wikipedia is those about people. The commonly held ideas about the most common articles on Wikipdia are, frankly, urban myths. Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, fancruft is a bit of a chimera. It's probably just a statistical effect of the editing and viewing patterns of the fiction deletionists.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to throw my two cents in: I think fiction stubs are fine, providing the concepts themselves are notable (under whatever guideline you want). For example, Truth & Consequences is an episode page that looks very scant - two reviews and a viewing figure. The same goes for My Own Worst Enemy (Scrubs). But at the same time, they are notable (reviews are significant coverage), so I don't see a reason why it should be merged. Will ^(talk) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A good point. One only needs to show reasonable potential to defend a basic stub. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not against TTN. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)