Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 22

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 20

Redirect link colors

Another user pointed this out to me, that MediaWiki can change the link color for redirects. With that enabled any editor, at a glance, can tell if something is a redirect before clicking on it. I figured this would be helpful to many people here who are trying to keep track of such links. To do this place the following into Special:Mypage/monobook.css:

a.mw-redirect {color:#308050}
a.mw-redirect:visited {color:#3070A0}

and bypass your browser's cache. -- Ned Scott 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

mark approved!

I notice the the arb com on episodes and characters has been finally making progress towards a conclusion Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision, and we might therefore want to consider having something actually approved to meet the expected rush of actions when they finish. There's no indication they're going to propose anything that would interfere with this guideline. I do not like all details of it, but it's much better than having nothing here at all. We can discuss modifications subsequently, as we do for all guidelines--adoptions have never meant that the details are not changed subsequently.I therefore suggest that we approve the guideline as it stands, and then see how it is actually applied. DGG (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Support The proposed guideline has been fairly stable, and I don't expect any new major disagreements for a while. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Approve As DGG notes, the devil will be in the details; this guideline will no doubt unleash a torrent of wikilawyering (- what won't though?) and it is a bit too long, but it is nonetheless a fairly good middle position and provides a good exposition of the need for demonstrable real world impact which will be where the crux of most future disagreements lie. Eusebeus (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disapprove Much of what is said is so unexceptional as to not need stating. But there are details that I don't care for such as the reference to fancruft, which seems offensive. And there's a significant omission. While there's much discussion of specifics like characters and episodes, I've not seen enough in fiction articles about the constructs of drama and fiction - themes, tropes, stereotypes, plots and the like. These are often the basis of real-world critical commentary. Since there's an obvious risk of original research in such areas, the guidelines should comment on this. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This would be an issue covered in the style and approach to such articles, and typically will be too varied depending on the work of fiction to be covered in either here or WP:WAF. It is not that these aren't good sections to include in articles for books or movies, or other approach discussion for other forms of media, but this is meant strictly to be notability, not how to write such articles. --MASEM 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion. This is minor, but in the section Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Dealing_with_non-notable_fictional_topics, I would suggest putting the bullet point about prodding in the second-to-last position. This provides a better flow to the decision process, and will help mollify those who think there is a grand conspiracy to delete every fiction article in wikipedia.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Half-support - While I largely agree with this version, I still feel that the Summary-style issues need to be hammered out/deferred to WAF. See comments above. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving on?

I've been watching this guideline for a while, but haven't yet commented. I think now is a good time to do so. I understand that rewriting this guideline has been hard work, and with the arbcom case coming to a close there's a desire to move on. In my view, a rapid reaction isn't the right way to proceed. Guidelines need to be concise reflections of Wikipedia consensus, not the result of a stressful and intensive period. Such periods have an important role to play, and this guideline has been much improved through these discussions, but I do not believe that now is the time to set it in tentative stone.

First, it is too long. At 17K, it is longer than WP:N (14.5K). This is a great improvement on the recent length of 22K, but falls a long way short (or should I say long) of the guideline's previous length of 11K. This isn't purely a matter of convenience for editors (no one wants to read long guidelines), but it suggests the need to articulate lots of minor nuances of consensus. This is not the role of guidelines. They reflect consensus rather than dictate it. Consensus is determined by editors. Guidelines are only useful if they provide convenient summaries. 17K of text is not a convenient summary.

The need to mention many nuances suggests that the consensus is unclear, and so the guideline should not be trying to articulate it. In my view, one of the problematic issues is the idea of a "sub-article". This has resulted in the idea of an article that does not assert its own notability, but relies on the notability of another article. The current formulation involving "lists of characters or other elements that usually rely on the notability of the work instead of their own" is better than some previous ones, but it is still problematic.

All articles should assert their notability per WP:N. This guideline should amplify what that means, it should not bypass it. "List of characters in X" is notable because "X" is a sufficiently notable topic that the characters in it are notable topics. If this is so, there should be reliable secondary sources which discuss the characters in "X", and "List of characters in X" should cite them. Calling "List of characters in X" a subarticle is completely unhelpful in resolving whether listing the characters is notable or not.

Subarticles, in the sense of subpages of the main article space, were disabled in 2004 for good reason: this is a bad way to organise articles. They were replaced by categories. Each article, together with its wikilinks and categories, should stand alone as an encyclopedia article for the reader who visits them. This is as much true of characters in a fictional work, or episodes of a television series, as it is true of any other article. Geometry guy 20:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The length is an issue that can be resolved with wordsmithing. Part of it is the lengthy steps of what do with non-notable articles, but I would argue that based on the resolutions proposed, this section needs to be spelled out.

But as to your second point, I have to disagree, as this has been one of the things that has been established before (starting from Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters) and one of the things that if we tried to remove, we'd never get a consensus on this. Notability is an aspect that applies to topics, not articles, and summary style says to break out sections of an article (not as a "mainarticle/subarticle", but as a separate article) when the main article becomes too long. Allowing "list of characters of X" is a balance between notability and those that want to write more on the fictional work. Maybe in time (but I'm in no way going to suggest it, force it, or the like) we may consider a move to requiring notability at the article level, but I very much doubt, nor would I even try, this would work. Of course, we want articles to be verifiable, but only topics need notability. Mind you, by using breakouts like "List of characters in X" there is a good chance that notability can be established for this approach, but to force it with the current distribution of WP editors is going to cause a massive problem. --MASEM 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with your point that it is the notability of the topic which matters. This is why I would rather eliminate the "sub-article" idea from this proposed guideline, since it confuses the issue by suggesting articles acquire notability by being subarticles, rather than by being aspects of a notable topic. Geometry guy 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, is it the term of "sub-articles" being the issue? Given WP:SPINOUT, maybe "spinout articles" would be a better term? I think it's still necessary to mention that when you have a collection of non-notable parts of a topic, it is appropriate to move these to a list as a spinout article, and more details about that approach are discussed at WP:WAF. I just don't think that we can remove it because we end up back before this rewrite, without any obvious guidance for such articles and leaving us to find more editing wars towards that. --MASEM 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Partly, and "spinout" is certainly preferable to "subarticle". However, why do you say parts of a topic are "non-notable"? I think this guideline should be clarifying the meaning of "notable" when applied to parts of a topic, not saying that they are non-notable and then excusing them from WP:N. Geometry guy 22:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, prior to some initial trimming, I had the section that is labeled Summary Style in WP:WAF here, in that these spinout articles should be exactly that, written and approached as spinouts with the potential for notability. Part of the issue here is that if we had absolutely no non-notable fictional articles, taking your suggested approach is fine, but we're also trying to deal with the fact that there is a lot of non-notable fictional element articles that would likely be merged to a list, so we're trying to keep the idea to the two different ways such an article can be formed at this time (as truly a spinout, and as a result of making a spinout-like article from existing articles). I'm certainly not against what you're trying to suggest but it's the wording here that could make this tricky to explain briefly. --MASEM 22:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Spinout article" sounds a little odd, but I really like the fact that it clears up any ambiguity as to the meaning of the term. Thank you for that. -Verdatum (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Geometry guy's last two paragraphs - I couldn't find a notability guideline for lists. The closest I could find was Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists. I am still using my gut feeling whether lists are encyclopedic or too trivial or breaching policies and guidelines. There are, however, still discussions when e.g. season pages stop being Featured Lists and when start being Featured Articles. Same for character list-articles. Maybe this can help bringing light into the current wording? – sgeureka ^t•c 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

