Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

New redirection template

In the current WT:EPISODE debate (which, for obvious reasons, I'm holding off pushing FICT forward until that's settled), it was suggested that a new redirection template for episodes be created as this helps to ID what episodes have been merged and for tracking of such merges. {{ER to list entry}} is the new template for this.

I am going to suggest that we create a similar one for fictional elements, and name it "FER to list entry" for the cases of merging non-notable characters and elements into an acceptable non-notable summary style sub-article list. (FE being short for "fictional element"). Technically, this would be a special case of {{R to section}} or {{R to list entry}}, and categorially-wise, we'd make sure this was a sub-cat. We could also add sub-cats ("fictional characters" , "fictional settings" ,etc) but that may be excessive Thus, if you do redirect characters, using this as part of the redirect reason will help track those aspects. --MASEM 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe two more, one specifically for characters {{CharR to list entry}} (which are probably done as often, if not more so, than episodes since its also done with films, books, etc). Then one more for other fictional elements. Then, of course, make sure the applicable projects know about such goodies. I already put it up on the TV project :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The middle earth and comics projects already have templates for this. Hiding T 13:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead (using what I did over the weekend for TV episodes) to create {{CharR to list entry}} and {{FictR to list entry}}, which populate Category:Fictional character redirects to lists and Category:Fictional element redirects to lists, respectively. Both templates support an additional parameter to allow the work the element of fiction represents to be sub-categorized further. (See Category:Episode redirects to lists for an example of how this works.) What is nice about both is then if there are show-specific categories, these sub-topics can be included as to still list them in there, but have a separation of what is an article and what is a redirection. (See, for example Category:Stargate SG-1 episodes. Test cases for these are are Time ring (Doctor Who element) and Pidgey (pokemon character) --MASEM 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Slight revision in draft

User:Masem/wp-fict-proposed restates the nutshell to make it more clear that sub-articles are appropriate (I know this was a concern of someone and I can't remember who...) --MASEM 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

that was me--at least I was one of them. At this point, I think we should revisit section 3, which I am not sure represents the current consensus about single episodes, and what is necessary to show their individual notability, though I am not yet sure how to reword it. I do think that the final sentence ought to be not just "relative to the length of the original work", but "relative to the length and importance..." That something is long, doesnt mean its worth discussing in detail (and v.v.). DGG (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
length and sourced coverage of the work? Mind you, when I wrote that sentence , I was thinking of the "100 words per 10 minute" concept used by TV and Films, but I see where it may be appropriate to add in other notability considerations other projects have. --MASEM 07:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
In a nutshell, what's the latest guideline and its difference from the previous guideline? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
For goodness sake, click on the link above for the newest guideline. For the diff between the current guideline and this proposal, open both in two different windows and compare them. In a nutshell, they are completely different. While it still assumes that WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOTE have not moved, it does give more guidance regarding what is considered a RS and suggestions regarding where to find them. However, you need to do the work of comparing yourself. Ursasapien (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to move on?