well, this goes back to the clause about "singular fictional elements rarely get sub-articles". I don't want to limit spinouts to "list" articles, despite that 99% of those are such, and from WP:NFC, the definition of what a "list" article is highly disputed. --MASEM 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it may be unhelpful to focus on lists, and I think there may be too much emphasis in the guideline along the lines of "multiple elements good, singular elements bad". What matters is whether the spinout article is a notable topic. Anyway, I think the section on summary style works better with "spinout" instead of "sub-article", but I think there is still more that could be done. In particular, I don't like the sentence "A spinout article should be viewed as an spinout of the parent article, judged as if it was still a section of that article, and identified in the lead section as an article covering elements within a fictional work" (my italics, to emphasise the bit I like the least). WP:N is about whether a topic is notable enough to merit its own article. How can it be applied if the article is being judged as a section of another article? It makes no sense to me. I don't see why spinouts in fiction should be different from spinouts anywhere else in that respect.

In my view, spinouts are something that we do, more than something which articles are. Is History of biology a spinout of History of science or biology, both, or neither? It could have been spun out of one of them, but its notability isn't dependent on which one.

When I first encountered this area of discussion, I happened upon an amusing example: List of recurring human characters from Futurama. What I find interesting here is not the relation to Futurama, but to the articles on the individual characters. Summary style is used in the list for several characters, including Al Gore, Leonard Nimoy, Zapp Brannigan and Cubert Farnsworth. That certainly doesn't make "Al Gore" a spinout of "List of recurring human characters from Futurama"!!

I would argue that it is not particularly helpful to assess the notability of the other character articles in this light either. What matters is whether reliable secondary sources discuss the characters. Obviously, that's no problem for Al Gore and Leonard Nimoy. For Zapp Branigan, there appears to be such a source, namely "Booker, M. Keith. Drawn to Television: Prime-Time Animation from The Flintstones to Family Guy." On the other hand the article on Cubert Farnsworth currently only has primary sources, so unless secondary sources can be found, its notability needs to be discussed at a forum such as AfD. Geometry guy 16:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The way that I at least think about this is that if I were to write a new article on a new work of notable fiction ignoring limitations of WP:SIZE, say a TV show, I would have a general plot section, a listing of characters, a list of episodes, development, reception, and other information. For most shows, this is obviously too much, so one accepted spinout is the List of episodes (though notably, some seasons may be notable, as well as specific episodes). If the main article is still too long, then the list of characters is the next reasonable spinout for the article. Further spinouts from that may be necessary if there's a large list of characters (without exceeding reasonble expectations of PLOT and undue weight.). If the work of fiction is a longer series of works, a list of characters (particularly the reoccuring ones) would be a spinout of the series article, with the individual works referring to this list. So I see where you're getting at that, the idea of the spinout being part of the parent article can be blurred sometimes, but this is there to prevent people from thinking "Hey, I've got a new 32k-64k of space to expand on the characters", because such lists for fictional elements can be tied to some single fictional work page. I don't if this is an issue of how it's written or if it's more a fundamental issue on the approach. --MASEM 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is actually on how extensive the material should be, not on the organization. those who want to eliminate the subarticles are typically those who want to reduce the material to a minimum. We are not going to really solve this problem here--just provide guidelines for further discussion. Personally, I think the key factor is the importance of the series as a whole. an example might be is the disgracefully inadequate plot descriptions at List of Friends episodes. Whether in that article, or in season articles, or in separate articles, the appropriate amount should be said. Not 10 long paragraphs an episode, but not one short sentence either. DGG (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Extensive plot summaries of every Friends episode are already available at tv.com or the Friends wikia. I think the summary-style at Friends page is in fact quite appropriate given the focus of our coverage on fictional topics is the real-world context and significance. Eusebeus (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree with DGG about a serious underlying issue, but again, content is something better left for WP:WAF and we should be referring all content issues to that. as for Geometry guy, i might be wrong, but from several comments you've made, it seems you feel that every time i type something in the search box i should get a page on a notable topic. this is a situation that seems to need explaining often... if you follow masem's example it becomes clear how the sub-articles (or spinouts) get written, but you demand they be notable. they don't need to be becasue content does not need to satisfy WP:N, and all they are is content, they aren't judged as "real" articles. To say that they should be is to throw out WP:SS or rewrite WP:N. That being said, i think we should make recommendations for editors to try and establish notability on fictional elements - i want a better encyclopedia. But it's not necessary and not a criterion for deletion. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

TO Eusebeus, I agree that we should try to keep plot summaries and the like short, however, I feel it's also necessary as we are still working out the details of the balance of what can be done on WP and an associated wiki to allow longer plot descriptions (not voluminous, but still more detail than 3-4 lines of text can provide) to balance those that want to talk more on the in-universe side and those looking to keep the real world aspects in perspective. --MASEM 19:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate these points. However let me say that although I don't like the subarticle/spinout approach to notability, this is not at all because I want to reduce discussion of fictional material to a minimum. Wikipedia is not paper and can include a large amount of material which traditional encyclopedias would not touch. My view is that WP:N and WP:V provide natural restrictions on how far such material should be expanded: it should be expanded as far as the sources support it. I do think that all articles be judged as real articles, not imaginary ones: the solution to the issue is to explain what notability means for such articles, not to bypass the concept. I am completely happy with an article on a single fictional character, as long as there is a reliable secondary source for it.

For another example, I wonder what editors here make of Stargate (device). Geometry guy 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy, I (and others) agree with you, and yet others will express strong disagreement. I see this as a conflict between trying to have only reasonably good articles (i.e. which don't violate any major policies and guidelines) and the wish to have wikipedia be comprehensive (which includes in-universe comprehensiveness). The forces are almost evenly split at the moment, and what WP:FICT says at the moment is the middle ground. It's not perfect, and we currently have so many problems with fiction-related articles that I consider it enough progress to have a basic agreement that lists (notable or not) are preferred to all-in-universe articles on single elements. en.wikipedia may not have figured out what it wants to be fiction-wise, but wait for six or twelve months, and we may have a clearer answer. As for Stargate: You should have seen the mess six months ago, but it has gotten much better, including an FA, two GAs and one GAN in the last 9 weeks (the last ones before that were in 2006). – sgeureka ^t•c 20:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sgeureka said exactly what I was typing : this a middle ground to provide a means to figure out how to go foreward; possibly with better and easily use of outside wikis like Wikia, we may be able to go more in one way, but we may also have a WP-wide decision to go towards allowing more coverage of fictional details.

As to The Stargate article, it is very crufty. On one hand, knowing the series, a discussion of how the Stargate looks and works makes sense to include as to avoid repeating said details in episode descriptions, and this would be a case where I can see it being a spinout of the STargate series article as a singular fictional concept. On the other hand, there's way too much about exactly how it's shown and used that makes it too crufty. (I do note there is a couple development references inthere, if the weight of the in-universe material was cut down, I would say that's a notable fictional element and thus deserves a topic in its own right). --MASEM 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Stargate article has better sourcing than most mathematics articles. It is too long but is otherwise better written too. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am completely behind you guys in the middle ground. I am just trying to encourage exploring ways to define the middle ground which don't contradict basic principles or broader guidelines.

To bring fiction fans on board, I would suggest being a bit more relaxed about the length of plot sections or other fictional elements in an article. As long as the article is reliably sourced, there is no reason why a long plot section is an obstruction to notability. An article dominated by plot sections and in universe elements has no chance to be a GA, but it deserves to exist, if sources exist. This is essentially my view on Stargate (device). It does enough to show to me that this is a notable fictional element, and deserves to have an article on it. But the current article doesn't do the job, and should not be a GA. (Of course, this was prompted by the listing of the article at WP:GAR.) Geometry guy 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

i still contend that the middle ground as outlined here is not contradicting any guidelines/policies, WP:SS clearly provides for NN sub-articles. your alternative of merging content into the parent articles isn't realistic, it's kind of like dangling a carrot. you suggest longer articles, which goes against WP:SIZE and WP:SS, and freely admit that this would create worse overall articles b/c then they could never reach GA due to too much plot and in-universe elements. so in the end the info will be removed anyways, that process just creates an extra step to superficially pacify inclusionists. WP:N is not the almighty rule by which every page must be judged - WP:V on the other hand, is. As a guideline on a guideline, we shouldn't be trying to contradict other guidelines or policies. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

When to act

Maybe the question is not so much what kind of article is appropriate, but under what circumstances it is appropriate (or unappropriate) to initiate something (merge proposal, AfD) about an sub-article that doesn't currently satisfy WP:FICT. To give a few examples I've been working on, this article version of Vala Mal Doran was very inappropriate and should have been proposed for a trim&merger after a while, but the current version is more than appropriate.This list version of Characters of Carnivàle is not appropriate, but it is just fine now. This article version of Ori (Stargate) should have been nuked as a huge WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT fest, but I found some salvagable bits for reuse there, and it's shaping up nicely. Since wikipedia is a work on progress, we can never know what potential an article has and when (if ever) this potential will be achieved. And as long as obvious progress is visible, I am not in favor of being too pushy with WP:FICT, especially concerning legacy articles. On the other hand, local editor have been successful in "protecting" currently inappropriate fiction articles against cleanup on more than one occation, over the course of many months, solely by claiming potential. Maybe there is a potential, who knows, but non-notability or missing significant real-world content doesn't mean that potential alone can save non-notability-establishing articles forever. (All of this would be moot if notability would be required to be established at the point of article creation, which I support theoretically, but I acknowledge it makes article writing unnecessarily hard for someone who is not as familiar with WP:FICT.) When all legacy articles have been addressed at some point in the future, I am sure Percy's views will be much more prevalent in the guideline. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there needs to be balance between WP:BOLD and WP:DEADLINE, much of which the two ArbCom cases about TTN dealt with and resulting this guideline covers: editors need to be aware that if notability or the quality of a non-notable list is brought into question, they should not sit around and do nothing about it: the editing process should promote good faith improvements or efforts towards that within a reasonable amount of time after being notified (a month). That's why we've pushed the AfD option as the last resort, because there are ways to improve articles in a couple different fashions. --MASEM 17:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Most fiction articles do not have any editors looking after them. If I were to drop a load of tags on Long John Silver, it wouldn't have any effect because Robert Louis Stevenson fans scarcely exist.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is absolutely true, but by using tags, the articles get automagically dropped into categories appropriate for it such as Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability for the {{notability}} template. And should you still get no response at all after a month and want to delete it, the article appears in AfD. And any change that doesn't use admin power (eg, not deletion) is recoverable if a mistake is made. The bulk of the anger towards what TTN did is that he tried to rush and bypass this process even for articles that were being watched. --MASEM 21:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, multi-merges will see the redirects deleted stealthily.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap and should never be removed unless it is a highly unlikely misspelling or the like. There is no reason that while there may be no notable characters from a work that every major and minor character has a reasonable set of redirection/disambiguation pages to help readers searching for that. If this is happening, this should be flagged and brought up somewhere (WP:FICT/N, maybe). --MASEM 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly dissent from any implication that there be a fixed time for improving an article. Looking at the whole picture, there are over a million articles that badly need improvement, and about 10,000 active editors total. Even if they each did one a week, which is in practice somewhat more than can be expected, we have enough for over two years worth,m without counting the articles needing improvement written during that interval. As applied more specifically to fiction articles, anyone who has worked on them knows that because of the great spread in available sourcing they take much more time and work than the ordinary. further, there are a very limited number of editors both willing and able to do it. to getthem all fixed in a month after challenge is ridiculous. DGG (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not that there's a fixed amount of time to fix it, it's just that if an editor wished to be BOLD and feels an article is non-notable, that's about the amount of time they should give after notification of this is placed on the article to see if there's any response, and if there is, if there's good faith efforts (even if it's an editor says they're swamped and can't get to it), more time should be given. This is the process that broke down with respect to TTN, who wanted to anxiously merge everything to an article - he may have been right, but he forced the issue and from what I saw did ignore some good faith efforts to improve. Ideally, end of the day, the editors of the page may realize that their topic just has no notability and will go ahead and merge. And again, I point out that if merging is the ultimate result to a non-notable fictional article, leaving a redirect in its place, work done by a BOLD editor can reverted (maybe the only page editor was on vacation for more than a month). Again, just like inclusionism vs deletionism, there's a balance between two guidelines that give conflicting advice. --MASEM 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should simplify the section back to how one of the previous versions of WP:FICT had it:

"Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).[3] In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should provide as much real-world content as possible."