Is there any reason we can't move the draft live and let the editing process work out any more kinks, and see where we go from there? I wouldn't suggest removing the disputed tag yet, but it may get more attention if it is on the main page. If we do move it across, I'd suggest blanket reversions be blanket reverted as unhelpful per WP:CONSENSUS. If enough of us here are happy with the shape if not every word, I think it would need more than the odd reverter to counterbalance that weight of opinion. Hiding T 11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I read over Masem's latest draft again, and it has my support. I would therefore also support the move. – sgeureka t•c 12:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I think it can be tweaked while live. I think Masem wanted to present it to a larger audience, but I think that can be done while "live," as well. Ursasapien (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If people think this is ready to go live, I've no problem (tagging it, of course, as proposed, etc. etc.) However, I will warrent that the dsicussion on TV episodes presently going on conflicts with the one part in this about using development information straight from the developers (aka the 1.5 sources I previously mentioned) as a source of notability (not that this information cannot be used alongside other third-party sources to establish notability). (See this thread where I introduce that as a possible notability guideline for episodes). It needs to be clear that unless I am missing something of a disconnect between fiction in general and tv episodes, FICT and what is suggested for EPISODE need to be on the same terms or else we're going to start this all over again soon.
Also, I do want to get the equivalent of {{ER to list entry}} in place for fictional characters and then other fiction but that's not too hard to do. --MASEM 14:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is getting far too bogged down in bureaucracy for me and is part of teh reason why I and I think a few others oppose this guidance at all. For me using development information straight from the developers to build a good article is not a problem, and I would rather see well written articles than I would argue about notability. If the goal of the guidance is to produce well written articles, and if people are prepared to compromise on their definition of what is a reasonably well written article, then I don't really have a problem. My concern is that instead the guidance is turned into a set of rules in which to "play" Wikipedia, converting articles which don't meet one's interpretation of the rules into something else, regardless of whether they are reasonably well written. Look, our editing policy states that in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however. If people think there is redeeming merit, then what you are left with is a content dispute. These guideline pages are great at offering guidance. But let no-one lose sight of the fact that they are not policy and they are not the answer in a dispute. If there is redeeming merit in any article, the ethos of Wikipedia is that we work out how to present it collaboratively, and that as long as information is verifiable it's pretty much okay to keep it within reason. Ack, I don't know where I'm going with this. I guess what I am asking is that we perhaps end the divisiveness, stop pretending that one set of words will please everyone, or even that we will all agree on what that one set of words means, and that we just learn to collaborate on editing. That we learn to accept that we might be wrong, even when we're right. That we learn that our way osn't the only way. That we learn that guidance doesn't have to be obeyed. Apologies. Rant over. Hiding T 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"For me using development information straight from the developers to build a good article" The problem is not if we can use development information to improve an article. We certainly can. The dispute is over this information alone establishing notability. Dimadick (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
But that's my point, you'll never get agreement as to what constitutes notability. It's a redundant exercise trying to. I don't want to argue as to whether this information alone establishes notability because sometimes it can and sometimes it can't and I would hate to see a blanket rule one way or the other. Notability on Wikipedia, despite what anyone says and any guidance states, is highly subjective. You only have to look at deletion debates to spot the inconsistencies. We all have blind spots and we all have a standard at which, if an article exceeds it, we will pretty much give it a free pass. That's why Spoo exists. It fails almost every notability guidance going, but it is well written, it is sourced and it is a current featured article. I'd rather our notability guidance simply said, look, mostly we want multiple independent cites to reliable sources, but if you can write an encyclopedic article, by which we mean a WP:FA, which stays within the spirit of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, we'll give you a free pass called WP:IAR. We'll also give you some time to get it there, but the worse the shape the article is in, the more likely it is to be deleted. Hiding T 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I really would love to include a simple sentence that states this, because this helps to establish this is truly a guideline. Maybe, after "a fictional topic is presumed notable if it has blah blah blah. However, notability of topics should be judged on a case-by-case basis, and should consider the spirit of Wikipedia's core policies of WP:V, W:NOR, and WP:V". I think adding that gives the wiggle room that people are looking for for things like Spoo, but not the complete freedom to write a 4 page article about a minor character that showed up once in an episode. --MASEM 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't judge articles on case-by-case basis. The belief that fiction stubs and start-classes are bad because they 'encourage' more fancruft contradicts this.--Nydas(Talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I do judge articles on a case by case basis and I'd thank you for not telling me otherwise. I'd also point out that that is what our policies tell us to do, and that anyone holding the belief that bad articles shouldn't exist because they encourage more bad articles need to find another project because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. They may like to review our editing policy, which notes that the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Of course, we do not have to like it; we may occasionally criticize substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending section to the corresponding talk page, or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however. Hope that helps. Hiding T 23:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Let's work the editing policy more strongly into the guideline. A specific undertaking that fiction stubs with reasonable potential are acceptable and a stronger statement on the unacceptability of arbitary clean-up deadlines would be a start.--Nydas(Talk) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There has to be some meeting ground between WP:BOLD and WP:DEADLINE (er, that's an essay, let's say WP:EP). There are editors that will challenge an article's notability and will want to be bold to correct it. We know now that outright being BOLD with 0-day warning is not a solution. That's why we use notability tags, discussion, and a sufficiently long waiting period to see if anything can be done to improve the article. If there's no response, BOLD makes sense. If there is response to address the issue, even to the point, "I'm trying but having no luck!", you give them the benefit of the doubt and wait. If there's a dispute, you take it to appropriate dispute resolution channels. If there are several articles in the same area, you try to attract the attention of a larger group before changing things. You use redirection to be able to get the information back, so even if someone jumped too quickly, it is not irreversible. --MASEM 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You've just described WP:BRD, pretty much, which is pretty much WP:BOLD, WP:EP, WP:DR and WP:CONSENSUS. Be bold, edit in collaboration and discuss when you can't agree to a reasonable compromise. I don't think there has to be tagging first, there can be a bold redirect first. But that bold redirect should not be followed by revert after revert after revert after revert. It should be followed by, well alright, if we're not redirecting then we need to do this, this and this to improve the article. Hiding T 00:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think more along the lines that, understanding Hiding's frustration, I am mentally tired of trying to play intermediary between all the opposing viewpoints. The issue of development being used for notability or not may be something that we stick in there and keep for now, make the proposed version into the current FICT (marked proposed, of course), and see where things fall. The only thing that doesn't make me do this now is that we should actually probably create the fiction-related noticeboard that we talked about as it is present as part of "what to do with non-notable topics". Otherwise, I'm ready to be bold and see what happens. --MASEM 20:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd stay clear of marking it proposed. Mark it as a guideline and disputed, because it is still a disputed guideline whatever text you have up there, and then after a while if there's no outrage we can remove the disputed tag. This isn't a proposal, this is a rewrite. That's why rewrites should happen in situ, to be honest. Hiding T 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I apologise to you Masem for draining you with my frustration. Hiding T 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not you or anyone in particular, just,... I think about how much time I've spent trying to figure this out, and I think there's a few full weeks in that.  :-) I see a light at the end of the tunnel, so at least there's encouragement there. --MASEM 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's "live" or not, it seems to be time to put more notices out about it, and request comments, like mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 15#Lack of participation: "Ideally we'll take the proposals from Hiding and Masem and others, and come up with something that most of us on the talk page can agree with. Then we'll present the ideas to the greater community in a cleaner format, so that users new to this discussion can get a good feel for things without having to hunt through all the past discussion." -- Ned Scott 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I actually thought we'd put out more notices quite recently to be honest. A few new people drifted by recently. I doubt many more will pass by until it's on the main page. That's when people suddenly take notice, and realise they had an objection. Hiding T 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Too much time is being spent by too few people on a guidance document. The group of contributers is too small to be meaningful. My first vote would be to remove WP:N and WP:FICT at this point. I think AfD and the like will produce things that look more like the wikipedia consensus than this will. My second vote would be to stick with WP:FICT as it stands. I appreciate all the (very) hard work, but I just don't think it's close to where consensus lies. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I have not seen anyone, at WT:N, suggest that WP:N needs to be fixed or changed or disputed. If you really feel that how Wikipedia defines notabiility should be brought into question, it needs to be addressed there. And I still don't see how the draft is worse than the present version -it clearly allows subarticles, and defines better routes for dealing with non-notable content. --MASEM 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Lots of people think it should be changed, some of it is discussed on the mailing lists. --attempts at change in the past have not reached consensus, but they continue to be suggested. It's one thing being unhappy about it--the problem is those of us who are do not know how to deal with it and find an acceptable substitute. I'll have an essay on this eventually, maybe. Saying it should either WP:N as it stands, or Notability in an absolute defined sense for a topic, or popularity, also defined for a topic. I do not necessarily mean to be more inclusive, just more consistent and predictable. DGG (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The 'danger' of fancruft

It's regularly stated that fancruft is a serious danger to Wikipedia, accompanied by lurid anecdotes about fictional minutae growing out of control. But compared to, say, gossip on living people, unsourced medical articles or nationalist tub-thumping, fancruft is never going to hurt anyone. In fact, compared to almost any real-world topic, fancruft is pretty harmless. Nor is it especially common or pernicious. The belief that it is a problem is probably a result of the editing and viewing patterns of the fiction deletionists.

There's an Internet subculture devoted to mocking of over-zealous fans as typified by sites like Something Awful. I suspect that our fiction deletionists are more stung by criticism from them than is really warranted.--Nydas(Talk) 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You're right, it doesn't. Funny that, isn't it. But that essay has existed a long long time, and represents the thinking of a lot of Wikipedians and covers most arguments. It could probably be worth a see also link in this guidance. Hiding T 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The war against cruft is just bigotry rooted in pseudointellectual snobbery. In centuries to come the Simpsons and Star Trek will be regarded as classics and scholars will analyse and obsess over them as they do the works of Shakespeare now. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already commented on this in depth over at WP:EPISODE - please take a look at point 6 from the talk page for my reasoned view. LinaMishima (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the long-tail needs to be developed somewhere, unless I've managed to miss an essay on it. It's a very good point. I think the problem I have with a lot of this is the seeming misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works that some editors appear to have. They appear to me to think that the editors editing in breach of guidelines don't have a voice in establishing consensus. I am prepared to stand corrected on this, but if we accept that all editors are equal, which is a basic tenet of Wikipedia, there being no cabal, then it stands to reason that if quite a few editors are editing in breach of guidelines, in sufficient number, the guideline may not have consensus. Our rules are not set in stone, we do not write the rules and then edit the encyclopedia, we started writing the encyclopedia and then developed the rules. David Gerard started an excellent essay which is now at Wikipedia:Practical process, and which notes that We're here to write an encyclopedia — not to write rules on how to write one, or to write rules on writing those rules. Editors who edit the article space but not the project space have as much of a voice as those that do. Yes, our guidance is good, but it has to reflect what we all believe, and since no two wikipedians can ever agree on what an encyclopedia actually is, the best way to decide is by writing the encyclopedia rather than hashing out rules. What strikes me is this; if we edited overly plot-centric articles back to the current style, why does the article have to also be merged? I can understand that it could be merged, but it seems an arbitrary point to say it must be merged. What problem does merging actually solve? Ah, never mind, I'm ranting again. Hiding T 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an opinion that some people hold. What do you want us to do about it? Kidnap them and brainwash them so they think how we want them to think? Get over it. -- Ned Scott 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know the percentage of Wikipedia's articles that are fiction articles? I've seen it mentioned that about 10% are biographies, but I haven't seen a figure for fiction articles. I've seen this image of the English Wikipedia broken down, which is funny but not accurate. Bláthnaid 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated version

I have taking the advice, and have been BOLD and updated FICT with the last present copy of my original proposed version. Please note that I have marked it "disputed" (since it still is) and "proposed", so please do not revert back to the old version without good reason (given that that was also "disputed", this is the attempt to correct it).