This might be a case were less is more. By having less emphases on this we won't be as "encouraging" to people looking to use this as a way to have any and all articles, but still being accurate in that some sub/spinout articles don't have real-world context and/or independent notability. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, haven't we addressed this in previous sections of the discussion? I don't see any new argument here. We argue that spinout articles should not be required to establish notability; that notability applies to topics, not nessisarily articles. So yes, this does permit the article to exist, but it in no way is a blessing of the article's content. -Verdatum (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Relocating non-notable fictional material

I have removed the section as it lacks consensus behind it. In addition advertising third party sites on wikipedia is strictly prohibited per WP:SPAM. -- Cat ^chi? 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen nothing that suggests that there is disagreements with this section - this actually has been part of FICT for more than a year. Wikisource and Wikibooks are non-commercial extensions of the Foundation, and do not reflect advertizing third party sites. There were issues if were we promoting Wikia as a source, but that's why this isn't included. If you feel there's disagreement with the process of moving non-notable material off Wikipedia, please point us to that discussion. --MASEM 22:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored one more paragraph that you removed. Although there has been disagreement about the alleged conflict of interest between wikipedia and wikia, it is still true that content unsuitable for wikipedia can easily be transwikied to a GFDL-compatible Wiki. If you dislike the examples of wikia as the most popular GFDL-compatible Wiki, let's find consensus to remove the examples, but removing the whole paragraph is wrong. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that the use of Wikibooks was part of this guideline as early as November 2005, and has always been part of this guideline regardless of what else changed. The addition of specific examples, on the other hand, is relatively new (I can't find it easily), and as Sgeureka suggests, if the examples of specific sites are problem, we can take them out, but we should still be encouraging the moving of material that has been determine to be merged or delete to any GFDL-compat wiki. --MASEM 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the examples to two: one Wikia, one non-Wikia. However, it is allowable and in some cases encouraged to port content off-Wiki: the GFDL does allow that. Will ^(talk) 23:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Slightly different question, if I may. The presumption by some that we would "naturally" link to Wikia seems to assume from the start that there's a formal or informal relationship between Wikimedia and Wikia. Why, aside from such a relationship, would we link to Wikia? Or to particular Wikia wikis, as is currently done? Bear in mind that editors commenting on these discussions may have a conflict of interest if they edit at Wikia, especially the wikis potentially getting direct links. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the assumption lays in that Wikia is 1) free (to create and use, there's the implicit cost of advertizing), and 2) "next door" to Wikipedia and 2a) makes it easy to meta-link due to Media-wiki software. Thus, if one is wanting to move stuff off WP to another site, this is likely the path of least cost and resistance. (And for the record, I have no stake in Wikia or participate in any significant amount editing there, I have no inclination to promote or avoid using Wikia). --MASEM 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

True, there is the licensing similarity, not just "free" but GFDL in particular (if the next published version of GFDL becomes compliant with cc-by-sa, this distinction of it being another GFDL wiki farm may be less important). The software similarity is present, but I don't think terribly important -- I could be wrong. I will grant that (some) Wikia wikis seem to be quite popular and active, which may be a plus. Another option comes to mind: would it be better if we encouraged individual WikiProjects to determine and mention possible export destinations? This might be more helpful to disillusioned authors without the need to include "advert" links in a guideline. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point: I've added language that a wiki may have been determined by a specific wikiproject for transwiking material. --MASEM 00:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a policy or not?

This has both the {{proposed}} and {{Wikipedia subcat guideline}}tags on it. How is that possible? Is this a guideline or not? Padillah (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a guideline turned disputed guideline turned rewritten guideline turned proposed guideline hoping to turn into an accepted guideline. Attempts to get rid of the "proposed" status have so far been unsuccessful for various reasons, although the guideline in its current form enjoys as much support as it possibly can under the circumstances. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

whatever it is, it is not and will not be policy, just as the parent WP:N is not policy, but a guideline. The question, as Sguereka says, is whether this is a generally acceptable guideline. As he says, if it is , it wont be because everyone likes it, but because the general feeling is that it's the best we can do at the moment. DGG (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to include link

Please consider adding a link to Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary review in the Relocating non-notable fictional material section, as this explains the process to use if an editor wishes to transwiki a previously deleted article. G.A.S 06:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Defining cases where lists are appropriate or not, in the absence of significant coverage

Per the discussion above, there is concern that if we don't provide an outline of what types of lists are appropriate or not, we'll have people getting away with a lot by this allowance. Mind you, we're a guideline, so there's no hard boundaries, but providing examples of what is and isn't appropriate should still allow for unique cases to be considered.

I've renamed this section. WP:FICT clarifies what is notable for fiction; we're discussing changing that, so once we've made a decision, these would become notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I would suggest the following lists are appropriate:

Lists of major characters from a work
Lists of minor and/or reoccurring characters from a work
Lists of major fictional locations from a work
Lists of major monsters/species/foes from a work
Lists of major technological/mythos terms or objects from a work
Lists of episodes/books for a serialized work

Here is what I would consider inappropriate:

Lists of one-time characters from a work
Lists of minor fictional locations from a work
Lists of minor monsters/species/foes from a work
Lists of minor technological/mythos terms or objects from a work

Please add suggestions/concerns here. I wouldn't include these as bluntly in the actual guideline, but let's figure out the borders before we can create the language. --MASEM 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My first concern is that "major" and "minor" are opinion, except where backed up by secondary sources. However recurring/non-recurring can be established by primary sources, so we could include a definition in the guidelines. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is where it does get tricky, because you'll also have the case when you are considering characters or elements from a non-series work. We can split the two cases up then; major characters (that appear in about at least 50% of the episodes) and reoccurring characters (that appear for at least 2 or more episodes) for a serial work, and then major/minor characters for single works (since the distinction is much harder to make here without more examples). "Major" for the other aspects would be have been mentioned in the series at least two, and more than just a mention-in-passing. --MASEM 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agree, except I don't think "Lists of minor and/or reoccurring characters from a work" should be considered appropriate either. We aren't supposed to be a guide for the series, and if its a minor character, they don't need inclusion in a list of characters at all. Whatever role they play can be covered, as appropriate, in other character's sections and/or the episode/book summaries. Most minor character are one-time or two-time characters. I also think "Lists of major monsters/species/foes from a work" and "Lists of major technological/mythos terms or objects from a work" should be extremely selected. In general, we should only be giving a brief overview of such things, usually in the character lists if they are grouped by species/etc and major foes should be covered in the main characters list. Again, my concern is having fancruft and minute detail being considered acceptable if it is in list format, when it should/could be covered with the necessary detail in either the main or other related lists. With "Lists of major fictional locations from a work", I think also this should be a rarity rather than the norm. Except for some very lengthy and epic series, like the various Star Trek series, very few fictional works will have more than one or two settings of note, which we really don't need to go into a lot of detail about. We need to make sure we're sticking to the basic, encyclopedic details, not every last bit of minute detail that could fill an entire wikia or other wiki.AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is tough. I've spent a good deal of time thinking about this specific issue, and I can for no opinion on the matter. The appropriateness of lists of minor recurring elements/themes/whatever in a work of fiction is a point of contention. I think that if we're even going to address this issue, then it should be in a very light manner. Further, if it is looked upon as a spinout article, it is potentially a question of content and not a question of notability and thus possibly not appropriate for discussion in this article. I'm generally opposed to these sort of "rules of thumb" examples of good and bad things; yet at the same time, I completely understand the need for them in many cases. What's my point? I don't really know, just take care in deciding such edits, I guess. -Verdatum (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) Another problem to what Percy just said (what is minor, what is major) is that long-running fiction tends to order fictional elements by in-universe affiliation (e.g. Goa'uld characters in Stargate) which includes both major and extremely minor characters. So knowledgable editors (and I also do this to some extend) can prevent deletion of 3 of 6 character lists (3 major, 3 minor) by simply mixing them in a way that all 6 lists have some more-notable characters and thus are deletion-proof (but not necessarily trim&merge-proof). I have no easy answer to Masem's question, sorry, but I'd say every list than has some potential per precedent to become a Featured List one day, is appropriate. As for what's inappropriate: There is no notability guideline for lists in general, and WP:FICT should not elevate itself to make that decision. I still see some fictional lists as inappropriate. As an example, I have grown to feel that fictional timeline lists are inappropriate because of WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT (and usually redundance to other articles also), and one-time whatever lists because of WP:UNDUE. Most of this comes from gut feeling. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the problem is that I know what Percy's asking for and it makes some sense to try to codify it, but the one thing I haven't really seen is the proliferation of list articles - for a given fictional subject, one could write hundreds of singular topic articles for every character, setting, etc., but this is only around ten or so if you limit the creation to just lists, and this doesn't necessarily apply to every genre (sci-fi/fantasy lends itself better here than more down-to-earth genres like soaps or crime/forensics/hospital dramas). That's not saying every possible list should be created just because it can, and that it could potentially be a problem. There are bounds and I think if we give cases where they are generally acceptable and where they fail, we'll at least hopeful prevent list proliferation from being a problem.--MASEM 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be one of the more extreme examples, but it is a mild case of proliferation of lists nevertheless. Before I started editing Stargate articles, the wikiproject's consensus was to allow each in-universe-notable race an article. Each such race was then allowed a RACE characters in Stargate and RACE technology in Stargate. The worst I've seen was for the Aschen, a race who appeared in two popular SG episodes. They then had the sub articles Aschen characters in Stargate and Aschen technology in Stargate created for them. Mind you, all three articles are merged into "Miscellaneous" list articles now, but I am already scratching my head how to justify doing the same for another popular race who appeared in four episodes (and then died), and I can just hope for collaboration, or at least not opposition. Again, it is my gut feeling that says some of the lists are inappropriate, but the companion guides (which I don't have) and the DVD commentaries (which I haven't really listened to recently) may have some production info to justify keeping the lists after all. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This stuff is way too creepy. But if you must give examples for people to ignore then make them real ones which demonstrate clear precedent and practise. The good examples would be featured lists. The bad ones would be pointers to AFD snow results. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea: if anyone can point to these types of articles that already exist (again, remember we're looking at ones without notability or real-world cover), please provide them, as maybe examples of what to do and not to do are better than trying to spell it out specifically. --MASEM 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to judge the snowball deletes, because they're not here any more, but here are the featured fiction lists. I'm ignoring sources from the makers and broadcasters, and keeping an eye out for Amazon links which aren't proper sources. I've noted when I think they'd fail an AFD under the current guidelines. Please, if you're reading this list, don't take this as an invite to AFD them.

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1) - lots of secondary sources
Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2) - lots of secondary sources
Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3) - lots of secondary sources
Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4) - lots of secondary sources
List of Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes in Bleach - a few secondary sources
List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes - a few secondary sources
List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes - three secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Would fail current AFD; probably should have a FL review.
List of Carnivàle episodes - lots of secondary sources
List of Claymore chapters - a few secondary sources; clicking through, I wouldn't call them all 'significant'.
List of Claymore episodes - a few secondary sources
List of Dad's Army episodes - a few secondary sources, but substantial ones.
List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes - lots of secondary sources. Not sure how I feel about the duplication here.
List of Desperate Housewives episodes - a few secondary sources, all but one a trivial mention. Might fail current AFD.
List of Devil May Cry episodes - a few secondary sources, not all 'significant'
List of Doctor Who serials - several secondary sources
List of FLCL episodes - a few secondary sources, not all 'significant'
List of Fate/stay night episodes - a few secondary sources
List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes - a few secondary sources, not all 'significant'; FL removal candidate.
List of Gunslinger Girl episodes - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
List of Heroes episodes - several secondary sources
List of Highlander: The Raven episodes - a few secondary sources
List of Hitohira episodes - a few secondary sources, all but one directory/catalogue listings, the other non-English-language. Might fail current AFD.
List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl episodes - a few secondary sources.
List of Kaze no Stigma episodes - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
List of Lost episodes - a few secondary sources.
List of Meerkat Manor episodes - a few secondary sources.
List of Myself ; Yourself episodes - a few secondary sources, not all 'significant'
List of Naruto chapters (Part I) - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
List of Naruto chapters (Part II) - a few secondary sources, all but two directory/catalogue listings.
List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2) - a few secondary sources
List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3-4) - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
List of Naruto manga volumes - a few secondary sources, mostly directory/catalogue listings.
List of Night Wizard episodes - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
List of Oz books - two secondary sources. No inline refs; should have FL review.
List of Peep Show episodes - several secondary sources. Mostly not significant, but definitely significant in quantity.
List of Planetes episodes - no secondary sources. FL removal candidate; would fail current AFD.
List of Shin Lupin III episodes - a few secondary sources
List of Smallville episodes - a few secondary sources
List of Soul Society: The Sneak Entry arc episodes in Bleach - one secondary source; a directory entry. Likely to fail current AFD.
List of South Park episodes - several secondary sources
List of Stargate SG-1 episodes - a few secondary sources.
List of Teen Titans episodes - a few secondary sources.
List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes - a few secondary sources.
List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes - a few secondary sources.
List of The Simpsons episodes - several secondary sources.
List of The Sopranos episodes - a few secondary sources. No inline refs; should have FL review.
List of The Unit episodes - a few secondary sources; all directory entries or otherwise non-significant. Might fail current AFD.
List of Trinity Blood episodes - a few secondary sources.
List of Tsukihime, Lunar Legend episodes - a few secondary sources, all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
[[List of X-Men episodes] - a few secondary sources, plus several directory listings.
List of Yotsuba&! chapters - a few secondary sources, hidden among text notes and nearly all directory/catalogue listings. Might fail current AFD.
List of YuYu Hakusho episodes - a few secondary sources, mostly directory/catalogue listings.
List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1) ditto
List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2) ditto
List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3) ditto
List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 4) ditto
List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow - several secondary sources
List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films - loads of secondary sources. I should know, I added them :-)
Lost (season 1) - several secondary sources
Lost (season 2) - ditto
Lost (season 3) - ditto
Narnian timeline - a few secondary sources. No inline refs; should have FL review.
The Office (U.S. season 3) - several secondary sources
The Simpsons (season 1) - several secondary sources
The Simpsons (season 2) - ditto
The Simpsons (season 4) - ditto
The Simpsons (season 6) - ditto
The Simpsons (season 8) - a few secondary sources
The Simpsons (season 9) - ditto
The Simpsons shorts - several secondary sources