As Hiding suggested, it is probably time to take off the training wheels and see what sort of problems or non-problems this version creates. Please edit to help fix any wording issues, though major deviations from what is written should be discussed in depth. (see WP:BRD). --MASEM 01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove all of those tags for now and just use a custom message? Something like, "this is generally a guideline, some parts were/are disputed, therefor this page has been updated with proposals" then maybe a diff? Just to help people follow what's going on. We could even manually add the categories if we want.
And again, thank you to Masem for all the hard work on this. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks to Masem. I added a pointer to the pump to try and drive eyes this way. [1]. Hiding T 11:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

proposal by Dorftrottel

I have a little proposal here. Since too many articles on various fiction franchises appear to be created in an effort to mirror the fictional universe itself rather than the real-world franchise, I think it is important to educate editors that this is encyclopedically inaccptable. This notability guideline is the very place for it. User:Dorftrottel 04:39, January 30, 2008

A tweak

Last night whilst trying to sleep an idea came to me about tweaking the opening to contain a portion of WP:EP. I think it is the consensus of all of us that information which does not violate WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as well as WP:NOT be retained, even if not in its own article. That's the substance behind merging, basically. So suddenly it struck me, why not go back to the source. Because this guidance doesn't just draw on WP:N and WP:PLOT, it also draws on WP:EP. We used to do policy trifectas, because of triangulation and tripods and all of that, three being a strong shape, and it seems to me that WP:FICT is a triangulation of WP:NOT, that we delete items which are unencyclopedic, WP:EP, that we retain useful information, and WP:CONSENSUS, that we collectively decide on how to proceed. Or something like that. Anyway, I've made the tweak, and I hope I've explained why and why I think it represents consensus. Hiding T 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eureka! You have great thoughts while you are trying to get to sleep. I think this triumvirate is what this guideline should truly harken back to, not WP:N. Ursasapien (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I know I am probably going to be misunderstood. Yes, I understand this is a notability guideline. However, I think Hiding's trifecta is more simple and more in the spirit of Wikipedia than repeating "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (see zombies). We should follow this simple formula:
Works for me. Ursasapien (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The only reason that we have the reliable sources stuff is that that is the consensual position on what is encyclopedic. Given a topic its own article imparts a "weight" or "worth" to that information, and we need to make sure we are not being biased in deciding what information to give that worth too, so we use WP:N as a consensual position to fall back on when we disagree and can not find a consensus. But if we can agree that a topic is worth covering, we can ignore WP:N if we so desire. But we have to demonstrate why the article in question improves the encyclopedia. The reason why a deletion debate is not a head count is because sometimes people aren't engaging in discussion. An admin is supposed to close in line with the discussion, not the head-counts. There may only be two people discussing at the bottom of an afd, but if they agree on an approach, and none of the other respondents have bothered debating, you can decide that the initial consensus has changed. I don't mind people using WP:N as a starting position. I mind when they won't debate. Hiding T 11:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"Do not take the time to remove remove unencyclopedic information" actually contradicts WP:NOT and WP:EP. Are you sure that is what you mean? Hiding T 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I fixed it. I simply could not get the words to say what I intended. :) Ursasapien (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll be honest: While the spirit of the change is good, the results in editing won't be. Read the new paragraph from the perspective of an editor interested in in-universe details, who thinks that plot is information. And yes, plot technically is information, but so are WP:NOT#FAQs, WP:NOT#LYRICS, WP:NOT#STATS, and WP:NOT#NEWS - see what WP:NOT#INFO has to say about that. – sgeureka t•c 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This is already policy, so I'm not sure I understand your objection. This is not a "new" paragraph it is policy. Hiding T 12:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Simply point the "editor interested in in-universe details" back to WP:NOT and follow that with discussion and collaboration. Ursasapien (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, if we want to keep the new paragraph, move it before WP:NOT#PLOT like "Keep information but follow WP:NOT#PLOT". The way it is now, it reads like "These are the policies and guidelines, but ignore them because we really need to preserve information". – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally I thought it was better coming after WP:PLOT because that gave WP:PLOT primacy, made it clear that WP:PLOT was to be complied with first, then WP:N, and then WP:EP. But I'm not fussed where it goes. I just feel it needs to be in there as it is the policy on which the merging, tagging and so on described later is founded upon. Hiding T 13:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The wording of NOT#PLOT is not quite fixed--the idea is correct, but there may be some changes there. In fact, it's even be suggested that it be removed altogether, though I opposed that suggestion. There is however a fairly strong feeling, that the articles of fiction should have substantial content in all of plot, characters, setting, and production , and reception, proportions depending on the individual situation. the solution to articles which are mainly plot is to write the other sections, holding fast to the idea that it is the fiction as a whole that needs to be notable, even if the article is divided. The RS for plot character and setting is of course the work of fiction. the RS that the ficton is notable, of course, must be reviews and outside discussion. DGG (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Support for new guideline

Although I've been following the discussion at the WP:EPISODE, I actually came here from the Village Pump notice. I really like the new proposed guideline, and I am happy that it stresses significant coverage in reliable sources. The only thing I think I would change is to make Be Bold and fix the article number one on the list of options instead of two. Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no problems with the new guideline, except that I believe that deletion should be after the consideration of merging, and I believe transwiki should always be a major consideration of deletion discussions.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
another point: "Normally, these fictional elements are described as part of the plot within the main article for the fictional work and do not need to demonstrate notability on their own." This is not "normally," this is for relative small articles. The ones that actually concern us most and cause the most discussion are the large ones, and this does not take account of the discussion below. And I wouldnt evev say characters should necessarily be discussed "within" the plot. this is getting into MOS questions. I think it should read simply: : "Normally, these fictional elements are described as part of the article or group of articles for the fictional work and do not need to demonstrate notability on their own." DGG (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish to thank everyone for their contributions to the new guideline. Well done, you have my support. G.A.S 05:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See also

Does this guideline also want to link to the Wikiproject Anime and Manga guidelines on character articles as well? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit too little about notability of characters, but I would think that WP:MOS-AM would be good to include on WP:WAF (MOS for fiction works) as a See Also. --MASEM 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess that depends on one's view of the see also section. In the past I've just seen them as "of interest to the reader" or "would likely be looking for as well", and would put whatever was related. But I can see limiting it to keep the section from getting huge. *shrug* I could go either way. -- Ned Scott 22:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice board