So, what's the pattern? Most pass the current notability requirements, though I'm surprised by how narrow the margin is. A few just skirt under it, but are consistent with a requirement of 'collective notability'. One, List of Planetes episodes, has no sources, and it's a FL removal candidate. So if the FL candidates are taken to be indicative of consensus and good practice, then I'd say my suggestion above about collective notability is a good enough match. If anything, based on my experience with List of unmade Doctor Who serials, things seem to have tightened up since a lot of these got FL status, so a huge weakening of the guidelines doesn't seem to be in line with that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note that these are almost exclusively lists of works that make up a serialised work, rather than lists of fictional elements. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost all episode lists have subarticles (season articles or episode articles). These sub-sub-articles have the potential to have dozens of references, even if it's just "this episode exists" type of information. To pick three of your examples above (and I could demonstrate the same with more ep lists): You marked The Simpsons (season 8), The Simpsons (season 9) and List of Smallville episodes with "a few secondary sources" above and claimed a lack of notability, totally ignoring that all episodes of Simpsons season 8 and 9, and season 1 of Smallville are at least GA with dozens of sources. The notability just got moved to subarticles that actually need references. It's the moment that a list has no subarticles, or only non-notable subarticles, when we should be concerned about the list's notability. But in this case, we should get rid of the nonnotable subarticles first (through merging, redirecting or deleting) before we attack the lists. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; if an article has notable subarticles then that's strong evidence that coverage exists, although I think that that coverage should be referenced in both the article and its subarticles. However, in those cases we don't have a problem. It's not lists that collect together series of notable articles that are at issue; it's articles that have spun out of notable articles and that don't have enough coverage to support their inclusion under the current guidelines. Masem wants those included; I want them to have to demonstrate some coverage, but not necessarily as much as they currently do. What's your position on those articles?

Break 1

Personally, I see the vast majority of the lists mentioned as pretty inappropriate, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone why they think they are. I haven't been following the whole discussion having been on a semi-wikibreak, so forgive me if this has already been gone into. Cheers, Miremare 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I came into this debate with a similar opinion - that, in the absence of secondary coverage, pretty much anything's inappropriate, but that some lists are being held to too high a standard of coverage; that's why I've tried to propose a slightly weaker standard of coverage for them. Masem has told me that consensus is that some lists should be allowed without any secondary coverage, which is why we're trying to establish which lists those are. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Part of this extends from what WP:FICT originally came from, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. Then there was the major change in WP:N about May 2006 that made the guideline more objective by adding "significant coverage in secondary sources" It has since come about that individual pages on non-notable characters (this through many AfD, not just those poised by TTN) alone are nearly never appropriate because they'll fail to meet that WP:N, but lists being treated as spinouts still are ok.
    - ...though the status of spinouts is disputed; hence the discussions above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  - The other aspect of this is that this needs to be seen as a compromise to reach a consensus between inclusionists and deletionists. Lists allow those that want to write more on their fictional works the space to do so, but it doesn't allow them to write off extensively about every minutae of the work. It's also an intermediate solution, as exactly which way WP will go, as outlined nicely in this recent Economist article - we may eventually decide globally that we want all details, and thus the lists can be expanded out, or we may decide that we want higher level coverage, in which cases lists can be trimmed and moved back into parent articles, or cut/transwiki entirely. This may not be the most perfect long-term solution, but it allows both sides a (hopefully) happy balance that editors can focus on overall quality instead of quibbling about specific rules. --MASEM 13:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    - ...though given that the inclusionists want the spinout articles and the deletionists don't, retaining all of the spinout articles is hardly a "compromise". Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      - When inclusionists want x spinout articles, and deletionists want zero, allowing (log x) spinout articles in list-form is indeed a compromise in my mind. Not ideal, but something we can build on later. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        That's not what the current guidelines say; there's a blanket exemption from notability concerns for all spinout articles, list or otherwise. That's why I want a guideline that includes the lists and excludes the single articles, by allowing the lists to achieve notability without having to inherit it. As I think I've demonstrated, the modifications I proposed would do so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        Take a look at this section from WP:NOTINHERITED (which is an essay, not policy or guideline, though an essay I strongly agree with throughout):
        In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (two of the notabilty guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes. However, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.
        
        We are defining a case that is in the bolded section (my emphasis), and thus we are not imposing any idea of inherited notability.. This process is accepted by both sides (demonstrated by the fact that non-notable lists of fictional elements don't come up anywhere close as often as individual non-notable fictional elements), and while trying to outline what are generally acceptable cases for it, trying to define it too much may backfire because it is a carefully balanced, unstated truce, only verbalized here in WP:FICT. WP:FICT should only be a snapshot of what is presently acceptable, and not trying to create new guidelines and inflame the issue. --MASEM 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        There is no truce - the notability purges are in full swing as we speak; take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game-related. By leaving ambiguity we turn what should be simple procedural AFDs into drawn-out flamewars. WP:FICT should be a snapshot of what is presently acceptable (by providing guidance on when articles are acceptable), not trying to create new guidelines and inflame the issue (by making blanket exemptions). Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(←)The point I'm trying to make is that since the inception of this guideline around 2005, non-notable lists as spinouts have been part of the guideline; this is not creating anything new. Yes, we want to encourage secondary sourcing as much as possible, but to make this an absolute requirement will cause a lot of problems. Plus, this is a sub-guideline of the notability guidelines - we cannot make secondary sourcing an absolute requirement for any article, otherwise we should call notability policy, which again will cause a lot of problems.