What happened to the notice board? Hiding T 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to create it?  :-) (I took out the mention of it in the version as I didn't want people trying to use something that didn't exist yet, but we should now go ahead and get that going.) --MASEM 12:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
First stab at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, I based the format on the Fringe theories one. Hiding T 15:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Modified a bit of the text and added where we should fit in to the process, but awesome. --MASEM 16:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I oppose this noticeboard. It's another layer of bureaucracy and will contribute to the hysteria which surrounds the notability of fiction.--Nydas(Talk) 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. It is meant to help smooth out issues with fiction and notability, not to create any new rules, nor a required step in content disputes.--MASEM 17:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding to the bureaucratic mire always seems like a good idea. Taking the fringe theories noticeboard as the basis legitimises that view that fancruft is a profound problem, rather than a trifling one.--Nydas(Talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Taking the fringe theories noticeboard as the basis means I copied the format of that noticeboard. Specifically, they transcluded the header in, so I did, I copied what templates were on that page and I copied the categories and other format issues. I hope that addresses your concerns which I personally take exception too. Hiding T 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look good to me either, although I'm sure it was made in good faith. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>It's encouraging to see that someone is already using the board, but we should be careful it's made clear that it is for questions about notability, not a step for Dealing with non-notable fictional topics. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think it's fair to say that that is covered under the board's theme. I see nothing wrong with offering advice as to how to improve non-notable fiction-related articles, or any content questions regarding fiction-based articles as part of a dispute-related process. Even if this FICT is rejected, I think the noticeboard should stay for the same purpose. --MASEM 19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that this should be an option for those cases, I just don't want to make it a requirement that any time someone wants to redirect an episode, for example, that they aren't required to post at the noticeboard first. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree - I actually added text that local consensus should be sought first; the board should not be the first place if you want to do something to an article. --MASEM 20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the noticeboard would be a good idea--they really do work in the other places they are being used, PW:RS in particular. . Centralizing discussions is a way to avoid bureaucracy and encourage ordinary interest WP editors to participate fully. DGG (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit reluctant on the idea only because it does seem like another talk page to watch, but I'm all for giving it a try. Lets see where it goes. -- Ned Scott 20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What about MacGuffins?

Should MacGuffins (in general, not the specific article dealing with what it is) get their own articles, as a subpage summary of whatever the series is? What about important series concepts, like Mutant (Marvel Comics), detailing what makes a character be mutant in X-Men etc.? -Malkinann (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On real-world notability and real encyclopedias

Characters like Hermione and Leontes from The Winter's Tale have not had much "real-world" notability, even though they are in a lesser-known play by Shakespeare. All their notability is "in-universe", being major characters. Yet the CD version of the 1998 Britannica, a "real" encyclopedia, has articles about them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not knowing how they present it on the CD (how much detail, what references, or the like), I would assume that given these are Shakespeare characters that there's probably some academic works that support it (the real-world notability or in this case, analysis and synthesis and critical review per secondary sources) that is needed) in addition to the general analyses of Shakespeare plays that exist. --MASEM 07:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Like Masem said, there's a lot of research and analysis for pretty much all of Shakespeare's major characters (and many of the minor characters). Shakespeare's works, and the elements within them, are often considered ground-breaking, and have impacted and inspired other writers for years. It might be as notable as some of his other works, but even The Winter's Tale has been the subject of great discussion in history. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not understanding your point, so perhaps you could restate it. Either there are sources which cover Hermione and Leontes or there are not. You seem to be saying both. Hiding T 13:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article on X needs more anime\fan material\spam

Sorry. Just saw this gem and thought I'd throw it into the conversation as an ideal example of this problem:

Talk:X#Anime?

X needs more anime.

Ideas of anime\fan material\spam we could add:

We could also maybe make a list, like List of things containing the letter X

/sarcasm

Seriously, folks. Stop stonewalling. This policy needs to get through and if it doesn't, it won't just make Wikipedia a bad resource of information, but it would also lead to copyvio. And when Wikipedia gets sued, every user here who voted "no, keep fan mat, i like it, its good, its useful, its interesting" should receive a portion of Wikimedia's legal bills, proportional to their democratic authority on Wikipedia policy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To respond to one comment above:

"But compared to, say, gossip on living people, unsourced medical articles or nationalist tub-thumping, fancruft is never going to hurt anyone"

That's two wrongs make a right. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The revised version is now up (though marked disputed), and there's been a few live edits but certainly not enough time to determine if there's major opposition for it or not yet. --MASEM 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I honestly can't figure out what you're complaining about. The link to Talk:X#Anime? only has one person posing a question about a series they heard about called X. They might be off a bit and should have asked it at X (disambiguation) instead, but it's not a faulty question to ask. It also has absolutely nothing to do with this guideline. Torc2 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding all the stuff to X (disambiguation) above would pretty much solidify the point I'm trying make. (Don't do that, per WP:POINT -- I'm just saying, that's what it would do). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding all that stuff to X (disambiguation) is already forbidden by WP:DAB. This guideline, again, has nothing to do with it. I also don't see anybody besides you suggesting we add any of it. Torc2 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure what you are talking about, or how it relates to this article. Perhaps you should explicitly state what "this problem" is, or "the point I'm trying to make" instead of alluding to it. Plotcruft and copyright violations are two entirely separate things. No one here is arguing that we should keep copywrited material in fictional articles. -Verdatum (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Future timeline is also "already dealt with" under WP:Copyvio and WP:NOR. The article still stayed up, under two AfDs. I brought up the above example as a specific case where you again have fans of anime\videogames\movies\television and other popular media attempting to upload stuff into absurd places. Why on Earth should the article on X mention X (manga)?

And then there's List of X characters. All of this unencyclopedic content needs to be flushed. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the Back to the Future timeline article. The AfD results were correct. Everything in it is descriptive (thus no OR), and there is no copyright violation. There is no reason for Wikipedia to fear any from this article. The article on X doesn't need to mention anything aside from details about the letter 'X' itself; however, X (disambiguation) sure should. I still don't know where you got your list. Did you just make it up? It sounds more like you want the rules to change because other editors don't think like you.Torc2 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The person in the linked talk page made a perfectly innocent comment. What exactly is the problem?--Nydas(Talk) 08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, why the need to bite the newcomers? -Verdatum (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Zen is missing a major point in why we have disambig pages, and also that the title of the work is named "X" instead of simply having an X in the title. -- Ned Scott 09:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about his comment suggests he's a newcomer. If I was attempting to bite him, I would do so on his talkpage.

Ned, you're right: But take a look at X (disambiguation). There's a good chunk of fancruft there. When the majority of the article on X (disambiguation) contains pop culture references, we have a problem. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What on that list doesn't belong, aside from the math links, half the science links, and the radio stations? Arguably Mega Man X, but the rest are totally valid. There isn't any "cruft" on that list whatsoever. Torc2 (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Pop culture can be encyclopedic. Only one of those radio station names seemed to be stretching it. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the radio station section altogether, since I think it's very unlikely anyone will look for them in that way, but I don't see it as a problem either. Mega Man X (character) might need to be removed. Other than that... this is a disambig page listing articles that are X (something) or The X or something very similar. That is the point of a disambig page, to list those pages. If you don't think they should be listed then maybe some of the articles should be taken to AfD. -- Ned Scott 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Torc2: I'm not saying the articles aren't appropriately listed. I'm saying that it's friggin' bizarre to see a disambiguation of X list 50% fan-material. There is plenty of stuff on there that shouldn't belong.

I.E. X (Metroid enemy) "a parasitic organism and primary antagonist in Game Boy Advance Metroid Fusion."

Come on. How is this notable? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I've got a good feel what Zenwhat's complaint is about... and, while I'm all for notability, I'm not sure if I agree with what Zen's talking about. Ok, X (disambiguation) may have a few pop culture topics in it, but most of these are works, not characters, and works are likely to be notable. So ignoring those, there are three characters on there: X (Marvel Comics), X (Metroid enemy) and Mega Man X (character). Now, I'm not sure if any of these separate articles (the first is very iffy, the second is already redirected, and the third is borderline edging on being undue weight). Let's assume they aren't and the page contents are merged into lists somewhere. I see no problem in keeping these links (or the correct redirection) on the Disamb page because each of them is still a possible result if someone were to search on the term "X". (as noted on the Mega Man X , the character is sometimes simply referred to as "X", so someone may try to search on that). In other words, even if merged from non-notable pages into an appropriate main topic or subarticle that we're suggesting we allow, the disambiguition pages should still provide the links to those merged topics. Yes, "X (Metroid enemy)" is likely not what 99.9% of the readers searching on X will be looking for, but there is that 1% that might be looking for it. Basically, as long as they are complete appropriate on the disamb page, I see no reason why the disambig page cannot contain the links for non-notable fictional topics. --MASEM 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Pop culture, whether you like it or not, is the dominant culture of our age. The amount of it on Wikipedia is appropriately reflective of its importance and relevance to the general populace. If anything, given Wikipedia's intellectual slant and pro-academic, anti-populist policies, it's underrepresented. What seems trivial to you is not trivial to a good chunk of the population, and therefore is not trivial at all. Torc2 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What is of "importance and relevance to the general populace" is not the same as what is "importance and relevance to an ENCYCLOPEDIA." It's true that pop culture predominates, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should resemble Playstation magazine or the Enquirer. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Depth of coverage - one shot vs series

Nydas took out the following, I've added it back in with one change: The depth of coverage should also be appropriate for the size or length of the work in addition to notable information. A singular work of fiction (such as a single movie, a book, or video game) will likely not require sub-articles to describe parts, instead covering these details in the main article. On the other hand, a book, TV, or video game series may benefit by having a few common fictional element lists that can help to provide suitable background and supplementary information for each work within the series. (the "will likely not" was changed from "should rarely"). Nydas cited this as not needed as too many exceptions to the rule.

I have reverted this with the edit to make it less bitey. One-shot works should typically not need a completely separate character list, but we should not prevent it, just offer guidance against it. --MASEM 13:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do standalone works typically not need character lists? An important standalone work will definitely merit character articles, whilst a unimportant serial work may not. Serial or standalone shouldn't come into it at all.--Nydas(Talk) 14:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This statement should be taken as advice, not so much a rule (which is why it was made less bitey). Characters lists for single-shot works can and do exist, but these are not the majority. Newer editors may take the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and try to create similar lists for less significant one-shot works, seeing such a list for a different show, but we should guide them that this is generally a uncommon, but allowable, case, so care should be taken before creating such. --MASEM 14:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You're assuming that the 'majority' in Wikipedia is representative of the real world. I think it might be, but the impact is so slight that it should not be mentioned at all.--Nydas(Talk) 09:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've re-removed it. This awkward rule of thumb needs a stronger justification than 'majority' or the theoretical behaviour of new editors. The 'series = notable' attitude is not one we should be supporting in any way, lest we discourage people creating articles on Captain Ahab, etc.--Nydas(Talk) 08:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I re-reverted the changes. I think we need more discussion. Your changes made this guideline less readable. Perhaps you could put a proposed revision here so we can work on it. Besides, we may need to wait until ArbCom makes some decisions. Ursasapien (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Either we do have to wait or we don't. I feel strongly that this rule of thumb will have a damaging effect on the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia, and it needs to be removed. My changes made the guideline more readable by removing repetition and wordiness.--Nydas(Talk) 10:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we are definitely supposed to not change episode or character articles until the end of the arbitration. I am not sure how other editors (or administrators) would interpret this injunction in regards to guidelines. I think I see where you are coming from (with the rule of thumb) but I think it may be better to start small, wait, and let that change sink in before making so many changes. Perhaps, if you just changed the "rule-of-thumb" paragraph. You could even do as I suggested and post the change to this page, to get other editors comments. Ursasapien (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(@Nydas) It's a rule of thumb that applies to non-notable characters and elements described as part of a larger topic. That means that first, notable elements do not follow this guideline (Captain Ahab should not fall into this, because he would be a character that should have significant academic analysis for notability), that there are always exceptions, and that it is meant to help limit the creation of "List of X" articles for every single fictional work until it is appropriate for a WP:SPINOUT. --MASEM 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The wording is unclear, the justification even more so, and the distinction between series and standalone is arbitary. It's rule creep and should be avoided. Is there actually a problem with highly non-notable 'list of' articles being created?--Nydas(Talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because if we are saying that these are fine by WP:SS/WP:SPINOUT, they should be created only when it is necessary to break out such lists from a larger article, such that they remain an appropriate sub-article of the main topic. When they are not done like that, with the list created not as a breakout of material from the main article but as a separate entity, that generally is what grows to give us lists that are excessively long in in-universe details that stretch the intent of what a summary-style sub-article should be like. This should also be true for series lists; character and other aspects should not be broken out until there is a need to do so, though there is likely to be the case with a longer TV show or long running book/movie/video game series. Furthermore, it is not a rule, it is simply meant for the reading editor to understand the nature of what depth of coverage should mean. --MASEM 17:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
So it's actually the extent of the narrative, not anything to do with being in a series or not. Why not just state that instead?--Nydas(Talk) 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it's the intent of this section, or just what I'd like to see, but it seems that sub articles can be appropriate for aspects that span multiple parent articles of fiction. So if a character, or organization, or whatever appears in multiple works (for example, I had an issue regarding this with some of the Resident Evil sub-articles) it's easier and more informative to discuss them in greator detail over the entire franchise then in one paragraph per article. In this case, television series would not fall into this clause, but series involving multiple movies, novels, video games, etc. would. Whether that was the intention or not, this needs to be worded very carefully (or perhaps as others argue, not at all), otherwise this could be a point of contention used to argue for the retention/creation of articles not intended to be endorsed by this effort. -Verdatum (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe your approach is what was intended, however I must dispute your comment regarding TV series - the unit of fiction in terms of TV is not the series but the season (with respect to comparison with games - any alternative comparison is obviously absurd in this context). LinaMishima (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision comments...

Mmm. I'd taken a break from looking at fiction in Wikipedia, and see another stab at this. As best I can tell, this new revision looks fine. Then again, I liked the old revision too, as well as the old old one. In fact, I think that these new guidelines are only restatements of the original WP:FICT with its "minor characters and entities should be merged into the main article or into list articles." Nevertheless, clearly something is off, because fiction requirements have tightened beyond what I think the guideline warrants, whether due to a different crowd at AfD or because the guideline is being interpreted in a different way.