What I think we are seeing right now is the fact that because of several "recent" changes in various policies, the result of the ArbCom cases, and other similar discussions is that we are still coming to grips with how to present fictional concepts. We know some work. We know some don't work. Cases that are at AfD (like the Golden Sun characters) is a situation that could go either way and thus we need to consider how that case will close and how to reconfigure our approach based on that. I understand the desire to set specific points that these lists need to achieve, but I don't think we have enough experience to say what those points are.

That said, we should look to consider these lists as spinouts (they should remain concise and should not overwhelm the real world aspects on the work of fiction, if no notability exists), and the other aspect to consider is that they should be presented in a style of list that is generally amenable to the application of reliable sources from past experience. A list of major characters has been shown to gain notability when the discussion of character creation and casting can be found, so a non-notable list of major characters is appropriate. However, per the Stargate example above, it is very unlikely that the "RACE characters in Stargate" can ever hope to show notability given that rarely notability for sci-fi alien races is generally about the race or diversity of the races; thus, this is probably not an appropriate list. Is there an exact answer? No, but I'd rather have a DMZ where questionable lists are discussed to determine what to do with the lists, than to overstep in either direction towards inclusionists or deletionists and result in similar problems that we have had before. --MASEM 19:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Again I agree. It seems sensible to me to consider standalone lists related to a work of fiction as spinout articles from the parent work of fiction. I fail to see why this should not be the case. I'd like to see an argument from the opposing viewpoint supporting why lists should be treated as anything different, as I'm still confused about this alternate position. -Verdatum (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I'm still seeing the exact opposite! The reason for these lists to be allowed, juding from Masem's answer to my post above, seems to be simply to appease inclusionists. Is there a real actual proper reason that I'm missing here? :P Miremare 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two reasons. The above point of appeasing the inclusionists is one aspect, but as User:Sgeureka, this is also to appease the deletions that want no articles on non-notable aspects; it is better to have log(x) than x or 0. But the other aspect that I alluded to before is that we are at a crossroads with Wikipedia: do we take the road of strongly discouraging fictional aspects by enforcing elements like notability strong, or do we become more broad in coverage, and thus allowing more details fictional coverage? This is not a question we should be asking, but as FICT has been approached, we can help support either crossroad that, if we ever decide to take one, we can help follow. --MASEM 04:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting the deletionists (as I did too; sorry). Most of them are reasonable editors who, in good faith, think that articles that don't demonstrate coverage should be deleted. That position can be accomodated by allowing spinouts to do so at a lower level, by showing collective notability. Doing so also accomodates the inclusionists because the same "log(x)" articles would stay. Having an exemption does not give the deletionists any part of what they want - it's not the log of what they want, it's zero. Masem's exemption is not a compromise, it is a 100% inclusionist policy. An exemption takes all say away from deletonists; it's not any sort of appeasement. That's why I've tried to find a compromise that includes the articles, but allows us to continue to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable articles. As long as WP:IINFO is policy, I'll believe that represents consensus. We don't need to disenfranchise half our editors to keep the lists. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on dividing editors into inclusionist and deletionist? And why do you assume that each group represents half of our editorship? [break]

I don't mean to suggest that all our editors are wholly inclusionist and deletionist; they are each inclusionist and deletionist to a degree. I can't speak to the proportions, but while the users on this talk page seem to be mostly inclusionsist, the ones I've seen make actual arguments in AFDs seem to be mostly deletionist. The way to reach a compromise is therefore not to take AFD away, but to make sure that AFDs result in a conclusion that represents consensus. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think this general discussion (where to draw the line on list of non-notable information) is appropriate, but I think your zero sum approach is the kind of stuff that brought on two ArbComs and too much wiki-drama. The exception we have seemed to come to consensus/compromise on is that articles about television series may have an episode list and a character list if the primary article becomes too long. The series article still must conform to our inclusion criteria. This does not seem like a problem, unless you are entrenched in rabid deletionism (to be included in Wikipedia the subject must be included in Britannica) or rabid inclusionism (every episode must have it's own article). Ursasapien (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you misrepresent me as trying to get rid of the spinout articles? Why do you misrepresent a 100% swing in one direction as a compromise? All articles should conform to our inclusion criteria; but those critera should include all the articles that consensus says should be included. Saying that spinout articles don't have to conform to our inclusion criteria is to say that any and all articles are acceptable, because all articles can be (mis)represented as a spinout of something. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not plausibly, though. We're better off trusting people to correctly evaluate whether something is a meaningful subtopic of another subject or if it's a non-subject. We might be able to specify a few cases where there is broad agreement over what constitutes a valid spinout article (such as the episode lists), but that's as far as we should go. It's impossible to specify or anticipate everything that might be misrepresented as a meaningful subtopic, and we should definitely not take the approach of saying "anything but these pre-approved types of spinout articles are forbidden".--Father Goose (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Plausibility doesn't stop the flamewars. I agree what we shouldn't give blanket approval to certain categories of spinout article; we shouldn't give blanket approval at all. We should come up with a criterion that identifies the good spinouts in all categories and includes them. The relaxed coverage requirements I suggest are only one example, but I haven't seen anyone suggest another; the alternative seems to be an exemption which as I've said is unsupportable because it can and would be interpreted to include everything, by the participants in AFDs if not by the people here who get involved in policy-forming. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Topics and articles

Percy, please clarify so I can understand your position. Do you agree there exists a difference between a topic and an article? Do you agree that WP:N should apply to topics, and not articles? Do you agree that spinout articles are not nessisarily standalone topics? [break]

I agree that there exists a topic and an article, and that WP:N applies to topics; however, there tends to be one topic per article. Spinout articles have spinout topics. The topic of "List of characters in Star Wars", to give an example, is not "Star Wars"; it is "characters in Star Wars". Those topics do not inherit notability, and if the spinout topic doesn't have notability then the spinout article should be a candidate for AFD. Some spinout articles are beneficial but don't currently demonstrate enough coverage to meet WP:N; I would like to see the rules on how they can demonstrate coverage altered so that they do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is a Good Thing for inclusion criteria to potentially allow all articles, provided they are properly expressed through WP:SUMMARY within a Notable topic article. [break]