My main concern remains that fiction articles should be treated exactly like other articles on Wikipedia are. Right or wrong, Wikipedia has chosen to be an encyclopedia of practically anything verifiable. It's just part of the identity of the project. That doesn't mean that there isn't a certain hurdle topics must clear, but it's very low (case in point: Category: Internet memes). The real logic (to me, at least) behind merges, etc. is not notability, but rather that unified articles are often the best way to present the content. That's it. (I seem to recall a proposed merger of this with WP:WAF awhile back, that I guess went nowhere? I'd support it.)

I'm not exactly sure how the guideline should be changed (if at all) in response to these concerns, but...

  • Summary style breakoffs for lists and compilation articles are a-okay. FTP#FTP return codes cheerfully breaks off the long, boring, and technical List of FTP server return codes, and this is no big deal. No one complains that the spinoff is somehow harming Wikipedia. The same should be true for largely in-universe articles that would be too long in the parent article. This is not done to "save" in-universe content, but rather to meet the conflicting goals of brevity in the main article and comprehensiveness. To me, a brief summary in the main article rather than a complete recap is usually to the main article's credit, and no angst need be shed over the creation of a new article with more detail. A forced merge or redirect will invariably short one of these principles, as either the section balloons far beyond its proper size, or the coverage is not comprehensive.
  • No deadline means no deadline. If for some strange reason the Sherlock Holmes article still sucked right now, that doesn't mean it should be deleted or even pre-emptively merged. Especially as Wikipedia slowly starts to build up a corpus on lesser but still relevant works pre-1930, many of these topics will be specialist-only and grow with out-of-universe information only slowly. The same problem exists with works composed by authors/producers in non-English speaking countries. That doesn't mean they should be AfDed.
    • On the same train of thought as above, one of the founding pillars of Wikipedia is that it prefers a bad article to no article. The bad article is at least a starting place and can be improved by others. An article's current quality has rather little to do with its long-term status on Wikipedia; its potential should be judged.
  • Aggressive merging that is actual merging is fine. Aggressive "merging" that is really deletion is not, unless it's blatantly obvious that something shouldn't have an article. I suppose this goes more with the arbitration case that seems to be going on.

Does this sound reasonable? Are these principles consistent with the guideline as written, or am I misreading it? SnowFire (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds completely reasonable and not in line with the guideline as written. --Kizor 06:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Your last 2 (3) points are part of the ArbCom case dealing with aggressive merging over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, as you mention.
Part of the problem is that while WP:DEADLINE states there's no rush, there's also WP:BOLD that tells editors to go ahead and make changes as they see fit. The place that where these meet is to see if there's involvement and consensus with such articles to make these actions. Part of what seems to be part of the ARbCom is that if an editor thinks articles are non-notable, they should not be immediately bold but notify and wait for good faith edits, or make sure there's consensus to do so. Also, there is a push to never delete (off the server completely) existing content, but a strong push to make sure things are redirected (to allow recovery and restoration) as well as transwiki'ing the material. These concepts are part of the rewrite already but if ArbCom suggests any thing else, they will amended.
On the first point, summary style articles should, appropriately, be considered as extended coverage of the topic they are split from; clearly they don't need to display notability, but the key point is that they need to be a "summary style" article; there are many singular character articles that are all in-universe information that would not meet the requirements of summary style, as well as at issue with WP:PLOT and WP:UNDUE. One thing I suggested in ARbCom and at WT:EPISODE that for purposes of merging non-notable content, copying all of the in-universe information without cleanup is better than no copying at all; that can always be trimmed down later, if needed. Again,I think this is suggested by the new guideline, and more could (though unlikely, since it's not content resolution we're expecting from) result from ArbCom.
Overall, I think the guideline, to some extent, covers the concerns, but most of these are behavioral, moreso than content, and because ArbCom is still considering this case, we may have more to add after this. --MASEM 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Also adding: pointing to Category:Internet memes is not necessarily a demonstration of consensus; in fact, every topic on WP is guided by the general notability guideline of requiring significant coverage in secondary sources; that category really does need an enema to clear it out. Without WP:FICT (if it remains disputed and never achieves consensus), notability falls back to wP:NOTE, and the same requirement is still there for all articles; FICT only tries to outline many common cases that occurs when writing fiction and how to deal with them within WP's policies and guidelines, and to help prevent much of the edit warring that has gone on for a long time. --MASEM 06:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
We do not have to fall back on the general notability guideline if we do not want to. Better notability guidelines, such as WP:NF and WP:BK take it as a starting point, not a brick wall. For example, the film notability proviso allowing articles on little-known films if they represent an important milestone for a particular country.--Nydas(Talk) 08:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
But each of those fall back on WP:N , stating that there are cases where it is very likely a film or book will be notable, but still require reliable sourcing per WP:NOTE; that is, if per these guidelines one of these works were true, editors should be aware that sourcing needs to be provided for the notability aspects but there is a benefit of a doubt that it is likely notable but ultimately, if it cannot meet NOTE, then the work should not be covered as a topic. NOTE still is the baseline for those guidelines; there are no "special cases" where notability doesn't have to be demonstrated, but there are likely scenarios where based on past editor experience that if certain conditions are met, there will be sources and thus there's a short-cut path to demonstrating notability.
Unfortunately, we cannot do the same in FICT: the breadth and depth of how fictional characters and elements are just too large and varied to be able to even give ground rules, and I've yet to figure out any likely criteria where notability can be demonstrated if some other aspect is met (eg, "A major character in a prime time television series" more often than not does not led to a character with notability that can be demonstrated). Thus, we start with NOTE, and really can only build on from there that within the context of PLOT we can allow for summary style articles for collecting non-notable elements. --MASEM 13:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's impossible to prove that sources don't exist for something, making your position logically untenable. An album winning an important award, with no other hard sources, doesn't suggest notability, it is notability. The guidelines don't fall back on notability, they override it.--Nydas(Talk) 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That may be "notable" as defined outside WP, but within WP, it still needs to be sourced. However, if an album wins an important award, there should be almost no difficulty in finding sources for stating that, which is why those various criteria exist: most of the time, sources can be readily found, and that there's likely other incidental material about that work. If a movie wins an Academy Award, there's likely a listing of awardees that can be sources, but for a movie to reach that pinacle, there's bound to be tons of reviews and other information to go along with it. The burden of demonstrating notability still has to be done, but it should be an easy job. Anything else can be shown to be notable, but it is up to those that want to include it to provide the verifiable information to demonstrate why a topic is notable, and that task may not be as easy if it doesn't meet the given criteria, but that doesn't mean it automatically fails either. --MASEM 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability is defined by us, it didn't descend from the heavens. It's ignored for geography stubs, as long as they are verifiable, because we use a different notability standard for them. It's ignored in the other direction using WP:NOTNEWS as a justification.--Nydas(Talk) 09:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's worth remembering this was a guideline before WP:N. WP:N simply restated what was common in a large number of other guidelines on notability, and then crept to where it is now. This page came first, and can go further than WP:N. WP:N even makes that very point. This is the kernel of the argument, some people follow the rules, some people ignore them. Both approaches are equally valid, and compromising or agreeing to disagree are the only options. That's consensus. Hiding T 13:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. This guideline should go no further than than NOTE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does this guideline now extend past NOTE? It would really help to achieve consensus to know the issues that you may have with it (knowing from past discussion here that you feel this shouldn't be necessary at all to have, but as we've argued, we need to describe how PLOT and NOTE interact). --MASEM 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I got that from a previous revision, sorry. I guess I'll go back to saying we should rely on NOTE since it's way more stable and leave what this page is discussing up to WAF. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"

Something else I just came across.