I agree, but WP:SUMMARY is about dealing with sections of articles that have, for good reasons, become very long. It's my contention that the only good reason for a section to do so is when there is enough coverage to justify that length. That coverage would also justify an article, so the article would be kept under WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is not, then it certainly should be AfD'ed. If it is, and it is just plot, then combat it with WP:IINFO and WP:WAF, not this document. The result is the same, the undesireable material gets removed. I think this method has the additional benefit of keeping revision history exposed and avoiding the need for administrative intervention to perform the deletion. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, could you let me know if this position/justification is understandable to you? Thanks -Verdatum (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your position, but I don't think that the tools you describe are up to the task of removing undesirable material. Users cutting back on excess detail are quickly reverted by editors who added or have other interests in the content; the only way to remove content in a lasting fashion is through AFD. WP:IINFO states that articles 'should contain real-world context and sourced analysis'; that's all I'm asking for. An exemption from notability is an exemption from real-world context and sourced analysis; it's an exemption from WP:IINFO. It's not a compromise. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Break 2

I have to respond to that big ol dump of LOEs in this discussion. It's pretty much established that a list of episodes is at the very least, a reasonable amount of summary dictated by how long a work is, and fundamental to the parent topic. Any TV show without a list of episodes is currently seen as incomplete, with exceptions to game shows, soap operas (though they do have their own forms of summary), and others. They are the very definition of a spinout article, and do not require any form of notability to be proven, since they are so fundamentally tied to the parent article. I find it funny that any of you in this discussion even mentioned AfDing any of them. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have mistakenly indicated otherwise above, but I do I agree that episode lists are appropriate. The reason I support these and oppose the others is simply because episodes are things that exist in the real world, whereas characters etc are not. I don't believe non-notable fiction in and of itself is a good enough reason for a spinout article in an encyclopedia - especially considering the reasoning for them, which I still don't like. While I understand Masem's point that WP is at a crossroads, I think that, as with any article that isn't appropriate now for whatever reason, if it becomes the case that we need it in the future we can write it then. Personally I'd be surprised if WP ever goes all-out inclusionist or deletionist to such an extent, so I don't think preparation for such an occurance is really necessary. While I may be a "deletionist", I like to think that this is because I consider things on their merits, and I honestly don't see any with the nn fiction lists, even discounting NOT#PLOT etc. Miremare 15:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning behind episode lists, I agree with, because they are a combination of real world elements (though trivial) and plot details. The types of non-notable lists and occasional singular topics I propose are the ones that are used to support such episode lists: you provide a list and brief descriptions of major and oft-reoccurring characters so that you don't have to explain who they are in each episode, and key terms and locations so that you don't have to explain those either; in other words, they should provide the primer to understand the show's plot and any real-world aspects without repeating the details of that character or element every time they are used. Mind you, the depth of these lists work hand in hand with the conciseness of plot descriptions suggested by WP:PLOT; plot descriptions shouldn't be covering every detail, so that background and insignificant one-off characters are likely not to be mentioned, discounting the need to include within a list. And of course, for single works or smaller series, such lists can typically be incorporated in the main body of the work, otherwise, we treat them as spinoffs. --MASEM 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Could someone explain why we are discussing episode lists here? Does this not fall into the scope of WP:EPISODE? ...(time passes) OK, inspection of the current state of the page shows it is at a crossroads regarding it's purpose, but shouldn't specific discussion of episodic content be differed until the confusion is settled there? (I could be completely wrong on this, as I'm much less familiar with the history of that article.) -Verdatum (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability has become the pentultimate criteria for inclusion in this encyclopedia. We are specifically discussing whether spin-out articles need to establish independent notability or not. I would say this discussion falls under WP:SPINOUT or WP:SS more than WP:EPISODE which is currently disputed, in rather poor shape, and is neither a true notability guideline nor a true manual of style guideline. Ursasapien (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to apply WP:BEANS to this whole discussion and stop fretting over the way some future editor may interpret spin-out lists? As has been said many times already, the majority of editors of fiction-related articles never visit a policy or guideline page anyway. Ursasapien (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we may be going too far out on a limb to try to outline a generally accepted practice (non-notable spinouts) without having a strong enough background or understanding on consensus through AfD or other locations to make any additional suggestions beyond the most basic - in other words, we don't have to change any language in the current FICT unless list articles become a significant battle ground in the future. --MASEM 05:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should gather a representative list of AfDs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure we should not wait until FICT has been in place for a while. Then, if list articles become a significant battleground, we could gather a list of AfDs that clarify the situation. Ursasapien (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the point to see whether the new rules have consensus? If wait for results based on the new rules, obviously they will support the new rules; it's not a fair test. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

List examples from AfD

I have compiled a list of fiction-list-related AfDs from January before the arbcom injunction. Since most of them got deleted, it's hard to tell in hindsight if the AfD result was justified. The speedy deletion of one list as A7 (bold) was interesting, I think. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick rundown of this shows:

Lists of characters (combined major/minor) with no other distinction made save for being part of a work are kept
Lists of minor characters with no other distinction made are questionable
Lists of episodes and/or chapters for serial works are kept
Lists of characters that attempt to achieve some grouping or specific criteria, aka "List of fictional Saints in the Harry Potter Universe", are deleted
Lists of locations are deleted
Lists of terms are deleted (the star wars melee one is an exception in that one argued that they could show notability)
Lists of arbitrary distinctions across multiple fictional works from different franchises are delete

That's a month snapshot, but that's a pretty good and probably more limited version of what I proposed, though I'd argue that there are times where locations and terms are appropriate.

Maybe we have three "classes" of lists. Those that are nearly always acceptable, those that are nearly always unacceptable, and those that will likely merit more scrutiny. We still need to consider each case one by one (not every work of fiction needs a separate character list, for example, if the main article is short), and this can be mentioned in the guideline that certain types of lists will receive concern for being WP:NOT and WP:IINFO. --MASEM 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Other things to consider: out of 38 lists, eight were keep/no consensus and two were merges. Of the explicit keeps, only one meets WP:N as commonly interpreted, i.e. has multiple non-trivial sources of coverage. Three have no coverage at all, and two have intermediate amounts of coverage. Of the three with no coverage, two have no subarticles in which to look for coverage, though one does quote ISBNs which could be considered primary source cites. Frankly, I think the Jade Empire characters article is a mistake; it's unsourced and as such wouldn't be appropriate even as a spinout. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing is not the same as notability. [break]

No, (secondary) sourcing is the means by which articles demonstrate notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, spinout lists need to be sourced (via primary sources) per WP:V, but a lack of sources should not be any reason to outright delete a spinout, though in time, it is expected they get added before too long; [break]

You can't have it both ways. If you want spinouts to be judged as part of the parent article, then per WP:V, unsourced claims should be removed. Completely unsourced spinout articles should by that logic be blanked, and it seems that in that case they should also be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

however, sourcing a spinout is much easier and much more likely than demonstrating notability for a spinout. --MASEM 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing a spinout is demonstrating notability for a spinout, as for any article. However, I agree that it should be easier for spinout lists because we agree that they are beneficial. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)