Wonderful original research, isn't it? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak synthesis at the most, not complete OR - you may have noticed that each and every film has an accompanying reference. As the counting has already been performed by an external source, simply placing these onto a table with automatic sorting enabled is a trivial task. LinaMishima (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It's synthesis, but acceptable synthesis since the topic of the number of times the word "fuck" is used in a movie is notable. There are several sources that discuss it, and the editors are not creating the synthesis; they're just reporting on it. But LinaMishima is correct, there is no OR in this article. Torc2 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This comes up every so often. It's an acceptable page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
yes, assembling obviously relevant well-sourced data in a straightforward manner isnt synthesis--in fact, it's the general way all WP articles should be written. Sometime the information is best shown as a table; sometimes as prose. DGG (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above - this list is notable. Mind you, the lead needs to be cleaned up because this feels more like a list for list's sake (eg edging on WP:NOT#DIR, but I'm sure there's a broader topic this list can be connected to. --MASEM 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And there is at least one major secondary source, Fuck (film), dealing with this topic. 23skidoo (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Plugging Wikia in a policy may create a conflict of interest.

There's a conflict of interest issue when Wikipedia explicitly promotes moving content to Wikia, as the current draft of this policy does. The problem is that Wikipedia is a nonprofit, Wikia is a for-profit company, and they some share officers and board members. Wikipedia's tax-exempt status can become an issue. We need legal guidance in this area. --John Nagle (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal guidance to date has said this is a non-issue, but feel free to take this up with the foundation's lawyer. Ursasapien (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and we've tried to write the external wiki stuff to say "any GFDL-compat wiki, such as Wikia" (if an explicit example is given), so that while people know where they can go, it doesn't endorse or require the material to be moved only there. --MASEM 05:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We're asking people with a COI to decide their COI, a COI (unless uninvolved law talking guys have weighed in). They may be right, but it's still a COI. Even without mentioning Wikia by name, it's a COI, because Wikia is the other big wiki. On the other hand, we may as well mention Wikia since it's a COI either way, and will only be resolved when WP and Wikia aren't run by the same people. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts toward Wiki's is that if article material needs to be deleted or removed by redirect then from Wikipedia then it would have an emotional impact towards editors and other IP's and would only anger them to the point where they leave Wikipedia. But if there were a chance for more unneeded details to be moved to a separate Wiki and better chances of convincing editors to go to those Wiki's, then their would be less anger and issues with Wikipedia and some of the more people can stay to work on editing articles. One thing that can't be denied is that the environment on Wikipedia is very stressful with differencing views on editing and following rules and without assisting on handling these issues would only cause more people to leave Wikipedia and cause more disputes against the editors who actions ignite these conflicts through their actions despite their need to bring the article within the rules. At the same time numerous wiki's are underdeveloped and need more attention. In a way, if handled correctly adding in a Wiki or Wikia link to a policy will not create a conflict of interest but rather it can lead the way to a fair compromise in the event of a dispute. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed this out before. Beyond the COI re policy concern, there is the fact the inter-wiki links such as those with a wikia: prefix do not include a rel="nofollow" and thus boost the PageRank of the target. For a COI to exist there does not need to be a nefarious plan, there just needs to be an appearance of a conflict (and, of course, there may be a plan — as there often is when millions of dollars are a stake). --Jack Merridew 08:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

creator commentary section

The language in the paragraph with creator commentaries is unclear to me. It currently reads:

Articles dealing with a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should be able to readily demonstrate notability by citing critical reception, viewership or sales figures, history and development, and other information from reliable sources. Such sources can include creators' commentary and interviews regarding the work or topic, bearing in mind the restrictions if the work is self-published. While data such as actors or voice actors, people involved with production, publication or airing dates, and length of work can be taken from reliable sources, such information does not demonstrate notability.

Sentence 1 lists the sorts of sources available for demonstrating notability. Sentence 2 says "such sources can include creators' commentary and interviews". Sentence 3 then lists some kinds of information that does not demonstrate notability. I've got several issues with this.

  • First, it's unclear -- it took me a while to parse it and I'm a lawyer, used to difficult sentences with overlapping criteria.
  • Second, I take this paragraph to mean that DVD commentaries and interviews could "count" for demonstrating notability, which I find troubling since they are not generally "independent of the subject" per WP:N. DVD commentaries are very directly not independent. Interviews might be argued to be "independent", but in fact, interviews while the work is still being published (originally broadcast, released on DVD, etc.) are often scheduled and operate as promotions. There's a reason all the actors show up on comedy shows when their movies are coming out; I have a lot of trouble seeing that sort of thing as "independent" -- more independent than the creator commentaries, maybe, but not "independent" as generally understood. These sources are reliable, generally, for all kinds of information, but I don't see how they go toward adding notability.
  • Third, the last sentence lists some information that is not "notable" even if the source is "reliable". I take issue with this. It seems this is crated to exclude TV Guide type listings. But it would also exclude detailed discussions in the academic literature of production details for long-lost works. Moreover, there's something strange about using notability in this way. The information itself is notable, because we would generally include it in the Wikipedia article. I think it would be better to simply talk about significant coverage, as WP:N does, and specifically state that "listings", indexes, and general reference material that does not provide significant coverage, such as TV Guide, does not meet the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:N.

So, my proposed rewrite is:

Articles dealing with a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should be able to readily demonstrate notability by citing critical reception, viewership or sales figures, history and development, and other information from reliable sources. Creators' commentary and interviews regarding the work or topic are not generally independent and do not support notability. However, they may be reliable sources for production information, such as actors, voice actors, people involved with production, publication dates, airing dates, and length of work. Such sources are generally not as reliable as an independent source for claims about the importance or impact of the work. Listings, such as TV Guide, are independent, but would not generally provide "significant coverage" that supports notability.

Thoughts? Lquilter (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree because interviews can establish notability and are independent and do constitute coverage. Hiding T 13:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The first and third point is fine and the rewrite to that is better than I could put it. As to the second point, I mentioned this before: we had initially come here to the idea that commentaries and interviews are something between primary and secondary sources since they are typically a look-back at work already completed. But when I brough the use of commentary up for the discussion of tv episode notability, it was sounded rejected as a notability issue. Unfortunately, TTN's merges and reverts have lately included (before I put in the new FICT) "don't bring back until development or real-world information can be found", and the issue of the episodes of Scrubs has basically been that there are commentaries on the DVD releases, and so they were going to use them in that fashion.
I would argue we need to make a comprimise here, in that commentary and the like should be carefully used to demonstrate notability, and better notability can be shown by included other real-world aspects like reviews and so-forth. An article who's only claim to notability is from DVD commentary or interviews on development is not the most ideal case, but as long as still written to general standards, is likely ok. I'd also argue that if there is the existance of DVD commentary or interviews, the work is very likely notable in some other way, otherwise, why would that person be interviewed, or the DVD publishing studio put out the expense for the commentaries (or the DVDs themselves?) --MASEM 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) I'm okay with tabling interviews, since it's a bit of a hard point and there's a lot of variability: They're often initiated and done as part of PR campaigns, but not always, and there's still some indication of interest from a third-party (although, given media consolidation, not as much as one might think or hope). (2) But as for the DVD commentaries, I just don't see how they can provide evidence for notability: They simply are not "independent". And including them in as evidence of notability is going to open this whole debate wide-open over the next couple of years, as the studios & companies re-release their works on blu-ray & HD, which have a LOT more space for this kind of stuff. I realize that some people have used commentaries in this way, but other people have not, so I don't think we can say that this use represents consensus. It's a lot easier to demonstrate use of a source in a particular way than non-use of such a source, but while people properly use these as sources in articles, I haven't seen any consensus that they constitute "independent" sources for notability. (If there are links to such discussions I'd really like to see them, though. I did a search on relevant talk spaces but haven't had a chance to go thru it yet.) --Lquilter (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Off the top, I know discussion of using commentaries to make Scrubs episodes notable was talked about Talk:List of Scrubs episodes (this is what lead off the ArbCom case). But a larger discussion on using commentary in general for notability is probably buried in the archives on this page (look for the phrase "1.5 sources" which I introduced). But we probably need to revisit that. --MASEM 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I would put it this way: Demonstration of significant coverage in reliable sources independant of the subject (i.e. notability as defined by WP:N) should always allow an article to stay (except when there is consensus that a merge would be better for presentation). WP:FICT goes further and states that a topic is also allowed its own article when sourced encyclopedic treatment occurs. Unfortunately (and I am no exception), "the topic can have its own article" is often phrased as "demonstration of notability". Therefore, I support to have the guideline make the distinction of real-world-information!=notability clearer, while amplifying the connection of real-world-information==separate article. – sgeureka t•c 15:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't quite follow exactly what you're trying to get at here ( I think I do, but could you restate that? :) --MASEM 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to explain with a Scrubs episode: If someone wrote an episode article with two paragraphs of production info from a DVD commentary, and then added one trivial reception sentence based on the ratings and a poor IGN review, the article would not demonstrate notability (as in WP:N), but it would have non-trivial real-world information. I would be very much against a forced merger just because notability has not been demonstrated. However, ratings and IGN saying "yeah, good episode" alone (i.e. no production information) do not establish notability, and the article should be strongly considered to be merged. Notability => separate article; significant amount of non-trivial real-world information from non-independant sources => separate article; neither => no article. Which is, I believe, what WP:FICT already intents, although it states that critical reception, viewership or sales figures, history and development establish "notability", which is often the wrong conclusion as Lquilter already stated. – sgeureka t•c 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That I agree with, as it is in the spirit of trying to establish notability, but does hit non-trivial real world aspects as required by PLOT. I think Ned Scott mentioned this before too, but particularly for these articles that may be considered deeper coverage of a larger topic (but not in a summary style manner), that this is where dependent notability comes about: The main work is notable, this aspect of the work, as part of the main work, is not necessarily as notable, but we can cover the topic in an encyclopedic manner w.r.t. real-world aspects and has further potential for additional notable information. This prevents completely in-universe works or those that add trivial/non-notable data (actors, dates, etc.). The only caveat here is that these articles should be, not so much perfect, but that the issues of undue weight or excess PLOT come more into play; if a paragraph of development information and a statement about a review are used to offset 5000 words of in-universe/plot information, there's a problem. --MASEM 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I totally disagree with that. That's an episode that has sufficiently established notability. Critical reception, sales figures, ratings, etc. absolutely establish "notability". Otherwise, what's left? Some sort of vague, shifting threshold that is subject largely to the whims of guideline junkies. Torc2 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So, development information is nice, but does not help to establish notability? -Malkinann (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

of course it does--even to the extent that a really major production is notable per se. It will generally attract conventional sourcing also. At this point, being Blu-ray doesnt give much notability; the first releases in it, maybe. the point of this guideline in general is that notability is the result of many aspects, all together, to make the work notable. DGG (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It might not establish independent notability, but since it's giving real-world context (making WP:PLOT happy), and is a part of a larger topic (WP:SS), "dependent-notability" is often enough to make an article on that sub-topic. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As a matter of common sense, the information would have to be sufficient and important enough that it cannot fit within the LOE formats that we have derived. Real-world information provided as grounds for retention needs to demonstrate notability, not existence. Every broadcast show has some kind of critical reception & ratings info. But such info needs to establish notability to permit a standalone article since - after all - that is what the article will principally be about. Eusebeus (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • DVD commentaries are not necessarily only about production information; they might be about anything at all. What they are reliable for depends on what the information is -- I would say that in general they would be reliable for production information about the work itself, and less reliable for information about the work's influence on other works. My main concern is using DVD commentaries to assess notability : By and large, they do not qualify under WP:N because they are not "independent". (Of course, one could imagine an independent commentary -- some later director commenting on a special edition of a DVD of an earlier work -- and that would be a great source to establish notability, and a great source for information of various sorts. But by far most DVD commentaries are directors, producers, and actors, directly affiliated with the show, talking about their experiences on the show. Highly reliable for those things, but those sources are not helpful in terms of establishing notability. In other words, DVD commentaries are generally useful as a "reliable source" (use as a reference in a wikipedia article to support some kinds of claims and information); but they are not generally useful as an "independent source" to establish notability. They can be used as sources but not notability. Is that distinction clear to everyone? Can we agree to make that distinction as appropriate? --Lquilter (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So, thinking about the above comments on interviews, and looking at the discussion Hobit & I had on this issue in the (ever lengthier) RFC (at Hobit's line in the sand), I think it would be okay to take out the DVD commentary as evidence of notability, so long as it is still available as a reliable source for relevant information; and I'll agree to not touch the interview question. With those compromises, I think it will be something we can live with, and -- bonus -- I think it handles the TV Guide issue. So here's my revised proposed language:

    Articles dealing with a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should be able to readily demonstrate notability by citing critical reception, viewership or sales figures, history and development, and other "significant coverage" from independent, reliable sources. Creators' commentaries and interviews regarding the work or topic are not generally independent and therefore do not support notability. However, they may be reliable sources for production information, such as actors, voice actors, people involved with production, publication dates, airing dates, and length of work. Such sources are generally not as reliable as an independent source for claims about the importance or impact of the work. Listings, such as those in TV Guide, are independent, but would not generally provide the "significant coverage" that supports notability; feature articles certainly would.

    The interview section & extraneous language is struck out, and I inserted some of the original WP:N language for clarity. I believe this addresses all concerns raised in this section of discussion. It leaves "interviews" alone and my guess is they will mostly end up being treated as third-party sources for the time being. Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As long as it's understood that there's likely to be a good handful of episode articles that currently claim notability mostly resting on commentary and thus will need to be reviewed, I think this is a reasonable compromise. I'm trying to this if there's an example less specific than listings in TV guide to apply to all fiction. --MASEM 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)/Archive_19&oldid=1142512829"